Dred Scott's Revenge: A Legal History of Race and Freedom in America

by Andrew P. Napolitano

Racial hatred is one of the ugliest of human emotions. And the United States not only once condoned it, it also mandated it?wove it right into the fabric of American jurisprudence. Federal and state governments legally suspended the free will of blacks for 150 years and then denied blacks equal protection of the law for another 150. How did such crimes happen in America? How were the laws of the land, even the Constitution itself, twisted into repressive and oppressive legislation that denied people their inalienable rights? Taking the Dred Scott case of 1957 as his shocking center, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano tells the story of how it happened and, through it, builds a damning case against American statesmen from Lincoln to Wilson, from FDR to JFK. Born a slave in Virginia, Dred Scott sued for freedom based on the fact that he had lived in states and territories where slavery was illegal. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Scott, denied citizenship to blacks, and spawned more than a century of government-sponsored maltreatment that destroyed lives, suppressed freedom, and scarred our culture. Dred Scott's Revenge is the story of America's long struggle to provide a new context?one in which "All men are created equal," and government really treats them so.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, American History, Political Science, Politics

288 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2009

About the author

Andrew Paolo Napolitano is a former New Jersey Superior Court Judge. He is a political and senior judicial analyst for Fox News Channel, commenting on legal news and trials. Napolitano started on the channel in 1998. He is a Libertarian and a strong advocate of the Constitution, viewing it as a contract that must, according to rule of law, be interpreted the way its authors intended or else be invalid. He therefore asserts that the Federal government has a very limited set of powers, that it is exceeding, and that the Bill of Rights limits its valid actions in all circumstances.

Reviews

[Donna · Rating 4 out of 5]

Most likely you recognize the name Dred Scott from the infamous court decision or the term getting off "Scot free. " If you're from Missouri, especially the St. Louis area, you learned about the Dred Scott case as part of Missouri History. Not our finest moment.

Using the Dred Scott case -- which was first decided at the Old Courthouse in St. Louis -- as a centerpiece for his book, Napolitano chronicles how the laws of the United States and the policies of our leaders created the deep-seeded racial tensions our nation has endured for centuries. From the Missouri Compromise, to the Civil War, Jim Crow Laws, Civil Rights Legislation, even sports, Napolitiano makes a compelling case for how our national leaders, including Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, bear responsibility.

Napolitano also draws comparisons between Dred Scott v. Sanford, which declared slaves as non-persons, to U.S. v Korematsu, which denied rights to Japenese-Americans, and Roe v. Wade, which declared babies in the womb as non-persons. I recommend Dred Scott's Revenge to anyone interested in American history and race relations. It's a compelling read.

[Adam Ross · Rating 2 out of 5]

Conservatives tend to think that racial discrimination ended with the Civil War. Lincoln freed the slaves, and there were some problems with Jim Crow, sure, but all that racism stuff ended in 1865. We likewise conclude on the same basis that it's been so long since slavery that nobody need reparations. Oh, and the reason more blacks are in prison is because they commit more crimes than whites, so the system is being fair because they're committing the preponderance of the crimes.

This book shakes all that (okay, I added the topic of reparations). It's by a conservative-leaning libertarian judge and published by Thomas Nelson, one of the biggest Christian publishing houses. It's the perfect book to give out to folks for that reason. Napolitano isn't a liberal. Far from it, actually. He just doesn't back down from the actual history of race and law in our country.

Essentially, he argues that

1) there was slavery in America.

2) Abraham Lincoln used slavery as a convenient screen for his political agenda.

3) The civil war, reconstruction, and the heavy intrusion of federal power in the South made racism much, much worse.

4) Because equality was forced by military might on the South, they passed the Jim Crow legislation and reinforced their prejudices.

5) The Jim Crow laws were hurt in 1954, but alive and kicking until 1965. And Mississippi did not officially repeal them until 1995. That's not a typo.

6) Racism and discrimination continues in police departments and lawyering circles to this day - and has a huge amount of statistics and cases to back this up. He argues that through poverty and the intentional creation of the ghetto, our institutions continue to repress black people. Because they live in close proximity and live in poverty, they are more likely to engage in criminal activity (and he cites statistics that shows no matter what race you are, if you are below the poverty line in an urban culture of poverty, you are three times more likely to break the law).

