Podcast appearances and mentions of Scott V Sandford

We continue reading the third and final segment of the 1857 opinion of the Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford.  I omit citations to provide a better listening experience. Find the full opinion here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/60us393

We continue reading the 1857 opinion of the Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford where we left off in Part 1 .  I omit citations to provide a better listening experience. Find the full opinion here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/60us393    

*Note: The audio quality of the earliest episodes (like this one) is not the best. Sorry. Don't worry, the quality gets better in the episodes ahead as I learn the new skillset required. Audio of the 1857 opinion of the Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford. For the next several episodes, I'll be reading an opinion from 1857 that has long since been overturned and relegated to the trash heap of bad Supreme Court decisions - Dred Scott v. Sandford. In the Dred Scott decision, the Taney Court held that African Americans, slave or free, were not citizens of the United States. I've decided to read this opinion over several episodes for two reasons: one is that it is incredibly lengthy and the other is that its contents shock the conscience. By this, I mean that its contents are so racist and offensive that both the listener and the reader are likely to need a little time to recover in-between each segment. I do want to warn those listening, especially those listening with African ancestry, that this opinion is incredibly insulting and no longer has any place in United States constitutional law save for its historical evidence of the stain of slavery. I omit citations to provide a better listening experience. Find the full opinion here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/60us393   Music by Epidemic Sound

JayTee discuss Roe V Wade & Dred Scott V Sandford --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/jaytee1923/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/jaytee1923/support

In this episode of Saint Louis: The Story of Catholic Evangelization of America's Heartland, Volume Two: The Lion and the Fourth City, Msgr. Michael Witt and Teresa Holman of Covenant Radio discuss Scott v. Sandford.

In this episode, The Dred Scott Decision, We need to band together BlanchardNetwork.com  What's Going On with Kenn, https://gofund.me/a098f55b    Before the Civil War ended, State "Slave Codes" prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed "Black Codes." They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. This view was specifically articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in its infamous 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford to uphold slavery.    Dred Scott, a slave born in Virginia, was purchased by John Emerson in Missouri in 1820. Emerson then traveled with Scott to Fort Armstrong, Illinois and from there to Fort Snelling, Wisconsin. Both Illinois and Wisconsin prohibited slavery. Scott and his wife stayed in Wisconsin when Emerson returned to Missouri. Since Emerson leased their services to other white people in Wisconsin, he violated the Missouri Compromise as well as other laws against slavery in that region.  When Emerson moved to Louisiana, Scott and his wife joined them. Their daughter was born in a steamboat on the Mississippi River, which technically made her a free person because she was born in free territory. Emerson soon returned to Wisconsin, but his wife took Scott and his wife back to Missouri when Scott served in the Seminole War. Emerson ultimately died in Iowa, and his widow inherited Scott, whose services she continued to lease to others. Emerson's widow rejected an attempt by Scott to buy his family's freedom, which led to legal action. Scott argued that his wife and he were legally emancipated because of their residence in free territories. Missouri courts had ruled in favor of similarly positioned slaves, but his case was initially dismissed on a minor procedural ground. Eventually, the jury did rule in his favor, but Emerson's widow appealed. She had moved to Massachusetts by then and given Scott to her brother, John F.A. Sandford. Upon appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed earlier decisions in this area and ruled that Scott was not required to be emancipated because he had failed to sue for his freedom when he was living in a free state. When Sandford moved to New York, Scott resumed his legal action there in federal court, since diversity jurisdiction applied.  On March 6, 1857, in the case of Dred Scott v. John Sanford, United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ruled that African Americans were not and could not be citizens. Taney wrote that the Founders' words in the Declaration of Independence, “all men were created equal,” were never intended to apply to blacks. Blacks could not vote, travel, or even fall in love and marry of their own free will — rights granted, according to the Declaration, by God to all. It was the culmination of ten years of court battles — Dred Scott's fight to live and be recognized as a free man. The High Court's decision went even further, declaring laws that restricted slavery in new states or sought to keep a balance between free and slave states, such as the Missouri Compromise, were unconstitutional. In essence, Black Americans, regardless of where they lived, were believed to be nothing more than commodities. The Taney court was dominated by pro-slavery judges from the South. Of the nine, seven judges had been appointed by pro-slavery Presidents — five, in fact, came from slave-holding families. The decision was viewed by many as a victory for the Southern “Slavocracy,” and a symbol of the power the South had over the highest court. The dramatic ripple effect of Dred Scott — a ruling historians widely agree was one of the worst racially-based decisions ever handed down by the United States Supreme Court — reached across the states and territories. It sent shivers through the North and the free African-American community. Technically, no black was free of re-enslavement.   Justice delayed is justice denied" is a legal maxim. It means that if legal redress or equitable relief to an injured party is available, but is not forthcoming in a timely fashion, it is effectively the same as having no remedy at all.   Woodie Guthrie - Nobody living can ever stop me,  As I go walking that freedom highway;  Nobody living can ever make me turn back  This land was made for you and me.   Check out  https://www.blanchardnetwork.com/show/guns-cornbread    GoFundme - https://gofund.me/a098f55b    Patreon.com/blackmanwithagun 

