The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics

Astonishing account of the Supreme Court’s most notorious case, Dred Scott v. Sandford (essentially stripping all blacks of their right to citizenship). Bit of caution though: you probably need to have some idea of jurisprudential analysis—how lawyers and judges slice and dice their way through caselaw—to fully appreciate the discussion. And even then, it can be a bit of a slog. Nonetheless, the effort will be richly rewarded. The final chapter ("In the Stream of History") is worth special note. There, Don Fehrenbacher said of Roger Taney, author of the Scott opinion, that his "rehabilitation ... continued and was eminently successful. ... In fact, there has probably never been a sharper contrast between the reputation of an author and the reputation of his most famous work." (p. 589). Those words simply could not be written today, 40 years later. Baltimore was so chagrined to be seen as Taney's hometown, that in 2017 it removed and placed in storage a sculpture that had publicly honored him for 130 years. At the same time, a statue of Taney was removed from Maryland Statehouse grounds. The pendulum has swung from rehabilitation to disgust. Not that Fehrenbacher could have foreseen this change in momentum. But he was astute in linking, first, the Dred Scott opinion to "the emergence of substantive due process of law." And near-clairvoyant in linking it to the question of "judicial sovereignty, a theory of power ... first put to significant use by" that opinion. (pp. 594-95). We might today substitute the phrase "judicial activism," but "judicial sovereignty" is more descriptive if drier. And he is exactly right, the question roils our politics as well as courts to this day. Consider that Dred Scott was the first Supreme Court decision to strike down a statute on the ground of substantive due process. And then consider that this is something recently mentioned by *dissenters* while chiding the majority for finding a due process right to same-sex marriage: "The need for restraint in administering the strong medicine of substantive due process is a lesson this Court has learned the hard way." (Obergefell v. Hodges). An irony of jurisprudence, then, that a doctrine that sought to memorialize slavery was later utilized to liberate a once-despised minority. And consider too the irony that *another* aspect of the Dred Scott opinion -- that the Constitution (the Bill of Rights more specifically, if not called such then) follows the flag. Filipinos, that is, could claim entitlement to those rights when their country was a US territory. Scott v. Sandford may be a stain on our Court, but certain doctrines it enunciated continue to reverberate and for good not ill. This is a book brimming with insights, relating to contemporary as well as historical meaning.

From the greatest authority on Lincoln and the years that preceded the Civil War (at least in my humble opinion), an exhaustive and very well researched account of the Dred Scott (Scott v. Sampson) case which the Supreme Court decided in 1857, and which for all practical purposes did away with the Missouri Compromise of 1820 which limited slavery to those territories south of the 36 degrees 30 minutes North latitude line, brought the possibility of a Republican victory in the 1860 election, and helped decide the Southern states finally to secede. Fehrenbacher first paints the historical background of slavery in the United States and the constitutional provisions that precipitated the case, then relates the facts of the case, the arguments presented by both lawyers and how the decision came to be. This is followed by an evaluation of how the decision was received by people, press and politicians at the time, and the consequences it has had and with which we live to this day. Although it is not loaded with legalese and can be understood by anybody with a decent knowledge of the Constitution, it is a six hundred page exhaustive study, and may be more than the garden variety curious reader may want to know about this pivotal case in American history.

I happen to be a lawyer but you don't need to be to appreciate this book. A very readable story of the actual Dred Scott case and a solid explanation of the particular issues of the case and why it was important as well as why it was reacted to the way it was. It not only presented the Dred Scott case and its background but the historical facts that gave it context. I found it thoroughly interesting, very readable and very informative.

