My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available! Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680 Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680 Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023 Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495 Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e
@AstroTheFungus Жыл бұрын
2nd like 🤨
@annoyboyPictures6 ай бұрын
Dred Scott v Sandford is not the worst Decision of The SCOTUS.... Though it is certainly up there in the top 10 with Korematzu v United States and Kelo v New London. I would say Roe v Wade was. Simply because it caused the deaths of Millions of unborn children.
@mikesuch90214 ай бұрын
Throw it out the window cuz Biden is changing the supreme Court
@CogitoEdu7 жыл бұрын
Law is so bizarre sometimes. Having to prove that you're a slave just so you can win your freedom (from being a slave). Dred must of been pulling his hair out for that entire decade. Another great video!
@iammrbeat7 жыл бұрын
+Cogito - Curiosity Visualised Thanks a bunch. Poor Dred. I just can't even begin to imagine what he and his family went through, and through it all never stopped fighting.
@lynkoyn6 жыл бұрын
Lol Omg! Right!
@standforchange085 жыл бұрын
No harm intended, but European Americans are always playing dumb when it come to our people human rights. Technically our people aren’t even suppose to be affiliated with any of your laws. Your one sided treaties was a trick your ancestors used all around the world. Peace
@debbyfredrickson23895 жыл бұрын
haha! 100th like
@rangergxi4 жыл бұрын
@@standforchange08 The triangle trade depended on African lords selling slaves for guns and gin. Hell, the freedmen that went back to Africa to form Liberia ended up setting up a racial caste system so blaming one race is kinda silly.
@pancakesbf27044 жыл бұрын
Respect to Curtis and McClean for siding with Dred Scott
@David-fm6go4 жыл бұрын
Having read their dissents the court made two big errors. It read into the founders the values of the 1850s South. Curtis points out that five states allowed blacks to vote when the Constitution was ratified and thus were citizens per the Constitution. Secondly, they took a case and ruled on the merits after declaring that Dred lacked standing, which violated court and legal doctrine. McLean points this out. If all of this wasnt bad enough Buchanan was knowledgeable of the ruling before it was issued implying that Taney collaborated with the White House and Buchanan in turn got the Northern Democrat Justices on board with it. So number three would be violation of separation of powers.
@nt69433 жыл бұрын
Statue for them!
@mobetta20923 жыл бұрын
America's ethics and morals were so deep in the gutter that the "humanity" of those justices is somewhat surprising.
@pancakesbf27042 жыл бұрын
@@vylxv002 I said “respect” to an action I never called them a hero
@soumyashreebiswal142 жыл бұрын
@@vylxv002 where tf did he state them as 'heroes'
@TayG-y9q6 жыл бұрын
It sounds so weird to hear someone casually say that someone bought another person
@nmagain244 жыл бұрын
Because American history has been whitewashed and truncated.
@EdwardG05993 жыл бұрын
true so sad and true
@lukeduffy4403 жыл бұрын
Lol u there?
@kets44433 жыл бұрын
so anti-american, breach of the rights promised in the declaration of independence and the first amendment
@rkba49233 жыл бұрын
Still happens every day in many parts of the World.
@aribantala3 жыл бұрын
Oh my God this sounds incredibly infuriating In the Free state, the State Court goes "if you aren't Irene's slaves.. how do you prove otherwise?" In the slave state, the court goes "Yep, you both are definitely her slave" In the Federal court, they go "Wait, you aren't even citizens! How are you two suing an American Citizen? You both are definitely slaves" My God, it's really pulled my hair
@cammywammy4203 жыл бұрын
The system wasn't designed to make sense, it was designed to enslave black people. Of course it doesn't make sense lol
@Darqshadow2 жыл бұрын
@@cammywammy420 it wasn't just that. It was so Byzantine that in the end it caused more harm than good. The decisions of these three courts the United States would face the worse war we had ever fought. Thankfully the North won.
@brkh962 жыл бұрын
Make it make sense
@Limosethe9 ай бұрын
Where did their so-called "idea" that non-US citizens can't even sue from? I thought it was everyone's 8th amendment right to sue.
@TheStapleGunKid2 жыл бұрын
Judge: "You can't prove you were Irene's slave, so you are going to have to remain being Irene's slave" Sounds legit.
@major_kukri2430 Жыл бұрын
Reading it right here, it actually sounds insane.
@Itsloco31410 ай бұрын
This one...
@CrownMe13Ай бұрын
Right?!
@alexkrakowski85977 жыл бұрын
Bet we can all agree that this was a terribly decided case.
@w41duvernay6 жыл бұрын
Not to many Trumptards.
@cortanax14075 жыл бұрын
@@w41duvernay I thought we were all trying to agree on something
@MrJesseQuinn4 жыл бұрын
All 7 were Democrats. The 2 that dissented we're Republicans.
@bforthigh16174 жыл бұрын
@@MrJesseQuinn The stances and demographics of the parties have changed throughout history. The democrats being proponents for a stronger federal government and social programs got solidified in the 30s with FDR and the new deal. White racist southerners left the democrat party during the civil rights movement and joined the Republican party. Nixon and Reagan solidified the stances of the Republican Party. Limited Government, traditional values, and trickle-down economics. While it's true the democrats in the south fought for slavery and founded the kkk, their racist great grandchildren vote for Republicans today. A modern kkk member would never vote for a democrat now.
@MrJesseQuinn4 жыл бұрын
@@bforthigh1617 I agree with the history in your answer. Yes many modern KKK are right leaning but they're alt-right and we don't consider them part of the party or associate with their views similar in the way Muslims don't associate with radical Muslims. Like radical Muslims, the KKK they are the vast minority of the entire group. Despite demographic shifts in the parties, Republicans and Democrats still have the same values. Democrats have always been the party of control in some way, if not slavery then by the expansion big government via social programs. These social programs in the name of social justice have been shown to be ineffective. For example, welfare. Since it's inception in the mid 1960's we have spent over 6 trillion combating poverty yet the poverty rate has remained between 11-15% while at the same time destroying the lives of the very people it's proclaiming to help. The reason Republicans are against these programs is because we believe an individual can best be economically sound without the governments help and instead by his/her merit. It's no surprise that study after study shows that Republicans fair better economically in life as well as being happier and more fullfilled than their Democratic counterparts.