This is the story of the most consequential Supreme Court case in history: Dred Scott v. Sandford. It was a catalyst for Abraham Lincoln's famous “House Divided” speech, which catapulted him onto the national stage. It led a dissenting justice to resign in protest. And it plunged our nation into its darkest hour—a civil war that nearly tore us apart. Join us as we explore what it means for our country and our Constitution today.Thanks to our guests Jeffrey Rosen, Mark Graber, Earl Maltz, Tim Huebner and voice actors Steven Anderson and David Deerson.Special thanks to Toni Giménez for his rendition of “Yankee Doodle” on banjo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLxJR4-JNuI.Follow us on Twitter @ehslattery @anastasia_esq @pacificlegal #DissedPod See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This is the story of the most consequential Supreme Court case in history: Dred Scott v. Sandford. It was a catalyst for Abraham Lincoln's famous “House Divided” speech, which catapulted him onto the national stage. It led a dissenting justice to resign in protest. And it plunged our nation into its darkest hour—a civil war […]

In this episode we discuss The Sellout by Paul Beatty.  Then we dive into whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable and what the Supreme Court thinks about it.  Sources:Strange Supreme Court Cases with Lasting ImpactsOct. 11, 2014 by Damien Bhttps://listverse.com/2014/10/11/10-strange-supreme-court-cases-with-lasting-impacts/"Dred Scott v. Sandford." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/60us393. Accessed 21 Feb. 2021."Buck v. Bell." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/274us200. Accessed 21 Feb. 2021.https://www.houseofnames.com/mee-family-crest#:~:text=The%20Mee%20family%20originally%20lived,villages%2C%20parishes%2C%20or%20farmsteads.

I talk about the Dred Scott v. Sandford case and why it was so important. Correction: I mistakenly called the Chief Justice John Taney, his name is actually Roger. Don't know how I screwed that one up. Merch! Support me: https://anchor.fm/homeschool-biscuit/support My website: homeschoolburrito.com Send me a voice message: https://anchor.fm/homeschool-biscuit/message Music credits: "Derp Nugget" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ "Balloon Game" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/homeschool-biscuit/support

The worst Supreme Court decision ever made. Dred Scott v. Sandford. Sources https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/60us393 https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/dred-scott-case https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=29 https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_dred.html https://www.britannica.com/event/Dred-Scott-decision https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2932.html https://billofrightsinstitute.org/dred-scott-v-sanford-1857-excerpts-majority-dissenting-opinions/ --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/thesupremecourttimes/support

The case that not only lit the fire to the beginning of the Civil War however also started the ball rolling for the 13th and 14th amendment. Stay connected with LOTUS X here: + Subscribe now! Instagram: www.instagram.com/watchlotusx/ Twitter: twitter.com/watchlotusx Facebook: www.facebook.com/watchlotusx About LOTUS X : Launched by Bennie “Poeticlee” Williams III, LOTUS X is a destination in cultural content for re-birthing your purpose to live. Focused on creatively curating content that is educational in life essentials, insightful towards relationship building, guidance through spiritual awakenings, and many expressions of various art. Topics LOTUS X covers include: Spirituality, marriage, climate change, civics, manhood, brotherhood, and many more.

