I learned about the Dred Scott case back in high school, it was wild how they treated Dred Scott. Major hypocrisy with the supreme court, saying all men are equal, but nobody was equal.
The clue is in the language. All "men" are equal. By this specific framing, they were able to, and did, argue that since people of color, and women, were not considered men, that they were not equal, and were at best free people, but not citizens, ennumerated with limited, or no, rights, and at worst property equivalent to livestock, and thus holding no rights beyond that of animals. Curiously, there is a somewhat relevant law in Massachussets at that time regarding cruelty against animals, however, it did not guarantee the freedom of animals, only enforced their protection against those who would enact cruelty on them. I'm unsure whether this applied to livestock, which it is more likely slaves would have been regarded as at the time, as opposed to domestic animals. However, widespread animal rights throughout the United States would not come until much later (1907), long after Dred Scott's passing, so even those rights wouldn't have protected non-men from cruelty, which is one basis on which I would have attacked decisions by the courts at that time, as it could, and should, be argued that enslavement is a form of cruelty. However, that may have been an uphill battle if at that time, Missouri didn't yet have laws prohibiting cruelty against animals (I'm unsure whether they did, but it seems unlikely, given the long timeline between the first law passed regarding animal cruelty, and the widespread adoption of similar regulations in all states.) If you'll pardon my implications here - I think one way to encourage people to change the laws regarding whether slaves were defined as livestock would have been to challenge their definition as such on the basis of many slave owners engaging in lewd acts upon their slaves - if slaves were considered animals or livestock at that time, it would be easy to argue that to defile them with such acts would then be "against god and common decency" - either slave owners who had done such would need to be charged with indecent acts, or they would need to define slaves as being human, not animal. It's a hardball argument, for sure, and I'm sure it would not make one popular at that time, but I think perhaps it's an argument that could have held a lot of shock value, and may have encouraged a bit of a reckoning in the eyes of the court. In the case of women, they had protections guaranteeing married women the right to control some of their property and earnings as early as 1718 in Pennsylvania, but such would not be extended to women in Missouri until 1849. Any argument made on this basis for Scott's wife could have perhaps then been used to argue that giving her rights, but not him, would not be in keeping with the spirit of the law, as giving rights to a lower class (women) that were not extended to a higher class (men) would be off-kilter with prevailing opinions of the time. This, I think, would have been a stronger basis on which to argue in favor of granting their freedom, but I think the animal rights angle may have aided in strengthening the argument. To be clear, I'm not a lawyer, I don't know enough to make a fully informed argument, and I disagree with the decisions made by the courts at that time, and quite frankly consider those who made those decisions to be monsters, I simply wanted to highlight how such a decision was framed within its historical context, and how it could have been fought using some of the legal frameworks in place at that time.
"doubts? DOUBTS??!!" you have your doubts about the HIGHEST judicial body in the land that apparently has LIFETIME tenure (wtf is THAT anyway?), no FIXED number enumerated ANYWHERE in the constitution, is packed with religious zealots & proven LIARS that have no REAL commitment to "stare decisis " & seems to have no FIXED moral compass? k... but your comment about dred scott's status as a human vs that of a corporation IS spot on nonetheless. a VERY good point i must say. personally, i have NO doubts; the whole thing is a crock that reflects some of the FUNDAMENTAL problems of the U.S. (& won't be, CAN'T be cured w/o a constitutional convention-which is WAAAY overdue now anyway).
You know, there's a 153 years gap and tens of justices went by in between Dred v. Scott (1857) and Citizens United v. FEC (2010). So, I don't think that Justice Taney was a vampire (though he looked like it) who've been influencing SCOTUS for hundreds of years.
I am Black and Native American. This is why I never participate in the legal system here. I won't be in front of someone who doesn't look like Me physically!
@@tomasrocha6139 no, dumbo. Corporation is merely a legal entity. There's a huge different between an ENTITY and a PERSON. But you know, sometimes the law can be so utterly irrational and disregarding science.
My favorite worst SCOTUS decision is Buck v. Bell. The decision was about whether or not the forced sterilization of physically and mentally disabled persons was unconstitutional. The decision was 8 to 1 declaring the sterilization constitutional. But what was intriguing here is that Justice Holmes and Brandeis (who were considerably two of the most famous liberal justices ever) were in the majority, even more outrageous is that Justice Holmes was the one who wrote the majority opinion. Just because the justices were "liberal-leaning" doesn't mean they will produce a good decision and this one is certainly a big fucked up one.
Again that was right decision to have made. Especially considering the times. Most then didn't look after their retarded or physically disabled kids or if tried didn't have money or knowledge they'd have to give them up. If born that way should be eliminated. Lol its only past 50 to 100 years that defective babies stopped being eliminated more than not. Probably still is if consider abortions. These days its so easy to find out out and most moms do if the infant they're carrying is defective. Almost all if defective will abort it except extreme pro lifers. Lol its simply not fair rest of society pays for the defects. If born okay but some accident or such happened then okay you get a pass because its not genetic. Also think of how many kids born with a serious physical defect grow up to commit suicide over it or shut themselves off. Having fifty operations plus as little kid to be put through vast pain etc all because parents want you to live yet these are the very same people that'll euthanize a pet if its sick. Lol in finality tell me why is it if you have a transferrable diseases like STIs AIDS malaria etc and you spread it you get serious charges while serious genetic diseases like downs or excessive skeleton or heart holes etc not? Lol at your illogical opinion clearly not based on biology but hey that's the woke for y'all
Interesting that you mention this case. In the movie "Judgment and Nuremberg" (based on the war crime trials after WWII) Maximilian Schell mentions this case and reads from the Holmes opinion to defend the four men who are on trial for committing Nazi atrocities. Yes, this was indeed one hot mess decision. One of the cases that makes my blood boil is the Citizens United decision.
I suspect the mindset behind Buck vs Bell was still widespread in this country decades later. I’m quite surprised it was not *vigorously* applied to me back in the early sixties, due to being born with “birth defects.”
As someone who was educated in Missouri, we we not taught about this Enough! Like we mention it but just more like, "so Mr. Scott sued his slave owner, they said he wasn't human, anyways". Um no, we need to explain how terrible this is and the impact I had. If I wasn't such a history nerd, I likely won't know that much about it even when it was in my state
There is allot that has not been taught in public schools and what little history that has been taught is lies. It was the Democrats that had all the slaves, they ran the KKK, they voted against every bill or amendment that the Republican Party brought forth, voting rights, attending public schools with whites, not having separate bathrooms, not having to sit at the back of the bus, sitting at a lunch counter with whites. It’s down right scary how they seemed to flip things around and there were many prominate free black business owners that belonged to the Republican Party in the early 1800’s but the Democrats ran them out of towns setting fires to their businesses and homes hiding under white sheets. Its the truth but don’t use goog to research, that’s been flipped too. ❤ Peace and Love to all. ❤
I think it depends on what school district you’re in. In a predominantly black district, you’re going to learn about this. Predominantly white districts, you’re not gonna learn anything about black Americans & the unfairness endured which effects the present.
Good thing we have Gov DeSantis around to fix all of this then, isn't it? I'm sure that with his initiative to end 'diversity education' people will know much more of these important details than before, right?
there is a direct and straight line from Dred Scott to Ferguson. Missouri was born in blood and reared on White Supremacy. that’s very tough to overcome.
It's honestly amazing that the Supreme Court literally ruling that a certain class of people were property didn't irrevocably ruin it's credibility for the rest of American history.