This is shocking stuff. After some lynchings, the bodies would be cut up and pieces sold as souvenirs. That's the sort of story that you'd believe about Nigeria or Saudi Arabia, but not Georgia or South Carolina. But we fool ourselves. There are still people alive today who remember Jim Crow. And they're not that old. 1965 was only 45 years ago. We are a lot more at fault than we want to believe. Does that mean reparations? I don't know. I do know that I was blessed enough to live in a family that believed and taught us to believe Acts 17:26: "And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place." We're all the same race. And now my brother is courting a black girl who is simply wonderful.

The biggest flaw of the book is the fact that Napolitano appeals to "natural law" as the solution to slavery, and suggests that slavery is against the natural law. Well, the Bible doesn't know anything about natural law; it's not a doctrine taught in Scripture. In the Bible we get all our morality from God, not from an abstract "Creator" who only manifests himself through "nature." If we're being honest with ourselves, its actually natural to hate, repress and enslave other people who aren't like us. Just a part of sin. Only way out is Christ.

The book is also a great companion to Thomas Dilorenzo's The Real Lincoln which is cited a few times in this one and some of the civil war content overlaps.

[Laura · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book starts with a bang. He is challenging the attitudes and actions of the founding fathers in the introduction and doesn t slow down after that. The book covers history, politics, judicial rulings, and long-term effects of each major step in our nation s path. The author offers a framework for looking at slavery and then uses that framework to show the wrong choices and bad values that kept slavery, segregation, and the view that blacks were an inferior race alive for so long in the United States.[return][return]He challenges a lot of what I learned in school and backs it up pretty well. He argues a few things that I am still not convinced about but that doesn t detract from the truth of the book. Even if I think the founding fathers had little choice if they were going to create a united country, his point is well made when it goes on for another 200 years and not only does the federal government allow the South to keep slavery/segregation, but then it starts to institutionalize it across the entire nation.[return][return]He teaches more than just racism and sees more concerns with our government s behavior than just race-related. But the arena of race is an excellent example of the issues and a subject worthy of more attention and effort.

[Christy Bartel · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first three chapters of this book were almost boring because of how much I agreed with the author’s points. I liked his point that the government, in some instances, should embrace natural law and do what is morally correct instead of embracing positivism (following the letter of the law). And THEN he blamed the South’s racism on the Civil War and the Reconstruction era. I was like…ummm that was there before, and even when the government was lenient toward the South, they still created legislation against black people. And then the author had the gall to defend Jefferson (a slave owner) because he was a libertarian but portray Lincoln as a warmonger. He defends early policy makers for their compromises but rails against later political compromises. I can agree that racism is still institutionalized in the United States, but the author (at least from my reading of the book) ignores the personal racism that existed in the hearts of individuals in positions of power. The federal government is made of humans. I would say that giving states the right to decide legislation was why racism persisted, while the author would say that the federal government should have stepped in to stop it…but his point was that states should have more rights than the federal government. It was very confusing to read a libertarian’s take on the Civil War and how it was the federal government’s fault but also the federal government should’ve stepped in more to stop racism. Which one is it, my guy? I feel like you can only choose one.

Also, his portrayal of history is heavily biased but presented as fact. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that (all textbooks are biased), but there were a few times where I pushed back against a point as opinion only because I had background knowledge as a historian.

I’m still giving this book three stars for the amount of research that went into it and the injustices it brought to light for me. I can agree that racism is absolutely still a thing and not fully agree with the author’s conclusions. I would recommend reading this book, but don’t expect many solutions to be presented. The author suggests that the government appeal to natural law instead of positivism…but also not get involved…sooo I don’t really know what it should do but that’s what he thinks.

[Shaheed · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting read for sure especially in terms of the neverending battle between natural law and positivism. Positivism seems to be winning and it isn't close. Several flaws in this one, but they are understandable given the author's political leanings; deliberate mischaracterizations of Malcolm X (El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz) and the Black Panther Party. That said, the author unwittingly makes the best argument for a case for reparations. The government is responsible for a lot, but people make up the government.

[Jack Gardner · Rating 4 out of 5]

Now We Are All Losing Our Rights

The theory of positive law, once applied to justify slavery, is now applied to all citizens. The theory of law once used to deny the rights of some is now used to deny the rights of all. Without agreeing with all of Judge Napolitano's characterizations, the theme of this book is timely and essentially illustrated.