@OpinionesDeJACCsOpinions6 жыл бұрын
I knew this case was bad but I didn't know it was this bad! It just made so many things worse and definitely led to the Civil War.
@giovannibaietto99655 жыл бұрын
but also without the civil war we wouldn't have what we have now.
@macmacreynolds8712 Жыл бұрын
The Top Three Causes of the Civil War: 1.Kansas-Nebraska Act 2.Dred Scott Decision 3.Fugitive Slave Act
@luisfilipe2023 Жыл бұрын
@@macmacreynolds8712there was only one cause of the “civil” war. Lincoln’s refusal to let the south secede peacefully
@Rockzilla1122 Жыл бұрын
@@luisfilipe2023 get the hell out of here with your lost cause revisionist bullshit
@jimb4549 Жыл бұрын
@@luisfilipe2023 the south attacked first
@_Jay_Singh4 жыл бұрын
Imagine being able to buy humans like they're farm animals. History is SCARY
@iammrbeat4 жыл бұрын
The future is bright
@yashas99744 жыл бұрын
200 years later: imagine being able to buy animals like they are things
@donaldschoenhofer11253 жыл бұрын
What's twice as scary as history is, when we revise it so we don't learn from it.
@jefferysaylor67583 жыл бұрын
It was legal, Constitutional, and normal. Slavery has been a part of society since the earliest civilizations. It was legal in places until the 1980's. Imagine in the future when they look back and say those people wasted valuable petroleum burning in engines just to travel. How could they do that? Just go buy it and burn it!! You have to look at history in its context and not from your 21st century prejudices and bigotry. They had no machinery. Everything had to be done by hand. No mechanized farming. Farm animals like horses, mules, slaves, and oxen did much of the work. Slaves were treated very well back then because slaves cost about 10 times the price of a horse or the same as 100 acres of land. They were too expensive to mistreat. Slaves were only punished for serious crimes like sabotage, arson, injuring other slaves, etc. Only the evil slaves were punished for their crimes. You almost never hear of a farmer mistreating his animals or someone mistreating their dog (unless they are a weirdo psycho).
@giant0mantis3 жыл бұрын
History, or, you know, today in other countries
@rhondacreel71033 жыл бұрын
It's so sad that this man and his family went through this
@siamiam7 жыл бұрын
that was a dredful case O_O
@iammrbeat7 жыл бұрын
Master of puns!
@hentai65824 жыл бұрын
@@iammrbeat and slaves
@hussain64693 жыл бұрын
@@hentai6582 oh boy, I hate you, but that's a good one
@pamelafranklin34523 жыл бұрын
That's s..it ain't funny
@lukedetering44907 жыл бұрын
The DREDed decision
@iammrbeat7 жыл бұрын
Dredfully dreded.
@paisleepunk6 жыл бұрын
Lol, best pun made about a dark topic.
@youjustgotcarled3 жыл бұрын
I am visiting the grave of Mr. Dred Scott today, he is buried in the same cemetery as General Sherman
@iammrbeat3 жыл бұрын
That's awesome
@doilyhead10 ай бұрын
Calvary Cemetery, St. Louis, MO
@mikesuch90214 ай бұрын
I don't get it
@brinley4153 жыл бұрын
"Justice Taney" was actually Chief Justice Taney. This Supreme Court is known in Property and Constitutional law courses as the "Taney Court" (all Courts are identified by the presiding Chief Justice). It's especially important to notice that Abraham Lincoln, and Congress at large, was reviewing this decision in depth. CJ Taney made sure to distinguish a constitutional difference between "persons" and "citizens" which applied not just to slaves, but also to women, men who were not property owners, etc. Taney's decision essentially disallowed ANY black person from ever becoming a citizen. Congress and Lincoln recognized the legal issues here, which prompted the necessity for three entirely new amendments (13th, 14th, and 15th) to the US Constitution. This decision is a sad reminder that the US Constitution did identify slavery in states and would require an amendment to change that. One last point: the Taney Court recognized a jurisdictional problem in the case -- since they could not identify Dred Scott as a US citizen, he had no standing to sue in federal court. The case should have ended right there, but the Taney Court decided to use this case to invalidate the Missouri Compromise and solidify slavery in the United States. Some legal analysts wonder if Taney was using this case to get Congress to recognize they had to change the Constitution, or if he was simply a racist, activist Chief Justice. Either way, CJ Taney is an early example of originalism in analyzing the Constitution.
@jagerbolt903 жыл бұрын
St. Louis native here! It's always crazy to think of the consequential, tragic history that goes on in our own backyards.
@princam_47752 жыл бұрын
St. Louis is weird because I never think of my city as having been important, then a bunch of important stuff happened here
@oldteapot75342 жыл бұрын
Without a doubt, this is the Supreme Court's worst decision in history.
@frankw70912 жыл бұрын
I agree. The sad thing is that most of the judges were southerners and several were slave owners who should have recused themselves.
@oldteapot75342 жыл бұрын
@@frankw7091 Yeah, and once the Civil War broke out many of them sympathized with the Confederacy.
@juanlinares22492 жыл бұрын
...so far.
@a2zz-gk1972 жыл бұрын
Roe v. Wade was another bad one
@AnnoyingAllie3 Жыл бұрын
@@a2zz-gk197 Yeah, they should revoke the right of privacy
@Kayla-dz8dk6 жыл бұрын
not all heroes wear capes, you are awesome! Helping me study for my Thematic Essays for the US and Gov Regents tomorrow. Thank you thank you thank you
@dabidibup3 жыл бұрын
I never even imagined the reality that some states allowed slaves and some didn’t, at the same time and so close. I get both sides a little better. I like that the “worst Supreme Court” decision involved a man named Dred
@paulhanck11237 жыл бұрын
Just another example of the supreme court making the wrong decision.