@@bartdoo5757 The seven justices were right-wingers with conservative political views. It’s very telling that the GQP bigots try to exploit the ideological change between the political parties; clearly, y’all are aware of the shameful history of the right-wing.
I have to point this out. Yes, (white) women of that time period couldn't sign contracts or own money (07:50) but they could own slaves and hence manumit them as well, which Irene refused to do. I recommend reading 'They Were Her Property'. Fsntastic book.
Probably the only 'freedom' women had it that time. The marriage slave owning a slave. That's how they get you to see others as objects, cause they treat you like sh*t but are sliiiighty better.
Great job explaining Dred Scott decision, thanks. I've been curious about the details having heard it referenced frequently. Love your humor, Leeja, and your no nonsense approach along with the occasional F bomb. Telling it like it is!!! Thank you for your honesty and sharing your knowledge.
It's generally taught in American History class, if only briefly. I don't know why you wouldn't have heard about it. It was a huge deal and it led to even more tension between the North and South.
Great question But unfortunately things are not going to change anytime soon...States are passing so many laws restricting what teachers can discuss and even banning books WTF!
I'd love to see historical analyses done for other impactful US court cases from history like Dartmouth v Woodward, Obergefell v Hodges, Miranda v Arizona, Cohens v Virgina, and so many more. It's interesting to see how some court cases can end up changing history, defining the government, and writing the laws.
It's comical to me that historians describe Scott's inability to sue for freedom a mystery. It is no mystery, the man had no money. Slavers by definition did not pay the people they enslaved. We see a similar dilemma play out in wage theft situations. How is someone gonna sue to get their rightful wages back when they don't have money for a lawyer.
When you said "How did we get here?" I fully thought you were gonna start from the beginning of European imperialism, and almost checked how long the video was X) This case is totally wild. I look forwards (in the saddest way) to the rest of this series!
It’s so crazy how people can see other people as an “object”. Absolutely horrible and I’m glad we have become better at this however there is still a long way to go in racism.
As I see it, history has shown, slavery wasn’t always about racism. There were lots of other “isms” in play. American slavery became about race because of who the enslaved were, and as a way to justify it. The continued rationalization as to why it is ok to treat a group of people differently, en masse, still goes on with some people.
Not crazy at all...in today's world an unborn child is considered "property" that can be executed (in a brutal torture like fashion) on the woman's request. By someone who swore a Hippocratic Oath to "do no harm".
We still do that today...unborn children are only considered property and the woman having that child destroyed is seen as nothing more than an expression of reproductive freedom.
Thanks for the excellent history of the Dred Scott decision. I couldn't help thinking of that modern day-Taney, namely Chief Justice John Roberts who in Shelby vs. Holder led 5 Supreme Court Justices in striking down Section 4b of the 1965 Voting Rights Act of 1965, the part which required Southern state's with a history of discrimination to get federal pre-clearance for any changes to voting laws. "Our country has changed," Roberts wrote for the majority, "While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions." And POOF! African American went right back to the conditions of 1965 when Southern states were free to disenfranchise them, back then through poll taxes and literacy tests, and today they can be even more sophisticated by demanding voter IDs, striking voters with names like Washington and Jefferson from voter rolls, limiting drop boxes, limiting early and mail-in voting, eliminating convenient polling places, and that new rule in Georgia BANNING PEOPLE FROM GIVING WATER TO VOTERS WAITING IN LINE FOR EIGHT HOURS TO VOTE. No, nothing has changed. Those fucking Southern states are as racist today as they were back then.
In the dred Scott decision 7 democrat justices vote yea two republican justices voted against. Let that sink in when you think about Roberts. And Georgia said the party affiliating person can't give water it doesn't say the church staff, boy scouts, just not activist.
@@fredhaslitt1 One dissenting Judge self-identified as Whig, not Republican. And when will you modern-day Republicans stop identifying with the anti-slavery Republicans of the 1800s? You have far more in common with the pro-slavery Democrats of yesteryear than abolitionist Lincoln Republicans. That Georgia no-water-for-waiting-voters law was recently upheld by a federal judge for within 150 feet of a polling booth but was struck down outside of that area (Republicans had tried to extend that ban to the entire line). Have a nice day.
@@fredhaslitt1 I have learned never to trust any assertion made by a Republican and your comment proves my point. One of the dissenting judges self-identified as a Whig, not Republican. And when will you Republicans stop identifying with 1800s anti-slavery Republicans? You have far more in common with pro-slavery Democrats of that era. On the subject of the Georgian no-water-for-waiting-voters law, a federal court judge recently upheld that ban for within 150 feet of a polling place but struck it down for the rest of the line which Republicans had also sought to deprive of water.
I have to be honest with you… I didn’t know I had a need for this type of content in my life until now. You have a knack for turning something as dry as constitutional law history into entertainment, well done.
I will admit that some of those really old photos, I was rubbing my screen because I thought I had spilled coffee. I love this kind of video. More please. :)
@@justme-ti1rhNonsense, but ultimately this goes back to Bacon's Rebellion of 1676, after that Virginia and the Southern Gentry in general were determined to ensure that there will be no fraternizing between Blacks and poor Whites lest they unite on common Grounds and overthrow the Gentry and its Government.
I found the will of the white man who owned my great great grandfather. It was definitely jarring to see my grandfather's name listed as property in a legal document. Yes, they viewed black people as not human, akin to cattle or horses.
👏 Great video. I love the cheeky way you present these complicated legal history lessons. The snark makes all this stuff a little easier to stomach. Looking forward to more! Thanks also for the podcast recommendation! Will check it out
Let us hope that in the not-so-distant-future folks will find it beggars belief to think it just that one man should receive the capital/fruits of numerous people’s labor only to remunerate them with a an amount insufficient for a humane qualify of life, let alone an amount sufficient to invest so that they may, say in less than a decade (seven years of slavery in the Torah, for instance), sustain themselves as truly free versus wage slaves, for all effective purposes, to the cupiditous capitalist fat cat stealing their fair share of their joint venture’s profits. We tend to think, smugly, ourselves superior to Americans before 1864 and before 1965. We’re not. De facto slavery still exists today informally in the form of capitalism without humane economic checks and balances. The top 20% form what is essentially a caste and use the 80% majority for our labor for their excessive profit. (The book to read is Richard Reeves’ “Dream Hoarders.”) Roughly 3 out of 5 Americans are one paycheck away from homelessness. We don’t even have the numbers on how many Americans we intentionally make chronically ill so our Pharma-run, sickcare system can profit off us. That’s not life and liberty to pursue happiness!
Thats so weird. It's fucking stupid when people who teach history take the attitude of complete neutrality to the point that they won't even acknowledge that its wrong and messed up that human beings were treated as property.
@@KD-ou2np It's more like history teachers aren't often allowed to voice their own opinions or acknowledge the questionable morality of the whole situation. It sounds like this person is trying to say that their teacher wanted to say how messed up the whole situation was, but wasn't able to because of possible legal constraints or school policy.
As a BM I understand white hate well; it affords whites the ability use & disenfranchise black peoples for advantage & many whites need this help; but I strongly believe the Scott decision was a great thing for da majority of black southerners; if black folks were able to disperse away from da south we would not have any voting concentrated blocks; therefore zero political power.. now there many black ranned cities in da south morethan anywhere else; our homes are bigger nice than northern or western homes & less expensive; jobs easy to find, great weather; few crazy as white folks fuckin with us.. Dred Scott decision opened doors for a strong concentrated black middle class.. Yes 10-15% of black were damaged by this case but long term Dred Scott was da best Supreme Court decision ever for black folks..
