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!
I love how fun and interesting you make these videos, especially being how depressing some of the topics are. Your channel is awesome for home school history.
Good Lord, YES, how right you are about some topics (THIS ONE!) being depressing. It's pretty vile. And Chief Justice Taney, well, I just remember that when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus Taney made a fuss and Lincoln threatened to have him put in jail. Taney shut up. I wish Lincoln had put him in jail.
I am trying to listen intently and keep having a giggle fit whenever he says "OWNER" because it catches me off guard every time and it's freaking hilarious!!!!
Annoying noise whenever you say "owner". I understand this is a mea culpa sound effect, but it breaks the concentration of the viewer and interferes with understanding the issue. Property rights are important in the US constitution, and that's a good thing as anyone who understood how tenuous such rights were in Europe with a feudal monarchy would attest. Owning another human being as property is indeed awful, and wicked men exploited the property rights issue to perpetuate this wrong, but preserving property rights is also important. It's the misuse of the good in the constitution to maintain an evil that is the interesting part of this case. Sorry to say this technique is still used today.
Hi Professor Hughes, I came across this video while preparing for my Dred Scott exam for my Master's degree. I love your channel and will be exploring it in the future for sure. Thanks for your hard work. You are doing a really good job! However, there are some minor corrections I would like to make about this specific video. Nothing major, pretty much just nitpicking ;-) - Scott and the Blows moved to St. Louis, Missouri in 1830. At this point, Missouri already had statehood. In 1820, Scott was in Alabama. - Illinois was admitted to the Union in 1818. - Emerson didn't die in the Seminole War. After being discharged from the army, he relocated to Davenport, Iowa Territory where he died in December of 1843. - Irene Emerson never transferred custody to her brother, John F.A. Sanford. Even though Sanford did say in court Scott was his slave, there is no proof any transfer ever happened. It is unclear why exactly Sanford kept claiming his ownership. In any case, when Irene married Dr. Chaffee, he became the owner of Scott (of which he was unaware until some point during the Supreme Course trial). - Taney is pronounced 'Tawn-ey', not 'Tan-ey' - I'm not sure I agree with what you say about John Brown. I haven't done much reading on John Brown. However, his name doesn't come up in any of my reading on the Dred Scott case and his consequences. The other consequences you name do come up. - Peter Blow did not purchase his former slave's freedom. Peter Blow had died in 1832. Dred Scott was set free by Taylor Blow, Peter Blow's son. Dr. Chaffee, the owner of Dred Scott and an abolitionist, had transferred his rights to Taylor Blow, because only a citizen of Missouri could set a slave in Missouri free; there was no money involved in this process. Here are some of the books I used to prepare for my exam in which you can doublecheck the things I pointed out: Finkelman, Paul. Dred Scott v. Sanford. A Brief History with Documents. Fehrenbacher, Don. The Dred Scott Case. Its Significance in American Law and Politics. Konig, David; Finkelman, Paul, and Christopher Bracey (eds.). The Dred Scott Case. Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Race and Law. Ehrlich, Walter. They Have No Rights. Dred Scott's Struggle for Freedom. I would like to suggest one topic for your videos to cover in the future (I searched your channel and didn't find anything) - lynchings in the US (from the 17th century to today). Again, let me stress how much I love your channel and appreciate your work. Hope this helps!
Hey Keith, I've been watching your videos for a few months. I'm a first-year law student, I've found your videos really helpful in my Constitutional Law course. Whenever you have a video regarding a case I'm assigned to read I watch it before hand. Watching the video first helps give me the general framework of the events that have led to the case and the important holdings within the case, this always makes the half hour spent reading the case itself much easier when I know where it's leading and have a context to put it in. Just wanted to say thanks! You always mention history/poly sci majors in your videos, so I thought I'd just let you know that there are law students as well out there watching your videos and finding them useful.
Quinn, Kudos are always welcome; much appreciated! Its awesome to know my vids have moved outside of my classroom. Good luck in your field; if I had to do it over again I would seriously consider a law path! If you ever have a question or anything, let me know. Much Respect, Peace and Love, Keith.....