@hunterrobin99297 жыл бұрын
imagine this The 7 were democrats the other 2 were republicans
@RP-166 жыл бұрын
Its well understood that during the great depression, ideologies of both parties switched.
@thepoliticalstartrek6 жыл бұрын
Not really. It was later on that happened. It is often contributed to the 1950s when southern democrats left and migrated to the Republican party. However, most no votes in the 1968 civil rights act were Democrats. The Democrats also founded the KKK. Democrats have painted a false picture of Republicans that has stuck. I am more libertarian in my leaning. A traditional classic liberal.
@macmacreynolds87126 жыл бұрын
+The Sports If you're talking about the party affiliations of the 9 Supreme Court Justices at the time of the Dred Scott decision, you almost got it right. There were: 7 Democrats (Taney, Wayne, Catron, Daniel, Nelson, Grier, Campbell), 1 Whig (Curtis), 1 Republican (McLean).
@thepoliticalstartrek6 жыл бұрын
@@RP-16 that's not when it happened. The founding of KKK was Democrat. They had the most people who voted against civil rights legislation. They also led the revival of the KKK in the 40s. They not only originally founded the original KKK, but revived it over a decade after The Great Depression. To make this clear almost every major civil rights law pre 1980 had more Democrats voting against it by both number and percentage. A large portion of these Democrats were southern Democrats. The Democrats have pulled the wool over the eyes of the American people. I am not a Republican by the way. I am more a classic liberal.
@troubledsole91046 ай бұрын
I could never understand how anyone in their own mind could justify OWNING another human being.
@victorvolobuev5074 ай бұрын
I could never understand how anyone in their own mind could justify killing and unborn baby. And yet it’s legal and practiced in all 50 states.
@troubledsole91044 ай бұрын
@@victorvolobuev507 are we talking about slavery?
@krisshnapeswanipeswani31903 ай бұрын
@@victorvolobuev507 a baby is not living unitl it can survive without external support
@jettforpresident34287 жыл бұрын
Thank you for this video! I very recently read a small biography of Abraham Lincoln, and it mentioned the case.
@iammrbeat7 жыл бұрын
+Jett For President My pleasure. It's one I thought I already knew a lot about, but learned quite a bit more researching for this video. It's amazing what the Scotts had to go through.
@jettforpresident34287 жыл бұрын
Yeah.
@SiVlog19896 жыл бұрын
I love your channel Mr Beat :) I have found your channel superb :) I have found out more about American history on your channel than anywhere else. Keep up the great work
@iammrbeat6 жыл бұрын
Thank you. That means the world to hear that. Comments like these are honestly a big reason why I continue to do this. :D
@the4tierbridge3 жыл бұрын
I mean, according to the reasoning Sanford was sided with, the case should have been thrown out on the technicality that Scott wasn't a citizen, right? Something doesn't add up?
@scottgrasser94753 жыл бұрын
probably but the justices were inhuman monsters so not a surprise they were not good at there job
@the4tierbridge3 жыл бұрын
@@scottgrasser9475 They followed the law (besides how such a case should never have happened based on the technicality), and that's all a justice is meant to do.
@scottgrasser94753 жыл бұрын
@@the4tierbridge yea sorry but the law was at the time not that a black person can never be a person they were bigoted white's who added that to be bigots the idea that justices have and will just follow the law is frankly bullshit there people and are just as capable of corruptly following a political agenda as anyone
@the4tierbridge3 жыл бұрын
@@scottgrasser9475 Then explain the law at the time... I'll wait. PS: That is what justices are supposed to do. Determine what laws mean based on other laws.
@scottgrasser94753 жыл бұрын
@@the4tierbridge basically the entire constitution...many future justices have noted there bigotry in making there call as well as massive flaws in the logic used in the decision as was pointed out by the highest courts own logic the case should not have been done in the first place and the very court case itself violated the constitution (if he was not a person as they declared then the lower cases should have been dismissed and without those cases the highest court by its own rules could not have dealt with the issue ) if even one state considered an African American a citizen, then the Constitution required that all states, and by inference also the federal government, had to accord that person “all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States” (Article IV, Section 2), which includes the right to sue in federal court thus as pointed out above the constatution said that they were citizens...that was the law and the highest court furthermore the court overstepped its bounds by ruling on issues on the matter that were not even up for deciding holding that Scott had never been free and that Congress had in fact exceeded its authority in the Missouri Compromise because it had no power to forbid or abolish slavery in the territories that was not even part of the case and the court had no right to arbitrarily even consider it at the time as well the court ignored the wording of the constitution to ignore the ambiguity to force the idea blacks were not and could not be citizens (no part of the constitution forbid a black being a citizen) historians and law experts have widely agreed the court had by the order of the law made the wrong choice and even had no right to make many of the choices it did the leader of the court at the time basically the entire constitution...many future justices have noted there bigotry in making there call as well as massive flaws in the logic used in the decision as was pointed out by the highest courts own logic the case should not have been done in the first place and the very court case itself violated the constitution (if he was not a person as they declared then the lower cases should have been dismissed and without those cases the highest court by its own rules could not have dealt with the issue ) if even one state considered an African American a citizen, then the Constitution required that all states, and by inference also the federal government, had to accord that person “all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States” (Article IV, Section 2), which includes the right to sue in federal court thus as pointed out above the constatution said that they were citizens...that was the law and the highest court furthermore the court overstepped its bounds by ruling on issues on the matter that were not even up for deciding holding that Scott had never been free and that Congress had in fact exceeded its authority in the Missouri Compromise because it had no power to forbid or abolish slavery in the territories that was not even part of the case and the court had no right to arbitrarily even consider it at the time the leader of the court at the time Roger B taney was well known for his poor following of the law and often ruling based on bigoted feelings as well as being overly political (he was less a judge and more a political figure during his life)
@macmacreynolds8712 Жыл бұрын
Fun Fact: Montgomery Blair, who argued in favor of Dred Scott, was a leading lawyer in both Missouri and Maryland! Also, from 1861-64, he would be Postmaster General in the Lincoln Cabinet. One more thing: In 1864, he would be strongly considered by Lincoln for the Taney vacancy on the Supreme Court which went to Salmon Chase.