This is one of the best books I've read in a long time. It might seem that a 700 page book (600 pages of text; 100 pages of notes) on a 19th century court case might be the epitome of exceedingly dry material suited only for particularly motivated graduate students. But I found this book captivating. What came through in every paragraph was the work of a skilled and judicious historian sleuthing his way to an understanding of the background and ramifications of the enormously important Dred Scott decision. Not one page in this book read like the work of an uninspired academic sawing his way through a pile of research notes. Fehrenbacher focuses on the political, legal and constitutional aspects of the Dred Scott case. He explores the background and developments, from the arrival of the first slaves in the colonies in 1619 through the bitter political battles of the 1850s. His discussion of legal developments is particularly interesting because this is one area where the reader encounters the concrete complications and conflicts between various state and federal laws affecting slaves and slave owners. He also shows how legal developments and constitutional theories were affected by the increasingly acrimonious political battles over the rights of slaveholders. His analysis of Chief Justice Taney's opinion was particularly impressive. Finally, his discussion of the immediate and longer term impact of the Dred Scott decision was fascinating. When I finished the book, I was disappointed that he hadn't carried the thoughts in the last chapter further (even though it was clear he had chosen a good stopping point for his analysis). I was also tempted to go back to the beginning and re-read the book immediately! It is so rich, and there's so much of importance to understand. (Instead, I started in on Fehrenbacher's more recent book, The Slaveholding Republic.) One of the strengths of the book is Fehrenbacher's attention to the relevants facts and texts. His text never reads like a cut-and-paste compilation of other authors' conclusions. Throughout, Fehrenbacher was doing his own thinking - and he came through as quite skilled in asking good questions, identifying all the relevant facts, weighing the possible meanings and interpretations, and arriving at fair conclusions. (Whatever the topic, it's always a pleasure to read the work of someone who works as Fehrenbacher did in this book.) I highly recommend this book to anyone with even a passing interest in American legal or constitutional history, in the events that lead to the Civil War, or in race relations in America.

This book was eye opening to say the least and I want to applaud Fehrenbacher for doing his home work. He has painstakingly took the time to go deep into America's not so pretty past and go all the way up to Dred Scotts own fight for freedom. I loved it.

Using for a class in school.

This is a collectors edition, not only for it's content but also for the text book quality and finish of the final product. Feel like i would go out and buy almost any book if it's done by this publisher. THANK YOU....MONEY WELL SPENT!!

Thank you!

Research

Great for research and understanding the legal case Dred Scott and the question about on the citizenship of African Americans in the United States.

Astonishing account of the Supreme Court’s most notorious case, Dred Scott v. Sandford (essentially stripping all blacks of their right to citizenship). Bit of caution though: you probably need to have some idea of jurisprudential analysis—how lawyers and judges slice and dice their way through caselaw—to fully appreciate the discussion. And even then, it can be a bit of a slog. Nonetheless, the effort will be richly rewarded. The final chapter ("In the Stream of History") is worth special note. There, Don Fehrenbacher said of Roger Taney, author of the Scott opinion, that his "rehabilitation ... continued and was eminently successful. ... In fact, there has probably never been a sharper contrast between the reputation of an author and the reputation of his most famous work." (p. 589). Those words simply could not be written today, 40 years later. Baltimore was so chagrined to be seen as Taney's hometown, that in 2017 it removed and placed in storage a sculpture that had publicly honored him for 130 years. At the same time, a statue of Taney was removed from Maryland Statehouse grounds. The pendulum has swung from rehabilitation to disgust. Not that Fehrenbacher could have foreseen this change in momentum. But he was astute in linking, first, the Dred Scott opinion to "the emergence of substantive due process of law." And near-clairvoyant in linking it to the question of "judicial sovereignty, a theory of power ... first put to significant use by" that opinion. (pp. 594-95). We might today substitute the phrase "judicial activism," but "judicial sovereignty" is more descriptive if drier. And he is exactly right, the question roils our politics as well as courts to this day. Consider that Dred Scott was the first Supreme Court decision to strike down a statute on the ground of substantive due process. And then consider that this is something recently mentioned by *dissenters* while chiding the majority for finding a due process right to same-sex marriage: "The need for restraint in administering the strong medicine of substantive due process is a lesson this Court has learned the hard way." (Obergefell v. Hodges). An irony of jurisprudence, then, that a doctrine that sought to memorialize slavery was later utilized to liberate a once-despised minority. And consider too the irony that *another* aspect of the Dred Scott opinion -- that the Constitution (the Bill of Rights more specifically, if not called such then) follows the flag. Filipinos, that is, could claim entitlement to those rights when their country was a US territory. Scott v. Sandford may be a stain on our Court, but certain doctrines it enunciated continue to reverberate and for good not ill. This is a book brimming with insights, relating to contemporary as well as historical meaning.

