Talk:Roger B. Taney

Ambiguous Sentences
This sentence is ambiguous: "In 1819, he defended a Methodist minister who had been indicted for inciting slave insurrections by denouncing slavery in a camp meeting." Does this mean that Taney denounced slavery in a camp meeting, or the minister did? I'm assuming the latter, but I read it as the former the first time around and it gives a VASTLY different perspective on Taney's attitudes to read it that way... -JSoules — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.162.158.6 (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Another one: Taney "manumitted" his slaves. In fact, he freed them upon inheriting them. Why not say that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.231.70 (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The topic doesn't say when or under what circumstances he freed his slaves; perhaps you have in mind a reliable source to support that change. Tedickey (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence he did this and in fact, he owned the slaves. Sure, inherited, but "freeing" people then not signing their paperwork for another decade doesn't really deserve that credit. I just updated to include the manumittance papers that were found dating his "freeing" at nearly a decade later. Jwisloski (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * He obviously was a slave owning racist. He didn't free anybody in his slave charge. He was In fact complicit in the practice of slavery and all of it's bias and ugliness and I doubt if he paid any pension to slaves. This author attempts to soften the attitude of this hypocrite to present him in a better light. Illuminating him as an intellectual or anything more then a privilege laden, racist hypocrite is inaccurate and disingenuous. He owned slaves, he bought and sold slaves he benefitted from slave labor. President Lincoln was absolutely right to develop a spine and a conscious to challenge this disgraceful person. 2601:CA:C300:2F50:50D2:8AA:7B4D:165D (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Another one: In the discussion of the Dred Scott decision, the introductory sentence starts as follows: "Five years later came the Supreme Court case that destroyed Taney's historical reputation . . . "  I cannot determine what event is being referred to as occurring five years before the Dred Scott decision (which was delivered in 1857).Sltax (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

(That was removed in 23:16, November 17, 2008 by Malplaquet) Tedickey (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that one is because someone deleted the contextual information. Here's the relevant chunk: "The Taney Court extended the rule from Prigg ten years later in Moore v. Illinois (1852), which held that "any state law or regulation which interrupts, impedes, limits, embarrasses, delays or postpones the right of the owner to the immediate possession of the slave, and the immediate command of his service, is void.""

Pronunciation
The lead gives the pronunciation as /ˈtɔːni/; that is, using the same vowel as in "sore". Does anyone really say it that way? Many Americans, even those who pronounce "cot" and "caught" identically, still make a distinction between "Don" and "Dawn", I think, and I gather that the purpose here is to say that we should use the "Dawn" vowel. But for very few Americans is that the same vowel as in "sore". Maybe we should say /ˈtɒni/ or something, instead? --Trovatore (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * His descendants indeed pronounce their name to rhyme with sore knee. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YpDRBiDUZsE&pp=ygUWSGlzdG9yaWMgYXBvbG9neSB0YW5leQ%3D%3D
 * Likewise Tawneytown and, from a brief browse of YouTube, a majority of academics.
 * I don’t think ˈtɒni is quite right, but it’s vastly better than the current ipa pronunciation up there. Jamesofengland (talk) 08:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Clarification
The second sentence of the article states: "Although an opponent of slavery, believing it to be an evil practice, Taney believed that it was not the place of the Court or the Federal Government to remedy the issue and that it was the Constitutional right of the states to deal with slavery individually and gradually." However, later in the lead section it also says: "Despite emancipating his own slaves and giving pensions to those who were too old to work, Taney supported slavery, was outraged by Northern attacks on the institution, and sought to use his Dred Scott decision to permanently end the slavery debate." I think the lead should be edited in order to more properly communicate Taney's complicated opinion on slavery. InspectorWhy (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see someone else noticed this! I change it to omit the second sentence entirely; the legacy he leaves is not one of a compassionate irresolute person who cared genuinely about the country and humankind and there is no reason to qualify his actions and legacy in the second sentence giving credit where none is due. Jwisloski (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

"Opponent of slavery" that believes it to be an "evil practice"?
"Although an opponent of slavery, believing it to be an evil practice, Taney believed that it was not the place of the Court or the Federal Government to remedy the issue and that it was the Constitutional right of the states to deal with slavery individually and gradually."

This information in the introduction conflicts heavily with the rest of the content and the actual history of Taney.

Additionally, the linked citation for that block says nothing about this. At most, it says: "As chief justice, [Taney] was best known for the 1857 Dred Scott decision regarding slavery, which helped set the stage for the Civil War (1861-1865), not the first time — or the last — that a Catholic justice has chosen to act on the court in a manner contrary to the teachings of the Church." 97.87.139.148 (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * After doing some lookomg, I can see that user @Antiok 1pie is constantly reinserting that phrase after it’s been removed and without any citation, so I added a citation needed instead of removing it this time. 97.87.139.148 (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Why not remove it completely? LinesInk (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)