@revolutionaryprepper40763 жыл бұрын
Scott vs. Sanford was one of the most egregious cases of the U.S. Supreme Court. This case, plus the panic of 1857, is what would trigger the Civil War.
@macmacreynolds8712 Жыл бұрын
So would the Kansas-Nebraska Act, passed by Congress in 1854.
@HandlesAreForNerds3 ай бұрын
@@macmacreynolds8712there was also that raid on Harper’s Ferry by John Brown
@TheFishingNomad6 күн бұрын
This ruling was not egregious. It was the correct ruling.
@flamefusion89637 жыл бұрын
How Dredful of a decision.
@josestarks88926 жыл бұрын
Fun fact: Justice Grier was actually from Pennsylvania the home state of President Buchanan at the time. Never a man of much conviction he decided he wanted to persuade Grier that it was alright to have slaves so he could appease the southern states which were already well on the way to succession by this point. He effectively messed with the separation of powers, a key fundamental to our Republic.
@macmacreynolds8712 Жыл бұрын
Additional Fun Fact: Justice Catron, although from Tennessee, took a pivotal role in persuading Justice Grier to side with the pro-slavery majority.
@Dkvizu3 жыл бұрын
Please dont say he asked Dred Scott to come to Louisiana. That's pouring a ton of sugar on that. He demanded his property was returned to him.
@kiandocherty35895 жыл бұрын
Man poor Judge Dredd must dread having to talk about the great injustice done by Dredd v Sanford.
@lindsaymanning7047 жыл бұрын
I love your videos Mr. Beat. I think the first one I ever saw was about the election of 2000.
@iammrbeat7 жыл бұрын
+Lindsay Manning Heck yeah. That's awesome that I haven't scared you off yet. :)
@animalia55546 жыл бұрын
There is another aspect of this case that you are forgetting about. How Lincoln one of the people who was against it the most , found it wrong and dangerous and seeked to have it overturned still abided it by it. BECAUSE it was a supreme court decision, and should berespected until the court said otherwise. ""We think it's [the supreme court's] decision's on Constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control, not only the particular cases decided but the general policy of the country, subject to be disturbed only by amendments of the Constitution as provided in that instrument itself," Lincoln said. And leaving no doubt to his view on the supremacy of Supreme Court decisions , he then continued. "More than this would be revolution. But we think the Dread Scott decision is Erroneous. We know the court has made it, has often over-ruled it's own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it over rule this. We offer no resistance to it. This closed the loop on Marbury vs Madison: No matter how difficult the circumstances, no matter how entrenched the personal agreements, the United States was to be a government of laws not men." That Lincoln quote and the text surrounding it from tthe 2ns revised & updated edition of The Supremes' Greatest Hits: The 44 Supreme Court Cases That Most Directly Affect Your Life
@rainb59875 ай бұрын
I agree. The only way to overturn the Supreme Court ruling that day was through constitutional amendment.
@raydavison42882 жыл бұрын
Mr. Beat, You and those like you are the hope of the future. Live long & prosper.
@pepperpitz32912 жыл бұрын
Imagine the law giving the rights to your own person, the flesh you’re made of, to someone else. It’s crazy to think we used to be a country where an individual could have the right to their own body abused and revoked by legal entities you have no say in. Glad THAT doesn’t happen anymore, ammiright? 😪
@sangitaupadhyay65122 жыл бұрын
Sadly it dose still happen human trafficking is definitely slavery and it is still very much alive today we will never have a perfect world. And what happend to this man and his family is horrific.
@homesteadlivingsolutions Жыл бұрын
It does still happen today and the Dems are full throated supporters of it. Think Roe v Wade. The left agrees that there is not a lot her person and so the baby's rights (and life) are given to the mother and she gets to decide life or death. And while slavery is a stain on our history, it's not nearly as horrific as abortion
@nooblord12339 ай бұрын
Are you talking about abortion, you know, the right to kill children, having the rights to their person, the flesh theyre made of?
@binyominsilverman15924 жыл бұрын
Amazingly, the Dred Scott ruling was a major 2nd Amendment upholding ruling as well. It held that the protections under the 2nd Amendment extended to US. Territories. When researching the 2nd amendment for a Argumentative Research Essay in English Composition, I learned that this was the first case to directly deal with the 2nd Amendment.
@vvvvend36324 жыл бұрын
Tf does this have to do with guns
@staytheknight2 жыл бұрын
Are…you…kidding…me?!?! I’m not sure what your “fact” is implying, but judging by the vagueness of whatever you “found” because you gave no evidence of anything. Plus I’m not sure what to make of your pic either! Judging by the vagueness of the comment plus the misdirection I’m willing to put at least $20 on that your pic and views are at least part of the “great replacement theory” Stay on topic!!!
@FrankieJames72 жыл бұрын
@@staytheknight it talks about congresses power over territories in this case just like OP said you derp.
@RaimsWitDaBigTaims7 жыл бұрын
great *scott*
@iammrbeat7 жыл бұрын
You always deliver, spicy meme
@jamiebarba57015 жыл бұрын
Back to Future.
@ItzMiaGaming3 жыл бұрын
Thank you so much for making these! They are very interesting and I watch them everyday!
@iammrbeat3 жыл бұрын
Glad you like them!
