Civil Rights: Dred Scott v Sandford

Civics 101

NHPR

Education, History, Supreme Court, American History, Elections, Democracy, Society & Culture, Government, Civics, Politics, Social Studies

4.6 • 2.4K Ratings

🗓️ 18 May 2021

⏱️ 28 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

In 1846, Dred and Harriet Scott were living in St. Louis, Missouri with their two daughters. They were enslaved and launched a not uncommon petition: a lawsuit for their freedom. Eleven years later Chief Justice Roger B. Taney would issue an opinion on their case that not only refused their freedom but attempted to cement the fate of all Black individuals in the United States. Taney would ultimately fail and the Reconstruction Amendments would dash Taney’s opinion in Dred Scott v Sandford, but not before the case was forever cast as a Supreme Court decision gone wrong. The Scotts’ great great granddaughter, Lynne Jackson, is joined by Chief Judge John R. Tunheim of the U.S. District Court of Minnesota to tell the story of the Scotts and their case.

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	Civics 101 is supported in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
0:05.8	There are some decisions made by the Supreme Court that are considered to be canon, meaning
0:12.5	they are considered so obviously right and true, and in keeping with correct constitutional
0:18.7	meaning that they set unimpeachable precedent.
0:23.5	Brown v. Board of Education, for example.
0:27.4	Civil segregation of children in public schools is unconstitutional.
0:32.7	This is almost universally agreed upon as right and true, in keeping with the word of law
0:39.3	in the United States.
0:41.6	It's both about constitutional interpretation and ethical and moral principle.
0:47.9	And then there are cases that represent the exact opposite.
0:54.1	The rulings in these cases have been described by scholars and judges as bad, grievously
1:01.1	mistaken, odious.
1:04.7	These are the Supreme Court's mistakes.
1:08.8	We call them the anti-canon.
1:14.2	Anti-canon, as in the opposite of canon.
1:18.8	Sort of, but still a form of canon.
1:22.9	Not something that should be used.
1:25.0	If canon should be used as precedent, anti-canon should be used as anti-precident.
1:31.9	Decisions so wrong that their incorrectness stands as a glaring warning.
1:37.3	This is what not to do.
1:38.9	This is what the Constitution does not mean.
1:42.5	And today we're going to tell you about the first anti-canon case, and many would say
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from NHPR, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of NHPR and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.