Podcast appearances and mentions of Roger B Taney

We're continuning to dig into other would-be Julius Caesar presidents of American history. The men who never were nominated, and maybe never even ran, but who could have been either the great Man of the People who'd lead us to glory.... or terrible Imperators who tore us apart. I'll be posting a bunch of these throughout this week. This time, it's awful Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Roger B. Taney - the conservative racist responsible for helping to kick off the Civil War. 

1. NPR/PBS News Hour/Marist Poll: "Americans are sick of lawmakers bickering. They don't have much hope that will change." (1:14)2. Elon Musk Lifts Suspension of Journalists' Twitter Accounts Following Backlash (9:11)3. Virginia Becomes Latest State to Ban TikTok on Government Devices; Proposed Legislation to Ban TikTok Completely in the United States (17:09)4. Congress Votes to Remove Bust of Roger B. Taney from Capitol Building (22:12)5. The Collapse of FTX and the Extradition of Sam Bankman-Fried (37:29)All sources can be found on www.jordanismylawyer.comFollow Jordan on TikTok and Instagram @jordanismylawyer.

The legacies of two former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justices with ties to Central Pennsylvania — Roger B. Taney and John Marshall — are under scrutiny today because of their connections to slavery. The US House of Representatives voted in June to replace a bust of Roger B. Taney with one honoring the first African … Continue reading "The legacies of Chief Justices Roger Taney and John Marshall and slavery – Strike Out Covid"

In 1846, Dred and Harriet Scott were living in St. Louis, Missouri with their two daughters. They were enslaved and launched a not uncommon petition: a lawsuit for their freedom. Eleven years later Chief Justice Roger B. Taney would issue an opinion on their case that not only refused their freedom but attempted to cement the fate of all Black individuals in the United States. Taney would ultimately fail and the Reconstruction Amendments would dash Taney’s opinion in Dred Scott v Sandford, but not before the case was forever cast as a Supreme Court decision gone wrong. The Scotts’ great great granddaughter, Lynne Jackson, is joined by Chief Judge John R. Tunheim of the U.S. District Court of Minnesota to tell the story of the Scotts and their case.

Roger B. Taney was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who ruled on the Dred Scott case in 1857 which hastened the nation into Civil War. He was a slaveholder and DEMOCRAT who wrote in his decision regarding Dred Scott (who was suing his master for his freedom) and other Afro-Americans claiming they, "are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States." Roger B. Taney was an overt Racist and maintained his post in the Supreme Court during the Civil War while opposing Abraham Lincoln's policies throughout until his death in 1864 (after 30 years are Chief Justice of the Supreme Court). His singular actions led to the Civil War in which over 600,000 Americans perished. These egregious offenses make Roger B. Taney an Anti-Hoss. The Eagle Hoss & Hound podcast is a platform for respect. Respect for the Eagle - the individual with a service background (including spouses). Respect for the Hoss - the Social Integrity Hero from our American past. Plus, the Hound - the common #AmericanMutt - you and me. Follow @EagleIMBUED - J.D. Collier

Knight Vision for March 2021 - Virtues of the Knights of Columbus (2021 Episode 3) Scott Schutte interview with Chad Lueken about being a K of C Insurance agent, Walt Peycha gains new insights in his discussion with Saint Patrick interview, MIchael Kovacs brings us the Catholic Thread of Roger B. Taney, 5th Chief Justice of the United States. Vocation Director Fr. Dominic Petan and Associate Vocation Director Derek Aaron of the Diocese of Lafayette-in-Indiana discuss discernment and vocation with Walt Peycha.

