That is the same as with the Dredd Scott decision. The newspapers ran "Negroes Can't Vote" as if it was ever some new decision--slaves could not vote. Back in the 1700s, in North Carolina all free persons were citizens. It is said that Taney was a Roman Catholic and heavily part of that decision to promote lifetime chattel slavery of brown-skinned people. Keep in mind, tan skinned folks were voting and holding office in the colonies and in the states long before 1861. Racial segregation laws came AFTER 1861 and AFTER the Romanization of D.C. and AFTER the Papacy lost Papal States. Racial segregation laws didn't come to Tulsa, Oklahoma until 1891--the very same year a Roman Catholic church was established there.
When it comes to falsely politicizing court cases or law, the mainstream media has often played the role of 'false interpreter'. Three fifths of all other "Persons" (uppercase, hmm doesn't sound like a slur). Persons could have been private citizens and nationals of the several states as opposed to the public citizens, quartered soldiers, residents, foreign ambassadors, etc. The word "negro" and "colored person" meant someone who was civilly dead or under a servitude or a felon (colored person). The term 'white' meant 'freeborn'. I suspect the idea was to keep someone from amassing 1M slaves and servants and counting them as 'credit' toward influence in Congress rather than to denigrate someone for their 'physical appearance type'.
Similarly the media characterized the South as a bastion of racism and slavery (it may have become that way after the Civil War), but who ever mentions that was the first to Georgia banned slavery as far back as the 1700s?
Reply With Quote