The Supreme Court Case That Led to The Civil War | Dred Scott v. Sandford

[@iammrbeat]

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]

2nd like 🤨

[@annoyboyPictures]

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.

[@mikesuch9021]

Throw it out the window cuz Biden is changing the supreme Court

[@CogitoEdu]

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!

[@iammrbeat]

+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.

[@lynkoyn]

Lol Omg! Right!

[@standforchange08]

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

[@debbyfredrickson2389]

haha! 100th like

[@rangergxi]

@@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.

[@TayG-y9q]

It sounds so weird to hear someone casually say that someone bought another person

[@nmagain24]

Because American history has been whitewashed and truncated.

[@EdwardG0599]

true so sad and true

[@lukeduffy440]

Lol u there?

[@kets4443]

so anti-american, breach of the rights promised in the declaration of independence and the first amendment

[@rkba4923]

Still happens every day in many parts of the World.

[@pancakesbf2704]

Respect to Curtis and McClean for siding with Dred Scott

[@David-fm6go]

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.

[@nt6943]

Statue for them!

[@mobetta2092]

America's ethics and morals were so deep in the gutter that the "humanity" of those justices is somewhat surprising.

[@pancakesbf2704]

@@vylxv002 I said “respect” to an action I never called them a hero

[@soumyashreebiswal14]

@@vylxv002 where tf did he state them as 'heroes'

[@aribantala]

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

[@cammywammy420]

The system wasn't designed to make sense, it was designed to enslave black people. Of course it doesn't make sense lol

[@Darqshadow]

@@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.

[@brkh96]

Make it make sense

[@Limosethe]

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.

[@rhondacreel7103]

It's so sad that this man and his family went through this

[@siamiam]

that was a dredful case O_O

[@iammrbeat]

Master of puns!

[@hentai6582]

@@iammrbeat and slaves

[@hussain6469]

@@hentai6582 oh boy, I hate you, but that's a good one

[@pamelafranklin3452]

That's s..it ain't funny

[@alexkrakowski8597]

Bet we can all agree that this was a terribly decided case.

[@w41duvernay]

Not to many Trumptards.

[@cortanax1407]

@@w41duvernay I thought we were all trying to agree on something

[@MrJesseQuinn]

All 7 were Democrats. The 2 that dissented we're Republicans.

[@bforthigh1617]

@@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.

[@MrJesseQuinn]

@@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.

[@youjustgotcarled]

I am visiting the grave of Mr. Dred Scott today, he is buried in the same cemetery as General Sherman

[@iammrbeat]

That's awesome

[@doilyhead]

Calvary Cemetery, St. Louis, MO

[@mikesuch9021]

I don't get it

[@OpinionesDeJACCsOpinions]

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.

[@giovannibaietto9965]

but also without the civil war we wouldn't have what we have now.

[@macmacreynolds8712]

The Top Three Causes of the Civil War: 1.Kansas-Nebraska Act 2.Dred Scott Decision 3.Fugitive Slave Act

[@luisfilipe2023]

@@macmacreynolds8712there was only one cause of the “civil” war. Lincoln’s refusal to let the south secede peacefully

[@Rockzilla1122]

​@@luisfilipe2023 get the hell out of here with your lost cause revisionist bullshit

[@jimb4549]

@@luisfilipe2023 the south attacked first

[@brinley415]

"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.

[@TheStapleGunKid]

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]

Reading it right here, it actually sounds insane.

[@Itsloco314]

This one...

[@CrownMe13]

Right?!

[@_Jay_Singh]

Imagine being able to buy humans like they're farm animals. History is SCARY

[@iammrbeat]

The future is bright

[@yashas9974]

200 years later: imagine being able to buy animals like they are things

[@donaldschoenhofer1125]

What's twice as scary as history is, when we revise it so we don't learn from it.

[@jefferysaylor6758]

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).

[@giant0mantis]

History, or, you know, today in other countries

[@lukedetering4490]

The DREDed decision

[@iammrbeat]

Dredfully dreded.

