Timothy Huebner wrote an excellent piece about Roger Taney in the June, 2010, issue of _The Journal of American History_.

Huebner analyzes Taney’s manumission of eleven slaves early in his life, his support for African-American colonization (“a cause that he viewed as a step towards emancipation,” according to Huebner), and, most importantly, Taney’s successful trial defense of Rev. Jacob Gruber, who was accused of instigating “insurrection and rebellion” in a sermon. In his defense of Gruber, Taney denounced slave traders as “reptiles, who live by trading in human flesh.”

Huebner contrasts Taney’s earlier actions with his later judicial writings as Chief Justice, when Taney consistently protected the property rights of slaveholders at the expense of individuals, Northern states’ rights, and, finally, the US Congress.

Huebner presents no easy two-dimensional caricature of Taney; rather, the author of the later _Dred Scott_ decision is portrayed (in 1839 by the abolitionist James Birney, quoting a slave whom Taney had assisted) as “considered by the colored people of Baltimore as one of their steadiest and surest friends.”

I have trouble reconciling the image of Roger Taney as the author of the phrase that African Americans “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect” along with the image of Roger Taney as the black man’s “steadiest and surest friend.”

This is a tough one; no easy answers here.

As for Kevin's original thought, I agree totally that explaining both sides of the story is the most important thing to do with memorials (I'm originally from Frederick as well). Taking down the statue, monument, or other commemoration merely erases an opportunity for dialogue and education. And while I am in no way defending Taney or his Dred Scott ruling, Taney had a long and important career in politics (law partner of Francis Scott Key, key player in the U.S. Bank controversy with Andrew Jackson, and as a Supreme Court justice) and there is nothing wrong with remembering him or discussing him as a local notable as long as we remember all sides of the story and talk about the implications of that history (then and now).

As for Kevin's original thought, I agree totally that explaining both sides of the story is the most important thing to do with memorials (I'm originally from Frederick as well). Taking down the statue, monument, or other commemoration merely erases an opportunity for dialogue and education. And while I am in no way defending Taney or his Dred Scott ruling, Taney had a long and important career in politics (law partner of Francis Scott Key, key player in the U.S. Bank controversy with Andrew Jackson, and as a Supreme Court justice) and there is nothing wrong with remembering him or discussing him as a local notable as long as we remember all sides of the story and talk about the implications of that history (then and now).