Omg....After all the research I did and all the respect you gave me by making sure i got good grades on my projects and keep my future bright by not failing a huge 300 point project for government class which will help lead me to being a judge in the United States Supreme Court. Helping me acheive my goals and surpass the ones i thought i would never do...There is no way ill be able to repay you for what you have done for me.... Discerning History...............*You the real MVP*
New video this week, a short history of the slave Dred Scott and the landmark case Dred Scott v. Sandford, in which the US Supreme Court held African Americans could not become citizens.
The Dred Scott Case: Dred Scott V. John F. A. Sandford U.S. Supreme Court 1857. This case is a must read for all of you whom identify as Blacks, Negros, Latin, Hispanics, and Afro-Colored-Americans, to gain some comprehension on how you and your Legal Status are viewed in the eyes of the law. This case was and still is monumental not only in this country but also around the world. For in it the foundations of Status and the Importance of Nationality are revealed. 1.) Dred Scott claimed to be a Negro of African Ancestry and was suing his former slave master for assault while he was a slave to John Sanford. Dred Scott was suing for assault not only himself, but also his wife Harriet, and his two daughters Eliza, and Lizzie. The courts, first of all, made it known that Dred Scott was a Plaintiff In Error as you will find out why. 2.) The following is quoted from the opening pleas of the case: "Dred Scott, is not a citizen of the State of Missouri, as alleged in his declaration, because he's a negro of African descent; his ancestors were of pure African blood and were brought into this country and sold as negro slaves, and this the said Sandford is ready to verify." 3.) So off the top, we see that the Supreme Court did not recognize Dred Scott's citizenship, because he claimed to be a "negro of African Decent". 4.) This is important not because the U.S. had no intentions of including negros as protected citizens for the sake of being biased, but because in law, one's Legal Status is the 1st thing taken into consideration. 5.) So when Dred Scott claimed to be a negro from the decent of African slaves, he automatically identified himself as the Property of slave masters. 6.) As we know property does not have the right to sue anything, just like your shoes cannot sue you for wear and tear, because property has no rights. The Outcome states the following: 7.) "The judgment finding that respondent was not liable to petitioner for assault was reversed and the case was remanded with an order to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction. 8.) The Supreme Court held that petitioner was not a citizen and could not bring the action in the court because petitioner was a Slave of African descent." 9.) Here we see the Supreme Court could not properly rule on the case because it lacked the capacity to do so because of the Status of Dred Scott, which needed to be addressed in the Lower courts of Appeal. 10) The Order of the Court is Status, Jurisdiction, Adjudication, Trial, and then Sentencing. Jurisdiction is the courts Authority of the parties in question or the Subject-Matter at had. 11.) Since Dred Scott lacked proper status as a Citizen, the court lacked jurisdiction over the matter, and at this point, the only thing that can happen is a reversal or a mandate back to the lower courts for them to correct their mistakes. Quoted from the Lawyers Edition Headnotes: 12.) "Plea in abatement, when may be reviewed - the word "citizen" in the constitution does not embrace one of the negro race - negro cannot become a citizen - slave not made free by residence in a free state of territory - Declaration of Independence does not include slaves as part of the people - the rights and privileges conferred by the Constitution upon citizens do not apply to the negro race - Constitution should have the meaning intended when it was adopted - court may examine other errors in abatement - Constitution expressly affirms right of property in slaves- ." 13.) So here again we see that when you identify yourself as a black, colored, negro form Afro- America you identify yourself as slave property, which has Zero protected rights. More quotes from the Dred Scott Case: 14.) " The provisions of the Constitution of the United States in relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the citizen of a state should be entitled, do not embrace the negro African race, at that time in this country, or who might afterwards be imported, who had been or should afterwards be made free in any state." 15.) "The Constitution of the United States does not act upon one of the negro race whenever he shall be free under the laws of a state, and raise him to the rank of a citizen, and immediately clothe him with all the privileges of a citizen of any other state, and in its own courts." 