Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Aurelius
"-- Taney was a slave owner with strong leanings towards slave power interests --" Wrong again!

Upon his father's death, Taney freed his slaves. As a Maryland litigator in the 1820s, Taney had declared, "Slavery is a blot on our national character, and every real lover of freedom confidently hopes that it will be effectually, though it must be gradually, wiped away."

Thanks for the correction. This is from the same website you cite:

Yale's daguerreotype of a portrait by Matthew Brady made around 1848 shows him at the height of his powers and one of the most respected figures in Washington. Taney is remembered and respected for such opinions as Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge , Abelman v. Booth , and Ex Parte Merryman . That began to change in 1857, when the Supreme Court faced the case of Dred Scott , a slave who claimed his freedom as a result of being taken by his master to a free state. As the author of the Supreme Court's majority opinion in Dred Scott v. Sanford , Taney struck down the Missouri Compromise and ruled that the Constitution did not recognize the citizenship of an African American who had been born a slave. This decision sparked bitter opposition from northern politicians and a heated defense from the South and was one of the most important events leading up to the Civil War. This single opinion cast a shadow over Taney's distinguished legal career and his personal reputation for integrity.

Taney should never have ruled on anything submitted by Merryman.

I do notice that Taney and Robert E. Lee both died on my birthday. How odd.

Walt

1,341 posted on 12/03/2002 8:09:28 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1339 | View Replies ]


To: WhiskeyPapa
A civil reply deserves a civil response. You are welcome.
1,342 posted on 12/03/2002 8:14:43 AM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1341 | View Replies ]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Taney should never have ruled on anything submitted by Merryman.

Why not? The case was within his jurisdiction as a jurist under the judicial system in place by way of the United States Constitution. You have yet to show any conflict of interest what so ever in the case, or any reason why Taney's action was not in his jurisdiction. Absent this information, one may only conclude that he was proper in making the ruling and that The Lincoln committed an illegal, unconstitutional, and impeachable offense by ignoring that ruling.

1,359 posted on 12/03/2002 11:30:20 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1341 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson