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


Mr. Beat presents Supreme Court Briefs St. Louis, Missouri
Some time between 1830 and 1833 Dr. John Emerson, a United States Army surgeon, buys a slave named Dred Scott. Emerson moved around a lot, and he always took Scott with him. In 1836, Emerson moved to Fort Armstrong, Illinois, taking Scott with him of course. Interestingly, Missouri was a state where slavery was legal, but in Illinois it was not. The next year, Emerson moved again, this time to the territory of Wisconsin (which is now in the state of Minnesota), where slavery was also illegal. While there, Dred Scott fell in love and married Harriet Robinson, another slave owned by a dude named Lawrence Taliaferro. Emerson ended up moving back to Missouri again shortly after this, leaving Dred and Harriet behind and leasing them out to other army officers. Well guess what? Emerson fell in love, too. He met a chick named Eliza Irene Sanford, who went by Irene, after he moved down to Louisiana for a bit. Hey I told you he moved a lot. Emerson married Sanford in Louisiana, and soon after asked Dred and Harriet to join him again. Well Harriet was pregnant, and ended up having the baby on the trip down somewhere between Illinois and Wisconsin, in free territory. The Emersons and Scotts returned to Missouri a couple years later. John Emerson died in 1843 and Irene inherited his estate and the Scott family. However, for the next three years, Dred and Harriet Scott were hired out to different people. Dred and Harriet first tried to buy their freedom, but that didn’t work. So on April 6, 1846, the Scotts, with some help from legal advisors, sued Irene Emerson to obtain freedom from slavery. By this time, they had two kids. What’s crazy is that the Scotts were able to pay for it due to the family of Dred Scott’s previous owner helping out. The Scotts went through three lawyers over a 14-month period, but ultimately lost the case due to a technicality. Dred and Harriet Scott could not prove they were actually Irene Emerson’s slaves. However, the Scotts lawyers were able to get them a second trial. Due to a major fire, a cholera epidemic, and several other delays, that trial didn’t begin until January 1850. In this trial, they were able to prove that they were Emerson’s slaves.The jury favored the Scotts, granting them their freedom. Yay! Hold up. Not so fast, Emerson’s lawyers said. After all, Emerson would be losing four slaves, worth a lot of money. Her lawyers asked for a new trial, but they were denied. So then they appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court, who reversed the decision, arguing the Scotts were still slaves and they should have sued for freedom when they had the chance back when they lived in a free state. Well dang, so the Scotts were still slaves. But this saga isn’t over yet. Dred Scott sued again, on November 2, 1853, this time in federal court. For this suit, a lawyer named Roswell Field agreed to help free of charge. Except, this time, he wasn’t suing Emerson. He was suing her brother, John Sanford, who now claimed ownership of him. Aw how sweet, she gave him a gift. What a nice sister. Scott also alleged that Sanford assaulted his family. The judge went with Sanford because of the Missouri Supreme Court decision that said the Scotts were still slaves. Field was determined to get this one to the Supreme Court, though, as he wanted to settle the question: “did living in a free state or territory permanently free a slave?” The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, but not until February 1856. Keep in mind this is 10 YEARS after the Scotts first sued for freedom. Just Dred officially filed, with the implication his family would be freed as well if they sided with him. It became known as Dred Scott v. Sandford. Wait…SANDford? Yep, even though John Sanford’s name was, you know, Sanford, a clerk misspelled his name in court records and it stayed that way. The Supreme Court justices argued the case multiple times the rest of the year, finally giving a decision on March 6, 1857. The Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Sanford. One final time, Dred Scott and his family were denied their freedom. The Court ruled that Scott’s case shouldn’t have been even heard under the Constitution, as Scott was not a citizen. It also declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional because Congress lacked the power to ban slavery in U.S. territories. It was only the second time the Court had ruled something the Congress did unconstitutional. Justice Roger Taney wrote the majority opinion. “In the opinion of the court, 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 a part of the people.” Dang, Taney, that’s messed up. The Court also ruled slaves as “property,” adding that the Fifth Amendment prevents Congress from taking property away from individuals without just compensation. Although Taney hoped this ruling would finally settle the slavery controversy, it actually just made things worse. It even caused one justice, justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis, to quit the court. The anti-slavery movement in the North grew much bigger due to this ruling. The decision further divided the country, proving to be a major cause of the Civil War. Many historians say what is more commonly known as The Dred Scott Decision is the worst Supreme Court ruling in American history. They especially like to talk trash about Roger Taney, who comes across as a horrible racist with this one. Following the Civil War, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, as well as the the Civil Rights Act of 1866, all directly overturned the decision. However, Dred Scott never lived to see that. Although it’s not completely a sad ending for him and his family. The Scotts were freed anyway just a couple months after the Supreme Court’s decision. Scott got a job working at a St. Louis hotel where he actually made MONEY. Unfortunately, though, he didn’t get long to enjoy his freedom, as he died the next year. I’ll see you for the next Supreme Court case, jury!