[@paisleepunk]

Lol, best pun made about a dark topic.

[@jagerbolt90]

St. Louis native here! It's always crazy to think of the consequential, tragic history that goes on in our own backyards.

[@princam_4775]

St. Louis is weird because I never think of my city as having been important, then a bunch of important stuff happened here

[@Kayla-dz8dk]

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

[@oldteapot7534]

Without a doubt, this is the Supreme Court's worst decision in history.

[@frankw7091]

I agree. The sad thing is that most of the judges were southerners and several were slave owners who should have recused themselves.

[@oldteapot7534]

@@frankw7091 Yeah, and once the Civil War broke out many of them sympathized with the Confederacy.

[@juanlinares2249]

...so far.

[@a2zz-gk197]

Roe v. Wade was another bad one

[@AnnoyingAllie3]

@@a2zz-gk197 Yeah, they should revoke the right of privacy

[@dabidibup]

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

[@paulhanck1123]

Just another example of the supreme court making the wrong decision.

[@hunterrobin9929]

imagine this The 7 were democrats the other 2 were republicans

[@RP-16]

Its well understood that during the great depression, ideologies of both parties switched.

[@thepoliticalstartrek]

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.

[@macmacreynolds8712]

+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).

[@thepoliticalstartrek]

@@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.

[@troubledsole9104]

I could never understand how anyone in their own mind could justify OWNING another human being.

[@victorvolobuev507]

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.

[@troubledsole9104]

@@victorvolobuev507 are we talking about slavery?

[@krisshnapeswanipeswani3190]

@@victorvolobuev507 a baby is not living unitl it can survive without external support

[@jettforpresident3428]

Thank you for this video! I very recently read a small biography of Abraham Lincoln, and it mentioned the case.

[@iammrbeat]

+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.

[@jettforpresident3428]

Yeah.

[@Dkvizu]

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.

[@the4tierbridge]

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?

[@scottgrasser9475]

probably but the justices were inhuman monsters so not a surprise they were not good at there job

[@the4tierbridge]

@@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.

[@scottgrasser9475]

@@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

[@the4tierbridge]

@@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.

[@scottgrasser9475]

​@@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)

[@SiVlog1989]

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

[@iammrbeat]

Thank you. That means the world to hear that. Comments like these are honestly a big reason why I continue to do this. :D

[@revolutionaryprepper4076]

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]

So would the Kansas-Nebraska Act, passed by Congress in 1854.

[@GiveMeHandleIdeas]

@@macmacreynolds8712there was also that raid on Harper’s Ferry by John Brown

[@flamefusion8963]

How Dredful of a decision.

[@kiandocherty3589]

Man poor Judge Dredd must dread having to talk about the great injustice done by Dredd v Sanford.

[@josestarks8892]

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]

Additional Fun Fact: Justice Catron, although from Tennessee, took a pivotal role in persuading Justice Grier to side with the pro-slavery majority.

[@ItzMiaGaming]

Thank you so much for making these! They are very interesting and I watch them everyday!

[@iammrbeat]

Glad you like them!

[@raydavison4288]

Mr. Beat, You and those like you are the hope of the future. Live long & prosper.

[@macmacreynolds8712]

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.

[@lindsaymanning704]

I love your videos Mr. Beat. I think the first one I ever saw was about the election of 2000.

[@iammrbeat]

+Lindsay Manning Heck yeah. That's awesome that I haven't scared you off yet. :)

[@animalia5554]

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

[@rainb5987]

I agree. The only way to overturn the Supreme Court ruling that day was through constitutional amendment.

[@binyominsilverman1592]

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.

[@vvvvend3632]

Tf does this have to do with guns

[@staytheknight]

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!!!

[@FrankieJames7]

@@staytheknight it talks about congresses power over territories in this case just like OP said you derp.

[@RaimsWitDaBigTaims]

great *scott*

[@iammrbeat]

You always deliver, spicy meme

[@jamiebarba5701]

Back to Future.