@sagesheahan67325 жыл бұрын
These are awesome. Js. ☺️👍
@warnegoodman Жыл бұрын
Interesting side note, the doctrine that taking slaves into a free state would not free them was expressly codified in the CSA constitution. One of the few differences between the USA and CSA constitution, nearly all of the differences unsurprisingly deal with the issue of slavery.
@ff_lostecsantos65592 жыл бұрын
If a Supreme Court decision like Dred Scott v. Sanford is so bad that it made a justice leave his position, then the court is doing something wrong (obviously)
@major_kukri2430 Жыл бұрын
They had to make constitutional amendments just to fix it. Yeah, it was exceptionally terrible.
@gamerworld-fl4mt24 күн бұрын
i love how he has sandford in the title
@meandmyEV2 жыл бұрын
Man imagine what it was like when things like court cases got held up by diseases. Must have been crazy!
@alexking72622 жыл бұрын
Scott V. Sanford was definitely a horrible Supreme Court decision, but in my opinion Buck V. Bell is worse because I’m…different & one of the people they would call “Feeble minded” & to have “unwanted traits” in society, so I’m even more biased against that case then Scott V. Sanford!
@avinashreji602 жыл бұрын
Dred Scott is the same, just that the words “feeble minded” weren’t used. Saying that a people is so inferior as to not have rights effectively confers the same meaning
@alexking72622 жыл бұрын
@@avinashreji60 technically we’re both right here and I do agree with you too an extent. But I still hate Buck V. Bell more!
@georgewashington673 Жыл бұрын
Interesting that Roger Taney, James Wayne, and John Catron all ruled against Dred Scott but in favor of the Amistad. Only John McLean ruled in favor of both Dred Scott and the Amistad. I wonder why?
@TheStapleGunKid2 жыл бұрын
One surprising thing about Roger Taney is that he was not personally a pro-slavery ideologue. When Taney inherited his family's slaves in 1810, he immediately freed all of them, and even provided pensions to all his former slaves who were too old to work. As a lawyer, Taney made a name for himself by defending an abolitionist preacher who had been arrested for supposedly trying to incite an anti-slavery riot. Taney vigorously defended his client's free speech rights in court, calling slavery a "blot on our national character", and won his acquittal. Another odd fact, Taney died on October 12, 1864, the same day his home state of Maryland voted to abolish slavery. By then he was so hated that Lincoln made no public statement on his death, though he did attend Taney's funeral. Maybe it was just to gloat :)
@florinivan69072 жыл бұрын
Thing is Taney probably thought this decision would avoid a civil war. He might not have viewed slavery as good but as someone who knew how deeply entrenched it was in southern society he knew the risk of a war. He probably assumed this decision would settle the slavery debate and prevent the South from seceding.
@TheStapleGunKid2 жыл бұрын
@@florinivan6907 Yeah that's probably true, but of course it had the opposite effect, as it inflamed the North so much that it convinced them to elect an anti-slavery president, which caused the South to secede anyway.
@nomad1553 жыл бұрын
This is a great example of what happens when folks don't wanna change the constitution. This is America!
@thebestyoutubereverfr2 жыл бұрын
I’m learning about this in history
@varianford54272 жыл бұрын
Your a rat, how?
@ViktorEnjoyer3 жыл бұрын
I went to the place where dread and Harriet lived (Fort Snelling) for school field trip in 3rd grade
@DrSlay13136 жыл бұрын
I love you too Mr. Beat.
@victorvolobuev5074 ай бұрын
Great vid im just learning about this as a 43yo. Appreciate the info
@Treblaine Жыл бұрын
They didn't just rule they weren't "citizens" they ruled they weren't "people".
@shirtless6934 Жыл бұрын
Completely aside from the issue of slavery, the decision is the absolutely worst decision the supreme court ever made, and Taney secured his place as the worst chief justice. There are those who say he had an illustrious career, made contributions to the law, etc., but I wonder that could have been to overcome the outrage of the Dred Scott decision. The holding of the case was that the court had no jurisdiction, because under the law at that time, a black person was not a citizen, and whether slave or free, was not entitled to bring suit in a federal court. Okay, then. The court should have stopped writing and ended the case. But oh no, in an egregious example of obiter dicta, Taney continues to write 300 pages explaining how he would have decided the case if he had jurisdiction. If the court had no jurisdiction, all the blabber about the Missouri Compromise is not necessary to a decision. Had the court simply dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, that would not have created nearly the tumult that Taney’s irresponsible dicta created.
@TheStapleGunKid Жыл бұрын
Not only that, but the entire decision about the Missouri compromise was based on an outright lie: Taney's claim that _""the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution."_ This is nothing but a blatant falsehood. The constitution didn't even imply there was a right to property in a slave, much less expressly affirm it. The constitution identified slaves as "persons" and never referred to them as a property. The fact that they counted as 3/5ths of a person for political representation also clearly shows slaves were not property, as property would never be counted at all.
@universalplayz74967 ай бұрын
I’m pretty sure the court itself had to 1st rule he was not a citizen and since none of the lower courts did At that point he did have legal grounds to have this case heard by the Supreme Court and since they’ve heard it and do have jurisdiction since before they declared him not a citizen he was well infact a citizen And what they said about the slvery compromise was true Congress had ZERO authority to make that law regardless about morals It was simply not legal unless you want to use the commerce clause and claim slaves were commerce in which cause you would be proving this cases decision to be correct. Also lastly about the no jurisdiction part Before this case no precendant was were ever set in court for slaves not being one So this case itself was what made him not a citizen which well required the court to rule So at that point they could add in thier opinion about what congress did relating to this case
@macmacreynolds87124 жыл бұрын
If you haven't already done it, can you do a video on Hammer v. Dagenhart, aka the Child Labor Case of 1918?
@evidence7076 жыл бұрын
Thanks 4 the help.
@GoatFulloBoats4 жыл бұрын
"The Supreme Court Case That Led to The Civil War" Can't wait for the sequel!