+Keith Hughes (HipHughes) I had a test on the Dredscott Case,Bleeding Kansas ,and the Kansas Nebraska Act yesterday I watched this and it really helped I got a 100A+ so thank you :-)
+Keith Hughes (HipHughes) I had a test on the Dredscott Case,Bleeding Kansas ,and the Kansas Nebraska Act yesterday I watched this and it really helped I got a 100A+ so thank you :-)
Bro as a first year law student let me help you out. NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY, any and EVERYTHING that can be done harmful to american people HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE either to, or because of Black people in the US. There is NOT A MOMENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY that can be separated from some kind of screwing of black people, or whites who tried to do the right thing. Black empowerment in the US has been cryptonite to the foundation of America. Im not the most "educated" person as far as school is concerned, BUT I do know american history. The existence of blacks in america in one form or another has shaped EVERY aspect of American politics. Oh it should also be known that just "black" people more specifically, even more specifically Black American Descendants of North America. Chattel slavery, are not, were not, and never have been immigrants. Just as native americans are not, black american descendants of slavery are NOT immigrant descendants.
No it was not the worst decision by the Supreme Court it is law one of the issues stated in that case was who can claim the Declaration of Independence which is avoided nowadays because the presumption is that were citizens of United States which were not where American Nationals United States has violated the law committed war crimes against the people of America if you're a descendant of slaves are liberated property you cannot claim the Declaration of Independence the British government did not surrender to that class of people nor their descendants you can only be subjects that is citizens and even that is an issue that I believe the Dred Scott case said they cannot be citizens even though the 14th Amendment was forced and made them citizens which was a fraudulent Amendment because it enslaved everybody made the American people property or the presumption of property people waking up understanding real ownership of property and contractual rights if I don't have a contract with you who are you what jurisdiction are you asserting and how did you gain that Authority show me the maritime contract you can't you have no authority over me or my descendants or my estate United States is a terrorist organization the District of Columbia crap now with the internet these issues are coming to light 4 years District of Columbia and its supporters that took an advantage of the use of language and the courts and victimized countless amounts of people I think the people going to come to kill you I'm one of them and I want you did I'm educating myself stocking up on ammunition buying guns doing my research preparing for my attack I'm going to figure out every b******* you did and hold you accountable for it I want my estate back I'm the executor of the estate I rebut the presumption of trustee status to the United States I want real ownership of land real property allodial title not just anybody can claim the status of We the People and when you think about what the court said in the Dred Scott case when it said that the African American people are not numbered amongst the people in the colonies what this indicates is there is a record of your line of Ascension not just anybody can claim the status of we the people that is inscribed in the preambles of the organic Constitution not the de facto Constitution citizens do not have any say in matters of We the People so shut the fuk up citizens you're nothing more than property bound to the authority of your nation or sovereign
Hey Teach', thanks for putting the word "Owner" in air-quotes @1:35 and throughout. Kudos for acknowledging that one human being cannot own another human being. Words DO matter. Stay 'woke'.
It's still law and it says the Declaration of Independence doesn't apply to them or their descendants that they're not one of the We the People as described in preambles of the Constitution
In your explanation, it was never clear where Dred Scott was born nor if he was born free or a slave. It seems that this information would be important to address when giving the background of this story to people who may not know the story. Other than that, I thought your explanation was thorough.
Kurenzen Iyaren you're right. 1868 14th amendment was made paved the way for the civil rights movement. There is also no harm in learning details of a prominent historical figure.
Joy Hood your forgetting the 13th Amendment with 20 sections that was never over turned! It's still the congressional record. 14th is a Joke What right in any country has to be renewed every 20 or 50 years. If "Black People" or "African Americans" have the right to Vote then it shouldn't have to be renewed
The voting rights act will not expire. I'm not clear why anyone discount such a crucial turning point in this nations history. But you are entitled to your own opinion.