[@sagesheahan6732]

These are awesome. Js. ☺️👍

[@pepperpitz3291]

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? 😪

[@sangitaupadhyay6512]

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]

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

[@nooblord1233]

Are you talking about abortion, you know, the right to kill children, having the rights to their person, the flesh theyre made of?

[@warnegoodman]

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.

[@thebestyoutubereverfr]

I’m learning about this in history

[@varianford5427]

Your a rat, how?

[@meandmyEV]

Man imagine what it was like when things like court cases got held up by diseases. Must have been crazy!

[@alexking7262]

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!

[@avinashreji60]

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

[@alexking7262]

@@avinashreji60 technically we’re both right here and I do agree with you too an extent. But I still hate Buck V. Bell more!

[@ff_lostecsantos6559]

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]

They had to make constitutional amendments just to fix it. Yeah, it was exceptionally terrible.

[@edgardovelez4498]

Grateful for the history lesson. Thanks!

[@cammywammy420]

This was the worst, and I mean the WORST supreme court decision so far in the history of the court.

[@DrSlay1313]

I love you too Mr. Beat.

[@georgewashington673]

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?

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

One of the worst Supreme Court decisions in US history.

[@TheStapleGunKid]

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 :)

[@florinivan6907]

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.

[@TheStapleGunKid]

@@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.

[@victorvolobuev507]

Great vid im just learning about this as a 43yo. Appreciate the info

[@GoatFulloBoats]

"The Supreme Court Case That Led to The Civil War" Can't wait for the sequel!

[@pamelafranklin3452]

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

[@GoatFulloBoats]

@@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.

[@ViktorEnjoyer]

I went to the place where dread and Harriet lived (Fort Snelling) for school field trip in 3rd grade

[@evidence707]

Thanks 4 the help.

[@shirtless6934]

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]

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.

[@universalplayz7496]

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

[@pseudonym9854]

I read about this case for the first time and the first thing I thought was "Are we the baddies?"

[@pamelafranklin3452]

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

[@clarissapullen6718]

Since nobody alive today in the United States was born either a slave or slave owner, nobody owes anybody an apology.

[@major_kukri2430]

​@@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_Rambo]

Yes

[@DarthCookieKS]

thank you it help with mi report

[@iammrbeat]

+Darth Cookie Awesome

[@macmacreynolds8712]

+Darth Cookie Anderson Are Buffcoat and Beaver still causing you lots of trouble?

[@macmacreynolds8712]

If you haven't already done it, can you do a video on Hammer v. Dagenhart, aka the Child Labor Case of 1918?

[@Treblaine]

They didn't just rule they weren't "citizens" they ruled they weren't "people".

[@nomad155]

This is a great example of what happens when folks don't wanna change the constitution. This is America!

[@mariovaccarella6854]

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

[@mummyneo7112]

Mr Beat Can you do who are your favourite US presidents?

[@iammrbeat]

I will be answering that in the 10,000 subscriber video (hopefully I will be making that video sooner than later!)

[@ashtoncollins868]

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 :/

[@rainb5987]

This is so heartbreaking.

[@f15stroke]

This channel is f*cking awesome. I’ll shout it out on things & stuff.

[@iammrbeat]

Thanks :D

[@1Ponzinator]

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.

[@covertLLC]

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'

[@georgeund7533]

I wish you mentioned the dissent

[@beautifulcarpetdiagram]

If he couldn't prove that he was a slave, why didn't he just walk away free?

[@major_kukri2430]

I asked the same question

[@lowmax4431]

Supreme court today: "hold my beer"

[@paulmentzer7658]

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.

The best and awesome :)

[@macmacreynolds8712]

I wonder why the portraits of Justices Catron and Nelson are in a reverse image?

[@YoungBillyKatastrophe]

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.

[@nickdepanfilis7895]

Great series.

[@ParkAir33]

Real funny algorithm... Real funny...

[@HistorysRaven]

States Rightists: "We support states rights and the South left because of it!" Me: "Have you read the Dred Scott case? It ends the right of free states to keep slavery out of their borders." SRs: "And it was beautiful!"

[@DugrozReports]

What happened that led to Scotts' freedom?