@@peggedyourdad9560that's still weird... why is saying that this court decision is inhumane and immoral considered "too controversial for a teacher to express"
@@hherrie3tuoepiw I personally don’t think it is but it’s on the policies of the school the teacher is working at to determine what counts as too controversial. It also really depends on the area the school is in, some places are still dealing with the effects of Daughters of the Confederacy propaganda. Some parents also don’t like their kids to be taught the ugly realities of our country’s history and will flood the school with complaints that could lead to the teacher being fired.
@@LeejaMiller but could you do an introduction about it? like what's a defamation case, what do they need to do in order to "win"? like, what thing does each side needs to prove? Does it even matter if she was abusive, or that isn't relevant in this case? Cause I'm hearing a lot of confusing things in general and I think that a lot of us don't even know what a defamation case really is. Thank you♥️
My biggest beef with textualism/originalism/etc is that Jefferson -- the writer himself -- said "make sure y'all update this thing with the times, okay?" I mean the quote is _literally_ engraved on the wall of his DC memorial. He believed the Constitution should naturally expire after two decades if not intentionally updated so that later generations were not subjected to mindsets not of the times they were living in. So it is in fact anti-originalism to consider only the social context of the time things were written. The paradox is maddening.
Thank you for this presentation and thank you for making it an affirmative examination rather than one that casts absolute condemnation on the parties involved, no matter how much it might be deserved.
you are awesome and i am so on board for this series! thanks for the podcast tip as well. thank you, thank you for doing what you do! i really appreciate your effort to "demystify" the law ;)
Great video! Currently live in the Twin Cities Metro. I play on a church softball team, and all of our games are at Dred Scott Park in Bloomington. Without doing the extensive research that you have done, now I can see Fred Scott's connection to Minnesota.
If anyone wants to experience the best contemporary response to the Dred Scott decision, read Abraham Lincoln’s “Speech on Dred Scott”(June 26, 1857). As always, Lincoln’s 360 degree analyses of all the issues involved in that decision is pure genius….🙏🇱🇷🎩
The worst part of this case was the mental gymnastics to conclude that a black person can't possibly be a us citizen, despite there already were numerous free black us citizens and despite the founding fathers having thought that slavery should wither away. The decision that Dred Scott can't simply be free by stepping into Illinois was still correct though, and the basis should solely be on the fugitive slave clause under article IV, section 2, clause 3 of the US constitution which explicitly stated: "No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due." The clause was added because there was a common law precedent (Somerset v. Stewart, 1772) that slavery is of such a nature that is incapable of being introduced by any reason, but positive law. At the time, the colonists have already inherited common law, as in arguing against taxation without representation under the Stamp Act of 1765, they also used a common law precedent (Dr. Thomas Bonham v. College of Physicians, 1610) that an Act of Parliament can't be against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, such as allowing one to be both the judge and attorney of the same case. This precedent was even subsequently used by the US Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, 1803 to establish what we now know as the power of judicial review.
The fugitive slave laws did not apply because this case is beyond the scope of that. That act applied to fugitive slaves, Dred Scott was in the possession of his master when he was taken to free territory. If he and his wife had tried to run or escape while in the north, then those laws would attach.
Side note: that first paragraph is partially correct. The part about the founding fathers thinking that slavery should "wither" away is false. It just goes to show how easily we can be brainwashed by the version of history taught by those who hold the power. The founding fathers simply expressed that in their writings, but since we have the power of hindsight, knowing their actions, we shouldn't be teaching and repeating that nonsense any longer. Its almost like if a serial killer wrote that he was, at some random date in the future, going to stop killing and or raping his victims, but then went on and kept killing until the day he died. Then its irrelevant what he wrote on paper, and to then describe him as anti-murder or anti-rape would be disingenuous at best. No sane person would argue that.
I absolutely love hearing the legal aspects of fucked up judicial proceedings. Thank you for creating this series! You and Bailey Sarian are my favourites! Btw, I love love love your glasses Leeja!
LGBTQ 🏳🌈 ( and in jew/religious as that's also problematic with the ruling's ) someone should bring a case on BI/polygamy/swinging marriages licensing as there's bad case law on it at a federal and SOCTIS courtroom's leeja miller on main page has LGBTQ 🏳🌈rights and bad judgment's as part of her concerns so this's is vary relevant and needs fixing and awareness to others
I'll give you a suggestion, though, if you decide to continue with this series. Since it's different from your celebrity-centric videos, it's harder to follow on their first name basis and some of us might not be familiar with the characters you're talking about. You could try to reinforce the use of adjectives, like "the lawyer", "the wife", "the first enslaver", "the second enslaver", "the judge", for example. It would be a gift to the illiterate, like me. Thank you
Growing up in STL, MO I remember being taught that Dred Scott was sold back into slavery on the steps of the courthouse after losing his case to the state supreme court. (Obvious but, in case, it needs to be specified: this was presented as a horrible injustice and violation of Scott's humanity). I presume that information is incorrect based on this video. Now I wonder where the story came from. Likely some basis in the fact that they did have slave auctions on those courthouse steps.
Taney's ruling, particularly the part where he negated the ability of states to outlaw slavery within their territory, turned the "possibility" of an armed conflict into an inevitability.
So conservatives have always used the same tactics. Flaunt states rights when it’s convenient, and then use the federal government later to implement those state laws on everyone. Happened in Dredd and recently is happening with the overturning of Dobbs. It’s somewhat relieving to know that conservatives have always been awful and have always used the same goddamn tactics on every issue since the war for independence, but simultaneously frustrating that the liberals seem to be unable to defeat their arguments which can be easily refuted with a basic understanding of history and political warfare.
Great video, as always, Leeja. Ffs this country is so fucked up. Not-so-fun fact, the last slave in the U.S. wasn't released until the 1940s! Knowing Better has an excellent and infuriating video on it.
The old St Louis Courthouse is part of the Gateway Arch National Park, and you can get a guided tour of the courtroom where the Dred Scott court case took place. There is now a statue of Dred and Harriett Scott outside the courthouse today. Not mentioned here is the East steps of the old Courthouse was the actual slave market for the city of St Louis, so the Dred Scott case took place at a literal slave market. Peter Blow's granddaughter, Susan Elizabeth Blow, was a teacher who visited Germany and introduced the German concept of Kindergarten to St Louis public schools, becoming the first city in America to have Kindergarten. I think for many years it as believed Dred Scott was buried in an unmarked grave, but seeing the picture it has been found and a relatively new grave stone added.
Noooo, the constitution needs to be put back the way it was. And of course the 19th amendment needs to be repealed really bad. God has put the responsibility upon men to lead and protect society. God gave women other responsibilities that are just as important.
Interesting side note. Taney's brother-in-law Francis Scot Key, wrote the national anthem, during the War of 1812; a war in which the invading British army emancipated any slave that fell within their sphere. In the third verse of his national anthem are these terrifying threatening words to any slave or indentured servant who might be emancipated by the British..... No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave, And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave. In other words when we win, such freed slaves will be considered fugitives and re-enslaved face harsh punishment even death.
Think about how it would be at your job if you were filing a lawsuit against your boss. Now imagine they legally own you. Now extend that for over 10 years.
