Outrageous! Congress acts to remove bust of Dred Scott decision author, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney

Taney was a hardcore leftist Democrat. Why do you support the Democratic party of racism, slavery and Jim Crow?

1671115047568.jpeg
 
~~~~~~
My question to Democrats is when will they remove the statue of former KKK recruiter Robert Byrd from the Senate hall and change the names of his many federal buildings, bridges and road in West Virginia.
LOL. That'll never happen. But, it would be interesting if Republicans decided to go woke and start removing all the Democrats from history as they were the pro-slave party. Wipe them all clean from the history books, those damned racists. Turnabout is fair play. And, let's get Democrats on record as not wanting to do this. We can start with Byrd. We can even go back in history and find things Biden has done and said to erase him from history.
 
Interesting that not a single person from the right in this thread disagreed with the statement that only white people should be allowed to be citizens.
Why does it need to be stated? I disagree that you can jump off the top of the Eiffel Tower, plummet to the ground with nothing on but a smile and land safely in a kiddie pool, but I don't feel the need to state it every time someone says you can.

If a poster comes on here and states that all white people are racist, is it incumbent on all black posters to chime in that they disagree?
 
Why does it need to be stated? I disagree that you can jump off the top of the Eiffel Tower, plummet to the ground with nothing on but a smile and land safely in a kiddie pool, but I don't feel the need to state it every time someone says you can.

If a poster comes on here and states that all white people are racist, is it incumbent on all black posters to chime in that they disagree?

Well yes, if you are in a thread where that is stated it should be incumbent on everyone to chime in they disagree.
 
I find it distasteful to hide such a disgusting chapter in our history of cruelty to man. We should learn from history not hide from it.

"Taney would have been on reasonably strong ground had he limited himself to upholding the district court’s decision based on the idea that status was to be determined by the states. Alternatively, he could have held that Scott was not entitled to sue Sanford in federal court on the basis of diversity of jurisdiction, because Missouri did not allow even free African Americans to be citizens. But Taney outraged much of the North by asserting that African Americans could never be citizens of the United States. The framers, in his view, did not regard African Americans as being among the “people” for whose benefit and protection the new government was founded, notwithstanding the perfectly general language of the Declaration of Independence and of the preamble to the Constitution."

Two justices, John McLean of Ohio and Benjamin R. Curtis of Massachusetts, wrote devastating critiques of Taney’s opinion. Curtis in particular undercut most of Taney’s historical arguments, showing that African Americans had voted in a number of states at the founding. “At the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation,” he wrote:


Thus, Curtis argued, they were members of the nation and could not now be denied the right to claim citizenship."




Pretty sure they used explosives to destroy the artifacts, not vote on resolutions to remove them to other locations.
I think we need to understand that statues and monuments are not necessarily celebratory things. Take the Viet Nam memorial, for example. It is not intended to celebrate the war, but to serve as a somber reminder of the lives lost. Instead of removing all newly unpopular statues and monuments, it would be better to place them in proper context. Instead of pretending that these people and events didn't exist, let's learn from what they did and either repeat or avoid it.
 
Well yes, if you are in a thread where that is stated it should be incumbent on everyone to chime in they disagree.
Why let others' expectations dictate what we say? The crazy will continue whether I say I disagree with it or not, so sometimes it's just too ludicrous to comment.
 
Why let others' expectations dictate what we say? The crazy will continue whether I say I disagree with it or not, so sometimes it's just too ludicrous to comment.

It is not really ludicrous on this forum as it is not the first time it has been stated. We have had entire threads on the subject of whether women should be allowed to vote.

If you come into a thread like this and agree with the OP, without calling out the part of only whites being citizens, you are giving your tacit approval for that part as well.
 
It is not really ludicrous on this forum as it is not the first time it has been stated. We have had entire threads on the subject of whether women should be allowed to vote.

If you come into a thread like this and agree with the OP, without calling out the part of only whites being citizens, you are giving your tacit approval for that part as well.
You are free to assume what you will, but I feel no need to confirm or deny what another MIGHT be thinking. But, since you appear to have appointed yourself the bus driver, here's my token to be allowed to post on the thread. I disagree with that statement, but be notified that I feel no need to totally peruse an OP and comment on every statement made therein.
 
I find this appalling. Chief Justice Roger Taney was an advocate for White civil rights. This is a travesty by removing this patriotic historical figure from the capitol. The founders and first Congress never intended for blacks to be citizens of the new country. Only White people. It should have stayed that way.
Congress_Taney_51313


And here we have another example of MAGAt racism, folks.
 

Forum List

Back
Top