The Taney Court - 1857 Dred Scott Case NORTH Roger B. Taney Maryland Benjamin Robins Curtis Massachusetts Samuel Nelson New York John McLean Ohio Robert Cooper Grier Pennsylvania SOUTH James Moore Wayne Georgia Peter Vivian Daniel Virginia John Catron Tennessee John Archibald Campbell Alabama
Mr. Hughes, at about 6:46 you mentioned that the supreme court decided on Fred Scott case but didn't just leave it there. They reached beyond the Scott case to make a decision on a federal law (Missouri compromise) & declared that it's unconstitutional. In your opinion, is this similar to what the Supreme Court did recently? In that they didn't leave the scope of their judicial review to the Dobbs case & instead reached beyond that case to declare Roe V Wade unconstitutional? (I think Justice Roberts mentioned that in his opinion). Also, when are you coming out with a video on this Dobbs case???
Great lesson Professor Hughes. I'm long out of school, but love your lectures and how you explain presidential election history. Well done and keep up the good work
I started watching your videos as review for my American History class, but I've found that I enjoy them quite a lot and frequently watch them for fun! Thank you for opening up the world of the past to so many people!
OMG!! I love your videos! you help me understand my class and I cite your videos in my homework not only because I should but everyone needs to follow you! Thanks for doing the most! I understand my class better because of your breakdown on the topics!
I am more confused now! My Grandfather was McLean, I hoped you would speak about him. from the history I read on McLean I thought he influenced the decision in a more positive direction even though he had to really work around the system. Would love to hear your take on McLean. Wikipedia has a lot of information on him. Thank You , Angie
thank you Hughes for making american government understandable !!! my professor sucks at telling history and you make it seem so easy to understand thanks for helping me pass my course !
I like the part at the end discussing the "effects" of the decision. A lot of people forget that every action has a reaction. Once it's been established that we're not protected by anything here in America, we've definitely been on a hell of a roller coaster ride. We've been treated badly from day one. But that hasn't stopped our progress. For every obstacle we clear is 5 more waiting. But we still continue the marathon!! You're only a slave if you allow them to keep you one.
Hey HipHughes. Nice hasty generalization @ 6:05 about the founding fathers. It also seemed like a bit of an ad hominem. Whose writings in particular did the Supreme Court sight and why do you lump them all together? To me, you seem to be part of the problem as to why our young people have been brainwashed as to the founders being a bunch of white racists. I think you can easily see in the first words of the Declaration that the founders were incrementalists. They had the revolutionary war to fight. I feel that they unfortunately had to put the sin of slavery off until later. Thanks for the video , however. I learned something.
Scott v. Sandford (1857): * Around 1820 during the time of the Missouri Compromise, Dredd scott's owner takes him to Missouri which was a slave territory. There he was sold to another owner named John Emerson who was an army surgeon who would eventually move to Illinois with Dredd. According to the Northwest Ordinance (1787), Illinois and Wisconsin were free territories. * Around 1837, Emerson dies, and his wife moves Dredd Scott from Louisiana to Missouri. Dredd Scott tries to gain freedom through the supreme court of Missouri citing that since he served his former owner in a free state that his freedom should be recognized in Missouri. * The court ruled that enslaved people, and their descendants have no claim to citizenship rights because they are property. Enslaved people may be emancipated in certain states but under the circumstance of slavery they did not have the legitimacy to bring anything to trial. The court also used judicial review to determine that congress's ability to regulate slavery in the states and territories is unconstitutional.
Henry Blow was never Dred Scott's "owner." He "owned" Scott's future wife, Harriet performed the marriage ceremony himself, then sold Harriet to Dr. Emerson. Later, Blow's son supported the Scotts' decision to sue for their freedom. Finally, after the Supreme Court decision against the Scotts, another of Henry Blow's children bought the entire Scott family for the express purpose of freeing them. The Scotts were offered a large amount of money to tour the North and speak out against slavery but really all they wanted was a quiet family life with their two daughters, so they declined the offer and settled in St. Louis. Unfortunately, Dred Scott died about a year later of tuberculosis (as many people did in that time).
as an aside, i just find it wild that we have photographs of people like Dredd Scott....a man who was born so long ago as to have known people who were witnesses to the Revolutionary War period. Crazy.