63 Responses

  1. Andrew LaBeau says:

    First

  2. Robert Hancock says:

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

  3. mohamed ashref says:

    amazing 🙂

  4. siamiam says:

    that was a dredful case O_O

  5. Luke Detering says:

    The DREDed decision

  6. spicy meme says:

    great scott

  7. Lindsay Manning says:

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

  8. Harry Christofi says:

    Fucking racist Supreme Court Justices lol

  9. Jett For President says:

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

  10. Mummy Neo says:

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

  11. Johan Bonilla says:

    lmao this is so fucking dumb and i dont even have to watch the video to know what you are going to talk abot bc i knw it's fkin stupid hahahahah XDDDFDSFDSAF

  12. - Cogito - says:

    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!

  13. Jett For President says:

    Hey Mr. Beats, when you get a chance, can you do Texas v. White?

  14. Luke Detering says:

    Guess who just got a sub

  15. alex krakowski says:

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

  16. Darth Cookie says:

    thank you it help with mi report

  17. Flame Fusion says:

    How Dredful of a decision.

  18. MikeJ 2016 says:

    Ted 2 brought me here.

  19. Uncle Schickelgrubber says:

    Now I know why Jesus walked on the water. He didn't want no part of that citizenship.😎

  20. Mr. Lonely says:

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

  21. heino løvendahl says:

    will you do United States v. The Amistad

  22. animalia555 says:

    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

  23. The Junks says:

    What an evil women trying to keep people in slavery.

  24. LoveIsFake says:

    Thanks 4 the help.

  25. Michael Benedict says:

    ITT we make up puns of this trial using Dred Scott's name

  26. SiVlog says:

    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

  27. DachiexPuh says:

    What is the background music?

  28. Officer Orange cheetolini says:

    The Natives should have never been nice and polight

  29. Kayla Ortiz says:

    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

  30. Adrian Espinel says:

    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

  31. Joan Pitts says:

    Why does he have to narrate in such a sarcastic voice as if this was no big deal. I hate when they do this!

  32. HighburyAFCSoul says:

    Poor Dred

  33. I comment-cause I want To be a part of something says:

    Messed but the way your saying it is hilarious. And I live in sanford, nc. In the south even though nc- says NORTH carolina

  34. Opiniones de JACC's Opinions says:

    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.

  35. Caliper says:

    I love you too Mr. Beat.

  36. macmacreynolds says:

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

  37. macmacreynolds says:

    6:49 McClean?! It's McLean.

  38. motor head1 says:

    Southern wasps

  39. S Tho says:

    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.

  40. eddfan999 says:

    The supreme court fucked up this decision.

  41. Timothy McLean says:

    I never realized people would rent out their slaves to other people. Weird.

