Also, has anyone read Taney's opinion in Dred Scott? It's quite a piece of reasoning. The yahoos who wanted his statute gone couldn't understand two words of it, I'm sure.
Taney freed his slaves and paid some of them pensions. He also voted against Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus. He stayed loyal to the Union when the War came. He died poor.
What more does anyone want from a man? We're being pushed around by morons who aren't fit to shine the shoes of the men they're maligning.
This is exactly my point. It was an evil law, but it was the law. A proper judge applies the law as intended, not how he would prefer it to be.
I don't believe that is correct. Two justices, Mclean and Curtis, dissented and clearly upheld the lower court decision in their written opinion. Of the six justices who voted with Chief Justice Taney, two concurred and four wrote separate opinions which agreed that the court lacked jurisdiction, Sanford being a slave, but disagreed to one extent or another on much of the rest of Taney's written opinion, most of which was given in dicta anyway.
It was an evil law, but until the 13th Amendment, a jurist who didn't want to legislate had no choice but to uphold it.
It was a terrible decision in that once the court determined that Sanford could not take his case to the Supreme court since he was property and not a citizen then the matter should have stopped there. Taney's further continuing with the unconstitutionality of the Northwest Ordinance and blacks not being able to be citizens under any circumstances - both of which were pet peeves of Taney's and had been for decades - were not germane to the underlying decision. It's this obiter dictum, which the Republicans would have challenged as soon as they could, that made the decision so reprehensible.
Also, has anyone read Taney's opinion in Dred Scott? It's quite a piece of reasoning. The yahoos who wanted his statute gone couldn't understand two words of it, I'm sure.
I have, and I disagree on the "quite a piece of reasoning" part.
Taney freed his slaves and paid some of them pensions.
So? He also thought that blacks were not and could never be citizens.
He also voted against Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus.
Ruled against it actually, but from the circuit court bench and not the Supreme Court.
He stayed loyal to the Union when the War came. He died poor.
Both true. He was also against secession as practiced by the Southern states.
What more does anyone want from a man? We're being pushed around by morons who aren't fit to shine the shoes of the men they're maligning.
I am not in support of this whitewash of history people are committing by removing statues. For good or bad, these men represent a part of our history. Taney's notoriety in history is assured, and his statue should remain as a reminded of how wrong jurists can sometimes be.