I was was having a water cooler discussion about this at work which is what brought me here, but now I can’t get over how much this guy looks like Tom Arnold, lol!
Man this big mess of things tells me that this nation either had to have all its citizens on board to either be a slave nation or a free nation. If not, then war was ultimately inevitable, even with the south secession from the union. Just my 2 cents.
Thank you so much for your videos and for what you do! You have been a lifesaver for me and my middle school kids! You make it fun, interesting and informative to learn history and that is no easy task!
Words on the screen are good but they are distracting unless they are the very words you are speaking. If you can't do that, don't forget to tell your audience in advance to click pause when they show up.
who is here during quarantine and has a test on this
oof yea
BRO WHAT
@@samuraigamerclips4932 meee
Not me, I'm not even american, I'm just interested
meeeee
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!
THANK YOU! i have now been researching!
Can u send this info to my email please.
You are a very wise Man.. I know little about Proclaiming such but will be on a mission to aquire the knowledge because of your sharing.. Thank You
Thank you for the info. Will use this to help my niece write her speech on this case for her class.
We are Hebrew ISRAELITES not moors
Why does he look like a Walmart version of David Tennant from Doctor Who
Lol that Was so funny
I thought this was Tom Arnold
Midlife Crisis Drew Carey
I love how fun and interesting you make these videos, especially being how depressing some of the topics are. Your channel is awesome for home school history.
yas
@@jeronimoadames6624 yas
Good Lord, YES, how right you are about some topics (THIS ONE!) being depressing. It's pretty vile. And Chief Justice Taney, well, I just remember that when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus Taney made a fuss and Lincoln threatened to have him put in jail. Taney shut up. I wish Lincoln had put him in jail.
I am trying to listen intently and keep having a giggle fit whenever he says "OWNER" because it catches me off guard every time and it's freaking hilarious!!!!
Annoying noise whenever you say "owner". I understand this is a mea culpa sound effect, but it breaks the concentration of the viewer and interferes with understanding the issue. Property rights are important in the US constitution, and that's a good thing as anyone who understood how tenuous such rights were in Europe with a feudal monarchy would attest. Owning another human being as property is indeed awful, and wicked men exploited the property rights issue to perpetuate this wrong, but preserving property rights is also important. It's the misuse of the good in the constitution to maintain an evil that is the interesting part of this case. Sorry to say this technique is still used today.
Hi Professor Hughes, I came across this video while preparing for my Dred Scott exam for my Master's degree. I love your channel and will be exploring it in the future for sure. Thanks for your hard work. You are doing a really good job! However, there are some minor corrections I would like to make about this specific video. Nothing major, pretty much just nitpicking ;-)
- Scott and the Blows moved to St. Louis, Missouri in 1830. At this point, Missouri already had statehood. In 1820, Scott was in Alabama.
- Illinois was admitted to the Union in 1818.
- Emerson didn't die in the Seminole War. After being discharged from the army, he relocated to Davenport, Iowa Territory where he died in December of 1843.
- Irene Emerson never transferred custody to her brother, John F.A. Sanford. Even though Sanford did say in court Scott was his slave, there is no proof any transfer ever happened. It is unclear why exactly Sanford kept claiming his ownership. In any case, when Irene married Dr. Chaffee, he became the owner of Scott (of which he was unaware until some point during the Supreme Course trial).
- Taney is pronounced 'Tawn-ey', not 'Tan-ey'
- I'm not sure I agree with what you say about John Brown. I haven't done much reading on John Brown. However, his name doesn't come up in any of my reading on the Dred Scott case and his consequences. The other consequences you name do come up.
- Peter Blow did not purchase his former slave's freedom. Peter Blow had died in 1832. Dred Scott was set free by Taylor Blow, Peter Blow's son. Dr. Chaffee, the owner of Dred Scott and an abolitionist, had transferred his rights to Taylor Blow, because only a citizen of Missouri could set a slave in Missouri free; there was no money involved in this process.
Here are some of the books I used to prepare for my exam in which you can doublecheck the things I pointed out:
Finkelman, Paul. Dred Scott v. Sanford. A Brief History with Documents.
Fehrenbacher, Don. The Dred Scott Case. Its Significance in American Law and Politics.
Konig, David; Finkelman, Paul, and Christopher Bracey (eds.). The Dred Scott Case. Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Race and Law.
Ehrlich, Walter. They Have No Rights. Dred Scott's Struggle for Freedom.
I would like to suggest one topic for your videos to cover in the future (I searched your channel and didn't find anything) - lynchings in the US (from the 17th century to today).
Again, let me stress how much I love your channel and appreciate your work. Hope this helps!
here in New York City Friday May 26th 2:28 p.m. reading your comment thank you for the info I appreciate it.
Great Scott!
Hey Keith, I've been watching your videos for a few months. I'm a first-year law student, I've found your videos really helpful in my Constitutional Law course. Whenever you have a video regarding a case I'm assigned to read I watch it before hand. Watching the video first helps give me the general framework of the events that have led to the case and the important holdings within the case, this always makes the half hour spent reading the case itself much easier when I know where it's leading and have a context to put it in. Just wanted to say thanks! You always mention history/poly sci majors in your videos, so I thought I'd just let you know that there are law students as well out there watching your videos and finding them useful.
Quinn,
Kudos are always welcome; much appreciated! Its awesome to know my vids have moved outside of my classroom. Good luck in your field; if I had to do it over again I would seriously consider a law path! If you ever have a question or anything, let me know. Much Respect, Peace and Love, Keith.....
+Keith Hughes (HipHughes) I had a test on the Dredscott Case,Bleeding Kansas ,and the Kansas Nebraska Act yesterday I watched this and it really helped I got a 100A+ so thank you :-)
+Keith Hughes (HipHughes) I had a test on the Dredscott Case,Bleeding Kansas ,and the Kansas Nebraska Act yesterday I watched this and it really helped I got a 100A+ so thank you :-)
Bro as a first year law student let me help you out. NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY, any and EVERYTHING that can be done harmful to american people HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE either to, or because of Black people in the US. There is NOT A MOMENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY that can be separated from some kind of screwing of black people, or whites who tried to do the right thing. Black empowerment in the US has been cryptonite to the foundation of America. Im not the most "educated" person as far as school is concerned, BUT I do know american history. The existence of blacks in america in one form or another has shaped EVERY aspect of American politics. Oh it should also be known that just "black" people more specifically, even more specifically Black American Descendants of North America. Chattel slavery, are not, were not, and never have been immigrants. Just as native americans are not, black american descendants of slavery are NOT immigrant descendants.
My History Teachers Uses Your Videos For Learning So You Gain Like 30 Views Every Other Days.
worst supreme court decision ever!, or at least one of them.
No it was not the worst decision by the Supreme Court it is law one of the issues stated in that case was who can claim the Declaration of Independence which is avoided nowadays because the presumption is that were citizens of United States which were not where American Nationals United States has violated the law committed war crimes against the people of America if you're a descendant of slaves are liberated property you cannot claim the Declaration of Independence the British government did not surrender to that class of people nor their descendants you can only be subjects that is citizens and even that is an issue that I believe the Dred Scott case said they cannot be citizens even though the 14th Amendment was forced and made them citizens which was a fraudulent Amendment because it enslaved everybody made the American people property or the presumption of property people waking up understanding real ownership of property and contractual rights if I don't have a contract with you who are you what jurisdiction are you asserting and how did you gain that Authority show me the maritime contract you can't you have no authority over me or my descendants or my estate United States is a terrorist organization the District of Columbia crap now with the internet these issues are coming to light 4 years District of Columbia and its supporters that took an advantage of the use of language and the courts and victimized countless amounts of people I think the people going to come to kill you I'm one of them and I want you did I'm educating myself stocking up on ammunition buying guns doing my research preparing for my attack I'm going to figure out every b******* you did and hold you accountable for it I want my estate back I'm the executor of the estate I rebut the presumption of trustee status to the United States I want real ownership of land real property allodial title not just anybody can claim the status of We the People and when you think about what the court said in the Dred Scott case when it said that the African American people are not numbered amongst the people in the colonies what this indicates is there is a record of your line of Ascension not just anybody can claim the status of we the people that is inscribed in the preambles of the organic Constitution not the de facto Constitution citizens do not have any say in matters of We the People so shut the fuk up citizens you're nothing more than property bound to the authority of your nation or sovereign
@@michaelmaxey7195 You wrote all that for nothing because your STILL wrong lol.
@@SW-nx4jz typical white comment. Nothing but racist trash
Hey Teach', thanks for putting the word "Owner" in air-quotes @1:35 and throughout. Kudos for acknowledging that one human being cannot own another human being. Words DO matter. Stay 'woke'.
Does he really need to say that, I mean it's obvious that people can't be owned.
@@venatortheanimefan4526apparently not.
It was never overturned. You left out the part where he said Blacks have no rights that whites had to respect. The law is still in effect.
It was repealed by the 13th Amendment.
ya your rude
+Michael Hill no it wasn't
It's still law and it says the Declaration of Independence doesn't apply to them or their descendants that they're not one of the We the People as described in preambles of the Constitution
Chris Lemons that part.
Well I'm up at 1:40 am watching these videos. This is my life I guess.
Wow, I'm literally up at 1:40 watching this video while reading your comment.......but months later.
close? im up at 12:49 AM lol
im up at 14:49
-__________________-
It could be way worse... You could be watching must worse things.
Damn it’s 1:29 rn and I’m watching wondering why I’m not sleeping
I loved the "owner" parts🤣😂
Why?
Because he's a Dumbazz that's why !
Annoying
Very well done Mr. Hughes great job with the video very informing and you kept it interesting
In your explanation, it was never clear where Dred Scott was born nor if he was born free or a slave. It seems that this information would be important to address when giving the background of this story to people who may not know the story. Other than that, I thought your explanation was thorough.
Kurenzen Iyaren you're right.
1868 14th amendment was made paved the way for the civil rights movement.
There is also no harm in learning details of a prominent historical figure.
Joy Hood
your forgetting the 13th Amendment with 20 sections that was never over turned! It's still the congressional record. 14th is a Joke
What right in any country has to be renewed every 20 or 50 years.
If "Black People" or "African Americans" have the right to Vote then it shouldn't have to be renewed
No right in this country has to be renewed. I wonder what will happen if the Voting Rights Act expires who will be allowed to Vote?!
The voting rights act will not expire.
I'm not clear why anyone discount such a crucial turning point in this nations history. But you are entitled to your own opinion.
It still has to be renewed period that not a opinion. What happens if the Voting Rights Act is not renewed?
The Taney Court - 1857 Dred Scott Case
NORTH
Roger B. Taney Maryland
Benjamin Robins Curtis Massachusetts
Samuel Nelson New York
John McLean Ohio
Robert Cooper Grier Pennsylvania
SOUTH
James Moore Wayne Georgia
Peter Vivian Daniel Virginia
John Catron Tennessee
John Archibald Campbell Alabama
Watching your videos from France! Thanks for helping me for my finals! You're doing a great job! à bientôt ;)
;)
You basically got me an A on my US history Final! Bless your soul, and keep on Historying!
Ima let that slide
Love the review... really disliked the annoying bits air quotes an unnecessary emphasis on words like “OWNER!” Kinda ruined the video for me
Mr. Hughes, at about 6:46 you mentioned that the supreme court decided on Fred Scott case but didn't just leave it there. They reached beyond the Scott case to make a decision on a federal law (Missouri compromise) & declared that it's unconstitutional. In your opinion, is this similar to what the Supreme Court did recently? In that they didn't leave the scope of their judicial review to the Dobbs case & instead reached beyond that case to declare Roe V Wade unconstitutional? (I think Justice Roberts mentioned that in his opinion).
