History, Collective Memory, and the Supreme Court: Debating “the People” through the Dred Scott Controversy

This essay explores the relationship of rhetoric to history, collective memory, and the law through a case study examining Scott v. Sandford (1857). While, through its rhetoric, the Supreme Court attempted to persuade the public to accept its history of “the people,” thereby defining the relationship of African Americans to citizenship, northerners and abolitionists offered an alternate collective memory that challenged the Court's ruling. This analysis shows how rhetoric gives voice to history, collective memory, and the law. Attention is paid to the potential distance that may exist between a history offered in a legal decision and the collective memory of a people articulated in public discourse. Ultimately, I argue that collective memories held by a vocal segment of the population led to the rejection of Chief Justice Taney's argument from history.