Challenging constitutional authority: African American responses to Scott v. Sandford

Through an analysis of black abolitionist responses to Scott v. Sandford, this essay demonstrates the importance of extra‐legal texts in contextualizing and challenging judicial authority. By analyzing the public responses of black abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass, William C. Nell, Robert Purvis, and Charles Lenox Remond, this essay concludes that(1) legal decisions cannot be properly understood apart from the subsequent public discourse they inspire,(2) the responses to Dred Scott demonstrate how legally excluded classes may persuasively challenge constitutional authority and assert their rights, and(3) the responses to Dred Scotthave profound implications in the formation of American identity.

words:

• African American rhetoric
• constitutive rhetoric
• legal discourse
• Dred Scott v. Sandford
• Frederick Douglass