Chief Justice Roger B. Taney rules against Abraham Lincoln's aggressive use of war powers Center for Civic Education

Michele Goodwin talks about her experiences of racism in daily life in Minneapolis—before she became Chancellor’s Professor of Law at the University of California Irvine. Also: removing statues from the Capitol Building honoring traitors and defenders of slavery—there’s one that’s been overlooked: Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. Plus: In the current mobilization around Black lives, everyone can do something, even if it’s not marching in the streets—Mia Birdsong explains. She's the host of  The Nation’s podcast More Than Enough (https://www.thenation.com/content/more-than-enough/) , about universal basic income, and her TED talk (https://www.ted.com/talks/mia_birdsong_the_story_we_tell_about_poverty_isn_t_true?language=en) has been viewed almost two million times. Now she has a new book out—it’s called How We Show Up: Reclaiming Family, Friendship, and Community. Subscribe to The Nation to support all of our podcasts: http://thenation.com/podcastsubscribe.

This week at In The Past Lane, the American History podcast, we take a look at a curious but revealing scandal that emerged in New York City on St. Patrick’s Day n 1888. The mayor refused to attend the St. Patrick’s Day parade and to fly the flag of Ireland over City Hall and paid a heavy political price.   And we also take a look at some key events that occurred this week in US history, like the 1968 My Lai massacre in Vietnam, and Amelia Earhart’s final flight. And birthdays, including March 16, 1751 - 4th POTUS James Madison March 18, 1837 - the 22nd and 24th POTUS Grover Cleveland March 17, 1777 - SCOTUS justice Roger B. Taney Feature Story: The St. Patrick’s Day Scandal of 1888 On March 17, 1888 – 132 years ago this week - the mayor of New York City made a huge mistake. It was St. Patrick’s Day and yet, Mayor Abram Hewitt made good on his recent pledge to not review the annual St. Patrick’s Day parade and not to fly the Irish flag over City Hall. The Mayor framed his decision as a stand for pure, enlightened political leadership that was above pandering to what he considered petty, special interests. But the city’s enormous Irish population did not see it that way and Hewitt would soon learn a painful lesson in late-nineteenth century urban politics.  Abram Hewitt was a wealthy industrialist and former congressman who had won election as mayor of New York in 1886.  Although a member of the elite, “silk stocking” set, he ran as the candidate of Tammany Hall, the legendary political organization that drew its power from the city’s immigrant masses - especially the Irish.  Tammany officials had selected him out of panic, because the election of 1886 had featured a stunning challenge by an upstart Labor Party that had selected as its candidate the reformer Henry George, a man immensely popular with the city’s laboring masses. Just as Tammany had hoped, Hewitt’s respectable image helped him garner just enough votes to narrowly defeat George. Although elected on the Tammany Hall ticket and to a large degree by the Irish vote, Hewitt was a blueblood who abhorred the idea of ethnic politics.  Unfortunately for him, he lacked the political good sense to keep this disdain to himself.  So when a delegation of representatives of Irish organizations came calling on March 6, he did little to conceal his contempt.  The delegation had come in response to rumors that Hewitt would not review the upcoming St. Patrick’s Day Parade. “The majority of Irishmen vote the Democratic ticket,” they reminded him, “and your vote came largely from Irishmen, a considerable portion of whom belong to the societies who will parade on St. Patrick’s Day.”             Hewitt was clearly irked by their suggestion that he owed the Irish an appearance at the parade.  He snapped back, “Now let us understand each other.  I am mayor of this city.  You ask me to leave my duties and review your parade –” At that moment he was interrupted by one of the delegation. “But Mr. Mayor, St. Patrick’s Day is a holiday.” “It is not a legal holiday,” continued the mayor testily. “You ask me to leave my duties and review your parade, and you speak of the vote cast by the Irish in your societies for the Democratic candidates.  I may be a candidate for mayor or for President next fall and may want all the votes I can get … But for the purpose of getting this [Irish] vote, I will not come down to the level of reviewing any parade because of the nationality represented.  I will review no parades, whether Irish, German, or Italian as a Democrat.  I will review parades only as mayor of the whole city and irrespective of party considerations.”  The delegation of Irishmen left the meeting angry and empty handed.  When word of the mayor’s refusal to review the parade hit the papers, the city’s huge Irish population reacted angrily.  The tradition of having the mayor review the St. Patrick’s Day parade had begun nearly four decades earlier and since that time no mayor had ever refused the honor. Several critics pointed out that Hewitt actually had reviewed an ethnic parade a year earlier, when Italian societies marched in commemoration of Garibaldi’s defense of Rome.  To the city’s Irish, the mayor’s decision was an insult that reflected elite New York’s low opinion of them. The mayor’s blunt refusal to review the parade immediately called into question a second longstanding tradition in Manhattan: the flying of the Irish flag over City Hall on March 17.  In anticipation of a fight, an Irish American Alderman named Patrick Divver authored a resolution calling for the Irish flag to be flown over City Hall on March 17 and it passed unanimously.  