If Scott's case was dismissed because, as slave he has no right to sue, then why was his case heard at the very first place? Would that not have perfectly shown the attitude that Scott was ACTUALLY a citizen exercising his civil rights?
here is a list of the entire video's captions (type ctrl+f) then type in what you are looking for. 00:00 - [Narrator] Dred Scott versus Sandford 00:01 is one of the most infamous cases in American history. 00:05 In it, the United States Supreme Court 00:07 denied citizenship to millions of black Americans 00:10 and abolished a federal law allowing some states 00:13 to outlaw slavery. 00:15 This decision arguable contributed to the 00:17 outbreak of the Civil War just a few years later. 00:21 Dred Scott was a slave owned by an army doctor 00:23 named Emerson who lived in Missouri. 00:26 In 1834, Emerson was sent to Illinois, a free state, 00:30 and he took Scott with him. 00:32 Emerson later took Scott to Fort Snelling 00:34 in modern Minnesota, a free territory. 00:37 In 1838, Emerson, Scott, and Scott's enslaved family 00:41 returned to Missouri. 00:43 When Emerson died, Scott sued Emerson's widow 00:45 for his freedom in Missouri state court 00:48 after she refused to let Scott to purchase his freedom. 00:51 Scott's argument was based on the Missouri Compromise Act. 00:54 The Act was a federal law that had outlawed slavery 00:58 in Illinois and the Fort Snelling territory. 01:01 Scott argued that when he and his family 01:03 were taken to those areas, they became free 01:05 and could not be legally re-enslaved 01:07 when they later returned to Missouri. 01:10 The Missouri State Supreme Court ultimately ruled 01:12 that Scott was still a slave. 01:15 Ownership of Scott and his family 01:17 subsequently passed to a man named John Sandford. 01:20 For a second time, Scott sued for his family's freedom. 01:24 This time in federal court. 01:25 Applying Missouri law, the federal circuit court 01:28 concluded that Scott was still a slave. 01:31 The United States Supreme Court agreed to hear Scott's case 01:34 to address two important questions. 01:37 One, were slaves and their descendants 01:39 citizens under the Constitution? 01:41 And two, was the Missouri Compromise Act constitutional? 01:46 Chief Justice Taney, writing for the majority, 01:48 decided that slaves were not United States citizens 01:51 and that the Missouri Compromise Act was unconstitutional. 01:55 First, Taney reasoned that the Constitution's drafters 01:58 didn't intend to include black people 02:01 in the term citizen, 02:02 and certainly not black slaves. 02:04 By giving the states the continued right 02:06 to engage in slavery, the Constitution expressly 02:09 singled out black people as separate and apart 02:12 from United States citizens. 02:14 Regardless of whether attitudes had changed, 02:16 the original meaning of the term citizen still applied. 02:20 Further, no individual state has the authority 02:23 to grant U.S. citizenship. 02:25 Just because Illinois grants freedom 02:27 to black men and women does not mean 02:29 they're citizens of any other state or the United States. 02:32 Second, Taney also rejected Scott's argument 02:35 that the Missouri Compromise Act had set him and his family 02:38 free when they entered Illinois or Fort Snelling. 02:41 Taney found that the Missouri Compromise 02:43 was unconstitutional because setting slaves free 02:46 deprived the owners of their property rights 02:49 over those slaves. 02:50 And the Constitution specifically says 02:53 the government can't just take private property. 02:55 Because the act was unconstitutional, 02:58 it couldn't free Scott. 03:00 At the end of the day, Taney wasn't sure 03:02 that even free black people were citizens. 03:04 But Taney was sure black slaves were not citizens 03:08 and that Scott was still a slave. 03:10 Because Scott wasn't a citizen, 03:12 he couldn't sue in federal court, 03:14 and his case had to be dismissed. 03:16 Six justices voted with Chief Justice Taney. 03:20 Each of them wrote separately, 03:22 emphasizing or further explaining 03:23 a portion of the majority opinion. 03:26 Notably, Justice Campbell disagreed 03:28 that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional 03:31 when applied to territories that were not yet states. 03:34 Only two justices, McLean and Curtiss, dissented. 03:38 Each argued that Scott was a United States citizen. 03:41 Justice McLean wrote that Scott and all slaves 03:44 were citizens by virtue of being born 03:46 under the Constitution and subject to its laws. 03:50 However, McLean also argued that the Missouri Compromise 03:53 was constitutional as applied to territories. 03:56 Residents of the territories didn't have the same 03:59 constitutional rights as residents of states, 04:02 and McLean believed that the Missouri Compromise 04:04 could constitutionally take private property away 04:07 from territory residents by freeing slaves. 04:11 In his dissent, Justice Curtiss took issue 04:13 with Taney's definition of citizen, 04:15 pointing out that Article II of the Constitution 04:18 refers to citizens, quote, 04:19 at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, unquote. 04:23 At that time, the term citizen would have included 04:26 many people of African descent who were recognized 04:29 as citizens in free states. 04:31 Therefore, the Constitution's framers 04:33 couldn't of thought that black Americans 04:35 could never be citizens. 04:37 Dred Scott versus Sandford was overturned 04:40 following the Civil War, 04:42 but damaged the Supreme Court's reputation so greatly 04:45 that future Chief Justice Evans Hughes 04:47 famously referred to the Dred Scott decision 04:50 as a quote, self-inflicted wound, unquote.