16.) "The legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as part the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that instrument. 17.) "The enslaved African race was not intended to be included in, and formed no part of, the people who framed and adopted the Declaration of Independence." 18.) So we can plainly see that negro is a class of persons defined as slave property whom shall never be afforded the constitutionally protected rights as a citizen, and neither shall the offspring of those whom call themselves negroes. 19.) Justice H.A. Garland stated the following about all the so-called negroes: " Now, the following are truths which a knowledge of the history of the world, and particularly of that of our own country, compels us to know - that the African negro race have never been acknowledged as belonging to the family of nations; that as amongst them there never has been known or recognized by the inhabitants of other countries anything partaking of the character of Nationality or civil or political polity; that this race has been by all the nations of Europe regarded as subjects of capture or purchase; as subjects of commerce or traffic; and that introduction of that race into every section of this country was not as members of civil or political society, but as slaves, as property in the strictest sense of the term." 20.) Here we see the Supreme Court Justice made the correct decision, which was not based out of racism as some may suppose but based on the fact that there is no Negroland, there is no Negro Flag, there is no Negro Constitution or Embassy of the Negros, so without the components that would show that this so-called negro exist as a nation of people, the courts are not bound to recognize a person or people whom call themselves something that has never existed in history, and has no known historical origins. 21.) This applies to African, because Africa is a Continent, with many Nations. Black, Afro-American, and Colored also fall under the same categories of a Stateless person or those whom have no known nationality. 22.) Being a black, colored, negro, from Afro-America puts you outside of the human family of nations. It's not a racist thing, it's just a fact of law. 23.) When you run around here with the socialized mis-conditioning that you are a negro, black, colored, from Afro-America you are telling the world that you are a renegade pirate, because you have no known Nationality, which means you have no Family or origin, which means you have no In-laws, which means that you are an Outlaw, and are operating Outside of the Law. 24.) This is the reason why the poor negro has the problems he/she experiences in his/her own land, because the so-called negro has refused to "Honor his father and Mother, by proclaiming his/her nationality as a Moorish American that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest live long on the earth", as stated in the 1st of the 10 commandments. 25.) Keep in mind that due to how big this case is the legislation decided to capitalize this concept even further through the introduction of the 14th Amendment, which passed Corporate citizenship to all of those whom choose to operate outside of their nationality. 26.) The Remedy and Recourse for all of this is to Proclaim your Nationality as a Moorish American, return to the Culture and Customs of your Ancient Foremothers and Forefathers right here in America, correct your Legal Status, then your birthrights protected by the U.S. Constitution can be enforced, because you have changed your status from a dead, Corporate entity, to a living breathing Natural Person, whom is part of a body politic, and a Nation, whom the laws are afforded to, and are recognized around the world. You must proclaim your Nationality Moors! Peace and Love!
I had a history test on this tomorrow and I was looking through my textbook and it was not clear at all. But this clearly explained it for me. Thank you!
A fitting video for my feed to recommend. Today (Feb 8, 2024) the Supreme Court heard oral arguments about whether the 3rd clause of the 14th amendment is enforceable. They appear to have no interest in hearing the case on its merits. Made me wonder about other times the Supreme Court screwed up
Was about to do research which would probably take me hours to do and I procrastinate a lot! 😅 This short and 3 minute video helped and explained a lot! Thanks! 😁
Thanks for the question. By the time the Supreme Court heard the case, the Scott's owner had married an abolitionists. Her husband freed them just a few months after the case. They moved to St. Louis, where Dred Scott died in September 1858. Harriet Scott survived for 18 more years, dying June 17, 1876.
What I do not underestand is when was this jursprudence overruled by the court. Was it in brown v board of education? one century later? Pleas help me!!
