Monday, July 30, 2007

Roger Taney Statue in Frederick, MD

Frederick Maryland boasts two major hisotrical figures as native sons, one for fabulous reasons and one for notorious reasons. The most famous Fredericktonian is Francis Scott Key, whose Star Spangled Banner is sung everday with pride and joy. There is much in Frederick bearing his name, from the minor league baseball team, the Frederick Keys, to a shopping mall (Francis Scott Key Mall), Frederick holds Key near and dear to it heart.

But like everything in life, there is a balance. Also hailing from Frederick is Roger B. Taney (pronounced "TAWN-ee"), a Frederick lawyer, state Senator, Chief Justice of the United States and the much maligned author of the Dred Scot decision.

Despite Frederick's growth (it is the third largest city in Maryland, behind Baltimore and Rockville), Frederick is, in many ways, something of a small town. The square where City Hall sits is home to both Francis Scott Key's former law offices and a bust of Roger Taney. There is now an effort underway to have the bust of Taney removed from the City Square. As the city has grown, so too has its minority population and a more liberal bent to its politics, particularly in Frederick City and in the lower parts of the county.

The move made by the local NAACP and a couple of Frederick lawyers,
looking to capitalize on the General Assembly's passage this year of a resolution expressing "profound regret" for Maryland's role in slavery. Taney's decision, meanwhile, was lambasted here last month by Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who said it "threw the country on its ear."

In the 1857 majority opinion, Taney ruled that Dred Scott, a Missouri slave who had traveled with his master into free territory and wanted his freedom made permanent, should remain enslaved. The language Taney used in describing black Americans forever tarred his legal legacy - despite his nearly 30 years as chief justice. He wrote that the Founding Fathers regarded blacks as "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

While respectful of the ire that Taney's writing still sparks in many today, not everyone thinks a potentially divisive debate about Taney's 150-year-old decision - and more broadly about race - would be good for Frederick.

"It's a huge battle - I'd rather spend our time and energy dealing with issues that are going to help people right now," said Mayor William J. Holtzinger, a Republican who was elected in 2005. "Moving or not moving that bust isn't going to do a thing to help people."

snip

Frederick Alderman Donna Kuzemchak, a Democrat, said she has read Lollar's appeal and backs him 100 percent. If the bust is an abomination to some, she said, it must go. She said, however, that the question of its fate could raise tensions in the city. She forecast a heated public debate.

"Good ole boys want to leave things where they are," Kuzemchak said. "To them, life is fine. But suggesting that moving this is whitewashing history is bunk. Things have changed everywhere, and you should change with them."
But the removal of the bust is indeed whitewashing history. Things have changed and people recognize the Dred Scot decision for what it is, a stain on American history. But those stains must be acknowledged before we can move on with the present.

When movements like his occur, it makes my blood boil worse than anything. Such efforts signal to me that we can't face our past, learn the lessons and apply them to today. These folks looking to remove the statute will, in the long run, result not in remembering the sins of the past but not knowing of them. It is far better for me to have to explain about a person dipicted in a statue, the good and the bad, than have no opportunity to expalin the racist undercurrents of our past.

Roger B. Taney was a racist, there is little doubt about it, but so too were many men of that age. Yet, we still have a massive public monuments to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and other greats of American history. All of these men were flawed in substantial ways, yet we continue to exalt them. Taney, until the Dred Scot decision, was a rather unremarkable politician and lawyer. Had American circumstances been different he might be celebrated in Frederick and in Maryland as just a footnote in the Supreme Court's history. But the past cannot be changed and we cannot ignore it. Perhaps in some fundamental way, the Dred Scot decision forced the nation to examine its moral foundation. Yes, the examination led to a bitter and bloddy Civil War, but this nation would not have survived without the Civil War. It seems odd to say it, but the Dred Scot decision and the Civil War that resulted may have done more to help this nation to address its racisim than ignoring the problem ever would have.