This is the Case I always compare "Dobbs V Jackson Women's Health" to... and after hearing the Justice Opinion I wonder if Samual Alito was thinking of that when he wrote the Majority opinion.
Question ❓ How is abortion compared to slavery ❓By insinuation❓ Because if a woman is forced to carry to term it amounts to slavery ❓ If not that then I truly do not understand. Thanks!
I think the more people learn about the supreme court acting like unelected high priests who are on the wrong side of history most of the time. The more people wish to simply abolish it and replace it with something else.
I think we the people should have at least a say in what they do. Either they get them term limits OR we do what we do in AZ. Where the governor can elect judges, and we the people get to vote them out if we think they are too biased.
@user-fk2yk8gg8j you guys really are obsessed with trans people aren’t you? This comment didn’t even have anything to do with them. Yet you still from a way to bring them up you obsessed weirdo.
I love history stories and you made me wish I had you as my history teacher when I was a kid. Thank you for one great history class of true facts some thing we all need
Boy I had no idea that this case was this convoluted, spanning several years and involving a plethora of courts. Makes for way more interesting story telling than any history book could ever do it.
He wanted to build a family and after that finally understood that freedom was worth it. I just got married to my wife and before then it was hard for me to focus on what I wanted until now. We are going to be creating a family and freedom, safety, etc is taking on new meanings
This case honestly should get talked about more because it directly rebuts the idea that judges at the Supreme Court are impartial. What scholars have published is that the justices HAD already decided what the case would turn out to be even before hearing it, and James Buchanan, then-President, was in direct l discussions with the supreme court Justice about what they SHOULD say. This was a very clear conflict of interests, political move by all parties involved who collided together. And NO ONE learned from it. It’s like watching the Cleveland browns, problems are there and quite clear yet nothing changes for the better. So while the media, and politicians, and some public school educators and idealistic historians (cough Ken burns) might say that the Supreme Court is a scared cow where partisanship is mostly gone, , this case directly shows how that idealism is wrong.
@@NSOcarth I have no idea why you’d think I’d want to automatically want someone like Judge Brown. And to be quite Frank, I do not agree with your analysis of brown. I am unconvinced she is an activist. And even if she was, that is not necessarily a bad thing. If she dosnt have a philosophy, then she dosnt. Dosnt mean anything. And no, I disagree with the idea of the constitution being necessarily colorblind. In certain institutions, there is the inside rules. The rules never explicitly said out loud. There is a gentleman’s agreement that certain things will run the way as they do. Think of baseball. Jackie Robinson’s start DID not mean true and faithful integration. It involved black players who were “exceptional,” the destruction of the negro league, and an internal quota system placed upon players. Blacks for example could play outfielder positions, but rarely could they be pitchers or MANAGERS. Not acceptable according to White mlb executives and players. The constitution DID not outlaw slavery, it did not have protections for freed slaves to become representatives, it was agreed to by all white, rich Americans who ALL had some form of benefit directly tied to slavery. This isn’t an opinion, this is a fact. Does that mean the constitution is racist? Well no, but you can research the words and actions of all of the founding fathers that they did agree slavery could be allowed to exist in this new world and that blacks were not white’s equals. And no i don’t mean morally agree but they agreed to tolerate it for the time. And it’s funny you brought up Lincoln. Lincoln himself was not free from bigotry. He sought to see if the government could effectively send blacks back to Africa. He did not believe black Americans were as equal as whites. So there is always that hidden “otherness” that is present. Does that mean Lincoln is not an anti racist hero? No that’s is a stupid position, but there is more grey than people like To admit. ,
Had the Taney Court stayed out or issued a non-controversial decision or dismissed for lack of jurisdiciton... ANYTHING other than a sweeping decision meant to put the lid on abolition and fix the problem it ultimately took a Civil War, Reconstruction and three (3) constitutional amendments just to address, nowhere near solve... Taney would be remembered today as a highly capable legal mind and judicial administrator the way Charles Evans Hughes is.
The Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality in the Dred Scott case. The US Constitution recognized the institution of chattel slavery until the 13th amendment ended it.
I learned about the Dred Scott case back in high school, it was wild how they treated Dred Scott.
Major hypocrisy with the supreme court, saying all men are equal, but nobody was equal.
The clue is in the language. All "men" are equal. By this specific framing, they were able to, and did, argue that since people of color, and women, were not considered men, that they were not equal, and were at best free people, but not citizens, ennumerated with limited, or no, rights, and at worst property equivalent to livestock, and thus holding no rights beyond that of animals.
Curiously, there is a somewhat relevant law in Massachussets at that time regarding cruelty against animals, however, it did not guarantee the freedom of animals, only enforced their protection against those who would enact cruelty on them. I'm unsure whether this applied to livestock, which it is more likely slaves would have been regarded as at the time, as opposed to domestic animals. However, widespread animal rights throughout the United States would not come until much later (1907), long after Dred Scott's passing, so even those rights wouldn't have protected non-men from cruelty, which is one basis on which I would have attacked decisions by the courts at that time, as it could, and should, be argued that enslavement is a form of cruelty. However, that may have been an uphill battle if at that time, Missouri didn't yet have laws prohibiting cruelty against animals (I'm unsure whether they did, but it seems unlikely, given the long timeline between the first law passed regarding animal cruelty, and the widespread adoption of similar regulations in all states.)
If you'll pardon my implications here - I think one way to encourage people to change the laws regarding whether slaves were defined as livestock would have been to challenge their definition as such on the basis of many slave owners engaging in lewd acts upon their slaves - if slaves were considered animals or livestock at that time, it would be easy to argue that to defile them with such acts would then be "against god and common decency" - either slave owners who had done such would need to be charged with indecent acts, or they would need to define slaves as being human, not animal. It's a hardball argument, for sure, and I'm sure it would not make one popular at that time, but I think perhaps it's an argument that could have held a lot of shock value, and may have encouraged a bit of a reckoning in the eyes of the court.
In the case of women, they had protections guaranteeing married women the right to control some of their property and earnings as early as 1718 in Pennsylvania, but such would not be extended to women in Missouri until 1849. Any argument made on this basis for Scott's wife could have perhaps then been used to argue that giving her rights, but not him, would not be in keeping with the spirit of the law, as giving rights to a lower class (women) that were not extended to a higher class (men) would be off-kilter with prevailing opinions of the time. This, I think, would have been a stronger basis on which to argue in favor of granting their freedom, but I think the animal rights angle may have aided in strengthening the argument.
To be clear, I'm not a lawyer, I don't know enough to make a fully informed argument, and I disagree with the decisions made by the courts at that time, and quite frankly consider those who made those decisions to be monsters, I simply wanted to highlight how such a decision was framed within its historical context, and how it could have been fought using some of the legal frameworks in place at that time.
And yet, fast forward to today where corporations are people 😖😡
So Dred Scott WASN'T a human being, but corporations ARE human beings. Because of decisions like this, I have my doubts about the Supreme Court.
"doubts? DOUBTS??!!" you have your doubts about the HIGHEST judicial body in the land that apparently has LIFETIME tenure (wtf is THAT anyway?), no FIXED number enumerated ANYWHERE in the constitution, is packed with religious zealots & proven LIARS that have no REAL commitment to "stare decisis " & seems to have no FIXED moral compass? k...
but your comment about dred scott's status as a human vs that of a corporation IS spot on nonetheless. a VERY good point i must say.
personally, i have NO doubts; the whole thing is a crock that reflects some of the FUNDAMENTAL problems of the U.S. (& won't be, CAN'T be cured w/o a constitutional convention-which is WAAAY overdue now anyway).