The concept of equality has been with us since the founding of the United States, and it's been revised and fought over and debated for about as long, from the Civil War and the Fourteenth Amendment to the culture wars and the legalization of same-sex marriage. But not every argument for equality that is brought up in a court of law goes well. In fact, equality arguments often backfire, ending up affirming inequality: Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu v. United States … or just last year, Trump v. Hawaii. Losing the battle in court for an abstract concept like equality has tangible consequences for people on the ground, from trans soldiers to Iranian kids seeking lifesaving medical treatment. But what if there’s a way to fight for equal treatment without sending current laws backsliding? American University law professor Robert Tsai joins us on the podcast to argue for what he calls “practical equality.”Go beyond the episode:Robert L. Tsai’s Practical Equality: Forging Justice in a Divided NationRead his essay on how another approach would be not only to broaden the variety of arguments, but also to expand the venues for those arguments.For a steamier episode on the law, check out our interview with Geoffrey R. Stone in the episode “Out of the Closet and Into the Courts”Listen to the More Perfect episode “The Imperfect Plaintiffs” about how certain cases—like Plessy v. Ferguson—were manufactured by individuals to challenge existing lawFor another spin on how public action influences the courts, check out this interview with lawyer Darryl Li about the mass protests of the Muslim travel ban, as well as Barry Friedman’s The Will of the PeopleTune in every week to catch interviews with the liveliest voices from literature, the arts, sciences, history, and public affairs; reports on cutting-edge works in progress; long-form narratives; and compelling excerpts from new books. Hosted by Stephanie Bastek. Follow us on Twitter @TheAmScho or on Facebook.Subscribe: iTunes • Feedburner • Stitcher • Google Play • AcastHave suggestions for projects you’d like us to catch up on, or writers you want to hear from? Send us a note: podcast [at] theamericanscholar [dot] org. And rate us on iTunes! Our theme music was composed by Nathan Prillaman. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The concept of equality has been with us since the founding of the United States, and it's been revised and fought over and debated for about as long, from the Civil War and the Fourteenth Amendment to the culture wars and the legalization of same-sex marriage. But not every argument for equality that is brought up in a court of law goes well. In fact, equality arguments often backfire, ending up affirming inequality: Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu v. United States … or just last year, Trump v. Hawaii. Losing the battle in court for an abstract concept like equality has tangible consequences for people on the ground, from trans soldiers to Iranian kids seeking lifesaving medical treatment. But what if there’s a way to fight for equal treatment without sending current laws backsliding? American University law professor Robert Tsai joins us on the podcast to argue for what he calls “practical equality.”Go beyond the episode:Robert L. Tsai’s Practical Equality: Forging Justice in a Divided NationRead his essay on how another approach would be not only to broaden the variety of arguments, but also to expand the venues for those arguments.For a steamier episode on the law, check out our interview with Geoffrey R. Stone in the episode “Out of the Closet and Into the Courts”Listen to the More Perfect episode “The Imperfect Plaintiffs” about how certain cases—like Plessy v. Ferguson—were manufactured by individuals to challenge existing lawFor another spin on how public action influences the courts, check out this interview with lawyer Darryl Li about the mass protests of the Muslim travel ban, as well as Barry Friedman’s The Will of the PeopleTune in every week to catch interviews with the liveliest voices from literature, the arts, sciences, history, and public affairs; reports on cutting-edge works in progress; long-form narratives; and compelling excerpts from new books. Hosted by Stephanie Bastek. Follow us on Twitter @TheAmScho or on Facebook.Subscribe: iTunes • Feedburner • Stitcher • Google Play • AcastHave suggestions for projects you’d like us to catch up on, or writers you want to hear from? Send us a note: podcast [at] theamericanscholar [dot] org. And rate us on iTunes! Our theme music was composed by Nathan Prillaman.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In 1960, Professor Fred Rodell of Yale Law School, "bad boy of American legal academia," asked his students to write scripts describing important Supreme Court cases. The scripts were directed by David Allen, performed by David Allen, Paul Sparer, and Jack Curtis, and released on LP by Educational Audio Visual, Inc. According to the record sleeve:The arguments of the lawyers in each of these cases are paraphrased from the language used in the original briefs of the contending parties. However, in all cases when the Court speaks, we have quoted the exact language of the judge delivering the opinion, taken from the official report of the case. The opinion, of course, has been condensed and necessary connective words or phrases have been added. The script for each cases was prepared by Yale Law School students in Professor Fred Rodell's Course in Law and Public Opinion.The script for Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) was written by A.B. Glickman, who became a civic leader in Cleveland, Ohio, and an adjunct professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this episode we examine the infamous Dred Scott case, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1857.The decision in this case exacerbated the differences between the northern and southern states and led, in an almost direct line to the rebellion of the south resulting in a civil war.