We cannot change history, we cannot make it better or more palatable. So my question to Alderman Kuzemchak is this; What if something about Francis Scott Key comes to light that is dark and negative, will we expunge Frederick's history of Key? Taney is not hero and no saint, but he was a historical figure and we should not remove his bust from the public square just because we don't like his opinions.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Some would have us believe that it is of great justice to remove a monument of one of the nation's Chief Justices, Roger Brooke Taney, thereby taking revenge for his writing the opinion in the matter of Dred Scott. Is this a legitimate issue or a revisited controversy contrived to gain a moment in the spotlight of the public?

If legitimate than this 'justice' must include the removal of all statues and monuments of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, including the Washington monument and Monticello. Afterall, both were lifetime supporters and participants in the human bondage of men, women and children. And surely their homeseats, where human bondage was practiced, should not be spared as they too must be an awful effront to the African American.

If legitimate than this 'justice' must include the destruction of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. For both legitimizes the institution and practice of slavery.

If legitimate than this 'justice' must ferret out all things in American history of equal effrontery and mete out its deserved destruction.

"I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

To what advancement, in the righteous cause of equality, does the removal of a statute bring. By employing controversy some fan the flames of hatred and racism and so by doing they extinguish the very dream of Martin Luther King, Jr. To those who should be carrying the torch of hope once held high by the Rev. King, they choose rather to keep alive their own brand of racism and show the sacrifice of Rev. King's life to have been laid down in vain.

"But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred." - Martin Luther King, Jr.


ThosPaine

Anonymous said...

Read about Taney's role in the Baltimore Bank Riots of 1835, his attacks against the good name of Ellicott and Poultney, and his role in monetary conspiracies and then see how ashamed Frederick should be of Roger Broooke Taney, who was not born or raised in Frederick in any case.

The Supreme Court Historical Society
http://www.supremecourthistory.org/04_library/subs_volumes/04_c08_i.html
Robbing the Poor to Aid the Rich: Roger B. Taney and the Bank of Maryland Swindle
DAVID GRIMSTED

Anonymous said...

You say that Taney was a racist, and if we should take down any symbol of exaltation to him we should do the same for Jefferson, Madison, Washinton, Lincoln because they too were racists. I agree with the first statement, but I consider without any hesitation that the second is utterly false.

Upon what argument did Taney base his infamous Dred Scott decision - the first part, excluding his argument over the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise? Go read it for yourself - if you can get through all the blather. He threw the case out of the Supreme Court because he claimed that, by virtue of his blackness, Dred Scot was not a human and therefore not entitled to inclusion in the statement that "all men are created equal" found in the Declaration of Independence (which Jefferson himself was responsible for penning). Furthermore, if he was not a man, according to the Declaration, he could not be a citizen under the US Constitution and therefore he had no standing to argue a case in the US Supreme Court; that the decision made by the Missouri Supreme Court stood, and he was still legally a slave.

For Taney, it was necessary to prove that Scot was not a human in order to prove that he was not a citizen. And how does he do this? By assuming (without actually quoting ANY of the Founding Fathers - again, I implore you to go read the decision yourself) that the Founding Fathers never meant to include blacks when they stated that it was a self-evident truth that "all men are created equal". That had they meant it, their actions - holding slaves (although Washington provided for the manumission of all his slaves upon his death) would have been hypocritical - and since the Founding Fathers were so esteemed, they were "incapable of asserting principles inconsistent with those on which they were acting". In other words, one could charge them with being racists but not being hypocrits.

This much stands - aside from Taney's blatantly inaccurate assessment regarding the constitutional authority of Congress to regulate slavery in the territories or respect private property rights (based on Art IV, Sect. 3 and the 5th Amendment). Taney was a racist, perfectly in line with his interpretation of the intent of the Founders.