You know, there's a 153 years gap and tens of justices went by in between Dred v. Scott (1857) and Citizens United v. FEC (2010). So, I don't think that Justice Taney was a vampire (though he looked like it) who've been influencing SCOTUS for hundreds of years.
I am Black and Native American. This is why I never participate in the legal system here. I won't be in front of someone who doesn't look like Me physically!
Corporations have always been legal persons by definition if they weren't they would not be corporations.
@@tomasrocha6139 no, dumbo. Corporation is merely a legal entity. There's a huge different between an ENTITY and a PERSON. But you know, sometimes the law can be so utterly irrational and disregarding science.
He’s my 3x great grandfather. My family (his lineage) fight daily to teach his story in schools.
Good luck with Florida.
Or Texas.
We studied this in school....70s
In ohio and i constantly show my friends these kinds of stories and they look appalled to the point of disbelief because it just isn’t taught.
You are seriously of royal blood! 🩷
My favorite worst SCOTUS decision is Buck v. Bell. The decision was about whether or not the forced sterilization of physically and mentally disabled persons was unconstitutional. The decision was 8 to 1 declaring the sterilization constitutional. But what was intriguing here is that Justice Holmes and Brandeis (who were considerably two of the most famous liberal justices ever) were in the majority, even more outrageous is that Justice Holmes was the one who wrote the majority opinion. Just because the justices were "liberal-leaning" doesn't mean they will produce a good decision and this one is certainly a big fucked up one.
Again that was right decision to have made. Especially considering the times. Most then didn't look after their retarded or physically disabled kids or if tried didn't have money or knowledge they'd have to give them up. If born that way should be eliminated. Lol its only past 50 to 100 years that defective babies stopped being eliminated more than not. Probably still is if consider abortions. These days its so easy to find out out and most moms do if the infant they're carrying is defective. Almost all if defective will abort it except extreme pro lifers. Lol its simply not fair rest of society pays for the defects. If born okay but some accident or such happened then okay you get a pass because its not genetic. Also think of how many kids born with a serious physical defect grow up to commit suicide over it or shut themselves off. Having fifty operations plus as little kid to be put through vast pain etc all because parents want you to live yet these are the very same people that'll euthanize a pet if its sick. Lol in finality tell me why is it if you have a transferrable diseases like STIs AIDS malaria etc and you spread it you get serious charges while serious genetic diseases like downs or excessive skeleton or heart holes etc not? Lol at your illogical opinion clearly not based on biology but hey that's the woke for y'all
Completely and totally concur !!!!
@@jackb1969 but at that time, eugenics was a very prevalent ideology. So they thought the decision was justified based on that thought
Interesting that you mention this case. In the movie "Judgment and Nuremberg" (based on the war crime trials after WWII) Maximilian Schell mentions this case and reads from the Holmes opinion to defend the four men who are on trial for committing Nazi atrocities. Yes, this was indeed one hot mess decision. One of the cases that makes my blood boil is the Citizens United decision.
I suspect the mindset behind Buck vs Bell was still widespread in this country decades later. I’m quite surprised it was not *vigorously* applied to me back in the early sixties, due to being born with “birth defects.”
As someone who was educated in Missouri, we we not taught about this Enough! Like we mention it but just more like, "so Mr. Scott sued his slave owner, they said he wasn't human, anyways". Um no, we need to explain how terrible this is and the impact I had. If I wasn't such a history nerd, I likely won't know that much about it even when it was in my state
It is like that anywhere in the () world 🌍 🌎.
There is allot that has not been taught in public schools and what little history that has been taught is lies. It was the Democrats that had all the slaves, they ran the KKK, they voted against every bill or amendment that the Republican Party brought forth, voting rights, attending public schools with whites, not having separate bathrooms, not having to sit at the back of the bus, sitting at a lunch counter with whites. It’s down right scary how they seemed to flip things around and there were many prominate free black business owners that belonged to the Republican Party in the early 1800’s but the Democrats ran them out of towns setting fires to their businesses and homes hiding under white sheets. Its the truth but don’t use goog to research, that’s been flipped too. ❤ Peace and Love to all. ❤
I think it depends on what school district you’re in. In a predominantly black district, you’re going to learn about this. Predominantly white districts, you’re not gonna learn anything about black Americans & the unfairness endured which effects the present.
Good thing we have Gov DeSantis around to fix all of this then, isn't it? I'm sure that with his initiative to end 'diversity education' people will know much more of these important details than before, right?
there is a direct and straight line from Dred Scott to Ferguson. Missouri was born in blood and reared on White Supremacy. that’s very tough to overcome.
It's honestly amazing that the Supreme Court literally ruling that a certain class of people were property didn't irrevocably ruin it's credibility for the rest of American history.
It’s because the history is constantly being repressed
All seven justices that ruled against Dred Scott were Democrats.
@@bartdoo5757 You mean Democratic appointees, right?
It's not that amazing when you find out about the papal bull
@@bartdoo5757 The seven justices were right-wingers with conservative political views. It’s very telling that the GQP bigots try to exploit the ideological change between the political parties; clearly, y’all are aware of the shameful history of the right-wing.
I have to point this out. Yes, (white) women of that time period couldn't sign contracts or own money (07:50) but they could own slaves and hence manumit them as well, which Irene refused to do. I recommend reading 'They Were Her Property'. Fsntastic book.
Probably the only 'freedom' women had it that time. The marriage slave owning a slave. That's how they get you to see others as objects, cause they treat you like sh*t but are sliiiighty better.
Great job explaining Dred Scott decision, thanks. I've been curious about the details having heard it referenced frequently. Love your humor, Leeja, and your no nonsense approach along with the occasional F bomb. Telling it like it is!!! Thank you for your honesty and sharing your knowledge.
I studied the American Civil War in school and I've never heard of this case, why is the education system so bad?
Ugh wow that is really bad!!
Let me guess, you're in the south or the Rainy Racists corner
Or the UK.....
It's generally taught in American History class, if only briefly. I don't know why you wouldn't have heard about it. It was a huge deal and it led to even more tension between the North and South.
Great question
But unfortunately things are not going to change anytime soon...States are passing so many laws restricting what teachers can discuss and even banning books WTF!
I'd love to see historical analyses done for other impactful US court cases from history like Dartmouth v Woodward, Obergefell v Hodges, Miranda v Arizona, Cohens v Virgina, and so many more. It's interesting to see how some court cases can end up changing history, defining the government, and writing the laws.
Don't forget citizens united
It's comical to me that historians describe Scott's inability to sue for freedom a mystery. It is no mystery, the man had no money. Slavers by definition did not pay the people they enslaved. We see a similar dilemma play out in wage theft situations. How is someone gonna sue to get their rightful wages back when they don't have money for a lawyer.
I love finding Minnesota youtube lawyers!!! As a fellow MN (baby) attorney, I aspire to explain legal concepts in normal-human speak like you do!
best video to date. I love the sass mixed with the serious nature of subject matter. Brava on your work
Aw thank you!!!
@@LeejaMilleralso love your videos,l apreciate you very
Could leave the zoom alone. Just a note.
When you said "How did we get here?" I fully thought you were gonna start from the beginning of European imperialism, and almost checked how long the video was X)
This case is totally wild. I look forwards (in the saddest way) to the rest of this series!
It’s so crazy how people can see other people as an “object”. Absolutely horrible and I’m glad we have become better at this however there is still a long way to go in racism.
