Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(20)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

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.

Judge Andrew Napolitano has written three previous books explaining his views on the role of natural law and our constitution. I have written favorable views of each of them even though I cannot follow him to the full extent of his arguments. For example, and he brings it up again in this book, he thinks very poorly of Abraham Lincoln and blames him for starting the Civil War. Nevertheless, and I want to be clear about this, if I had to choose only between Napolitano's view of America and the positivist view that has been prevalent and dominant in my lifetime, I would vote to go with Napolitano's views.

This terrific book takes us through the sources of slavery in America, its violation of natural law, the contortions our laws had to go through to sustain the institution of slavery while also promising human liberty and individual rights that come prior to the state. I think you will find the summary of this history both illuminating and disturbing. Napolitano is concise in his telling of this history and focuses on how this horrible institution created a legacy we wrestle with to this day. I think his discussion of the way the federal government misused its power to keep racism alive after the Civil War and through the Jim Crow laws is especially good. His discussion of how the "Brown v. Board" reached a good conclusion but still used poor constitutional reasoning is, I think, correct. The judge is also correct that both parties have used race to protect their interests and the cost of African-Americans and with corruption to our society at large. He concludes with chapters on how race has distorted our efforts at law enforcement and recounts the heroism of Jackie Robinson in breaking the color-barrier in major league baseball.

His conclusion takes a quick look at his three previous books on the Constitution and natural law and demonstrates why our federal government is acting far beyond its seventeen enumerated powers.

A thoughtful book that is reasonable but still full of passion. I hope you will read it and consider what the Judge says whether or not you end up agreeing with him or not. Very worthwhile.

Here are his other three books:

Constitutional Chaos
Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws
The Constitution in Exile
The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land
A Nation of Sheep
A Nation of Sheep
Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Ann Arbor, MI

Judge Napolitano does a great job of showing the inherent sin written into our Constitution (3/5th clause) and the historical wrongsidedness of the courts and federal government. He brings us through major court decisions like Scott, Plessy and Brown and he looks at events and individuals (in stark honesty) like Civil War and Lincoln (antebellum and bellum) and the progressive movement and Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson that has lead up to where race relations are today. He dedicates a last chapter to Thomas Jefferson and his legacy on slavery. Excellent Read!!

Being a regular viewer of Fox News, I was excited when I saw Judge Andrew Napolitano's book "Dred Scott's Revenge." Admittedly, I am a conservative Republican who watches Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck on a fairly regular basis. I am also an avid reader of history with a particular interest in the antebellum South, including the issue of slavery. To say that I am disappointed with the scholarship of this book is to put it mildly. The first "red flag" popped up on page two of the introduction when Judge Napolitano states that Augustine of Hippo was black. In fact, the race of Augustine is unknown. Most scholars believe that he was not black since he was from North Africa. Reading along, I came to Napolitano's treatment of Abraham Lincoln and knew that the "red flag" of Augustine was only the beginning. Napolitano asserts that Lincoln never stated that slavery was wrong. This is simply untrue. In a letter to A.G. Hodges, dated April 4, 1864, Lincoln wrote "I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not [sic.] remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling." Napolitano exerts a great deal of time and effort to besmirch the character of Abraham Lincoln, calling him a racist and stating flat out that he should not be seen as the Great Emancipator. It is easy for us to look back and say that Lincoln should have done this or that. However, we have the benefit of hindsight. He had to work within the confines of the law as it stood at that time. Did he make comments that could have been construed as racist? Possibly, but they were mild when compared to those of Thomas Jefferson in his "Notes on Virginia." Surprisingly, by contrast, Napolitano gives Jefferson a pass for his racist diatribes and the fact that he owned slaves, which of course, Lincoln did not. Napolitano also states, "By all accounts, he [Jefferson] was also a kind and gentle master who freed his slaves upon his own death." This too is demonstrably false! A few were freed (particularly the Hemingses) but at least 130 of Jefferson's slaves were sold at his estate executor's sale, as evidenced by an advertisement in the Charlottesville Gazette, dated January 13, 1827. In fact, Jefferson slave families were sold and separated at this sale. These are only a few of the historical blunders that I found in this undocumented and disappointing work. Careless errors such as these will certainly cause me to exercise greater caution before trusting Napolitano's commentary on political matters.

Without agreeing with all of Judge Napolitano's characterizations, the real theme of this book is timely and essentially illustrated: 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.

In Dred Scott's Revenge, Judge Anthony P. Napolitano has given us a tremendous insight into the history of race relations in the United States. In so doing, he destroys the myth of the state as the righter of wrongs in the mistreatment of those of African decent. In fact, he makes a strong case that the government was as supportive as anyone of the practice of slavery and would later produce the environment that led to the Jim Crow laws.