The Dred Scott decision has never been directly overturned by the Supreme Court. But the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, added in 1868, invalidated the legal reasoning that led to Dred Scott. It says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Wow smh , oh what a little pen, paper and language can cause . 1:17- 1:30 thank you for reiterating that the Declaration of Independence was not intended for slaves (the labor force which was the backbone of this place we can America today )
Re-read the arguments of that bill in Congress. 🤣 Democrats were arguing that they didn't want to lose their "slaves" but wanted their "slaves" to have a full VOTE in elections JUST LIKE TODAY .😅 "VOTE THE WAY THEY DEMAND OR NOTHING"
The Supreme Court, having determined that it had no jurisdiction, should have stopped writing. But, no, it went on to tell us what the decision it would have made if it had jurisdiction. In so doing, it inflamed a nation and accelerated the Civil War. The court having no jurisdiction, the long discussion about the constitutionality vel non of the Missouri Compromise, and the power vel non of Congress to prohibit slavery in the territories, was completely unnecessary and should have been avoided.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
cbenji07 Jim Crow was completely constitutional as it did not violate any federal laws or amendments. Separare but equal allowed for the races to integrate at will and not by force, which is what happened during the Civil Rights movement and lead to rioting and bad race relations.
@@26socialbutterfly how are we not equal? We might not all be treated equally that doesn't mean our life doesn't have equal value and we shouldn't be treated equally. Just goes to show it's a fallen world.
Slave owner moves to state where slavery was voted to be illegal. Slaves says, "hey, why am I still a slave if slavery is illegal here? I'm gonna take this to court!" Court says just because the people voted that slavery is illegal doesn't mean they can force the slave master to free their slaves. Slave master gets to keep slave. The people who were against slavery in the North said "WHAT?? What did we even vote for, then??" Slave Masters in the south said, "Hey, that sounds pretty good! Slavery is basically legal everywhere!" They might have a fight about this soon...
i 100% guaruntee that they did not say "african americans" at all. the word used was slaves or the decendants of slaves. it doesn't mention "african americans" at all it doesn't mention race. it doesn't mention color. it says slaves. yall tarnish taneys name with these bogus paraphrasings. the reason the word slave is used is because that was the question at hand. was this slave a free man simply because he crossed a state line. the answer is no because a slave by defnition is property and property cannot be a citizen by defninition. it was not taneys responsibility to write the laws. that is congresses job and congress had passed hundreds of laws establishing that slaves were property. there is a very important ruling about property here. your property is your property no matter where you live or where you go. mediocre try to judge great historical figures in trying times from a luxurious position of being born into a world generally free from the brutality of slavery. taney got no such luxury. he was dealing with a nation where brother was at brothers throat over this issue and the abolitionist movement was getting more and more violent and extreme with every passing day.
there is a lesson to be learned. in the end the civil war was so destructive and so horrific that no one would ever want another. lincoln thought he was great. he used his talents with words to speak to northerners who didn't like slavery for multiple reasons mostly having to do with money and power but needed a way to resolve this question with violent means on their terms a moral justification. lincoln would grow to regret his talents as an orator. this war would not be quick and easy. the only thing he did was prove that the most extreme voices in the south were correct. the northerners will no stop until they have destroyed everything and they did not.
Hopefully one day people will look back in sad bewilderment and ask, "You mean that murdering pre-born innocent children was legal? And millions were murdered that way?" Yes, but it was morally wrong, the worst of all wrongs, and they knew it was wrong even then.
![[Live สด] การออกรางวัลสลากกินแบ่งรัฐบาล งวดวันที่ 16 พฤศจิกายน 2567](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wPd7VFfWHIA/mqdefault.jpg)
THANK YOU!!! i had been researching this topic for an hour and finally found a video that clearly explained the Dred Scott Case.
Samuel Aboud You're welcome!
Samuel Aboud This does not clearly explain the Dred Scott case!
@@autumnlady77 agree
@@autumnlady77it goes cuz my teacher sent me this video to watch
POV: Your teacher told you to watch this video for you class
YES HE DID AND AN OTHER VIDEO TOO!
@@howdoichangemypfp-4179 really i have to watch this and another video
True 🤣
Good, now I know this is the right one
Omg....After all the research I did and all the respect you gave me by making sure i got good grades on my projects and keep my future bright by not failing a huge 300 point project for government class which will help lead me to being a judge in the United States Supreme Court. Helping me acheive my goals and surpass the ones i thought i would never do...There is no way ill be able to repay you for what you have done for me.... Discerning History...............*You the real MVP*
Aprender e Sempre, muito bom
Gosto da sua Constituição
hard to tell if this is serious or not
Travis Pace for suree real. A nerd wrote that
The stress of being a black man in AmeRica....no wonder he died two years later!
I agree. Not to sound redundant, but that time when us blacks were kept as slaves were crazy.
1861 civil war began
New video this week, a short history of the slave Dred Scott and the landmark case Dred Scott v. Sandford, in which the US Supreme Court held African Americans could not become citizens.
The Dred Scott Case:
Dred Scott V. John F. A. Sandford U.S. Supreme Court 1857.
This case is a must read for all of you whom identify as Blacks, Negros, Latin, Hispanics, and Afro-Colored-Americans, to gain some comprehension on how you and your Legal Status are viewed in the eyes of the law.
This case was and still is monumental not only in this country but also around the world. For in it the foundations of Status and the Importance of Nationality are revealed.
1.) Dred Scott claimed to be a Negro of African Ancestry and was suing his former slave master for assault while he was a slave to John Sanford. Dred Scott was suing for assault not only himself, but also his wife Harriet, and his two daughters Eliza, and Lizzie.
The courts, first of all, made it known that Dred Scott was a Plaintiff In Error as you will find out why.
2.) The following is quoted from the opening pleas of the case:
"Dred Scott, is not a citizen of the State of Missouri, as alleged in his declaration, because he's a negro of African descent; his ancestors were of pure African blood and were brought into this country and sold as negro slaves, and this the said Sandford is ready to verify."
3.) So off the top, we see that the Supreme Court did not recognize Dred Scott's citizenship, because he claimed to be a "negro of African Decent".
4.) This is important not because the U.S. had no intentions of including negros as protected citizens for the sake of being biased, but because in law, one's Legal Status is the 1st thing taken into consideration.
5.) So when Dred Scott claimed to be a negro from the decent of African slaves, he automatically identified himself as the Property of slave masters.
6.) As we know property does not have the right to sue anything, just like your shoes cannot sue you for wear and tear, because property has no rights.
The Outcome states the following:
7.) "The judgment finding that respondent was not liable to petitioner for assault was reversed and the case was remanded with an order to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction.
8.) The Supreme Court held that petitioner was not a citizen and could not bring the action in the court because petitioner was a Slave of African descent."
9.) Here we see the Supreme Court could not properly rule on the case because it lacked the capacity to do so because of the Status of Dred Scott, which needed to be addressed in the Lower courts of Appeal.
10) The Order of the Court is Status, Jurisdiction, Adjudication, Trial, and then Sentencing. Jurisdiction is the courts Authority of the parties in question or the Subject-Matter at had.
11.) Since Dred Scott lacked proper status as a Citizen, the court lacked jurisdiction over the matter, and at this point, the only thing that can happen is a reversal or a mandate back to the lower courts for them to correct their mistakes.
Quoted from the Lawyers Edition Headnotes:
12.) "Plea in abatement, when may be reviewed - the word "citizen" in the constitution does not embrace one of the negro race - negro cannot become a citizen - slave not made free by residence in a free state of territory - Declaration of Independence does not include slaves as part of the people - the rights and privileges conferred by the Constitution upon citizens do not apply to the negro race - Constitution should have the meaning intended when it was adopted - court may examine other errors in abatement - Constitution expressly affirms right of property in slaves- ."
13.) So here again we see that when you identify yourself as a black, colored, negro form Afro- America you identify yourself as slave property, which has Zero protected rights.
More quotes from the Dred Scott Case:
14.) " The provisions of the Constitution of the United States in relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the citizen of a state should be entitled, do not embrace the negro African race, at that time in this country, or who might afterwards be imported, who had been or should afterwards be made free in any state."
15.) "The Constitution of the United States does not act upon one of the negro race whenever he shall be free under the laws of a state, and raise him to the rank of a citizen, and immediately clothe him with all the privileges of a citizen of any other state, and in its own courts."
16.) "The legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as part the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that instrument.
17.) "The enslaved African race was not intended to be included in, and formed no part of, the people who framed and adopted the Declaration of Independence."
18.) So we can plainly see that negro is a class of persons defined as slave property whom shall never be afforded the constitutionally protected rights as a citizen, and neither shall the offspring of those whom call themselves negroes.
19.) Justice H.A. Garland stated the following about all the so-called negroes:
" Now, the following are truths which a knowledge of the history of the world, and particularly of that of our own country, compels us to know - that the African negro race have never been acknowledged as belonging to the family of nations; that as amongst them there never has been known or recognized by the inhabitants of other countries anything partaking of the character of Nationality or civil or political polity; that this race has been by all the nations of Europe regarded as subjects of capture or purchase; as subjects of commerce or traffic; and that introduction of that race into every section of this country was not as members of civil or political society, but as slaves, as property in the strictest sense of the term."
20.) Here we see the Supreme Court Justice made the correct decision, which was not based out of racism as some may suppose but based on the fact that there is no Negroland, there is no Negro Flag, there is no Negro Constitution or Embassy of the Negros, so without the components that would show that this so-called negro exist as a nation of people, the courts are not bound to recognize a person or people whom call themselves something that has never existed in history, and has no known historical origins.
21.) This applies to African, because Africa is a Continent, with many Nations. Black, Afro-American, and Colored also fall under the same categories of a Stateless person or those whom have no known nationality.
22.) Being a black, colored, negro, from Afro-America puts you outside of the human family of nations. It's not a racist thing, it's just a fact of law.
23.) When you run around here with the socialized mis-conditioning that you are a negro, black, colored, from Afro-America you are telling the world that you are a renegade pirate, because you have no known Nationality, which means you have no Family or origin, which means you have no In-laws, which means that you are an Outlaw, and are operating Outside of the Law.
24.) This is the reason why the poor negro has the problems he/she experiences in his/her own land, because the so-called negro has refused to "Honor his father and Mother, by proclaiming his/her nationality as a Moorish American that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest live long on the earth", as stated in the 1st of the 10 commandments.
25.) Keep in mind that due to how big this case is the legislation decided to capitalize this concept even further through the introduction of the 14th Amendment, which passed Corporate citizenship to all of those whom choose to operate outside of their nationality.
26.) The Remedy and Recourse for all of this is to Proclaim your Nationality as a Moorish American, return to the Culture and Customs of your Ancient Foremothers and Forefathers right here in America, correct your Legal Status, then your birthrights protected by the U.S. Constitution can be enforced, because you have changed your status from a dead, Corporate entity, to a living breathing Natural Person, whom is part of a body politic, and a Nation, whom the laws are afforded to, and are recognized around the world.
You must proclaim your Nationality Moors!
Peace and Love!
Great break down
This was very helpful, thank you for making such a brief but in depth video explaining the topic. :)
Thank you! I finally learned this case in 4 minutes!
same
It’s 3 mins long. Did it take you a minute to process it?
Its like every one makes it so complicated and this guy just makes it easier to understand.
Rite!!!! Smh!!! How were so dumb fa SO LONG!!! 🤔🤔🤔
This was the most helpful thing I found!!!!! THANK YOU!!!!!!
QUALITY CONTENT. THANK YOU SIR
I had a history test on this tomorrow and I was looking through my textbook and it was not clear at all. But this clearly explained it for me. Thank you!
Glad to hear it!
Thank you! Very clear and concise without leaving any major points out, just the way it should be!
Plum Jade Why don't you be quiet
Thanks cuh, needed this
A fitting video for my feed to recommend. Today (Feb 8, 2024) the Supreme Court heard oral arguments about whether the 3rd clause of the 14th amendment is enforceable. They appear to have no interest in hearing the case on its merits. Made me wonder about other times the Supreme Court screwed up
This will never be taught in our schools.
I’m literally taught this In school
im being taught this in my schoool right now
Thanks for the video. This video helped me on my history assignment.
Was about to do research which would probably take me hours to do and I procrastinate a lot! 😅 This short and 3 minute video helped and explained a lot! Thanks! 😁
I have a question, do they died or were killed 2 year later?
Thanks for the question. By the time the Supreme Court heard the case, the Scott's owner had married an abolitionists. Her husband freed them just a few months after the case. They moved to St. Louis, where Dred Scott died in September 1858. Harriet Scott survived for 18 more years, dying June 17, 1876.
oh thanks a lot for the help because I was really confused :D
+Hansel Marte vorgon gaming here back with another vid :D thanks for the support
Jebediah Clinton was on record stating that Dred Scott committed suicide. Unfortunately, he shot himself twice. The pistol was never found.
JuggernautUSAdotcom Huron bullshit. Murder. You know it.
i read about him Glad he sued for his freedom it took them 11 years to reject it but it happened and it led to the Lincoln Douglas debate
What I do not underestand is when was this jursprudence overruled by the court. Was it in brown v board of education? one century later? Pleas help me!!
The Dred Scott decision has never been directly overturned by the Supreme Court. But the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, added in 1868, invalidated the legal reasoning that led to Dred Scott. It says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Wow smh , oh what a little pen, paper and language can cause . 1:17- 1:30 thank you for reiterating that the Declaration of Independence was not intended for slaves (the labor force which was the backbone of this place we can America today )
here in 2020
is it just me or does Dred Scott look adorable
Lol he reminds me of Terrence Howard.
He was a handsome guy.
Infuriating.
Good work.👍
Lol
What was the first time that the supreme court declared an act of congress was unconstitutional?
Marbury v. Madison in 1803
Right. It also declared it's constitutional power and said that no one may tear them asunder.
You forgot the part about the Court determining that he was only 3/5 human.
Re-read the arguments of that bill in Congress. 🤣
Democrats were arguing that they didn't want to lose their "slaves" but wanted their "slaves" to have a full VOTE in elections
JUST LIKE TODAY .😅
"VOTE THE WAY THEY DEMAND OR NOTHING"
@@jbartlett1840 #actualfactuals!
You know that’s not true. I just finished reading about that. It’s too easy to search to lie about it.
It’s mean to correct people on there hard work instead of 🎉 them
0:41 "brother?" well done deal! already I see whats about to happen to my dogg Dred.
The Supreme Court, having determined that it had no jurisdiction, should have stopped writing. But, no, it went on to tell us what the decision it would have made if it had jurisdiction. In so doing, it inflamed a nation and accelerated the Civil War. The court having no jurisdiction, the long discussion about the constitutionality vel non of the Missouri Compromise, and the power vel non of Congress to prohibit slavery in the territories, was completely unnecessary and should have been avoided.
This Administration and the Joint Chiefs should resign. |
discerning history are you a teacher
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of
liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.
When people are able to take emotion and subjectivity out of this case, they will find that the SCOTUS decided this case right.
in what way?
cbenji07 Jim Crow was completely constitutional as it did not violate any federal laws or amendments. Separare but equal allowed for the races to integrate at will and not by force, which is what happened during the Civil Rights movement and lead to rioting and bad race relations.
