A recent Washington Post editorial points out that the 150th anniversary of Dred Scott decision spurred in Maryland new protests that the chief justice [Taney] who wrote the decision: “… beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations.”
Yet Maryland on public grounds has three statues of Taney causing activists to demand removal of these statues at the State House and City Hall. The Post’s view that in spite of this or even because of it the statues should remain, Then they use the lame excuse that removal would cost $100,000 that could be put to close the gaps in educ ation—yeah, right.
They further defend their presence by using them as icons for the shame of America, reminding Americans of the “warts” and stains on US history. Then why the cheers when Russians tore down Lenin and Stalin shouldn’t they, too, be reminded of the evil that was; and certainly more recently in Iraq why the hoopla in destroying Saddam’s abundant display of himself? Would not the Iraqis want democracy more if they had his ghost around to remind them?