As I see it, history has shown, slavery wasn’t always about racism. There were lots of other “isms” in play. American slavery became about race because of who the enslaved were, and as a way to justify it. The continued rationalization as to why it is ok to treat a group of people differently, en masse, still goes on with some people.
Not crazy at all...in today's world an unborn child is considered "property" that can be executed (in a brutal torture like fashion) on the woman's request. By someone who swore a Hippocratic Oath to "do no harm".
We still do that today...unborn children are only considered property and the woman having that child destroyed is seen as nothing more than an expression of reproductive freedom.
You are surely talking about men objectifying wemon in other countries. That couldn't happen here. Right?
Seeing a person as an object is the foundation of the future sexual abuse of that person.
Thanks for the excellent history of the Dred Scott decision. I couldn't help thinking of that modern day-Taney, namely Chief Justice John Roberts who in Shelby vs. Holder led 5 Supreme Court Justices in striking down Section 4b of the 1965 Voting Rights Act of 1965, the part which required Southern state's with a history of discrimination to get federal pre-clearance for any changes to voting laws. "Our country has changed," Roberts wrote for the majority, "While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions." And POOF! African American went right back to the conditions of 1965 when Southern states were free to disenfranchise them, back then through poll taxes and literacy tests, and today they can be even more sophisticated by demanding voter IDs, striking voters with names like Washington and Jefferson from voter rolls, limiting drop boxes, limiting early and mail-in voting, eliminating convenient polling places, and that new rule in Georgia BANNING PEOPLE FROM GIVING WATER TO VOTERS WAITING IN LINE FOR EIGHT HOURS TO VOTE. No, nothing has changed. Those fucking Southern states are as racist today as they were back then.
In the dred Scott decision 7 democrat justices vote yea two republican justices voted against. Let that sink in when you think about Roberts. And Georgia said the party affiliating person can't give water it doesn't say the church staff, boy scouts, just not activist.
@@fredhaslitt1 One dissenting Judge self-identified as Whig, not Republican. And when will you modern-day Republicans stop identifying with the anti-slavery Republicans of the 1800s? You have far more in common with the pro-slavery Democrats of yesteryear than abolitionist Lincoln Republicans. That Georgia no-water-for-waiting-voters law was recently upheld by a federal judge for within 150 feet of a polling booth but was struck down outside of that area (Republicans had tried to extend that ban to the entire line). Have a nice day.
@@fredhaslitt1 I have learned never to trust any assertion made by a Republican and your comment proves my point. One of the dissenting judges self-identified as a Whig, not Republican. And when will you Republicans stop identifying with 1800s anti-slavery Republicans? You have far more in common with pro-slavery Democrats of that era. On the subject of the Georgian no-water-for-waiting-voters law, a federal court judge recently upheld that ban for within 150 feet of a polling place but struck it down for the rest of the line which Republicans had also sought to deprive of water.
Thanks!
I have to be honest with you… I didn’t know I had a need for this type of content in my life until now. You have a knack for turning something as dry as constitutional law history into entertainment, well done.
I will admit that some of those really old photos, I was rubbing my screen because I thought I had spilled coffee. I love this kind of video. More please. :)
This is one of the clearest cases to show how obvious it is that "textualism" or "originalism" is completely intellectually bankrupt.
'Why is it always about color?' Ask your parents and grandparents. Stop asking us.
Because the first slave owner was a black man and he made slaves a lifetime. Andrew Johnson like him up
@@justme-ti1rh you're not half as intelligent as you think you are.
@@justme-ti1rh White people own the majority of slaves. Get a life
@@justme-ti1rhNonsense, but ultimately this goes back to Bacon's Rebellion of 1676, after that Virginia and the Southern Gentry in general were determined to ensure that there will be no fraternizing between Blacks and poor Whites lest they unite on common Grounds and overthrow the Gentry and its Government.
@@justme-ti1rhsure clown
I found the will of the white man who owned my great great grandfather. It was definitely jarring to see my grandfather's name listed as property in a legal document. Yes, they viewed black people as not human, akin to cattle or horses.
That's crazy! I hope you save that document for the white folk that won't believe they're own history
When I want to know the mind of a slaveholder from the 1850s, I got to @TheRealZarp
👏 Great video. I love the cheeky way you present these complicated legal history lessons. The snark makes all this stuff a little easier to stomach. Looking forward to more! Thanks also for the podcast recommendation! Will check it out
Exactly how I feel! You put words to it haha :)
11:30 It's just me that feels every time the decision is shitty the "will of god" is invoked?
I, to this day, cannot fathom thinking of another person as property. That ish is insane to me.
Let us hope that in the not-so-distant-future folks will find it beggars belief to think it just that one man should receive the capital/fruits of numerous people’s labor only to remunerate them with a an amount insufficient for a humane qualify of life, let alone an amount sufficient to invest so that they may, say in less than a decade (seven years of slavery in the Torah, for instance), sustain themselves as truly free versus wage slaves, for all effective purposes, to the cupiditous capitalist fat cat stealing their fair share of their joint venture’s profits.
We tend to think, smugly, ourselves superior to Americans before 1864 and before 1965. We’re not. De facto slavery still exists today informally in the form of capitalism without humane economic checks and balances. The top 20% form what is essentially a caste and use the 80% majority for our labor for their excessive profit. (The book to read is Richard Reeves’ “Dream Hoarders.”)
Roughly 3 out of 5 Americans are one paycheck away from homelessness. We don’t even have the numbers on how many Americans we intentionally make chronically ill so our Pharma-run, sickcare system can profit off us. That’s not life and liberty to pursue happiness!
It still goes on today only it's called marriage.
we talked about this in history and my teacher had to try not to say its f*cked up, but it really is
Thats so weird. It's fucking stupid when people who teach history take the attitude of complete neutrality to the point that they won't even acknowledge that its wrong and messed up that human beings were treated as property.
@@KD-ou2np It's more like history teachers aren't often allowed to voice their own opinions or acknowledge the questionable morality of the whole situation. It sounds like this person is trying to say that their teacher wanted to say how messed up the whole situation was, but wasn't able to because of possible legal constraints or school policy.
As a BM I understand white hate well; it affords whites the ability use & disenfranchise black peoples for advantage & many whites need this help; but I strongly believe the Scott decision was a great thing for da majority of black southerners; if black folks were able to disperse away from da south we would not have any voting concentrated blocks; therefore zero political power.. now there many black ranned cities in da south morethan anywhere else; our homes are bigger nice than northern or western homes & less expensive; jobs easy to find, great weather; few crazy as white folks fuckin with us.. Dred Scott decision opened doors for a strong concentrated black middle class.. Yes 10-15% of black were damaged by this case but long term Dred Scott was da best Supreme Court decision ever for black folks..
@@peggedyourdad9560that's still weird... why is saying that this court decision is inhumane and immoral considered "too controversial for a teacher to express"
@@hherrie3tuoepiw I personally don’t think it is but it’s on the policies of the school the teacher is working at to determine what counts as too controversial. It also really depends on the area the school is in, some places are still dealing with the effects of Daughters of the Confederacy propaganda. Some parents also don’t like their kids to be taught the ugly realities of our country’s history and will flood the school with complaints that could lead to the teacher being fired.
Hei Leejah, I know it's still ongoing, but do you plan on talking about the new Amber heard vs Johnny Deep trial? Maybe make a live about it?
