Today’s WaPo reports that Maryland now gets a turn at dealing with the matter of the Sins of the Forefathers. The matter in question if public images of former Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court (USSC)Roger B. Taney.
Taney wrote the US Supreme Court opinion in United States v. Dred Scott (1856), which ruled that slaves were property, overturned the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, said slavery was legal in the territories and that African-Americans, free or slave, could not be citizens of any state. For this opinion there are calls that his statue in Annapolis and his bronze bust in the Frederick, Maryland, city hall be removed to less celebrated locations. Costs to do so are unknown, but the estimate to move the Annapolis statue is at least $100,000.00.
There is another side of the coin. Taney-born in 1795 to a slave holding family in Maryland-emancipated his slaves long before his death and created a pension system for those too old to work. taney was a born Federalist who bacame a loyal Jacksonian Democrat. He was Attorney General for Old Hickory, and as a recess appointment at Secrtary of the Treasury he was the point man for Andrew Jackson’s campaign to terminate the Bank of the United States. For that loyalty the Whig opposition defeated his full appointment as Secretary of the Treasury and his initial appointment to the Supreme Court. Taney carved out a reputation as a great to near great USSC Chief Justice.
When asked about the controversy, Dred Scott Madison II, the great-great-grandson of the subject of the above court case, said “”Someone’s statue? If you move it, where do you end? Do you go down South and start removing all of the statues of Confederate officers? It’s part of American history. You can’t hide it.”
But that is part of the consideration here. Confederate officers led troops in rebellion against the USA. Taney’s actions were completely legal, and became the law of the land until they were repealed by statute and amendment after the war.
Historians agree that slavery was a nettle the Founding Fathers refused to grasp, choosing instead to set the matter aside in the interests of creating a new nation. They knew the issue would be settled one day, but hoped by that time the nation would be “going concern”, and be able to address it in such a matter that the nation would be preserved. Franklin wrote that his generation passed the plate forward, and Jefferson considered slavery “a firebell in the night” that could rend the country. I suspect they knew in their heart of hearts there would come a time when blood would be shed to determine whether the South’s “Peculiar Institution” would continue to exist.
Ultimately, how do we judge? Should public images of men who make a bad decision, surrounded by a life of achievement, be taken down? Should we hide our history? Which is more important, spending public funds on our current public needs or in tucking away unwelcome reminders of our past?
I think I understand the emotions driving those who want the images moved. But I tend to agree with Madison, who indicated
“Moving the statues, he added, might suggest that blame for slavery can be pinned on one man, rather than accepting the harder truth that Taney’s views were widespread in his time.”
The fact that these statues went up in the first place shows there was support for the man, and that maybe his accomplishments and views were appreciated by more people than we might like to admit.
While the idea of moving these images to a museum where he can be “studied, not celebrated” has some merit, it seems to me that keeping these images where they are has more. Beyond the cost in dollars that could be better spent elsewhere, they are a reminder that we are all imperfect; that simply because a belief is fiercely held or eloquently argued does not mean it is right; and that this country, a vast mixture of people, culture, and history will never be perfect-but that we keep moving forward to try to get it right.