[@genericyoutubecommenter589]

the Civil War

[@DugrozReports]

@@genericyoutubecommenter589 That's a pretty generic KZbin comment. :)

[@Jake-rs9nq]

@@DugrozReports After the court case, Dred Scott and his family were sold off to a politician who freed them.

[@deborahrose8484]

@@Jake-rs9nq Good info!

[@sydhenderson6753]

@@genericyoutubecommenter589 He was freed before the Civil War.

[@andrewjgrimm]

If I tried to truly understand why the ruling occurred the way it did, would I lose sanity points?

[@abdullahibnzulu6322]

Visit Haiti 🇭🇹 no Dred full decision or hypocritical declarations true freedom is earned not granted by the perpetrators and architects of injustice. 1801🇭🇹

[@caydensullivan5193]

MR CALDWELLS CLASS TURNTUP

[@FluffyEmmy1116]

How long until we get one of these for the Cold Civil War to turn into the 2nd Civil War?

[@staytheknight]

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?

[@sydhenderson6753]

The Old Courthouse in Saint Louis where the trial took place is part of the Gateway Arch National Park.

[@PenelopeStoneVT]

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.

[@zackwoods5077]

This ruling is easily the worst one of all time from the SCOTUS.

[@alexist9705]

Very educational

[@eli3568]

So despicable.

[@daydodog]

Warning: this video will make you extremely angry

[@AverageFPE_Fan]

Cap nigga

[@STho205]

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.

[@bojackjackson6959]

Where did you get this info from?

[@rishaunspencer274]

@@bojackjackson6959 it's called books I think

[@genericyoutubecommenter589]

@@rishaunspencer274 gee that's real helpful. could you please give a title or something instead of a sarcastic reply?

[@psychicgoblin3781]

@@genericyoutubecommenter589 The Constitution is the real answer.

[@genericyoutubecommenter589]

@@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.

[@Phono-fun]

That image of John Emerson is not 1830s-1840s

[@georgewashington673]

Mr. Beat just FYI "Taliaferro" is pronounced "Toliver"

[@cristyflaherty4902]

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.

[@mawas6801]

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

[@universalplayz7496]

U want the 2 that voted against it be chained cuz they couldn't persuade the other 7?

[@macmacreynolds8712]

6:49 McClean?! It's McLean.

[@brennanchamplin9405]

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.

[@DCBiscuit]

Do you think either side would have held back on their stances if they knew the consequences of the war’s results?

[@genericyoutubecommenter589]

That's a good question and i have no answer

[@major_kukri2430]

@DCBiscuit No

[@deleted-something]

Wow, this was way more horrible that I first thought

[@CrownMe13]

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.

[@SaltyMinorcan]

ty good vid

[@adrianespinel7758]

You know the Supreme Court screwed up royally when even one of the justices go "screw this, I'm outta here! F you, f you, f you, f you, not you McLean, you're cool, f you, f you, and f you especially with a cactus Taney!" *drops mic*

[@genericyoutubecommenter589]

source?

[@ChefAnatoly]

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!

[@michaelmoran9020]

Found the nation of Islam member

[@kennethkho7165]

I agree this is the worst Supreme Court decision ever, the opinion of Chief Justice Taney that persons of African descent cannot and were never intended to be citizens was simply racist and without any legal basis as the question was about slaves and not race. I concur however that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional (and it was also repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act). This was for the simple fact that the question of slavery fell under the police powers of the states as it was not part of interstate commerce. The federal government had no authority to free slaves. Had Dred Scott sued for freedom in the state of Illinois however, he would have been admitted as a citizen and have the right to vote. This was the problem with the US constitution itself rather than the Court. Had the founding fathers seen what's coming though, they probably would've abolished slavery right away and the North-South divide we still see today would probably have not existed. I highly doubt that this decision ultimately led to the Civil War, as it was caused by the blunder on the part of the Southern states. They could not have possibly won the war yet they started it, without the war they likely would have retained slavery for longer and the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th would be uncertain at best which we are grateful for today.