Yes!! I’m waiting for the trial to unfold a bit more, last I checked it’s supposed to go through May
@@LeejaMiller but could you do an introduction about it? like what's a defamation case, what do they need to do in order to "win"? like, what thing does each side needs to prove?
Does it even matter if she was abusive, or that isn't relevant in this case?
Cause I'm hearing a lot of confusing things in general and I think that a lot of us don't even know what a defamation case really is.
Thank you♥️
Please no.. I've had enough of celebrity cases.
I'd prefer some attention to lesser known but more impactful cases/incidents out there
@@LeejaMiller thank you for your video on the Amber Heard case.
That was really good. Thank you.
Thank you for this, Leeja! Love the channel!
My biggest beef with textualism/originalism/etc is that Jefferson -- the writer himself -- said "make sure y'all update this thing with the times, okay?" I mean the quote is _literally_ engraved on the wall of his DC memorial. He believed the Constitution should naturally expire after two decades if not intentionally updated so that later generations were not subjected to mindsets not of the times they were living in. So it is in fact anti-originalism to consider only the social context of the time things were written. The paradox is maddening.
I love your videos, so much fascinating history and social commentary… Thank you so much.
Thank you for this presentation and thank you for making it an affirmative examination rather than one that casts absolute condemnation on the parties involved, no matter how much it might be deserved.
Thank you for your excellent presentation ❤❤❤ I really appreciate learning the finer details of the Dred Scott decision.
you are awesome and i am so on board for this series! thanks for the podcast tip as well. thank you, thank you for doing what you do! i really appreciate your effort to "demystify" the law ;)
I’m from St. Louis Missouri and I live right by that courthouse building …. It still sucks!!!
Great video! Currently live in the Twin Cities Metro. I play on a church softball team, and all of our games are at Dred Scott Park in Bloomington. Without doing the extensive research that you have done, now I can see Fred Scott's connection to Minnesota.
Just discovered your channel and I love your exposition. Please keep it up!
If anyone wants to experience the best contemporary response to the Dred Scott decision, read Abraham Lincoln’s “Speech on Dred Scott”(June 26, 1857). As always, Lincoln’s 360 degree analyses of all the issues involved in that decision is pure genius….🙏🇱🇷🎩
The worst part of this case was the mental gymnastics to conclude that a black person can't possibly be a us citizen, despite there already were numerous free black us citizens and despite the founding fathers having thought that slavery should wither away.
The decision that Dred Scott can't simply be free by stepping into Illinois was still correct though, and the basis should solely be on the fugitive slave clause under article IV, section 2, clause 3 of the US constitution which explicitly stated:
"No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due."
The clause was added because there was a common law precedent (Somerset v. Stewart, 1772) that slavery is of such a nature that is incapable of being introduced by any reason, but positive law. At the time, the colonists have already inherited common law, as in arguing against taxation without representation under the Stamp Act of 1765, they also used a common law precedent (Dr. Thomas Bonham v. College of Physicians, 1610) that an Act of Parliament can't be against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, such as allowing one to be both the judge and attorney of the same case. This precedent was even subsequently used by the US Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, 1803 to establish what we now know as the power of judicial review.
The fugitive slave laws did not apply because this case is beyond the scope of that. That act applied to fugitive slaves, Dred Scott was in the possession of his master when he was taken to free territory. If he and his wife had tried to run or escape while in the north, then those laws would attach.
Side note: that first paragraph is partially correct. The part about the founding fathers thinking that slavery should "wither" away is false. It just goes to show how easily we can be brainwashed by the version of history taught by those who hold the power. The founding fathers simply expressed that in their writings, but since we have the power of hindsight, knowing their actions, we shouldn't be teaching and repeating that nonsense any longer.
Its almost like if a serial killer wrote that he was, at some random date in the future, going to stop killing and or raping his victims, but then went on and kept killing until the day he died. Then its irrelevant what he wrote on paper, and to then describe him as anti-murder or anti-rape would be disingenuous at best. No sane person would argue that.
please always include a full rant in these, tysm ! great video!!
Excellent video and explanation of the "Dred Scott Decision". Thank you!
You bodied (slam dunked) THIS video essay. It's pregnant with details. I think I'm an expert on this subject now. Thank you ma'am 👏🏾👏🏾
I absolutely love hearing the legal aspects of fucked up judicial proceedings. Thank you for creating this series! You and Bailey Sarian are my favourites! Btw, I love love love your glasses Leeja!
LGBTQ 🏳🌈 ( and in jew/religious as that's also problematic with the ruling's ) someone should bring a case on BI/polygamy/swinging marriages licensing as there's bad case law on it at a federal and SOCTIS courtroom's
leeja miller on main page has LGBTQ 🏳🌈rights and bad judgment's as part of her concerns so this's is vary relevant and needs fixing and awareness to others
This is a VERY GOOD idea for a series, Mary
I'll give you a suggestion, though, if you decide to continue with this series. Since it's different from your celebrity-centric videos, it's harder to follow on their first name basis and some of us might not be familiar with the characters you're talking about.
You could try to reinforce the use of adjectives, like "the lawyer", "the wife", "the first enslaver", "the second enslaver", "the judge", for example.
It would be a gift to the illiterate, like me. Thank you
Tysm! And thank you that’s a good tip!
Growing up in STL, MO I remember being taught that Dred Scott was sold back into slavery on the steps of the courthouse after losing his case to the state supreme court. (Obvious but, in case, it needs to be specified: this was presented as a horrible injustice and violation of Scott's humanity). I presume that information is incorrect based on this video. Now I wonder where the story came from. Likely some basis in the fact that they did have slave auctions on those courthouse steps.
Maybe he should've run to the UK as a free man. Fighting to lose ain't worth it
Love your podcasts. Never stop!
Wine Subscription is my new Drag Name
Lolllllllll
Taney's ruling, particularly the part where he negated the ability of states to outlaw slavery within their territory, turned the "possibility" of an armed conflict into an inevitability.
Leeja, thank you so much for this history. Looking forward to more videos. Side fact: your lipstick 💄 color is gorgeous.
For everyone out there, learning about this is called CRT.
So conservatives have always used the same tactics. Flaunt states rights when it’s convenient, and then use the federal government later to implement those state laws on everyone. Happened in Dredd and recently is happening with the overturning of Dobbs. It’s somewhat relieving to know that conservatives have always been awful and have always used the same goddamn tactics on every issue since the war for independence, but simultaneously frustrating that the liberals seem to be unable to defeat their arguments which can be easily refuted with a basic understanding of history and political warfare.
And they would’ve gotten away with it too if it wasn’t for you genius to lay it all bare.
Its so hard not to want to spit at conservatives.
I love the way you do the video great information. Lovly. Thanks for the information.
Great video, as always, Leeja. Ffs this country is so fucked up. Not-so-fun fact, the last slave in the U.S. wasn't released until the 1940s! Knowing Better has an excellent and infuriating video on it.
The court house where the decision was made can be seen in many pictures of the St. Louis arch, depending on the angle the picture was taken.
Your content is so good!
Hi! Just want to say thank you! I am learning so much from you about the legal system and you make it SO interesting!
Why is it that "what the FOUNDERS wanted" is always what's used to make the WORST decisions?