From the greatest authority on Lincoln and the years that preceded the Civil War (at least in my humble opinion), an exhaustive and very well researched account of the Dred Scott (Scott v. Sampson) case which the Supreme Court decided in 1857, and which for all practical purposes did away with the Missouri Compromise of 1820 which limited slavery to those territories south of the 36 degrees 30 minutes North latitude line, brought the possibility of a Republican victory in the 1860 election, and helped decide the Southern states finally to secede. Fehrenbacher first paints the historical background of slavery in the United States and the constitutional provisions that precipitated the case, then relates the facts of the case, the arguments presented by both lawyers and how the decision came to be. This is followed by an evaluation of how the decision was received by people, press and politicians at the time, and the consequences it has had and with which we live to this day. Although it is not loaded with legalese and can be understood by anybody with a decent knowledge of the Constitution, it is a six hundred page exhaustive study, and may be more than the garden variety curious reader may want to know about this pivotal case in American history.

I happen to be a lawyer but you don't need to be to appreciate this book. A very readable story of the actual Dred Scott case and a solid explanation of the particular issues of the case and why it was important as well as why it was reacted to the way it was. It not only presented the Dred Scott case and its background but the historical facts that gave it context. I found it thoroughly interesting, very readable and very informative.

This is one of the best books I've read in a long time. It might seem that a 700 page book (600 pages of text; 100 pages of notes) on a 19th century court case might be the epitome of exceedingly dry material suited only for particularly motivated graduate students. But I found this book captivating. What came through in every paragraph was the work of a skilled and judicious historian sleuthing his way to an understanding of the background and ramifications of the enormously important Dred Scott decision. Not one page in this book read like the work of an uninspired academic sawing his way through a pile of research notes. Fehrenbacher focuses on the political, legal and constitutional aspects of the Dred Scott case. He explores the background and developments, from the arrival of the first slaves in the colonies in 1619 through the bitter political battles of the 1850s. His discussion of legal developments is particularly interesting because this is one area where the reader encounters the concrete complications and conflicts between various state and federal laws affecting slaves and slave owners. He also shows how legal developments and constitutional theories were affected by the increasingly acrimonious political battles over the rights of slaveholders. His analysis of Chief Justice Taney's opinion was particularly impressive. Finally, his discussion of the immediate and longer term impact of the Dred Scott decision was fascinating. When I finished the book, I was disappointed that he hadn't carried the thoughts in the last chapter further (even though it was clear he had chosen a good stopping point for his analysis). I was also tempted to go back to the beginning and re-read the book immediately! It is so rich, and there's so much of importance to understand. (Instead, I started in on Fehrenbacher's more recent book, The Slaveholding Republic.) One of the strengths of the book is Fehrenbacher's attention to the relevants facts and texts. His text never reads like a cut-and-paste compilation of other authors' conclusions. Throughout, Fehrenbacher was doing his own thinking - and he came through as quite skilled in asking good questions, identifying all the relevant facts, weighing the possible meanings and interpretations, and arriving at fair conclusions. (Whatever the topic, it's always a pleasure to read the work of someone who works as Fehrenbacher did in this book.) I highly recommend this book to anyone with even a passing interest in American legal or constitutional history, in the events that lead to the Civil War, or in race relations in America.

This book was eye opening to say the least and I want to applaud Fehrenbacher for doing his home work. He has painstakingly took the time to go deep into America's not so pretty past and go all the way up to Dred Scotts own fight for freedom. I loved it.

Using for a class in school.