[Tim · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a truly great book that tackles huge issues that people aren't discussing often enough. The rampant racism propped up by the government is rarely mentioned on a historic level. Often the discussion is based in modern terms and looks just at local police forces.

[Kim Zinkowski · Rating 4 out of 5]

Unrated at completion.

[Quentin Christian · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you know history, you know Dred Scott's case was a prelude to the Civil War. This is a good legal telling of the infamous case.

[Julie Gavin · Rating 4 out of 5]

In the same vein as Caste by Isabel Wilkerson, this book follows the legal history of discrimination in the US. Very informative and educational!

[Bryon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Author: Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 2009
Number of pages: 253

Our Heroes and Their Prejudice

I'm deeply convicted that I wouldn't normally buy a book like this. I chose to review for Thomas Nelson Publishers and I'm glad I did. I learned much and I unlearned more.

I thought the terms "states rights" vs. "federal interventionism" were current political rhetoric. I always thought that this was current liberal vs. conservative (liberal being "federal interventionism" or "big government" and "states rights" being conservative). But this is the political language of slave owners "rights" vs. big abolitionist government. And when the an administration didn't want to step in and do the right thing concerning civil rights from Lincoln right up through JFK, they laid responsibility on the states. And many states, as we all know from fairly recent history, and one set of laws for white men, and separate codes for black.

I prejudged this book since I've seen Judge Napolitano often on Fox News. I expected this book to be the same kind of non-news propaganda pumped out by Fox News. But I found that Napolitano was more fair as an author than I am as a reader. Napolitano pulls no punches in this book. He gives the straight scoop on many of our political heroes. Men we've built monuments to and close banks and schools for were less pure than our school books portray. Napolitano is not cynical or unpatriotic, in fact, he is quite patriotic and just in his exposé of the double standard this country has governed by since its inception. Justice and reconciliation demand that one tells the truth about one's shortcomings. Our greatest sins cannot be swept under the carpet for the greater good. No good can come from wrongs glossed over, or worse, spun into something more palatable for mass consumption. Napolitano does his work well.

This book covers the topic of slavery, war, and the catastrophic consequences visited on every generation of Americans since our country's founding.

Napolitano demonstrates that the New World was founded and built on slavery. Christopher Columbus comments to his sponsors: "From here one might send, in the name of the Holy Trinity, as many slaves as could be sold."

Commonly accepted as a part of early (even current, occasionally) American Theology is "that God or nature selected the black race to do the labor in the harsh conditions of the Southern climate."

More humane states limited the flogging of slaves to only thirty-nine lashes. Sound familiar?

"The federal fugitive slave law allowed a master to claim a runaway slave even if he were found in a free state."

"President Andrew Jackson once offered a $50 reward for the capture of his fugitive slave and $10 extra for every hundred lashes any person would give the slave to the amount of $300."

Federally sponsored and/or permitted racism existed even in my lifetime both in the civilian and military realms. It's hard to believe that a black man was elected to the presidency in my lifetime. It demonstrates that there is hope for real race reconciliation in this country if people are willing to not be passive and vindictive.

I don't have room to get into what you will learn about the Great Emancipator Abraham Lincoln. Napolitano does the research and unearthed the documents punching holes in that rosy portrait.

I have to say again how impressed I was with the authors objectivity and balance. He had the opportunity to push other agendas and restrained himself. I was pleasantly surprised.

When you read the book (and you should), read the notes, acknowledgements and bibliography. Those, too, are impressive and thorough.

http://mondokblog.blogspot.com/2009/0...

[Michael Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dred Scott's Revenge: A Legal History of Race and Freedom in America... is thought provoking book which sheds light on the dark side of legal history throughout our country's history. A very highly recommend book to say the least.

Judge Napolitano shows how "Natural Law" (God Given Rights or Rights come from our Humanity pg. xii) and "Positivism" (the law is whatever the lawgiver says it is or the majority says pg. xiii, xiv) have affected the interpretation and application of the Constitution and different laws throughout our history. Looking back from our time it is crazy to see how insane some of the judgments and the laws created. I thought I knew a lot about the history of race and freedom in America leading up to the civil rights movement but, after reading this book, I was greatly mistaken.

This book covers from the founding of our country to today. It does not shy away from the ugliness and ignorance of our past. Judge Napolitano does not pull any punches. If it is there it is in this book - granted this is not a complete history but a very good summary of it. From Washington to Jefferson to Lincoln to Post Civil War to WWI and WWII to Brown v Board of Education to Baseball - he looks at the good and the bad the correct and the incorrect. You will be surprised when you read this book not everything was as it seemed to be or how at times we are taught in History class.