  42. Phi6er says:

    Land of the free

  43. Igotbirdspigeons says:

    plot twist: emerson and scott were lovers

  44. w41duvernay says:

    You haven't seen nothing yet. Just wait when the Orange one brings back judge Parr from NC. You haven't seen bad decisions yet…

  45. Anatoly Mazi Moore El says:

    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!

  46. Jose Starks says:

    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.

  47. the night hAunter f88k the 1%!! PRIVACY OR gen8cide says:

    hes relentless,hes worthly of the name dred.

  48. Andres Garza says:

    yeet

  49. Aaron Bradley says:

    Another strikeout

  50. Debora Slay says:

    Your voice annoys me…This was history and the way you’re speaking does not do it justice…You sound as if you were made to present this.

  51. MJW238 says:

    How is Dred Scott the worst decision ever?
    It seems like it was correct from a legal standpoint (it’s not like those who wrote the Constitution were against slavery)

  52. Phil Gordon says:

    The purpose and intent of the 14th Amendment was to reverse the “Dred Scott vs. Sandford decision of 1857” and did nothing more than this. It was about granting citizenship to freed African slaves. The 14th Amendment gave naturalize citizenships to all freed African slaves and their children are natural born United States citizens. Under the 14th Amendment only naturalized or natural born United States citizens parents can have children that have birthright citizenships.
    14th Amendment Section 1.

    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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause meaning is political jurisdiction example Native Americans had their own tribal jurisdiction therefore not subject to the American jurisdiction this includes foreigners and aliens that are subject to home countries jurisdiction and allegiance. Allegiance and/or citizenships although different words they have the same meaning. Foreigners and aliens are not subject to American jurisdiction therefore their United States born children allegiance are in question and are not naturalized or natural born United States citizens.

    Civil Rights Act of 1866

    All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

    The civil rights acts of 1866 and 1875 were passed by the U.S. Congress in an effort to make full citizens of and guarantee the rights of the freed slaves. The Thirteenth Amendment (1865) had abolished slavery throughout the nation, and Congress was faced with how to enfranchise this population

    The Civil Rights Act of 1866 has the same meaning as the 14th Amendment but written differently in such a way so that it cannot be misinterpreted. Such as claiming birthright citizenship of children born on United States soil to foreigners and aliens’ parents

    Anchor babies are not United States citizens. Birthright citizenship of children born on United States soil to foreigners and aliens parents started after the 1965 Immigration act it was a decision made by executive fiat not authorized by the senior executive ranks and only congress that has the authority to make such changes, decisions, and law. President Donald Trump has the authority to reverse this un-authorized executive fiat decision retroactively without the consent of congress. This is what the executive order is all about. This is the same as reversing DACA executive order made by President Obama it will be an uphill court fight. Congress never authorized birthright citizenship of children born on United States soil to foreigners and aliens’ parents in the 1965 immigration act. Congress in its entire history never authorized birthright citizenship of children born on United States soil to foreigners and aliens’ parents. Judges in court will be constantly asking questions did congress by law authorized birthright citizenship of children born on United States soil to foreigners and aliens’ parents? No! The court case will not be about whether the 14th Amendment authorizes birthright citizenships but about reversing an executive decision. Congress needs not get involved.

    The executive or the president oversee enforcement of immigration laws. Enforcing the laws as they are written and following strict constitutional protocols is fully constitutional. The 14th amendment is not being followed to its original intent as Senator Jacob Howard R-MI statement of intent.

    Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing: “The 14th Amendment granted citizenship only to the recently freed African slaves. It did not grant citizenship to illegal immigrants. It did not grant citizenship to Native American Indians. It did not grant citizenship to foreigners or their children born on U.S. soil.” Senator Jacob Howard R-MI: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

    The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all “persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.

    This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

    It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country." Senator Jacob Howard R-MI, 1866 14th Amendment author.