Either I’m going crazy because of the overwhelming amount of history homework, or the man in this video sounded a lot like handy unit from Five Nights At Freddy’s 6
There's even more to the story: President James Buchanan applied a lot of influence to the Supreme Court in order to get a decision he hoped would end the slavery question once and for all. History showed how well that worked out.
Buchanan did a LOT of stuff to, he thought, settle the question of slavery (in favor of slavery) which ultimately helped precipitate the Civil War. Many of his cabinet went on to be Confederate traitors. Definitely one of if not the worst Presidents in history, although Andrew Johnson is up there for sabotaging Reconstruction.
If you are in St Louis and visit the St Louis Arch, go across the street to the old court house because that is the court house that the initial suit that Dred Scott brought was heard in. The suit that had been brought in the state before it went to the Supreme Court
Justice McLean had it right If one could father children with their "the property that should have show them that they are biologically no different; which would have proved McLean's dissension more clearly.
Justice Taney opinion did not age well at all. Its scary to think how much of the freedoms we say are inherent to the American experiment were not inherent at al and had to be fought for bitterly.
Judges do not have the power to free any slave(not now or in the past). The is the reason the Dred Scott case is considered a self-inflicted womb. Because Taney made an opinion on the case in-which he had no power to do so in the first place. Chief Justice Taney's ruling should have been that he didn't have the power to free slaves but instead he assumed this power and made a false record that became self-inflicting. If Dred scott would have known about their lack of power he would have never inquired the court. Dred Scott did not lose the case because they never had power and it should have never entered the courts to begin with. The only power to free a slave is the power of education of true American principles i.e Republicanism, Conservatism, and Capitalism. The power to free yourself from slavery is called self-empowerment which is in your hands. Judge Taney cannot self empower you.
@@25mfd ??? You must be a Catholic like Taney. Every legal scholar who studies the case knows that Taney made a mistake in his judgement. If you don't understand then your ignorant of legal principals and should take your own advice.
@@25mfd You have to be a fool to believe that "Black people" were not intended to be citizens of the united states of America. You don't understand civics or the constitution so lay down.
"The only power to free a slave is the power of education of true American principles"... if this is the case then WHY did the framers make slavery the law of the land?????... the slaves NEVER should have been slaves in the first place... also VERY funny you mentioned capitalism... this was the BIGGEST motivator to make slavery the law of the land because it gave the capitalistic slave holders FREE WORKERS... bro take your stupid ass back to sleep
Videos like these are a huge help to freshmen like me
If Scott's case was dismissed because, as slave he has no right to sue, then why was his case heard at the very first place? Would that not have perfectly shown the attitude that Scott was ACTUALLY a citizen exercising his civil rights?
here is a list of the entire video's captions (type ctrl+f) then type in what you are looking for.
00:00
- [Narrator] Dred Scott versus Sandford
00:01
is one of the most infamous cases in American history.