Section 1 of the 14th amendment reads “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Birthright citizenship stems from the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which was meant to override the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that denied African Americans citizenship. Recently, President Trump announced that he would put an end to birthright citizenship for those born to parents illegally in the country with a stroke of a pen through executive order. On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Dr. John C. Eastman, the Henry Salvatori professor of law and community service, and former dean, at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law and attorney Margaret Stock from the Cascadia Cross Border Law Group LLC out of Anchorage Alaska, and a former law professor at the United States Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., to discuss the origin and application of birthright citizenship, whether or not it can be restricted, and much more. Dr. John C. Eastman is the Henry Salvatori professor of law and community service, and former dean, at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law. Margaret Stock is an attorney from the Cascadia Cross Border Law Group LLC out of Anchorage Alaska, and a former law professor at the United States Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. Special thanks to our sponsors, Clio.

When Dred Scott v. Sandford was decided in 1857, the court decision ruled that enslaved Africans and their descendants weren’t and could never be citizens of the United States, whether they were free or not. But before that, Scott and his family had been free by a jury in 1850. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://news.iheart.com/podcast-advertisers

Dred Scott v. Sandford is one of the most notorious Supreme Court cases of all time. It wasn’t just about Dred Scott. It was also about his wife Harriet and their daughters Eliza and Lizzy. This episode covers Dred and Harriet, how they met, and what their lives were like before petitioning for their freedom in 1846. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://news.iheart.com/podcast-advertisers

In this episode of More Perfect, two families grapple with one terrible Supreme Court decision. Dred Scott v. Sandford is one of the most infamous cases in Supreme Court history: in 1857, a slave named Dred Scott filed a suit for his freedom and lost. In his decision, Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney wrote that black men “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”  One civil war and more than a century later, the Taneys and the Scotts reunite at a Hilton in Missouri to figure out what reconciliation looks like in the 21st century. Photograph of Dred Scott, c. 1857 (Uncredited/Wikimedia Commons) Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney (Library of Congress's Prints and Photographs division/Wikimedia Commons) Day 1 of the Dred Scott Sons and Daughters of Reconciliation conference at the Hilton Frontenac Hotel, December 2, 2016. Left to Right: Shannon LaNier (Thomas Jefferson descendant), Lynne Jackson (Dred Scott descendant), Bertram Hayes-Davis (Jefferson Davis descendant), Charlie Taney (Roger Brooke Taney descendant), Dred Scott Madison (Dred Scott descendant), Ashton LeBourgeois (Blow family descendant), John LeBourgeois (Blow family descendant), and Pastor Sylvester Turner. (C. Webster, Courtesy of the Dred Scott Heritage Foundation/Black Tie Photos) The key voices: Lynne Jackson, great-great-granddaughter of Dred and Harriet Scott, president and founder of the Dred Scott Heritage Foundation Dred Scott Madison, great-great-grandson of Dred Scott Barbara McGregory, great-great-granddaughter of Dred Scott Charlie Taney, great-great-grandnephew of Roger Brooke Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who wrote the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision Richard Josey, Manager of Programs at the Minnesota Historical Society The key cases: 1857: Dred Scott v. Sandford The key links: The Dred Scott Heritage Foundation  Harriet Scott, wife of Dred Scott, 1857 (Noted from “Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper, June 27,1857.” Minnesota Historical Society/Wikimedia Commons) These quarters (now restored) at Fort Snelling in Minnesota are believed to have been occupied by Dred and Harriet Scott between roughly 1836–1840. (McGhiever/Wikimedia Commons) Special thanks to Kate Taney Billingsley, whose play, A Man of His Time, inspired the story. Additional music for this episode by Gyan Riley. Thanks to Soren Shade for production help. Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.

Pat reads Jazz, Sam reads Beloved, they discuss both! Departing from the usual format, this episode features both novels by Toni Morrison in a discussion exploring the work of one of American literature's greatest icons. Highlights include some comparisons to the film Beloved starring Oprah Winfrey and Danny Glover as well as Sam's definition of magical realism. Follow @Infin8Gestation on Twitter • Visit InfiniteGestation.com Show Notes & Links Toni Morrison Jazz Beloved Beloved (film) Kunderafest – The Festival of Insignificance by Milan Kundera | Episode 002 40 acres and a mule Dred Scott Decision (Dred Scott v. Sandford) Paul B is actually Paul D (apologies from Sam) Die Blechtrommel – The Tin Drum by Günter Grass | Episode 008 The Tin Drum by Günter Grass Salman Rushdie One Hundred Years of Solitude Gabriel Garcia Márquez Terry Pratchett The Exorcist Woody Allen Sunset Boulevard

The Inconvenient Truth About the Democratic Party Did you know that the Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, founded the KKK, and fought against every major civil rights act in U.S. history? Watch as Carol Swain, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, shares the inconvenient history of the Democratic Party. When you think about racial equality and civil rights, which political party comes to mind? The Republicans? Or, the Democrats? Most people would probably say the Democrats. But this answer is incorrect.   Since its founding in 1829, the Democratic Party has fought against every major civil rights initiative, and has a long history of discrimination. The Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, opposed Reconstruction, founded the Ku Klux Klan, imposed segregation, perpetrated lynchings, and fought against the civil rights acts of the 1950s and 1960s. In contrast, the Republican Party was founded in 1854 as an anti-slavery party. Its mission was to stop the spread of slavery into the new western territories with the aim of abolishing it entirely. This effort, however, was dealt a major blow by the Supreme Court. In the 1857 case Dred Scott v. Sandford, the court ruled that slaves aren’t citizens; they’re property. The seven justices who voted in favor of slavery? All Democrats. The two justices who dissented? Both Republicans. The slavery question was, of course, ultimately resolved by a bloody civil war. The commander-in-chief during that war was the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln – the man who freed the slaves. Six days after the Confederate army surrendered, John Wilkes Booth, a Democrat, assassinated President Lincoln. Lincoln’s vice president, a Democrat named Andrew Johnson, assumed the presidency. But Johnson adamantly opposed Lincoln’s plan to integrate the newly freed slaves into the South’s economic and social order. Johnson and the Democratic Party were unified in their opposition to the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery; the 14th Amendment, which gave blacks citizenship; and the 15th Amendment, which gave blacks the vote. All three passed only because of universal Republican support. During the era of Reconstruction, federal troops stationed in the south helped secure rights for the newly freed slaves. Hundreds of black men were elected to southern state legislatures as Republicans, and 22 black Republicans served in the US Congress by 1900. The Democrats did not elect a black man to Congress until 1935. But after Reconstruction ended, when the federal troops went home, Democrats roared back into power in the South. They quickly reestablished white supremacy across the region with measures like black codes – laws that restricted the ability of blacks to own property and run businesses. And they imposed poll taxes and literacy tests, used to subvert the black citizen’s right to vote. And how was all of this enforced? By terror -- much of it instigated by the Ku Klux Klan, founded by a Democrat, Nathan Bedford Forrest. As historian Eric Foner - himself a Democrat - notes: “In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party.” President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, shared many views with the Klan. He re-segregated many federal agencies, and even screened the first movie ever played at the White House - the racist film “The Birth of a Nation,” originally entitled “The Clansman.” A few decades later, the only serious congressional opposition to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 came from Democrats. Eighty percent of Republicans in Congress supported the bill. Less than 70 percent of Democrats did. Democratic senators filibustered the bill for 75 days, until Republicans mustered the few extra votes needed to break the logjam. And when all of their efforts to enslave blacks, keep them enslaved, and then keep them from voting had failed, the Democrats came up with a new strategy: If black people are going to vote, they might as well vote for Democrats. As President Lyndon Johnson was purported to have said about the Civil Rights Act, “I’ll have them n*****s voting Democrat for two hundred years.” So now, the Democratic Party prospers on the votes of the very people it has spent much of its history oppressing. Democrats falsely claim that the Republican Party is the villain, when in reality it’s the failed policies of the Democratic Party that have kept blacks down. Massive government welfare has decimated the black family. Opposition to school choice has kept them trapped in failing schools.  Politically correct policing has left black neighborhoods defenseless against violent crime. So, when you think about racial equality and civil rights, which political party should come to mind? I’m Carol Swain, professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University, for Prager University.