Also, when are you coming out with a video on this Dobbs case???
Great lesson Professor Hughes. I'm long out of school, but love your lectures and how you explain presidential election history. Well done and keep up the good work
This is why the Bible is so true. Deut 28 proves who are God chosen people. Esau Babylon is fallen!
0:40 woah that's kinda s u s
Your Vids are awesome and help me so much! You got a great thing going. It really helps me learn and understand. Thank you!!
I started watching your videos as review for my American History class, but I've found that I enjoy them quite a lot and frequently watch them for fun! Thank you for opening up the world of the past to so many people!
Michael Dinwiddie Thanks for the kudos.
OMG!! I love your videos! you help me understand my class and I cite your videos in my homework not only because
I should but everyone needs to follow you! Thanks for doing the most! I understand my class better because of your breakdown on the topics!
His "OWNER"
Hi
I like how he says "OwNeR"
Do you think the advent of AI is going to spark a repeat of this case? Or at least a rhyming close parallel?
Second most terrible decision right after the overturning of Roe V Wade in 2022
Another good one (although I agree with the comment down the page that your sound effect was a little over the top.)
It was a necessary evil.
I don't believe anything you say Tom Arnold
I like your videos. Question: why do you put "Owner" in quotation?
He's a liberal clearly. 🤷🏼♂️🤦🏼♂️
Is this the time Donald is talking about that was great.. I’m still searching for it
Easily the worst decision in Supreme Court history
Not worse than Wickard which basically troll-interprets the commerce clause so the federal government can do whatever it wants.
Justin Bohner Wickard is bad, but at least it didn’t start a civil war
America is finish, all that wickedness America has done is coming back on you
Love this video! It's been a while since I've been in school, so its a nice refresher 🙌
Ownerrr
Keep the theatrics I'll go try and find the facts elsewhere.
I am more confused now! My Grandfather was McLean, I hoped you would speak about him. from the history I read on McLean I thought he influenced the decision in a more positive direction even though he had to really work around the system. Would love to hear your take on McLean. Wikipedia has a lot of information on him. Thank You , Angie
Family Moses McD i would love to hear bout this
TY i did a last minute report on this and you saved my ass TY SO MUCH
No wonder why James Buchanan is considered the worst president ever!
i sped this up and for 90% of the vid you blinked xD
thank you Hughes for making american government understandable !!!
my professor sucks at telling history and you make it seem so easy to understand
thanks for helping me pass my course !
+Samantha Vetter that's with the UA-cams are for!
I like the part at the end discussing the "effects" of the decision. A lot of people forget that every action has a reaction. Once it's been established that we're not protected by anything here in America, we've definitely been on a hell of a roller coaster ride. We've been treated badly from day one. But that hasn't stopped our progress. For every obstacle we clear is 5 more waiting. But we still continue the marathon!! You're only a slave if you allow them to keep you one.
Hey HipHughes. Nice hasty generalization @ 6:05 about the founding fathers. It also seemed like a bit of an ad hominem. Whose writings in particular did the Supreme Court sight and why do you lump them all together? To me, you seem to be part of the problem as to why our young people have been brainwashed as to the founders being a bunch of white racists. I think you can easily see in the first words of the Declaration that the founders were incrementalists. They had the revolutionary war to fight. I feel that they unfortunately had to put the sin of slavery off until later.
Thanks for the video , however. I learned something.
you are cool
This would be way better if you were sober
Thanks, very helpful on my essay, nice job
who has to write 2 paragrahes about this
Dred Scott looked like Ned the wine head from the show good times.
He sure do
It's Ned the wino, Sis & he passed Aug 10th this month.
Did u kno if u r a African American u r their property... And I'd u r black u have no faul I think
Lol you funny
What?! Was this video made before 2015 or something? Obergfell v. Hodges is a way worse Supreme Court decision. This video didn't age well..
I love "the ownnnnnerr" part!
Imagine leasing out a family
It was a terrible decision.