Now look at Lincoln's refutation of the Dred Scot case (made in 1857 in Springfield, Ill.). It is precisely on the same phrase that Lincoln builds his argument: "all men are created equal." This is a self-evident truth. All men are equal in their capacity for Reason and self-government. Some qualifiers are given: they have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In other words: any being with the capacity to reason (which separates them from beasts) has the right (endowed by their Creator - whatever or whomever that may be - but understanding that man did not make himself) to govern himself. For this reason alone, slavery is an evil - it violates man's inalienable right (meaning that it cannot be separated or taken away from him) to govern himself, his liberty, his life, and his pursuit of happiness. This does not mean that he has the right to equal outcome or equal conditions, but that he has the right to the equal opportunity to work toward those things which he desires to be good, true, and beautiful. This is Lincoln's argument. Now, you can be a total cynic and say "well, Lincoln was just trying to get elected and would say anything, whether or not he believed it". And you may be right. We cannot know a man's soul. But I ask you this: what advantage did Lincoln gain by taking this position? Did he win the 1858 senate race against Douglas? No. Was he immediately hailed as a genious of politics and morals? No. He spent 6 more years fighting those who would deny this very argument, 4 of which were bloody and destructive, in order that this principle not be violated.

Furthermore, regarding the intent of the Founders and their "racist principles". What advantage did the Founders gain by including this phrase in the Declaration of Independence? None. Did they have to write a Declaration of Independence in the first place? No. There was no precedent in the history of the world for a nation to declare the causes which impel them to invoke the natural right of revolution (also based on the principle of self-government and the axiom that all men are created equal; if we are not equal, it is perfectly acceptable for one man to lord over another and tyrannize them). The Founders intended that by enshrining these self-evident (that does not mean obvious; often these principles are the most difficult to grasp) principles in the Declaration of Independence and later in the Constitution that should in the future some ambitious man seek to tyrannize over another, Americans would possess "one tough nut to crack" - one thing that must be separated from their very being in order that the tyranny be accepted and legitimized.

Do you need proof that the Founders abhored slavery? Alright. What issue drew the most debate in the Philadelphia convention - the section of the Declaration of Independence that begins "he has waged cruel war" charging King George with imposing the slave trade on America. It was not included, in the end, in order that the Southern states would remain in the Union. Look at the Notes on the Constitutional Convention. What issue crops up there? Slavery, and most Founders are opposed, AGAIN. Compromises are made in order that the union be preserved. That in the future, slavery could be put on a path of ultimate extinction within the union, rather than in states that are not bound by the authority of the Constitution. Slavery was banned by the Northwest Ordinance in 1787, and restricted by the Missouri Compromise of 1820, both of which were voted on by many of the original Founders. Lincoln makes this argument much better than I ever could in his Speech at the Cooper Institute in February 1860. Check it out.

Upon these facts, I cannot and will not acquiesce that the Founders were racist. They were great statesmen that understood that good government rests on the principles of both justice and the consent of the governed. When the people consent to something unjust, it is not the right of the government to overthrow their consent but rather the duty of the people to adhere to the rule of law (again, Lincoln rests his arguments on much of this). It is the responsibility of a good statesman, therefore, to mold the consent of the people to fulfill the cause of justice. This is exactly what the Founders did. They acted, as much as they were able, to further the cause of justice without impeding the people's consent. This is Lincoln's argument, the argument of the Founders, and mine.

For further study of these great and important ideas, I recommend visiting the words of Lincoln himself (pick up Basler's edited "Abraham Lincoln: His Speeches and Writings") particularly the Cooper Union Address, the Speech on Dred Scott, and the Peoria Speech. Also look at the Lincoln-Douglas debates (esp. debate 7, the very end). Take a look at Madison's Notes on the State of Virginia, The Federalist Papers, and the Notes on the Constitutional Convention. "Vindicating the Founders" by Thomas West and "Vindicating Lincoln" by Thomas Krannawitter explore these topics with great clarity. But if you read one thing, read the Declaration of Independence. Contrary to popular opinion, it is NOT a racist document bound by its time and the sentiment of the people at that time. It is a great FREEDOM DOCUMENT, "for ALL men at ALL times" (Lincoln).