+ButterCookie what does Jim crow or integration or the civil rights movement have to do with the Dred Scott decision?
cbenji07 Blacks did not have citizenship and therefore "rights" did not apply, especially any that gave standing to sue.
+ButterCookie What law said that? show me
🙌thank u
Worst ruling in Supreme Court history.
Recent supreme court decisions should make people of african descent understand that your place in america will always be uncertain.☹️
We are all Gods children...Shalom
Really... then why are we NOT all equal???
@@26socialbutterfly how are we not equal? We might not all be treated equally that doesn't mean our life doesn't have equal value and we shouldn't be treated equally. Just goes to show it's a fallen world.
we are lucky black people only want justice and not revenge
idk should i sub or noot
:))
it wass gr8
but i dont need all the info
RGG
Choices
ill sub
u have my approval
or do u??
Very helpful, thank you so much!
+Domingos Messa sureeee did
I watched this three times, I don't get it? I think I have had one punch too many to the head,
Slave owner moves to state where slavery was voted to be illegal.
Slaves says, "hey, why am I still a slave if slavery is illegal here? I'm gonna take this to court!"
Court says just because the people voted that slavery is illegal doesn't mean they can force the slave master to free their slaves. Slave master gets to keep slave.
The people who were against slavery in the North said "WHAT?? What did we even vote for, then??"
Slave Masters in the south said, "Hey, that sounds pretty good! Slavery is basically legal everywhere!"
They might have a fight about this soon...
Brian McHaney that makes sense, thanks for breaking it down, cheers
i bet all of those subs are just teachers
Lol
Lol
hi locksmith people
@ least he died thinking he & his people were finaly free!
its 2019 im watching this now lol
i 100% guaruntee that they did not say "african americans" at all. the word used was slaves or the decendants of slaves. it doesn't mention "african americans" at all it doesn't mention race. it doesn't mention color. it says slaves. yall tarnish taneys name with these bogus paraphrasings. the reason the word slave is used is because that was the question at hand. was this slave a free man simply because he crossed a state line. the answer is no because a slave by defnition is property and property cannot be a citizen by defninition. it was not taneys responsibility to write the laws. that is congresses job and congress had passed hundreds of laws establishing that slaves were property. there is a very important ruling about property here. your property is your property no matter where you live or where you go. mediocre try to judge great historical figures in trying times from a luxurious position of being born into a world generally free from the brutality of slavery. taney got no such luxury. he was dealing with a nation where brother was at brothers throat over this issue and the abolitionist movement was getting more and more violent and extreme with every passing day.
there is a lesson to be learned. in the end the civil war was so destructive and so horrific that no one would ever want another. lincoln thought he was great. he used his talents with words to speak to northerners who didn't like slavery for multiple reasons mostly having to do with money and power but needed a way to resolve this question with violent means on their terms a moral justification. lincoln would grow to regret his talents as an orator. this war would not be quick and easy. the only thing he did was prove that the most extreme voices in the south were correct. the northerners will no stop until they have destroyed everything and they did not.
7 Democrats 2 republicans Supreme Court justices
it was legal
But morally wrong. Even Americans knew it was wrong
Hopefully one day people will look back in sad bewilderment and ask, "You mean that murdering pre-born innocent children was legal? And millions were murdered that way?"
Yes, but it was morally wrong, the worst of all wrongs, and they knew it was wrong even then.
....And yet many would have him head the natin once 🔂 more.
i love to the video
You should play csgo :D
Poor guy
This is why it makes no sense for blacks to celebrate 4th of july.
dred scott wila travis scott
✨️✨️✨️
😊
dUDE HEAD LONG THAN A BISH!!!
+Keigh'Shawn Cleaves okay.
Tf.?
lmao!!
ok thanks I need that 😀
+Rhonda Harvey no problem
hehe
Yee 😆 haw ! The south will rise again !