A second resolution, clearly intended to force the mayor’s hand, was also passed, calling for the American flag to be flown at half-staff on March 16 in honor of the Kaiser William I of Germany who had just died. Hewitt tried his best to navigate the political minefield before him, aware of the importance of both the Irish and German vote.  He ordered the American flag flown at half-staff on March 16 as an expression of sympathy for the Kaiser and the following day ordered it raised to full staff in honor of Ireland.  But no Irish flag was raised.  Mentions of Hewitt’s name at the parade that day drew catcalls and hisses from the crowd. That evening, Hewitt tried to mend fences with the Irish by attending the annual dinner of the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick.  And he delivered a short address in which he said, “The day will come when you will see the flag of Ireland floating where it ought to float, over a free nation in a free Ireland.”         It was a nice gesture in support of Irish nationhood, but it did little to appease the city’s Irish population. And besides, Hewitt returned to his original form a few days later when the Board of Aldermen passed a law granting them the power to decide what flag would fly over City Hall on any given day. Hewitt vetoed the bill and issued a scathing rebuke to the Irishmen on the Board who were behind it. He noted that while the Irish-born made up 16.4 percent of the city’s population, they constituted an unnaturally high 27 percent of the Board of Aldermen and 28 percent of the police department.  Even worse, continued the mayor, the Irish contributed an even greater percentage to the city’s prison and asylum populations. Apparently, Ireland hadn’t sent its best. “The facts above stated when properly considered,” concluded the mayor, “should impose a modest restraint [on the Irish] in claiming new privileges.” The Board promptly passed the measure over Hewitt’s veto.  Well, mayors in those days served only two-year terms, so Hewitt faced re-election that fall.  Tammany Hall, recognizing that Hewitt threatened to erode their Irish voter base, withdrew its support from him and nominated an Irish-born candidate named Hugh J. Grant. Hewitt nonetheless managed to secure the nomination of several Democratic and independent political organizations. The Irish turned out in droves on election day and sent Hewitt to a third-place finish behind Grant and the Republican candidate. The St. Patrick’s Day affair of 1888 established an absolute rule for New York City politics: politicians who insulted the city’s largest ethnic groups did so at their peril. The dominant ethnic and racial groups have changed in the years since 1888 to include Jews, Italians, Puerto Ricans, Asians, and African Americans, but the rule remains the same.  And here’s a fun fact: While NYC’s St Patrick’s Day parade is huge and gets a lot of attention, it’s no longer the city’s largest ethnic parade. That honor goes to the annual West Indian Day parade that honors people from places like Jamaica, Grenada, and Trinidad. And you better believe the mayor never misses it. Sources: William V. Shannon, The American Irish: A Political and Social Portrait (1964), pp. 75-76; Allan Nevins, Abram S. Hewitt: With Some Account of Peter Cooper (1935), pp. 465-7 For more information about the In The Past Lane podcast, head to our website, www.InThePastLane.com  Music for This Episode Jay Graham, ITPL Intro (JayGMusic.com) The Joy Drops, “Track 23,” Not Drunk (Free Music Archive) Ketsa, “I will Be There” (Free Music Archive) Blue Dot Sessions, "Pat Dog" (Free Music Archive) Jon Luc Hefferman, “Winter Trek” (Free Music Archive) The Bell, “I Am History” (Free Music Archive) Production Credits Executive Producer: Lulu Spencer Graphic Designer: Maggie Cellucci Website by: ERI Design Legal services: Tippecanoe and Tyler Too Social Media management: The Pony Express Risk Assessment: Little Big Horn Associates Growth strategies: 54 40 or Fight © In The Past Lane, 2020 Recommended History Podcasts Ben Franklin’s World with Liz Covart @LizCovart The Age of Jackson Podcast @AgeofJacksonPod Backstory podcast – the history behind today’s headlines @BackstoryRadio Past Present podcast with Nicole Hemmer, Neil J. Young, and Natalia Petrzela @PastPresentPod 99 Percent Invisible with Roman Mars @99piorg Slow Burn podcast about Watergate with @leoncrawl The Memory Palace – with Nate DiMeo, story teller extraordinaire @thememorypalace The Conspirators – creepy true crime stories from the American past @Conspiratorcast The History Chicks podcast @Thehistorychix My History Can Beat Up Your Politics @myhist Professor Buzzkill podcast – Prof B takes on myths about the past @buzzkillprof Footnoting History podcast @HistoryFootnote The History Author Show podcast @HistoryDean More Perfect podcast - the history of key US Supreme Court cases @Radiolab Revisionist History with Malcolm Gladwell @Gladwell Radio Diaries with Joe Richman @RadioDiaries DIG history podcast @dig_history The Story Behind – the hidden histories of everyday things @StoryBehindPod Studio 360 with Kurt Andersen – specifically its American Icons series @Studio360show Uncivil podcast – fascinating takes on the legacy of the Civil War in contemporary US @uncivilshow Stuff You Missed in History Class @MissedinHistory The Whiskey Rebellion – two historians discuss topics from today’s news @WhiskeyRebelPod American History Tellers ‏@ahtellers The Way of Improvement Leads Home with historian John Fea @JohnFea1 The Bowery Boys podcast – all things NYC history @BoweryBoys Ridiculous History @RidiculousHSW The Rogue Historian podcast with historian @MKeithHarris The Road To Now podcast @Road_To_Now Retropod with @mikerosenwald © In The Past Lane 2020

Before he would be forever associated with the 1857 Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, Roger B. Taney defended outspoken Hagerstown abolitionist Jacob Gruber.

In this episode of the American Society for Legal History's podcast Talking Legal History Siobhan talks with Paul Finkelman, President of Gratz College, about his book Supreme Injustice: Slavery in the Nation's Highest Court(Harvard University Press, 2018). Finkelman is a specialist on the history of slavery and the law. He is also the author of more than 200 scholarly articles and the author or editor of more than fifty books on a broad range of topics including American Jewish history, American legal history, constitutional law, and legal issues surrounding baseball. The three most important Supreme Court Justices before the Civil War―Chief Justices John Marshall and Roger B. Taney and Associate Justice Joseph Story―upheld the institution of slavery in ruling after ruling. These opinions cast a shadow over the Court and the legacies of these men, but historians have rarely delved deeply into the personal and political ideas and motivations they held. In Supreme Injustice, the distinguished legal historian Paul Finkelman establishes an authoritative account of each justice's proslavery position, the reasoning behind his opposition to black freedom, and the incentives created by circumstances in his private life. Finkelman uses census data and other sources to reveal that Justice Marshall aggressively bought and sold slaves throughout his lifetime―a fact that biographers have ignored. Justice Story never owned slaves and condemned slavery while riding circuit, and yet on the high court he remained silent on slave trade cases and ruled against blacks who sued for freedom. Although Justice Taney freed many of his own slaves, he zealously and consistently opposed black freedom, arguing in Dred Scott that free blacks had no Constitutional rights and that slave owners could move slaves into the Western territories. Finkelman situates this infamous holding within a solid record of support for slavery and hostility to free blacks. Supreme Injustice boldly documents the entanglements that alienated three major justices from America's founding ideals and embedded racism ever deeper in American civic life. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of the American Society for Legal History’s podcast Talking Legal History Siobhan talks with Paul Finkelman, President of Gratz College, about his book Supreme Injustice: Slavery in the Nation’s Highest Court(Harvard University Press, 2018). Finkelman is a specialist on the history of slavery and the law. He is also the author of more than 200 scholarly articles and the author or editor of more than fifty books on a broad range of topics including American Jewish history, American legal history, constitutional law, and legal issues surrounding baseball. The three most important Supreme Court Justices before the Civil War―Chief Justices John Marshall and Roger B. Taney and Associate Justice Joseph Story―upheld the institution of slavery in ruling after ruling. These opinions cast a shadow over the Court and the legacies of these men, but historians have rarely delved deeply into the personal and political ideas and motivations they held. In Supreme Injustice, the distinguished legal historian Paul Finkelman establishes an authoritative account of each justice’s proslavery position, the reasoning behind his opposition to black freedom, and the incentives created by circumstances in his private life. Finkelman uses census data and other sources to reveal that Justice Marshall aggressively bought and sold slaves throughout his lifetime―a fact that biographers have ignored. Justice Story never owned slaves and condemned slavery while riding circuit, and yet on the high court he remained silent on slave trade cases and ruled against blacks who sued for freedom. Although Justice Taney freed many of his own slaves, he zealously and consistently opposed black freedom, arguing in Dred Scott that free blacks had no Constitutional rights and that slave owners could move slaves into the Western territories. Finkelman situates this infamous holding within a solid record of support for slavery and hostility to free blacks. Supreme Injustice boldly documents the entanglements that alienated three major justices from America’s founding ideals and embedded racism ever deeper in American civic life. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of the American Society for Legal History’s podcast Talking Legal History Siobhan talks with Paul Finkelman, President of Gratz College, about his book Supreme Injustice: Slavery in the Nation’s Highest Court(Harvard University Press, 2018). Finkelman is a specialist on the history of slavery and the law. He is also the author of more than 200 scholarly articles and the author or editor of more than fifty books on a broad range of topics including American Jewish history, American legal history, constitutional law, and legal issues surrounding baseball. The three most important Supreme Court Justices before the Civil War―Chief Justices John Marshall and Roger B. Taney and Associate Justice Joseph Story―upheld the institution of slavery in ruling after ruling. These opinions cast a shadow over the Court and the legacies of these men, but historians have rarely delved deeply into the personal and political ideas and motivations they held. In Supreme Injustice, the distinguished