Scott v. Sandford (1857):
* Around 1820 during the time of the Missouri Compromise, Dredd scott's owner takes him to Missouri which was a slave territory. There he was sold to another owner named John Emerson who was an army surgeon who would eventually move to Illinois with Dredd. According to the Northwest Ordinance (1787), Illinois and Wisconsin were free territories.
* Around 1837, Emerson dies, and his wife moves Dredd Scott from Louisiana to Missouri. Dredd Scott tries to gain freedom through the supreme court of Missouri citing that since he served his former owner in a free state that his freedom should be recognized in Missouri.
* The court ruled that enslaved people, and their descendants have no claim to citizenship rights because they are property. Enslaved people may be emancipated in certain states but under the circumstance of slavery they did not have the legitimacy to bring anything to trial. The court also used judicial review to determine that congress's ability to regulate slavery in the states and territories is unconstitutional.
Henry Blow was never Dred Scott's "owner." He "owned" Scott's future wife, Harriet performed the marriage ceremony himself, then sold Harriet to Dr. Emerson. Later, Blow's son supported the Scotts' decision to sue for their freedom. Finally, after the Supreme Court decision against the Scotts, another of Henry Blow's children bought the entire Scott family for the express purpose of freeing them. The Scotts were offered a large amount of money to tour the North and speak out against slavery but really all they wanted was a quiet family life with their two daughters, so they declined the offer and settled in St. Louis. Unfortunately, Dred Scott died about a year later of tuberculosis (as many people did in that time).
F dis shii...taki mushroom
What in the actual fuck is wrong with people???
craig tibbits a lot
you are my savior
as an aside, i just find it wild that we have photographs of people like Dredd Scott....a man who was born so long ago as to have known people who were witnesses to the Revolutionary War period. Crazy.
I was was having a water cooler discussion about this at work which is what brought me here, but now I can’t get over how much this guy looks like Tom Arnold, lol!
Man this big mess of things tells me that this nation either had to have all its citizens on board to either be a slave nation or a free nation. If not, then war was ultimately inevitable, even with the south secession from the union. Just my 2 cents.
Thank you so much for your videos and for what you do! You have been a lifesaver for me and my middle school kids! You make it fun, interesting and informative to learn history and that is no easy task!
Really helpful and entertaining. Made me understand more about the Dred Scott case and the causes and effects of it. Thank you!
when the official charge with protecting n enforcing ur rights are the oppose to ur rights ur right conflict with their political n economic interest
How many times does he blink. I say close to 100000. Can anyone count for me
I thought Emerson's wifes name was Irene, not Eliza.
1st keep cussing on the low 2nd I need the dissenting opinion for the Dred Scott v sanford case.
I think the host is the lovechild of Drew Carey and Patton Oswald.
I don't know how I found this channel but I'm glad I did. Dope videos!!
This is very helpful better then my teacher if I am being honest
oog
that was power ranger music wasnt it lollll
Scott, Dred was born in 1795 NOT 1800
Thx fell to sleep in class and passed with flying colors
The issues of me and my ancestors were never settled in this country. Welcome to 2021.
Words on the screen are good but they are distracting unless they are the very words you are speaking. If you can't do that, don't forget to tell your audience in advance to click pause when they show up.
point taken! :)
I thought Plessy vs Ferguson was the worst.
you are a life saver thanks for the great vids even though they are 6 years old
The dude looks like Bono in his younger years, no? Yes?
Loved it. You're the man!
This guy kind of looks like Hawkguy
Republicans where always the shieeeetttt!!!
Test tomorrow night. Thank you !
Thank you for posting these videos!
now this is my era of UA-cam
The ""OWNER"" thing threw me off a bit... but thanks for the video
Pronounced “Tawney”.
The Coolest History Teacher Everr!!
La la lala lalalalalala love that ❣️
Your videos are soon helpful, its a time efficient way of learning about history. Thanks!
+Grecia Rodriguez Thanks for the kind words. I am glad they are helping you kick academic behind.
he sounds like austin powers
How was a "slave" able to sue ?
This dude is my saviour....
What article 3 in section 2