00:05
In it, the United States Supreme Court
00:07
denied citizenship to millions of black Americans
00:10
and abolished a federal law allowing some states
00:13
to outlaw slavery.
00:15
This decision arguable contributed to the
00:17
outbreak of the Civil War just a few years later.
00:21
Dred Scott was a slave owned by an army doctor
00:23
named Emerson who lived in Missouri.
00:26
In 1834, Emerson was sent to Illinois, a free state,
00:30
and he took Scott with him.
00:32
Emerson later took Scott to Fort Snelling
00:34
in modern Minnesota, a free territory.
00:37
In 1838, Emerson, Scott, and Scott's enslaved family
00:41
returned to Missouri.
00:43
When Emerson died, Scott sued Emerson's widow
00:45
for his freedom in Missouri state court
00:48
after she refused to let Scott to purchase his freedom.
00:51
Scott's argument was based on the Missouri Compromise Act.
00:54
The Act was a federal law that had outlawed slavery
00:58
in Illinois and the Fort Snelling territory.
01:01
Scott argued that when he and his family
01:03
were taken to those areas, they became free
01:05
and could not be legally re-enslaved
01:07
when they later returned to Missouri.
01:10
The Missouri State Supreme Court ultimately ruled
01:12
that Scott was still a slave.
01:15
Ownership of Scott and his family
01:17
subsequently passed to a man named John Sandford.
01:20
For a second time, Scott sued for his family's freedom.
01:24
This time in federal court.
01:25
Applying Missouri law, the federal circuit court
01:28
concluded that Scott was still a slave.
01:31
The United States Supreme Court agreed to hear Scott's case
01:34
to address two important questions.
01:37
One, were slaves and their descendants
01:39
citizens under the Constitution?
01:41
And two, was the Missouri Compromise Act constitutional?
01:46
Chief Justice Taney, writing for the majority,
01:48
decided that slaves were not United States citizens
01:51
and that the Missouri Compromise Act was unconstitutional.
01:55
First, Taney reasoned that the Constitution's drafters
01:58
didn't intend to include black people
02:01
in the term citizen,
02:02
and certainly not black slaves.
02:04
By giving the states the continued right
02:06
to engage in slavery, the Constitution expressly
02:09
singled out black people as separate and apart
02:12
from United States citizens.
02:14
Regardless of whether attitudes had changed,
02:16
the original meaning of the term citizen still applied.
02:20
Further, no individual state has the authority
02:23
to grant U.S. citizenship.
02:25
Just because Illinois grants freedom
02:27
to black men and women does not mean
02:29
they're citizens of any other state or the United States.
02:32
Second, Taney also rejected Scott's argument
02:35
that the Missouri Compromise Act had set him and his family
02:38
free when they entered Illinois or Fort Snelling.
02:41
Taney found that the Missouri Compromise
02:43
was unconstitutional because setting slaves free
02:46
deprived the owners of their property rights
02:49
over those slaves.
02:50
And the Constitution specifically says
02:53
the government can't just take private property.
02:55
Because the act was unconstitutional,
02:58
it couldn't free Scott.
03:00
At the end of the day, Taney wasn't sure
03:02
that even free black people were citizens.
03:04
But Taney was sure black slaves were not citizens
03:08
and that Scott was still a slave.
03:10
Because Scott wasn't a citizen,
03:12
he couldn't sue in federal court,
03:14
and his case had to be dismissed.
03:16
Six justices voted with Chief Justice Taney.
03:20
Each of them wrote separately,
03:22
emphasizing or further explaining
03:23
a portion of the majority opinion.
03:26
Notably, Justice Campbell disagreed
03:28
that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional
03:31
when applied to territories that were not yet states.
03:34
Only two justices, McLean and Curtiss, dissented.
03:38
Each argued that Scott was a United States citizen.
03:41
Justice McLean wrote that Scott and all slaves
03:44
were citizens by virtue of being born
03:46
under the Constitution and subject to its laws.
03:50
However, McLean also argued that the Missouri Compromise
03:53
was constitutional as applied to territories.
03:56
Residents of the territories didn't have the same
03:59
constitutional rights as residents of states,
04:02
and McLean believed that the Missouri Compromise
04:04
could constitutionally take private property away
04:07
from territory residents by freeing slaves.
