Charles McCurdy of the University of Virginia discusses the use of promissory-note and bill-of-exchange systems in antebellum U.S. frontier lands and the legal complexities of ensuring that such bills would be paid as promised.

Charles McCurdy of the University of Virginia follows the progression of the U.S. Supreme Court case Dred Scott v. Sandford up the U.S. court system, detailing the legal precedents and state laws that determined each decision and each step along the way. This lecture continues from the lecture "The Dred Scott Case, Part One: Background."

To listen to this lecture, select "The Dred Scott Case, Part Two: Taney's Decision" under "African-American Experience Video."

Charles McCurdy of the University of Virginia outlines the legal cases that preceded the U.S. Supreme Court Case Dred Scott v. Sandford. McCurdy looks at the support, until the 1830s, of the master's side of cases involving slaves suing for freedom following time spent in a free state; the support, beginning in the 1830s, of the slave's side of such cases in free states; the life of Dred Scott prior to the case; and the climbing of the case up the U.S. court system.

Eric Foner of Columbia University examines the effect of the Dred Scott v. Sandford U.S. Supreme Court decision on the state of antebellum U.S. politics, focusing particularly on the divisive effects it had within the Democratic party.

To view this clip, select "The Dred Scott Decision and National Politics" under "African-American Experience Video."

Eric Foner of Columbia University outlines the results of the Dred Scott v. Sandford U.S. Supreme Court case, which institutionalized the exclusion of African Americans from citizenship, and Republican denunciation of the Court's decision (including Abraham Lincoln's opposition to the ruling).

To view this clip, select "The Dred Scott Decision of 1857" under "African-American Experience Video."

Professor Clarence Walker details the 1857 U.S. Supreme Court case Dred Scott v. Sandford, in which the Court ruled that individuals of African descent could not be U.S. citizens and that the federal government could not prohibit slavery in the territories. He examines the significance of this case in U.S. history and also previous racist rulings in the U.S.

Professor Ralph A. Rossum examines the ways in which recent and current U.S. Supreme Court Justices interpret or seek to interpret their duties and the founding documents of the U.S. He looks at what precedents and interpretations of the Founders' intent are incorporated in contemporary justices' thought.

This lecture continues in Contemporary Supreme Court Approaches to Constitutional Interpretation, Part Two.

Professor Hadley Arkes returns to the original debate over whether the Bill of Rights should be added to the Constitution. He looks at the arguments that were put forward, the basis of these arguments, and the repercussions the inclusion of and the contents of the Bill of Rights have had on U.S. history. He uses the 1986 U.S. Supreme Court case Goldman v. Weinberger as a frame for discussing these issues. This lecture continues from the lecture "A Reconsideration of the Original Case Against the Bill of Rights, Part One."

Professor Hadley Arkes returns to the original debate over whether the Bill of Rights should be added to the Constitution. He looks at the arguments that were put forward, the basis of these arguments, and the repercussions the inclusion and the contents of the Bill of Rights have had on U.S. history.

Professors Lucas E. Morel and Diana Schaub look at the history of demands for reparation for slavery and of instances and accusations of racial profiling in the U.S. They begin with a short discussion of affirmative action cases in the U.S. Supreme Court, continuing from the lecture "Affirmative Action."

To listen to this lecture, scroll to the Friday, August sixth, 10:50 am-12:15 pm session; and select the corresponding RealAudio image or link.

An older version of this lecture can be found here.