@pamelafranklin34523 жыл бұрын
And yall lost and will loose again you don't get it when God is for a Certain people you will never be able to defeat them think look at history know matter what you and your evil ancestors done we rise up
@GoatFulloBoats3 жыл бұрын
@@pamelafranklin3452 I didn't say it was starting right at that moment, did I? Our tree is getting very thirsty, but it takes some time for the refreshments to arrive.
@ashtoncollins8682 жыл бұрын
President during that time: Franklin Pierce/James Buchanan Chief Justice: Roger B. Taney Argued February 11-14, 1856 Reargued December 15-18, 1856 Decided March 6, 1857 Case Duration: 388 Days Decision: 7-2 in favor of Sanford :/
@mariovaccarella68542 ай бұрын
Great Video, as usual, Mr. Beat. Unfortunately, when Courts do not use critiques of laws & use Strict Interpretation Of Laws & Only Abide By The Letter Of The Law, as I've argued, to No Avail, on a much lesser degree, it's as if we're re-arguing The Dredd Scott Case again. Let me know what you think. While I think that we are taught to do The Logical Reasoning from Issue, Rule, Application & The Conclusion, I don't see why A Strict Interpretation challenge can't be argued/considered, in many cases/hearings
@mummyneo71127 жыл бұрын
Mr Beat Can you do who are your favourite US presidents?
@iammrbeat7 жыл бұрын
I will be answering that in the 10,000 subscriber video (hopefully I will be making that video sooner than later!)
@DugrozReports3 жыл бұрын
What happened that led to Scotts' freedom?
@genericyoutubecommenter5893 жыл бұрын
the Civil War
@DugrozReports3 жыл бұрын
@@genericyoutubecommenter589 That's a pretty generic KZbin comment. :)
@Jake-rs9nq3 жыл бұрын
@@DugrozReports After the court case, Dred Scott and his family were sold off to a politician who freed them.
@deborahrose84843 жыл бұрын
@@Jake-rs9nq Good info!
@sydhenderson67537 ай бұрын
@@genericyoutubecommenter589 He was freed before the Civil War.
@edgardovelez44983 жыл бұрын
Grateful for the history lesson. Thanks!
@macmacreynolds87126 жыл бұрын
I wonder why the portraits of Justices Catron and Nelson are in a reverse image?
@pseudonym98543 жыл бұрын
I read about this case for the first time and the first thing I thought was "Are we the baddies?"
@pamelafranklin34523 жыл бұрын
Baddies for what taking advantage of humans to profit to gain personal wealth to gain power because deep down inside you and yours are pathetic human beings and 😈 if that y'all baddies well you are but I hope you here to see the end we will be the baddies
@clarissapullen67182 жыл бұрын
Since nobody alive today in the United States was born either a slave or slave owner, nobody owes anybody an apology.
@major_kukri2430 Жыл бұрын
@@clarissapullen6718I mean, the government as an entity owes an apology for just the garbage logic used in this case. Like, holy hell who debates like this?
@El_papa_de_Rambo4 ай бұрын
Yes
@1Ponzinator Жыл бұрын
As bad as this decision was, I think the justices knew the issue of slavery needed to be settled in the legislative branch, which eventually it was.
@DarthCookieKS7 жыл бұрын
thank you it help with mi report
@iammrbeat7 жыл бұрын
+Darth Cookie Awesome
@macmacreynolds87126 жыл бұрын
+Darth Cookie Anderson Are Buffcoat and Beaver still causing you lots of trouble?
@cammywammy4203 жыл бұрын
This was the worst, and I mean the WORST supreme court decision so far in the history of the court.
@FluffyEmmy11162 жыл бұрын
How long until we get one of these for the Cold Civil War to turn into the 2nd Civil War?
@paulmentzer7658 Жыл бұрын
Taney's decision is NOT the majority decision. Taney's decision is the LEAD opinion for two of the nine Justices signed off on it and is the "Opinion of the Court", but the other five justices that ruled against Dred Scott wrote four different opinions (with only one being agreed upon by two Justices). Taney's is the official opinion of the court but it was never a majority opinion (through seven Justices agreed with the results). In effect this was a 2 (Taney, & Wayne) -2 (Nelson & Grier) -1 (Daniel) -1 (Caltron) -1 (Campbell) - 1 dissent (McLean) - 1 dissent (Curtis) decision not a 7-2 decision.
@YoungBillyKatastrophe8 ай бұрын
The image commonly associated with Dred Scott is actually not of him but rather of his brother, Peter Blow. Peter Blow was the brother of Dred Scott's original owner, and the image is often used as a representation of the historical context surrounding the Dred Scott case. His skin color likely played a significant role in the selection as the plaintiff. He had mixed-race background (his father was the slave Master and his mother was the slave, that dynamic).. Scott was so light skinned he could pass for "white," coupled with his status as an enslaved individual who had lived in both free and slave states, made his case particularly compelling for challenging the legality of slavery in various jurisdictions. The image commonly associated with Dred Scott's wife, Harriet Scott, is not actually her but rather an unidentified woman.
@covertLLC2 жыл бұрын
I was a Black kid that went to Roger B. Taney middle school... I'm sure he would've loved that. .😂😂 "No Black person has any right that a white man is bound to respect." ~Roger B. Taney'
@pleaseenteraname11032 жыл бұрын
One of the worst Supreme Court decisions in US history.
@STho2056 жыл бұрын
Being guided ONLY by the Constitution, then their decision was inevitable. The US Constitution mentions slavery three times: 1) Proportional representation count in population 2) Congress couldn't address slavery for 20 years (till 1808) 3) nobody could avoid or be liberated from their bond in one state by travelling to another state or territory in the Union (in Article I) So by simply saying Scott lacked standing was a cheap way out for the Court. Scott was carried or travelled from state to state, yet he was under original bond in Missouri which other states MUST honor. Scott was at Federal Army Posts (US PROPERTY), which had no provisions against slavery, despite the state. Note he and his wife functioned as slaves while there Finding any other way would have been the court making law, not reviewing it. The Court didn't do that in the era. It was considered an excess of power. To solidify the Court's avoidance of proper Constitutional address, Congress did pass a Fugitive Slave Act which in reality wasn't needed unless people ignored the Constitution as most freesoil states were happy to do at the time. Logic is sometimes cold man. Real cold.
@bojackjackson69595 жыл бұрын
Where did you get this info from?
@rishaunspencer2744 жыл бұрын
@@bojackjackson6959 it's called books I think
@genericyoutubecommenter5893 жыл бұрын
@@rishaunspencer274 gee that's real helpful. could you please give a title or something instead of a sarcastic reply?
@psychicgoblin37812 жыл бұрын
@@genericyoutubecommenter589 The Constitution is the real answer.
@genericyoutubecommenter5892 жыл бұрын
@@psychicgoblin3781 you should tell that to bojack i think. I'm just here to point out to the other guy that sarcastic responses like his do jack shit towards helping someone asking an honest question.
7 жыл бұрын
The best and awesome :)
@f15stroke5 жыл бұрын
This channel is f*cking awesome. I’ll shout it out on things & stuff.
@iammrbeat5 жыл бұрын
Thanks :D
@beautifulcarpetdiagram Жыл бұрын
If he couldn't prove that he was a slave, why didn't he just walk away free?
@major_kukri2430 Жыл бұрын
I asked the same question
@macmacreynolds87126 жыл бұрын
6:49 McClean?! It's McLean.
@andrewjgrimm Жыл бұрын
If I tried to truly understand why the ruling occurred the way it did, would I lose sanity points?
@lowmax44315 ай бұрын
Supreme court today: "hold my beer"
@nickseebs55634 жыл бұрын
5:40 Ah, so "Roger Taney" was the guy...always wondered wondered what Mitch McConnell's real name was. Man, his hair was shaggy back in the day.
@georgeund7533 Жыл бұрын
I wish you mentioned the dissent
@CrownMe13Ай бұрын
Have a question for you Mr. Beat or anyone who sees this and knows the answer. Regarding the Civil War. Had there ever been a point after the Civil War ended that there may have been another Civil War? Like how did the Union permanently stop the Confederacy from ever resurfacing is the my true question.
@rainb59872 жыл бұрын
This is so heartbreaking.
@abdullahibnzulu63222 жыл бұрын
Visit Haiti 🇭🇹 no Dred full decision or hypocritical declarations true freedom is earned not granted by the perpetrators and architects of injustice. 1801🇭🇹
@mawas68012 жыл бұрын
I wanna imagine all these "Justices" being served with "Justice" with chains and torment in the eternal slavery of the Hell they always scared us from, Amen
@universalplayz74962 жыл бұрын
U want the 2 that voted against it be chained cuz they couldn't persuade the other 7?
@nickdepanfilis7895 Жыл бұрын
Great series.
@staytheknight2 жыл бұрын
Does anyone else believe that Mr. Scott’s grave should become a national monument? Or at least a monument erected in DC right across from the Supreme Court?
@sydhenderson675311 ай бұрын
The Old Courthouse in Saint Louis where the trial took place is part of the Gateway Arch National Park.
@lisa._.the._.lovely2 жыл бұрын
7:19 I love you too!
@ChefAnatoly6 жыл бұрын
The Dred Scott Case: Dred Scott V. John F. A. Sandford U.S. Supreme Court 1857. This case is a must read for all of you whom identify as Blacks, Negros, Latin, Hispanics, and Afro-Colored-Americans, to gain some comprehension on how you and your Legal Status are viewed in the eyes of the law. This case was and still is monumental not only in this country but also around the world. For in it the foundations of Status and the Importance of Nationality are revealed. 1.) Dred Scott claimed to be a Negro of African Ancestry and was suing his former slave master for assault while he was a slave to John Sanford. Dred Scott was suing for assault not only himself, but also his wife Harriet, and his two daughters Eliza, and Lizzie. The courts, first of all, made it known that Dred Scott was a Plaintiff In Error as you will find out why. 2.) The following is quoted from the opening pleas of the case: "Dred Scott, is not a citizen of the State of Missouri, as alleged in his declaration, because he's a negro of African descent; his ancestors were of pure African blood and were brought into this country and sold as negro slaves, and this the said Sandford is ready to verify." 3.) So off the top, we see that the Supreme Court did not recognize Dred Scott's citizenship, because he claimed to be a "negro of African Decent". 4.) This is important not because the U.S. had no intentions of including negros as protected citizens for the sake of being biased, but because in law, one's Legal Status is the 1st thing taken into consideration. 5.) So when Dred Scott claimed to be a negro from the decent of African slaves, he automatically identified himself as the Property of slave masters. 6.) As we know property does not have the right to sue anything, just like your shoes cannot sue you for wear and tear, because property has no rights. The Outcome states the following: 7.) "The judgment finding that respondent was not liable to petitioner for assault was reversed and the case was remanded with an order to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction. 8.) The Supreme Court held that petitioner was not a citizen and could not bring the action in the court because petitioner was a Slave of African descent." 9.) Here we see the Supreme Court could not properly rule on the case because it lacked the capacity to do so because of the Status of Dred Scott, which needed to be addressed in the Lower courts of Appeal. 10) The Order of the Court is Status, Jurisdiction, Adjudication, Trial, and then Sentencing. Jurisdiction is the courts Authority of the parties in question or the Subject-Matter at had. 11.) Since Dred Scott lacked proper status as a Citizen, the court lacked jurisdiction over the matter, and at this point, the only thing that can happen is a reversal or a mandate back to the lower courts for them to correct their mistakes. Quoted from the Lawyers Edition Headnotes: 12.) "Plea in abatement, when may be reviewed - the word "citizen" in the constitution does not embrace one of the negro race - negro cannot become a citizen - slave not made free by residence in a free state of territory - Declaration of Independence does not include slaves as part of the people - the rights and privileges conferred by the Constitution upon citizens do not apply to the negro race - Constitution should have the meaning intended when it was adopted - court may examine other errors in abatement - Constitution expressly affirms right of property in slaves- ." 13.) So here again we see that when you identify yourself as a black, colored, negro form Afro- America you identify yourself as slave property, which has Zero protected rights. More quotes from the Dred Scott Case: 14.) " The provisions of the Constitution of the United States in relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the citizen of a state should be entitled, do not embrace the negro African race, at that time in this country, or who might afterwards be imported, who had been or should afterwards be made free in any state." 15.) "The Constitution of the United States does not act upon one of the negro race whenever he shall be free under the laws of a state, and raise him to the rank of a citizen, and immediately clothe him with all the privileges of a citizen of any other state, and in its own courts." 16.) "The legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as part the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that instrument. 17.) "The enslaved African race was not intended to be included in, and formed no part of, the people who framed and adopted the Declaration of Independence." 18.) So we can plainly see that negro is a class of persons defined as slave property whom shall never be afforded the constitutionally protected rights as a citizen, and neither shall the offspring of those whom call themselves negroes. 19.) Justice H.A. Garland stated the following about all the so-called negroes: " Now, the following are truths which a knowledge of the history of the world, and particularly of that of our own country, compels us to know - that the African negro race have never been acknowledged as belonging to the family of nations; that as amongst them there never has been known or recognized by the inhabitants of other countries anything partaking of the character of Nationality or civil or political polity; that this race has been by all the nations of Europe regarded as subjects of capture or purchase; as subjects of commerce or traffic; and that introduction of that race into every section of this country was not as members of civil or political society, but as slaves, as property in the strictest sense of the term." 20.) Here we see the Supreme Court Justice made the correct decision, which was not based out of racism as some may suppose but based on the fact that there is no Negroland, there is no Negro Flag, there is no Negro Constitution or Embassy of the Negros, so without the components that would show that this so-called negro exist as a nation of people, the courts are not bound to recognize a person or people whom call themselves something that has never existed in history, and has no known historical origins. 21.) This applies to African, because Africa is a Continent, with many Nations. Black, Afro-American, and Colored also fall under the same categories of a Stateless person or those whom have no known nationality. 22.) Being a black, colored, negro, from Afro-America puts you outside of the human family of nations. It's not a racist thing, it's just a fact of law. 23.) When you run around here with the socialized mis-conditioning that you are a negro, black, colored, from Afro-America you are telling the world that you are a renegade pirate, because you have no known Nationality, which means you have no Family or origin, which means you have no In-laws, which means that you are an Outlaw, and are operating Outside of the Law. 24.) This is the reason why the poor negro has the problems he/she experiences in his/her own land, because the so-called negro has refused to "Honor his father and Mother, by proclaiming his/her nationality as a Moorish American that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest live long on the earth", as stated in the 1st of the 10 commandments. 25.) Keep in mind that due to how big this case is the legislation decided to capitalize this concept even further through the introduction of the 14th Amendment, which passed Corporate citizenship to all of those whom choose to operate outside of their nationality. 26.) The Remedy and Recourse for all of this is to Proclaim your Nationality as a Moorish American, return to the Culture and Customs of your Ancient Foremothers and Forefathers right here in America, correct your Legal Status, then your birthrights protected by the U.S. Constitution can be enforced, because you have changed your status from a dead, Corporate entity, to a living breathing Natural Person, whom is part of a body politic, and a Nation, whom the laws are afforded to, and are recognized around the world. You must proclaim your Nationality Moors! Peace and Love!
@michaelmoran90203 жыл бұрын
Found the nation of Islam member
@ParkAir333 жыл бұрын
Real funny algorithm... Real funny...
@DCBiscuit3 жыл бұрын
Do you think either side would have held back on their stances if they knew the consequences of the war’s results?
@genericyoutubecommenter5893 жыл бұрын
That's a good question and i have no answer
@major_kukri2430 Жыл бұрын
@DCBiscuit No
@caydensullivan51934 жыл бұрын
MR CALDWELLS CLASS TURNTUP
@alexist9705 Жыл бұрын
Very educational
@Phono-fun2 жыл бұрын
That image of John Emerson is not 1830s-1840s
@Aiseua6 жыл бұрын
What is the background music?
@therussianyetishow12382 жыл бұрын
Basically what I’m hearing is that the law is an inherently flawed system and that the only way to be free is to rid ourselves of our current judicial system.
@PenelopeStoneVT Жыл бұрын
I know I left a somewhat harsh comment on your top 10 supreme court case video, but I would like you to make a top 10 worse, after hearing about Taney in this video.
@brennanchamplin94052 жыл бұрын
I know that the United States Supreme Court Case Dred Scott v. Sanford is 1 of the Worst Supreme Court Cases in American History because it lead to the American Civil War and it cause one of the Supreme Court Justices which was Justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis to Quit the Court and I know that Roger B. Taney was the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court during this US Supreme Court Case and I know that Roger B. Taney was an American Lawyer and Roger B. Taney was the 5th Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court from March 28, 1836 to October 12, 1864 and Roger B. Taney was Appointed by President Andrew Jackson and Roger B. Taney was the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court for 28 Years and Roger B. Taney had that Job for 28 Years as an Adult and it’s Amazing when someone has a Job for 28 Years.
@cristyflaherty49023 жыл бұрын
Something that isn't as well known is Harriet Scott had just as much to do with it but was left out because she was a woman.
@jettforpresident34287 жыл бұрын
Hey Mr. Beats, when you get a chance, can you do Texas v. White?
@iammrbeat7 жыл бұрын
But I thought I was not supposed to mess with Texas? ha!
@jettforpresident34287 жыл бұрын
Ha.
@georgewashington673 Жыл бұрын
Mr. Beat just FYI "Taliaferro" is pronounced "Toliver"