04:11
In his dissent, Justice Curtiss took issue
04:13
with Taney's definition of citizen,
04:15
pointing out that Article II of the Constitution
04:18
refers to citizens, quote,
04:19
at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, unquote.
04:23
At that time, the term citizen would have included
04:26
many people of African descent who were recognized
04:29
as citizens in free states.
04:31
Therefore, the Constitution's framers
04:33
couldn't of thought that black Americans
04:35
could never be citizens.
04:37
Dred Scott versus Sandford was overturned
04:40
following the Civil War,
04:42
but damaged the Supreme Court's reputation so greatly
04:45
that future Chief Justice Evans Hughes
04:47
famously referred to the Dred Scott decision
04:50
as a quote, self-inflicted wound, unquote.
Either I’m going crazy because of the overwhelming amount of history homework, or the man in this video sounded a lot like handy unit from Five Nights At Freddy’s 6
make it a little bit more monotone and you are right
That's what it reminded me of!
There's even more to the story: President James Buchanan applied a lot of influence to the Supreme Court in order to get a decision he hoped would end the slavery question once and for all. History showed how well that worked out.
Buchanan did a LOT of stuff to, he thought, settle the question of slavery (in favor of slavery) which ultimately helped precipitate the Civil War. Many of his cabinet went on to be Confederate traitors. Definitely one of if not the worst Presidents in history, although Andrew Johnson is up there for sabotaging Reconstruction.
we watched this in my history class and all i could focus on was hand unit from sister location 😭
If you are in St Louis and visit the St Louis Arch, go across the street to the old court house because that is the court house that the initial suit that Dred Scott brought was heard in. The suit that had been brought in the state before it went to the Supreme Court
This guy sounds like voice over the intercom in fnaf
Justice McLean had it right
If one could father children with their "the property that should have show them that they are biologically no different; which would have proved McLean's dissension more clearly.
Fun fact: this case was only the second time the SCOTUS had overruled and act of Congress. The first being Marbury v. Madison
This made my homework easier 😊
This sounds like the voice actor for handunit in the fnaf series.
It is
is ...is that the fnaf sister location voice actor?
Crazy to think we’ll have to go through this again when robots get to smart.
Mrs. loh sent this link and I know that people are looking for people in her class in the comments
y ThEy bUiLt LiKe ThAt ?? ¿¿
Justice Taney opinion did not age well at all. Its scary to think how much of the freedoms we say are inherent to the American experiment were not inherent at al and had to be fought for bitterly.
They're was no Suoreme court or a justice tawneu I'm sure
you own me a dollar
What they don't tell you that slavery is actually work, and these are Aborigines or Indians called "black".
Judges do not have the power to free any slave(not now or in the past). The is the reason the Dred Scott case is considered a self-inflicted womb. Because Taney made an opinion on the case in-which he had no power to do so in the first place. Chief Justice Taney's ruling should have been that he didn't have the power to free slaves but instead he assumed this power and made a false record that became self-inflicting. If Dred scott would have known about their lack of power he would have never inquired the court. Dred Scott did not lose the case because they never had power and it should have never entered the courts to begin with. The only power to free a slave is the power of education of true American principles i.e Republicanism, Conservatism, and Capitalism. The power to free yourself from slavery is called self-empowerment which is in your hands. Judge Taney cannot self empower you.
next time you get the urge to type, lay down until the feeling goes away
@@25mfd ??? You must be a Catholic like Taney. Every legal scholar who studies the case knows that Taney made a mistake in his judgement. If you don't understand then your ignorant of legal principals and should take your own advice.
@@25mfd You have to be a fool to believe that "Black people" were not intended to be citizens of the united states of America. You don't understand civics or the constitution so lay down.
you moron, making the case that slavery was a CHOICE.... stupid ass
"The only power to free a slave is the power of education of true American principles"... if this is the case then WHY did the framers make slavery the law of the land?????... the slaves NEVER should have been slaves in the first place... also VERY funny you mentioned capitalism... this was the BIGGEST motivator to make slavery the law of the land because it gave the capitalistic slave holders FREE WORKERS... bro take your stupid ass back to sleep
No no no
Well here we go again but apparently with abortions as the topic