legal historian Paul Finkelman establishes an authoritative account of each justice’s proslavery position, the reasoning behind his opposition to black freedom, and the incentives created by circumstances in his private life. Finkelman uses census data and other sources to reveal that Justice Marshall aggressively bought and sold slaves throughout his lifetime―a fact that biographers have ignored. Justice Story never owned slaves and condemned slavery while riding circuit, and yet on the high court he remained silent on slave trade cases and ruled against blacks who sued for freedom. Although Justice Taney freed many of his own slaves, he zealously and consistently opposed black freedom, arguing in Dred Scott that free blacks had no Constitutional rights and that slave owners could move slaves into the Western territories. Finkelman situates this infamous holding within a solid record of support for slavery and hostility to free blacks. Supreme Injustice boldly documents the entanglements that alienated three major justices from America’s founding ideals and embedded racism ever deeper in American civic life. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of the American Society for Legal History’s podcast Talking Legal History Siobhan talks with Paul Finkelman, President of Gratz College, about his book Supreme Injustice: Slavery in the Nation’s Highest Court(Harvard University Press, 2018). Finkelman is a specialist on the history of slavery and the law. He is also the author of more than 200 scholarly articles and the author or editor of more than fifty books on a broad range of topics including American Jewish history, American legal history, constitutional law, and legal issues surrounding baseball. The three most important Supreme Court Justices before the Civil War―Chief Justices John Marshall and Roger B. Taney and Associate Justice Joseph Story―upheld the institution of slavery in ruling after ruling. These opinions cast a shadow over the Court and the legacies of these men, but historians have rarely delved deeply into the personal and political ideas and motivations they held. In Supreme Injustice, the distinguished legal historian Paul Finkelman establishes an authoritative account of each justice’s proslavery position, the reasoning behind his opposition to black freedom, and the incentives created by circumstances in his private life. Finkelman uses census data and other sources to reveal that Justice Marshall aggressively bought and sold slaves throughout his lifetime―a fact that biographers have ignored. Justice Story never owned slaves and condemned slavery while riding circuit, and yet on the high court he remained silent on slave trade cases and ruled against blacks who sued for freedom. Although Justice Taney freed many of his own slaves, he zealously and consistently opposed black freedom, arguing in Dred Scott that free blacks had no Constitutional rights and that slave owners could move slaves into the Western territories. Finkelman situates this infamous holding within a solid record of support for slavery and hostility to free blacks. Supreme Injustice boldly documents the entanglements that alienated three major justices from America’s founding ideals and embedded racism ever deeper in American civic life. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of the American Society for Legal History's podcast Talking Legal History Siobhan talks with Paul Finkelman, President of Gratz College, about his book Supreme Injustice: Slavery in the Nation's Highest Court(Harvard University Press, 2018). Finkelman is a specialist on the history of slavery and the law. He is also the author of more than 200 scholarly articles and the author or editor of more than fifty books on a broad range of topics including American Jewish history, American legal history, constitutional law, and legal issues surrounding baseball. The three most important Supreme Court Justices before the Civil War―Chief Justices John Marshall and Roger B. Taney and Associate Justice Joseph Story―upheld the institution of slavery in ruling after ruling. These opinions cast a shadow over the Court and the legacies of these men, but historians have rarely delved deeply into the personal and political ideas and motivations they held. In Supreme Injustice, the distinguished legal historian Paul Finkelman establishes an authoritative account of each justice's proslavery position, the reasoning behind his opposition to black freedom, and the incentives created by circumstances in his private life. Finkelman uses census data and other sources to reveal that Justice Marshall aggressively bought and sold slaves throughout his lifetime―a fact that biographers have ignored. Justice Story never owned slaves and condemned slavery while riding circuit, and yet on the high court he remained silent on slave trade cases and ruled against blacks who sued for freedom. Although Justice Taney freed many of his own slaves, he zealously and consistently opposed black freedom, arguing in Dred Scott that free blacks had no Constitutional rights and that slave owners could move slaves into the Western territories. Finkelman situates this infamous holding within a solid record of support for slavery and hostility to free blacks. Supreme Injustice boldly documents the entanglements that alienated three major justices from America's founding ideals and embedded racism ever deeper in American civic life. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies

BackTrekking returns again to look back at the real-world inspirations of classic Trek episodes!This week, hosts Ka1iban and GooeyFame are talking about the all-time great Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "The Measure of a Man" and the Supreme Court case of 1857 that inspired it, Dred Scott vs. Sandford! Dred Scott was a slave who fought in the courts for his freedom and his amazing story formed the basis for a similar tale about Data being put on trial to defend his right to exist!On the show, we talk about the historical facts in the case of Dred Scott, the turmoil present in the divided America of the Antebellum era, his right honorable dumdum dodo Roger B. Taney, our very human Founding Fathers, and the WORST DECISION the Supreme Court ever made. We also talk about the subtle mastery of Melinda Snodgrass's script for "Measure", robo racism, the "pleasant" language of oppression, the wisdom of having Whoopi in the episode, Jonathan "Face Acting" Frakes, plucking a pigeon, the lack of AI in Trek, and Riker putting his leg up on himself!Tweet at the show or your hosts with your suggestions for future episodes!http://www.twitter.com/backtrekkinghttp://www.twitter.com/ka1ibanhttp://www.twitter.com/gooeyfameSee Kal's interview with Melinda Snodgrass about "The Measure of a Man"https://www.facebook.com/eistpod/videos/1893178130987304/Proud member of the Analog Legends network! Follow @analoglegends on Twitter for more retro goodness! #analoglegendsTheme: Disco Medusae Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 Licensehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