The latest episode of TAH.org's Landmark Supreme Court Cases Saturday Webinars aired live on Saturday, 15 October 2016, with Dred Scott v. Sandford as the focus. Prof. Chris Burkett of Ashland University moderated the discussion between Profs. Lucas Morel and Jonathan White, and included a live teacher audience of over 100. In addition to the background of the case itself, the panelists discussed the following question, most of which were posed by teachers from the audience: Did Justice Taney believe that the decision in the case would put an end to sectional differences over slavery? Were there political motives behind Taney's decision? What were the main points of the dissenting opinions? How did Taney justify and rationalize his decision? How did the decision reflect or relate to the positions of other leaders of the time, including Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, and Alexander Stephens? An interesting point related to the case is that of the perceptions of the Founder's intent. Essentially, Taney asserted that the Founders never intended for African-Americans to be treated and seen as anything but property, and that they were truly lesser beings. If anyone believed otherwise, Taney's response would be that they misunderstood the Founders' true intentions. Alexander Stephens, on the other hand, asserted that although the Founders did promote equality of all people, they were wrong by including, even if only by implication, non-whites, and that the Southern view of the races, based in 'science,' was the correct one. Finally, it was Lincoln who believed that the Founders did include non-whites as people and therefore entitled to certain natural rights, and that if anything, it was the generations of leaders since who'd failed to continue to reach for those goals. The post Saturday Webinar: Dred Scott v. Sandford appeared first on Teaching American History.

Feb. 18, 2016. In his "House Divided" speech, Abraham Lincoln accused Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan and Senator Stephen Douglas of a conspiracy to perpetuate slavery in the United States. According to Lincoln, this conspiracy took form in the 1857 Supreme Court case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, which excluded African Americans from U.S. citizenship. Kluge Fellow Rachel Shelden re-examines Lincoln's conspiracy charge in the context of how the federal political system -- and particularly the Supreme Court -- operated in the mid-19th century. For transcript, captions, and more information, visit http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec=7288

Guests talk about the 1857 Supreme Court case [Dred Scott v. Sandford], in which the Court declared that Dred Scott and other blacks could not be citizens of the U.S., and that Congress lacked the authority to prohibit slavery in the territories. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices