Restricted House to vote on removal of Roger B. Taney bust and other Confederate statues

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
The public opinion against Taney is really a product of the existence of Presentism in our society today. The practice of Presentism
is a problem today in the depictions of historical events of the past. The act of judging past actions by current standards and interpreting past events in terms of modern values exists in today’s historical analysis. Some modern scholars and historians try to avoid presentism in their work because it results in a distorted depiction of historical events. Standards and cultural values have changed over time. History should be viewed and interpreted in relation to the era when the events occurred and not in present day terms. In regards to Taney, you really can’t judge the actions of someone who was born over 200 years ago by today’s standards because values have changed over time. Some people believe that presentism can result in a form of cultural bias and a distorted view of the past which may be true.
We judge past historical events all the time. How else are we to learn from history?
 

huskerblitz

Major
Joined
Jun 8, 2013
Location
Nebraska
The public opinion against Taney is really a product of the existence of Presentism in our society today. The practice of Presentism
is a problem today in the depictions of historical events of the past. The act of judging past actions by current standards and interpreting past events in terms of modern values exists in today’s historical analysis. Some modern scholars and historians try to avoid presentism in their work because it results in a distorted depiction of historical events. Standards and cultural values have changed over time. History should be viewed and interpreted in relation to the era when the events occurred and not in present day terms. In regards to Taney, you really can’t judge the actions of someone who was born over 200 years ago by today’s standards because values have changed over time. Some people believe that presentism can result in a form of cultural bias and a distorted view of the past which may be true.
This is no different than people 200 years ago judging the Roman's or the Greeks judging the Persians and so on and so forth. Your idea of presentism is not new or even rare.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
The public opinion against Taney is really a product of the existence of Presentism in our society today. The practice of Presentism
is a problem today in the depictions of historical events of the past. The act of judging past actions by current standards and interpreting past events in terms of modern values exists in today’s historical analysis. Some modern scholars and historians try to avoid presentism in their work because it results in a distorted depiction of historical events. Standards and cultural values have changed over time. History should be viewed and interpreted in relation to the era when the events occurred and not in present day terms. In regards to Taney, you really can’t judge the actions of someone who was born over 200 years ago by today’s standards because values have changed over time. Some people believe that presentism can result in a form of cultural bias and a distorted view of the past which may be true.
I disagree. It's not presentism. Many in the free states were outraged by the Dred Scott outcome. Gideon Welles was a contemporary of Taney, and said that with the Dred Scott ruling, Taney had forfeited all respect as a man and as a judge.

Taney has been considered controversial ever since his own time.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I agree it's presentism.

What always strikes me odd is what is presented, as I have pointed out Taney made rulings that still positively affect us today, those are ignored to instead to present what has no impact on us today, as ruling was made irrelevant with 13th amendment.....

Which is applicable to many of the others as well. Such as Jefferson, whether he had an affair, or with whom, is rather irrelevant to my life today, compared to what he did as a founder.

If gauging impact or importance, would think what impacts and benefits us today would be higher then what has no bearing today.
 
Last edited:

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Personally I don't care what they do with Taney, but why is he even there? He's not part of the two-per-state allotment.
 
Personally I don't care what they do with Taney, but why is he even there? He's not part of the two-per-state allotment.
Illinois Senator Lyman Trumbull's legislation to place a bust of Taney in the Supreme Court room was heavily contested when it was proposed in February 1865. Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner was probably the most vociferous opponent to the bill by responding that “I object to that; that now an emancipated country should make a bust to the author of the Dred Scott decision.”

More information on Taney's bust can be found at United States Senate - Roger Taney
https://www.senate.gov/art-artifacts/fine-art/sculpture/21_00018.htm
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Personally I don't care what they do with Taney, but why is he even there? He's not part of the two-per-state allotment.
Apparently the old Supreme Court chamber is in the Capitol building.

Taney died in 1864, and it was in 1865 that the bust was first proposed. But the appropriation failed because there was strong opposition. Charles Sumner said that “If a man has done evil during his life he must not be complimented in marble.”

Sumner suggested that "the name of Taney … be hooted down the page of history.”

Henry Wilson opposed the bust, saying it would be wrong "to forget the great crime, the crime of our history, to comply with a customary usage.”

Benjamin Wade said his Ohio constituents “would pay $2,000 to hang this man in effigy rather than $1,000 for a bust to commemorate his merits.”

So the 1865 Taney bust effort failed, but then it was appropriated again in 1874, in the midst of reconstruction, and quietly succeeded. Perhaps in a mood of reconciliation.

Taney was controversial and hated in his own time as well as now. Some say Jim Crow grew out of his legal influence, and so was born with a Marylander justice, Taney, and it was destroyed by a Marylander justice, Thurgood Marshall. So Taney had an impact not only in contributing to the sectional dispute that brought on the war, but an impact for a hundred years after. At least for black Americans.

As the 1865 opponents said, Taney would be known to posterity and to the world by the Dred Scott decision.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/07/01/statue-chief-justice-taney-never-belonged-capitol/
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Apparently the old Supreme Court chamber is in the Capitol building.

Taney died in 1864, and it was in 1865 that the bust was first proposed. But the appropriation failed because there was strong opposition. Charles Sumner said that “If a man has done evil during his life he must not be complimented in marble.”

Sumner suggested that "the name of Taney … be hooted down the page of history.”

Henry Wilson opposed the bust, saying it would be wrong "to forget the great crime, the crime of our history, to comply with a customary usage.”

Benjamin Wade said his Ohio constituents “would pay $2,000 to hang this man in effigy rather than $1,000 for a bust to commemorate his merits.”

So the 1865 Taney bust effort failed, but then it was appropriated again in 1874, in the midst of reconstruction, and quietly succeeded. Perhaps in a mood of reconciliation.

Taney was controversial and hated in his own time as well as now. Some say Jim Crow grew out of his legal influence, and so was born with a Marylander justice, Taney, and it was destroyed by a Marylander justice, Thurgood Marshall. So Taney had an impact not only in contributing to the sectional dispute that brought on the war, but an impact for a hundred years after. At least for black Americans.

As the 1865 opponents said, Taney would be known to posterity and to the world by the Dred Scott decision.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/07/01/statue-chief-justice-taney-never-belonged-capitol/
Umm he must not have been that hated........despite quoting three opponents, it appears they did decide he was worthy of erecting the monument to......as the funding bill ultimately passed.

It's funny how some articles seem to miss the rather obvious. The headline is rather absurd, it was proposed by the Senate, then passed by the Senate, that's how stuff is supposed to be there.......wonder if he thinks the 13th amendment should never have happened because it also failed the first vote?

I assume the author wishes it wasn't there, but to say it should never been there, when the Senate voted for it to be there, is rather misleading.
 
Last edited:

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Location
Georgia
We judge past historical events all the time. How else are we to learn from history?
This is no different than people 200 years ago judging the Roman's or the Greeks judging the Persians and so on and so forth. Your idea of presentism is not new or even rare.
Currently, people in society do judge historical events and this has occurred throughout the centuries. However, the concept of Presentism often results in moral self-righteousness which promotes civil unrest. Certain historical figures are often harshly judged by the standards of our current culture without any reference to the context of their own time. We have statues removed or even forcibly torn down today of people whose careers were once honored. Presentism does not depict the past in an objective historical context but instead views history only through the lens of contemporary beliefs. The arrogance of Presentism is that it presumes that present-day attitudes didn’t evolve from earlier ones but only developed recently due to our superior intellect. The American Historical Association has condemned what it calls "the tendency to interpret the past in presentist terms." It argues that "presentism encourages a kind of moral complacency and self-congratulation. Interpreting the past in terms of present concerns usually leads us to find ourselves morally superior."
 

Potomac Pride

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Location
Georgia
I disagree. It's not presentism. Many in the free states were outraged by the Dred Scott outcome. Gideon Welles was a contemporary of Taney, and said that with the Dred Scott ruling, Taney had forfeited all respect as a man and as a judge.

Taney has been considered controversial ever since his own time.
The Supreme Court's ruling in 1857 in regards to the Dred Scott Case was considered controversial in some states. However, both the Missouri Supreme Court and the U.S. Circuit Court also ruled against Dred Scott before the case even reached the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Supreme Court was not the only court that ruled against Scott.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Umm he must not have been that hated........despite quoting three opponents, it appears they did decide he was worthy of erecting the monument to......as the funding bill ultimately passed.

It's funny how some articles seem to miss the rather obvious. The headline is rather absurd, it was proposed by the Senate, then passed by the Senate, that's how stuff is supposed to be there.......wonder if he thinks the 13th amendment should never have happened because it also failed the first vote?

I assume the author wishes it wasn't there, but to say it should never been there, when the Senate voted for it to be there, is rather misleading.
The point is that Taney was controversial even in his own time. He didn't suddenly become controversial now.

It's not presentism that Taney was controversial. It's not presentism that slavery was controversial. That's obvious because slavery was controversial enough to bring on the war.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
The Supreme Court's ruling in 1857 in regards to the Dred Scott Case was considered controversial in some states. However, both the Missouri Supreme Court and the U.S. Circuit Court also ruled against Dred Scott before the case even reached the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Supreme Court was not the only court that ruled against Scott.
And then it wasnt somehow Taney's decision.....or even a close disputed ruling, but actually a 7-2 majority decision.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Currently, people in society do judge historical events and this has occurred throughout the centuries. However, the concept of Presentism often results in moral self-righteousness which promotes civil unrest. Certain historical figures are often harshly judged by the standards of our current culture without any reference to the context of their own time. We have statues removed or even forcibly torn down today of people whose careers were once honored. Presentism does not depict the past in an objective historical context but instead views history only through the lens of contemporary beliefs. The arrogance of Presentism is that it presumes that present-day attitudes didn’t evolve from earlier ones but only developed recently due to our superior intellect. The American Historical Association has condemned what it calls "the tendency to interpret the past in presentist terms." It argues that "presentism encourages a kind of moral complacency and self-congratulation. Interpreting the past in terms of present concerns usually leads us to find ourselves morally superior."
Question: What if the standards of the time also called into question the person under question of this thread? And what if the standards of the time were in flux, in the process of changing from a once conservative view to a more radical one? Would the call for change at that time be "presentism?"
 

atlantis

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Could Taney have concluded otherwise in the Scott decision as slaves are chattel property and the constitution secures the right of citizens to carry their chattel property anywhere in the union, this was a property rights case regarding chattel property. It was a difficult case because states have the right to prohibit slavery but how does this affect the rights of out of state slave owners. The 13th amendment resolved the issue one way the confederate constitution resolved it another way.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Could Taney have concluded otherwise in the Scott decision as slaves are chattel property and the constitution secures the right of citizens to carry their chattel property anywhere in the union, this was a property rights case regarding chattel property. It was a difficult case because states have the right to prohibit slavery but how does this affect the rights of out of state slave owners. The 13th amendment resolved the issue one way the confederate constitution resolved it another way.
Taney could have simply cited precedent. There was a ruling that he authored about slaves going into free states to perform some entertainment and return over the border to their owner. It disrespected the free states but it didn't go overboard. It basically blamed the slaves for returning home.

But Taney went beyond any precedent in the Dred Scott case. He ruled that blacks were inferior and unworthy of any rights. And he ruled that the territories and the free states had no rights to reject slaveholders having slaves within their borders. It was a disgraceful ruling on many levels... human rights, states rights, etc.
 
Last edited:

atlantis

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Taney could have simply cited precedent. There was a ruling that he authored about slaves going into free states to perform some entertainment and return over the border to their owner. It disrespected the free states but it didn't go overboard. It basically blamed the slaves for returning home.

But Taney went beyond any precedent in the Dred Scott case. He ruled that blacks were inferior and unworthy of any rights. And he ruled that the territories and the free states had no rights to reject slaveholders having slaves within their borders. It was a disgraceful ruling on many levels... human rights, state rights etc.
It certainly did not resolve the issue. Lincoln got it right about a house divided against itself.
 
Top