In 1861, as the Civil War began, Roger B. Taney fights to free John Merryman from a cell in Fort McHenry, where he was being held after the suspension of Habeas Corpus.

He went to college with Chief Supreme Court Justice Roger B. Taney. His wife was related to Senator John C. Calhoun and Attorney General Felix Grundy. His daughter married William Giles Harding, owner of the Belle Meade Plantation. His son was an aide to James K. Polk. And he was good friends with Andrew Jackson. This week on "TENN in 20," join hosts and historical enthusiasts Brad and Sarah as the discuss the life and legacy of Randal McGavock, a man who exemplifies the importance of who you know and what you know.  If you would like to support this podcast and add some great books to your collection, head to our online store (store.boft.org) and used the coupon code: podcast18 at checkout to save 10% off your order! Discount is good until the end of August, 2018.

U.S. Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision outlaws slavery. Dred Scott was a black slave who lived in the slave state of Missouri. In 1846, when Scott’s master moved briefly to Illinois and Wisconsin – both “free states” – before returning to Missouri, Scott saw an opportunity to sue for his freedom. Scott won his case in Missouri, only to have the Missouri Supreme Court overturn the ruling. When the case proceeded to the U.S. Supreme Court, seven of the nine justices decided against Scott on March 6, 1857. Scott was not free and could not have the same rights as a white man, they stated, because blacks were “beings of an inferior order.” Justice Roger B. Taney’s decision also stipulated that Negroes could not sue in federal court and had "no rights which any white man was bound to respect." Nor did the court stop there. The judges declared federal laws against slavery to be unconstitutional; the U.S. Congress and territory legislature had no right to ban slavery, they explained. And finally, they argued, because the 5th amendment of the constitution guarantees property rights and slaves are property, Congress has no right to interfere. Southerners were happy with the decision; Northerners were not. Instead of putting the issue of slavery to rest, the decision ended up so aggravating those who were opposed to slavery, that it had an impact on the country entering into civil war in 1861. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

0:35: Peter Jensen, a member of the Baltimore Sun's editorial board, talks with Dan about the overnight removal of statues honoring Supreme Court Justice Roger B. Taney, generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, and two other Confederate memorials, from Baltimore overnight. Plus, a conversation about President Donald J. Trump's controversial remarks on white supremacists and counter-demonstrators in Charlottesville over the weekend.20:18: Luke Broadwater, who covers Baltimore government and politics, has the latest from City Hall on Mayor Catherine Pugh's decision to have the Confederate monuments removed.

Austin, Tex. University removes Confederate statues Statues of two Confederate generals, Robert E. Lee and Albert Sidney Johnston, and the Confederate cabinet member John Reagan, were removed on Aug. 21. They followed the removal of a statue of Jefferson Davis in 2015. Annapolis, Md. Roger B. Taney statue removed A statue of Roger Taney was taken down from its post in front of the State House at about 2 a.m. on Aug. 18. Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, called for its removal earlier this week, reversing a previously stated position that removing symbols like the statue would be tantamout to political correctness. Though not a Confederate official, Justice Taney was the chief author of the 1857 Dred Scott decision, which ruled that African-Americans, both enslaved and free, could not be American citizens.  

I guess racial reconciliation must have been accomplished recently because Time Magazine said that descendants of a slave and a Supreme Court Justice righted a 160-year-old wrong. On March 6, 1857, Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney said: Negroes had for more than a century before been regarded 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; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. So on March 6, 2017, Charles Taney III, a great-great-great-nephew of Justice Taney issued an apology to Lynne Jackson, the great-great granddaughter of Dred Scott. I don't know who gave Charles the authority to speak on behalf of his family...I damn sure don't know who gave him the authority to apologize on behalf of the Country and White people that took his great-great-great-uncle's ruling as a license to abuse Black people. I also don't know who gave Lynne the authority to accept Taney's apology on your and my behalf (she accepted the apology "on behalf of all African Americans who have the love of God in their heart so that healing can begin." But Charles apologized...Lynne accepted. But the ruling in Dred Scott's case established legal precedent for denying the rights of all Black people in America. It gave validity to White Supremacist ideology and gave a green light to racial terror and institutionalized racism. I don't think that some words from an obscure descendant of Justice Taney to an obscure descendant of Dred Scott lead to racial reconciliation for all Black & White people in America. So what will lead to racial reconciliation in America? In this episode of Blacks with Power, I will unpack the critical thing that is needed to bring about racial reconciliation. The Bible shows us that Black Power is necessary before any sort of real and lasting reconciliation can happen. Listen to this episode and let me show you... What do you think? Is Black Power - as defined in this episode - necessary? Or, do you see another way? I'd love to hear from you! Resources Mentioned in this Episode: Blackman Redemption - Bob Marley Putting Blacks in their Place - BWP Episode 2 Join Blacks with Power of Facebook Become part of the community that is harnessing and helping each other to harness the power that will truly redeem our people in the image of God. All of us are needed...your voice is needed. So, click this link and fill out a short membership application to join the action!

Ever heard of Roger B. Taney? He was the Chief Justice of the United States for almost 30 years, from 1836 to 1864. Today, he is remembered largely for one opinion he wrote, an opinion often considered the worst in U.S. Supreme Court history: Dred Scott v. Sandford. Recently, Taney's bust, displayed in his home town of Frederick, Maryland, was vandalized, and a number of people have called for its removal. Stewart talks with law professor Josh Blackman about this constitutional debate between present and past.

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/presidential-academy/Session+20+Morel.mp3 Focus Lincoln claimed to be fighting a war that would lead to "a new birth of freedom," yet some claim he violated civil liberties on an unprecedented scale. How can a war for liberty be reconciled with such violations of civil liberties? Were the steps he took during the war constitutional? Why or why not? Compare and contrast Taney's opinion in ex parte Merryman and Lincoln's apologia in his letter to Erastus Corning and the New York Democrats.   Readings Lincoln, "Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus" Fornieri, The Language of Liberty Message to Congress in Special Session (July 4, 1861) Annual Message to Congress (December 3, 1861) Letter to Erastus Corning and Others (June 12, 1863) Roger B. Taney, "Ex Parte Merryman," from Edward McPherson, Political History of the United States of America during the Great Rebellion, 1860-65 Don E. Fehrenbacher, "Lincoln and the Constitution" Herman Belz, "Lincoln and the Constitution: The Dictatorship Question Revisited The post Session 20: Lincoln and Civil Liberties appeared first on Teaching American History.

As we review the final flash points of the sectional crisis that finally led to civil war, Dr. Mitton identifies the genesis of the judicial doctrine known as "original intent" as the 1857 Dred Scott case when U.S. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney held that African Americans, whether free not, could never become American citizens because, as Taney saw it, that would clearly violate the original intent of the country's Founders.

Chief Justice Roger B. Taney administered the oath of office to Abraham Lincoln using the Bible of a court clerk. With the brief words, "I, Abraham Lincoln, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," Lincoln was sworn in as the sixteenth President. The ceremony was witnessed by Clerk of the Supreme Court, William Thomas Carroll, who recorded the occasion in the back of this Bible. On January 20, 2009, President Barack Obama chose this same Bible for his historic inauguration ceremony.