Roger Taney wrote, "(black people) 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."
In 1857, Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote, "(black people) 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."
This is from the Dred Scott decision. Was Taney wrong about the intent of the "founding fathers"? He was an educated man well schooled in constitutional law and theory. Or was his interpretation of their intent and meaning correct? Furthermore, what does this question mean in terms of the ways that the "founding fathers" are used repeatedly in modern political discourse to justify one view or another? Are their views so valuable and unquestionable, if Taney's interpretation was correct? Should we have such reverence for the "founding fathers" so as not to question them? Or were they flawed humans with some good ideas?
Trending now
This is a popular solution!
Step by step
Solved in 3 steps