Again, I give this book my Highest Recommendation.

Read it. Share it. Discuss it.

[Adam · Rating 5 out of 5]

A comprehensive history on race relations in the US; much of which was glossed over in one paragraph or completely left out of school history books.

A detrimental issue that our founding fathers and all subsequent state/federal governments remained hesitant to address either in the US Constitution or otherwise. Somehow the inalienable rights did not apply to everybody. Napolitano explains the full history from the pre Revolution to current events. From people kept as property i.e. slaves, to the flimsy attempt as people separate but equal. It fills in alot of those gaps that have been missing from my perspective of American history. In my opinion, a must read for the full panoramic view of our history.

The "Baseball" chapter towards the end is an unforgettable version of the Jackie Robinson story. How two men -- Jakie Robinson and Branch Rickey accomplished tremendous strides in race relations. More than decades of presidents and US govt could do.

[Tyler L. · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book overall. I like the Judge's writing style. The best part is his unapologetic criticism of anyone and everyone who furthered racism in America. No one is left off the hook from Washington and Jefferson to Lincoln and Kennedy. The best part is his exposure of the federal government not only failing to alleviate racism, but also perpetuating it in many instances. Those who believe that an all-powerful central authority is the cure for racism need to read this book! I disagree with part of his criticism's of Lincoln and his assessment of racism in the American justice system. His vagueness on the right of private business owners to discriminate is also puzzling, he is at least consistent. Including a chapter on baseball was the perfect way to close the book. It is full of a remarkable variety of information covering race in America for nearly four centuries. This is not as good as his other books that I have read, but still well worth it.

[Kathie · Rating 4 out of 5]

A real eyeopener with things I didn't know. Our country has a shocking and sad history of treatment of African Americans. Throughout our history, the government failed to protect the natural rights of the minority and did what was popular at the time. White people too soon forget the horrible things that were done legally to African Americans in the name of the law. This book begins with bringing the Africans to America as slaves, and continues through the history of the politics of writing the Constitution, the Dred Scott decision when the Supreme Court decided that African Americans were non-persons, slave vs free states, Lincoln's racism, Reconstruction, Jim Crow Laws and segregation, and finally the Civil Rights Act under President Johnson.

[David Robins · Rating 4 out of 5]

Up to Napolitano's usual standards. Places the blame for much of the institutionalized racism in the United States on the government (who else claims a monopoly on force?), and asserts natural law over positivism. But although he's a libertarian I don't know if he manages to completely connect the dots: I know he doesn't consider the constitution perfect (although certainly a good start), but, for example, does he understand that "shall not be infringed" in the second amendment means what it says and implies access to firearms at parity with the state, or that taxation is immoral?

[Diane Kennicker · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book on the travesty as what is referred to as the federal government and the willingness of the politicians to continually racially divide this country - all for the sake of votes. Judge Napolitano discusses the injustices of racism and bigotry in our country's history and it still continues to this day. Politicians today are no better or different than the policitians from generations past in that they will say and pander to secure votes and retain their power and position and forsaking those they claim to 'help'.

[Manny · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding job Judge. Again, he hits the mark with an unbiased view of the race issue in this country from its inception until present day. In this work, he explains the difference between 'natural law' and 'positive law'. He shows you how the departure from defending 'natural law' has caused and continue to cause slavery and racism. After reading this book, I have a painful realization that African-Americans have gotten the short end of the stick and have been mistreated since the inception of this country and sadly continue even today.

[Michael Weaver]

The Judge does it again. This is an excellent book on the forgotten history of constitutional law through the view of the philosophy of natural law and positivism. It elegantly shows how policy interpreted the issue of race and rights.Sadly if we're are not careful the same tragedies could befall us again we we use legislative policy to to interpret law.

[Susanne · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed this seemingly unbiased book. Having heard and read a bit about the subject, Napolitano's account of history was still eye opening. His perspective is grounded in a truth that transcends political affiliation and really gets to the heart of the matter. His background in law adds to his perspective, while still making the book a fairly easy read. I highly recommend it.

[Sarah Peralta · Rating 5 out of 5]

so far. . . . awesome!

[George]

I just started reading this book. So far it is very compelling. I enjoy the author on his TV show and in his interviews.