    By signing an executive order reinforcing the original intent of the 14th Amendment is fully constitutional because President Donald Trump is not violating constitution, not promoting or creating laws by executive order legislation, DACA by executive order did violate the constitution only congress has the authority to create immigration law. But the congress and the states by constitutional amendment have already express that only decedents of African slaves are covered by the 14th amendment. It was about reversing the “Dred Scott case of 1857” were African American slaves lost in the Supreme Court case gaining their United States citizenships.

    By signing an executive order reinforcing the original intent of the 14th amendment is fully constitutional. Keep in mind most judges have already made up their minds on the 14th Amendment vs. birthright citizenship. Of course, this executive order will be challenge in the courts by anchor babies because they will lose their United States citizenships retroactively. For anchor babies some very uncomfortable questions will be asked in the courts, were Native Americans covered by the 14th Amendment? No! Native Americans got their United States citizenships by the “Indian citizenship act of June 2nd, 1924”. Proof that only freed African slaves were covered by the 14th Amendment. The “Indian citizenship act of June 2nd, 1924” gave naturalize citizenships to all native Americans and their children are natural born United States citizens. If native Americans were not covered by the 14th Amendment why do you say persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens are US Citizens when Senator Jacob Howard R-MI made statement of intent “persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.

    This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

    It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

    Lawyers it will be really challenging to answer this question!

    Before the 1965 immigration act babies born on United States soil of foreign and alien parents were not citizens and were later deported to their parents’ home countries. Did congress authorize birthright citizenship of children born on United States soil to foreigners and aliens’ parents in the 1965 immigration act? No!

    Lawyers it will be really challenging to answer this question!

    Did the United States vs. Wong Kim Ark 1898 decision authorized birthright citizenship of children born on United States soil to foreigners and aliens’ parents? No! Because of the Chinese exclusionary act of 1882 congress by law excludes all Chinese from getting United States citizenships. The federal government executive never allowed children from Chinese parents who were Chinese citizens to become United States citizens. Even after the United States vs. Wong Kim Ark 1898 decision. United States vs. Wong Kim Ark 1898 decision is in direct conflict with the 14th Amendment therefore should be overturned.

  53. Nunya Buisness says:

    And now since 1879 we are all slaves to this corrupted system.

  54. Sage Sheahan says:

    These are awesome. Js. ☺️👍

  55. Kian Docherty says:

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

  56. 222222e says:

    To sum this case up….it has nothing to actually do with Dread Scott and more to do with Federal Jurisdiction. This case was a red herring case to expand Federal Government’s power. The same as the Emancipation Proclamation has nothing to do with freeing slaves, nor does the 13th amendment. These were all red herrings to create dual citizenship to the inhabitants on this land because the free people had way too much power if you read your bill of rights and state constitution. Dred Scott was deemed as Stateless, and that’s the true reason he had no standing in law not his race. He was not a descendent of Africans and that has never been proven. I have yet to see someone prove he was. The rest of the story is just for entertainment.

  57. Alicia Tur says:

    Good grief.

  58. Alicia Tur says:

    Slavery was by far the most sickening, detestable thing the USA ever did. When we are tempted to say how wonderful the USA is, listen to this video. Then, we had the Civil War where brother turned on brother. Yeah, what a great country! (Not)

  59. Kyle & Chung says:

    Roger Taney is just messed up and is very very gross

  60. SiVlog says:

    The worst part of Taney's ruling was as follows, "[African Americans] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and all together unfit to associate with the white race either social or political relations. And so far inferior that they have no rights that the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro must be justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit."

    Like John Green said of the ruling in hindsight on Crash Course US History, "so that was an actual quote from an actual decision by the Supreme Court of the United States of America, wow(!)"

    Small wonder it is up there with the worst rulings that the court has made in its history, if not the worst

  61. FolkUsTV says:

    We're still not free, nice video btw

  62. Olds Pwr says:

    The case that led to the civil war ?? Morrill Tariff is the big one that led to Lincolns War.

  63. G Serrano says:

    The south is always backwards.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *