On this day in History — March 6
Roger B. Taney (March 17, 1777 - October 12, 1864)
—— the fifth chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
—— he was the first Roman Catholic to serve
(Catholicism is not a good religion— similar starts to Islam—- organized religion is bad. Be spiritual, not organized)
—- in 1806, Taney married Anne Key, whose brother wrote “The Star-Spangled Banner” - Francis Scott Key
—- Taney was a member of the conservative, property-conscious Federalist Party until 1812 when the party opposed war against England
— In 1827 he was appointed attorney general of Maryland & was respected from his time as a lawyer for his “sense of fair play and his courtesy toward opposing attorneys”
—- He aligned himself with the Democratic Party of (president) Andrew Jackson.
~ Side note: Jackson is responsible for the Indian Removal Act (1830) which lead to the Trail of Tears through 9 states: OK, TN, KY, NC, GA, AL, IL, MI, & AR ~
—- Outspoken leader of the Democrats against the Central Bank, a tool of Eastern financial interests
— 1833: appointed Secretary of Treasury— Senate rejected him (first time Congress refused a presidential nominee)
—- Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1837): rights not specifically conferred could not be inferred from the language of a document
—- best known for: Dred Scott v. Sanford (March 6, 1857): Taney’s opinion = Congress had no power to exclude Slavery from the territories and African Americans could not become citizens.
—- Legal document: Scott v. Sandford (1857): they actually misspelled his name. No cap. 🧢. This case is considered the worst decision ever rendered in Supreme Court History.
~Next up: overturning Roe v. Wade 😑 which the democrats also did 😑~
—- The Missouri Compromise (1820): declared free all territories West of Missouri and North of latitude 36°30’; Taney says this is unconstitutional therefore dismantling this free land that was running for FOUR decades😑
— Dred Scott (an African American slave) would move from Missouri (a slave state) to Illinois (a free state) and later into the Wisconsin Territory (a free territory) while forcibly traveling with his “master” John Emerson (US military)
—- later, Scott and his wife filed lawsuits to be freed on grounds that their time in the free territories granted them overall freedom — leading to many other suits to follow.
—- Scott v. Emerson took years and was later reversed by Missouri Supreme Court (1852) which invalidated Missouri’s doctrine of “once free, always free”
—- Ableman v. Booth (1858): denying state powers to obstruct the processes of the federal courts
— Taney argued that state citizenship had nothing to do with national citizenship. Therefore, African Americans had no right to sue federal courts because they would Never be considered citizens of the USA
— Kansas- Nebraska Act (1854): the people of each federal territory would have power to decide if the territory would enter the Union as a free or slave state. (Taney stated this lacked constitutional legitimacy)
—- Reality: if even ONE state considered African Americans a citizen, then the Constitution required that ALL states AND federal government must adhere to the same logic. States > Federal government
~ “All Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the Several States” (Article IV, Section 2) ~
— Taney told Dred his stay in a free land did not grant him freedom and thus his return to Missouri kept him locked under state law which was, he is slave property.
— Northern Republicans outraged by Taney’s behavior spoke against him & rejected Scott v. San(d)ford as binding.
— Dred Scott died 16 months after finally being granted emancipation. The Supreme Court ruled against him in March 1857. Ownership of the Scott family was transferred to Taylor Blow who freed them May 26, 1857.
My conclusion of all this: Democrats have always been the bad guys. Why does the media and most people I see support them?
I do not support rich people.
Know your rights. Know your history.
#democratsarethebadguys #hollywoodisALLdemocrats #hollywoodareALLPedos #democratsarercistpedos #dontsupporttherichelitesorroyals
Reflecting on the complexities of Roger B. Taney’s legacy, I’ve come to appreciate how deeply intertwined his decisions were with the political and social fabric of his time. As the first Roman Catholic Chief Justice, Taney held a unique position in a predominantly Protestant America, yet his rulings, especially in the Dred Scott case, reveal how legal interpretations influenced and sometimes hindered civil rights progress. The Dred Scott decision, handed down on March 6, 1857, remains one of the most infamous Supreme Court rulings. It effectively denied citizenship to African Americans, declaring that Congress had no authority to ban slavery in U.S. territories and dismantling the Missouri Compromise’s longstanding limits on slavery. Understanding this case helps unpack how the Supreme Court’s role can profoundly affect national policy and societal values. Interestingly, Taney’s career reflected shifting political allegiances, from a Federalist to a Democrat aligned with Andrew Jackson, indicating the fluid nature of 19th-century political identities. His opposition to the Central Bank and involvement in key cases like Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge underscored his conservative and states’ rights perspectives. Personally, learning about the legal battles Dred Scott and his wife undertook to claim freedom highlights the human struggle behind landmark cases. The protracted nature of these suits and the Supreme Court’s ultimate ruling against Scott underscore how law sometimes lagged behind moral progress. It’s also important to recognize how Taney's decisions fed into the tensions leading to the Civil War and shaped public opinion, particularly angering Northern Republicans and abolitionists. This historical context makes it clear why the Dred Scott case is widely condemned. For anyone interested in the intersection of law, politics, and civil rights, Taney’s story offers a cautionary tale about judicial power and its consequences. It also reinforces the importance of knowing our history and legal rights to better understand today’s challenges. Exploring these topics encourages meaningful reflection on how legal rulings impact people’s lives beyond the courtroom and shape the course of history.