The old St Louis Courthouse is part of the Gateway Arch National Park, and you can get a guided tour of the courtroom where the Dred Scott court case took place. There is now a statue of Dred and Harriett Scott outside the courthouse today. Not mentioned here is the East steps of the old Courthouse was the actual slave market for the city of St Louis, so the Dred Scott case took place at a literal slave market. Peter Blow's granddaughter, Susan Elizabeth Blow, was a teacher who visited Germany and introduced the German concept of Kindergarten to St Louis public schools, becoming the first city in America to have Kindergarten. I think for many years it as believed Dred Scott was buried in an unmarked grave, but seeing the picture it has been found and a relatively new grave stone added.
The current court is looking at cases like this and thinking "hold my beer".
Yasss girl!!! The constitution needs to be majorly updated and modernized like badddd
Noooo, the constitution needs to be put back the way it was. And of course the 19th amendment needs to be repealed really bad. God has put the responsibility upon men to lead and protect society. God gave women other responsibilities that are just as important.
Indeed because the stupid conservative racists don’t know enough about issues
F Scott Key wrote the National Anthem, was a slave catcher and was the biz partner of the SCOTUS judge in this case.
Interesting side note. Taney's brother-in-law Francis Scot Key, wrote the national anthem, during the War of 1812; a war in which the invading British army emancipated any slave that fell within their sphere. In the third verse of his national anthem are these terrifying threatening words to any slave or indentured servant who might be emancipated by the British.....
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
In other words when we win, such freed slaves will be considered fugitives and re-enslaved face harsh punishment even death.
Think about how it would be at your job if you were filing a lawsuit against your boss. Now imagine they legally own you. Now extend that for over 10 years.
Migrant workers often become enslaved. Also women and children who are trafficked.
The new series I was waiting for!
This is the Case I always compare "Dobbs V Jackson Women's Health" to... and after hearing the Justice Opinion I wonder if Samual Alito was thinking of that when he wrote the Majority opinion.
Question ❓ How is abortion compared to slavery ❓By insinuation❓ Because if a woman is forced to carry to term it amounts to slavery ❓ If not that then I truly do not understand. Thanks!
Great historical background... I actually knew very little of this critical case other than the outcomes
“I’m not leaving this house.” She turns and admiring glances at the results of her hard work.) “Why would I?” 😂
Thank you for very important info!
Well done and thank you!
Thank you for that history teaching, as a Black Man ive heard of this but never got the details, you made it quick and understandable thanks again.
Lady, that was well done...thank you.
Thank leeja!!
I think the more people learn about the supreme court acting like unelected high priests who are on the wrong side of history most of the time. The more people wish to simply abolish it and replace it with something else.
I think we the people should have at least a say in what they do. Either they get them term limits OR we do what we do in AZ. Where the governor can elect judges, and we the people get to vote them out if we think they are too biased.
@user-fk2yk8gg8j you guys really are obsessed with trans people aren’t you? This comment didn’t even have anything to do with them. Yet you still from a way to bring them up you obsessed weirdo.
I love history stories and you made me wish I had you as my history teacher when I was a kid. Thank you for one great history class of true facts some thing we all need
If you were in Florida theyd say you were teaching CRT when in the rest of the world, its just plain history
Boy I had no idea that this case was this convoluted, spanning several years and involving a plethora of courts. Makes for way more interesting story telling than any history book could ever do it.
News to me, too…
We need a movie of this immediately. Black People to see this. Thanks💖✨✨
WE ARE NOT GOING BACK!!!
Well, SCOTUS saw the title of this video and said, "hold my beer..." 😭
So happy I found your channel, I too am a Minnesota native (living about 10 minutes from Snelling) Keep up the good work!
Thank you. That was a very interesting video and the first time I've heard any detail about that case.
Suggestion for a story that involves a lot of history, and one that takes a wild ride, I would love for your overview of McGirt v. Oklahoma!
I feel like I would've paid more attention in history class if you taught it.
Agreed . But remember in school they barely glossed over any TRUTH .
Even in mid-seventies A.P. history - chiefly because they just had a year.
I LOVE this pair of glasses on you! Warby Parker I assume?
hey you're real smart and this video is good so I subscribed and if you keep doing stuff like this I'll keep enjoying it.
He wanted to build a family and after that finally understood that freedom was worth it. I just got married to my wife and before then it was hard for me to focus on what I wanted until now. We are going to be creating a family and freedom, safety, etc is taking on new meanings
Great video!
Great video, leeja! :)
thanks for the history lesson! also your lipstick goes great with your glasses
It was the hair flip for me 😆 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 I love your content ma'am thanks for the truth and history and comedy all in one
Now this one we *DID* study in school...i don't remember much now, but the name Dred you can never forget.
This case honestly should get talked about more because it directly rebuts the idea that judges at the Supreme Court are impartial. What scholars have published is that the justices HAD already decided what the case would turn out to be even before hearing it, and James Buchanan, then-President, was in direct l discussions with the supreme court Justice about what they SHOULD say. This was a very clear conflict of interests, political move by all parties involved who collided together. And NO ONE learned from it. It’s like watching the Cleveland browns, problems are there and quite clear yet nothing changes for the better.
So while the media, and politicians, and some public school educators and idealistic historians (cough Ken burns) might say that the Supreme Court is a scared cow where partisanship is mostly gone, , this case directly shows how that idealism is wrong.
@@NSOcarth I have no idea why you’d think I’d want to automatically want someone like Judge Brown. And to be quite Frank, I do not agree with your analysis of brown. I am unconvinced she is an activist. And even if she was, that is not necessarily a bad thing. If she dosnt have a philosophy, then she dosnt. Dosnt mean anything. And no, I disagree with the idea of the constitution being necessarily colorblind. In certain institutions, there is the inside rules. The rules never explicitly said out loud. There is a gentleman’s agreement that certain things will run the way as they do. Think of baseball. Jackie Robinson’s start DID not mean true and faithful integration. It involved black players who were “exceptional,” the destruction of the negro league, and an internal quota system placed upon players. Blacks for example could play outfielder positions, but rarely could they be pitchers or MANAGERS. Not acceptable according to White mlb executives and players.
The constitution DID not outlaw slavery, it did not have protections for freed slaves to become representatives, it was agreed to by all white, rich Americans who ALL had some form of benefit directly tied to slavery. This isn’t an opinion, this is a fact.
Does that mean the constitution is racist? Well no, but you can research the words and actions of all of the founding fathers that they did agree slavery could be allowed to exist in this new world and that blacks were not white’s equals. And no i don’t mean morally agree but they agreed to tolerate it for the time.
And it’s funny you brought up Lincoln. Lincoln himself was not free from bigotry. He sought to see if the government could effectively send blacks back to Africa. He did not believe black Americans were as equal as whites. So there is always that hidden “otherness” that is present. Does that mean Lincoln is not an anti racist hero? No that’s is a stupid position, but there is more grey than people like To admit.
,
Once again, you are giving the people (me) what they want! YES!
That was really good. Thank you.
Great stuff, Leeja! Well done. 👍💪😃
LOVE THIS!!
Had the Taney Court stayed out or issued a non-controversial decision or dismissed for lack of jurisdiciton... ANYTHING other than a sweeping decision meant to put the lid on abolition and fix the problem it ultimately took a Civil War, Reconstruction and three (3) constitutional amendments just to address, nowhere near solve...
Taney would be remembered today as a highly capable legal mind and judicial administrator the way Charles Evans Hughes is.
Love your content so much!
Love your videos. Have you ever thought about doing something on Tiger King? There was a forged will, among other things.
Imagine all of the incidents we don't know of across U.S. history.
The Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality in the Dred Scott case. The US Constitution recognized the institution of chattel slavery until the 13th amendment ended it.