In examining the fallout of slavery in America, a practice that openly violated the very principles upon which the nation was founded, the author traces the development of the practice in the New World, the development of a slave based economy, the events leading to the Civil War, and the resulting drama of reconstruction and the imposition of a quasi-slave status for blacks in the South.

The role played by social activism - both of the secular and religious variety - are detailed as well as their motivations. As for the state, the author makes clear that the issue was never really slavery but the state's own survival. The freeing of the slaves was more a pragmatic decision to induce unrest in the South than it was to produce justice. Those slaves living in slave states that sided with the Union were to remain slaves.

There is also much insight into the mindset produced by such racism in an institutional form. The long term effect on African-Americans of state actions that make their very status in society dependent upon state action is one that never really acknowledges their own humanity independent of a governmental declaration. This can be seen in the sometimes willingness of some in the African-American community to believe the most bizarre conspiracy theories that make others question their sanity. Of course, when you have a history of the government actually conspiring against you, then new conspiracies will seem a lot saner.

It should be emphasized that Dred Scott's Revenge is neither a liberal nor a conservative book (endorsements by Juan Williams of NPR and Glenn Beck of Fox News should be enough evidence) and both sides will nod their heads in agreement in some places and feel a might uncomfortable in others. It is, however, an honest assessment of the history of race relations that should be read by all who wish to honestly engage the issue.

In Dred Scott's Revenge, Judge Andrew Napolitano recounts the story of racism in America. Juxtaposing slavery and the continued racism in the post-Civil War era with the ideal of "all men are created equal" as imbedded in the Constitution, Napolitano makes the case that America has not always practiced what it preached.
This stunning expose does not hesitate to show the hypocrisy of the Founding Fathers in penning the Constitution and yet condoning--and enjoying--slavery. Most controversial is his depiction of Abraham Lincoln. Showing that history is merely the accepted version of the past we have all agreed upon, Napolitano recounts the less-known quotes and events of Lincoln's presidency, which shows Lincoln's relative indifference to slavery.
Continuing on in history, Napolitano examines the post Civil War era and the emergence of Jim Crow laws, and concludes that with the election of an African-American as President, maybe America is beginning to forget to hate.
Overall, this book is stunning and eye-opening, especially to someone who has never experienced the pain of racism. It is well-written and well-referenced. My only criticism is that the book is one-sided. Especially as regarding the present, Napolitano fails to mention many of the great advances--even advances that promote "reverse racism" against whites.
I heartily recommend this book to anyone wanting to get an accurate view of the history of racism in America.

There are too many people that want to bury their head in the sand and pretend that our government wants what's best for the citizens.
Andrew Napolitano is a former judge, and he KNOWS what he's talking about. This is one of the few books that is waking up America's people in order to save 230 years of freedoms from being washed down the drain.
Judge Napolitano brings facts to the table, like only a true judge can. I hope more people can get ahold of this book soon!

Book title: Dred Scott's Revenge
Author: Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 2009
Number of pages: 253

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.

I had an uneasy feeling when first exposed to American history in grade school. When taught about the Declaration of Independence and its acknowledgment that all are equal, I comprehended its natural law meaning. It only seemed logical that no one could be considered privileged by birth or social standing, how would it be otherwise? Nevertheless this understanding became problematic when I discovered how slavery and racism were integral in the founding and history of the United States, an obviously contradiction to the noble ideas that all have unalienable rights. This bothersome awareness has always troubled me, raising questions about virtue of the founding documents and leaders. These are the issues I found discussed in this book.

It seems the main theme Judge Napolitano has in all his books is the conflict of "Natural Law" vs. "Positivism", its as if there is nothing else to discuss when considering legal and constitutional issues. I find Positivism a troubling philosophy, its like being a little bit pregnant. Most people would accept the moral superior nature of personal freedom however are unwilling take it to its rational and legal conclusions. As a result societies develop in a double-minded, psychotic manner with a bizarre mixtures of restricted independence and oppressive limitations imposed by an ignorant and illegitimate government. Napolitano explains that slavery and racism are products of this practice. It was quite enlightening to learn of how politicians have used Positivistic means to perpetrate misanthropic legislation for personal and political advantage.

I was especially moved by the descriptions of the travails of Martin Luther King and Jackie Robinson, one can only be touched when considering the struggles they endured to enjoy the simple dignities that others take for granted. This book made me think much differently on the issue of race and on how an unlawful government can bring about such unnecessary suffering.