Dred Scott v. Sandford (original) (raw)
- دريد سكوت ضد ساندفورد كان قرارًا تاريخيًا للمحكمة العليا للولايات المتحدة قضت فيه المحكمة بأن دستور الولايات المتحدة لم يكن يقصد به تضمين الجنسية الأمريكية للأشخاص المنحدرين من أصل أفريقي، بغض النظر عما إذا كانوا مستعبدين أو أحرارًا، وبالتالي فإن الحقوق والامتيازات التي يمنحها الدستور للمواطنين الأمريكيين لا يمكن أن تنطبق عليهم. (ar)
- Dred Scott versus Sandford war ein 1856/57 vor dem Obersten Gerichtshof der Vereinigten Staaten verhandeltes Grundsatzverfahren, dessen Ausgang als einer der wesentlichen Auslöser des Amerikanischen Bürgerkriegs gilt. In dem Prozess versuchte der Sklave Dred Scott seine Freiheit einzuklagen mit der Begründung, dass er zeitweise in sklavenfreien Bundesstaaten und Territorien der USA gelebt hatte. Das 1857 durch Chief Justice Roger B. Taney verkündete Urteil verneinte hingegen generell die Bürgerrechte von Afroamerikanern und stärkte die Rechte der Sklavenhalter. Faktisch erklärte es damit den Missouri-Kompromiss für verfassungswidrig, der mit Ausnahme Missouris für alle Gebiete nördlich der Linie bei 36° 30‘ nördlicher Breite ein Verbot der Sklaverei vorsah. Das Urteil verschärfte den Konflikt zwischen den Nordstaaten, die sich in die Defensive gedrängt sahen, und den sklavenhaltenden Südstaaten. Nach dem Bürgerkrieg wurde durch den 13., 14. und 15. Zusatzartikel zur Verfassung der Vereinigten Staaten und den Civil Rights Act von 1866 (verabschiedet 1870) die Sklaverei abgeschafft und das Urteil von 1857 aufgehoben. In der US-amerikanischen Geschichtsschreibung wird Scott v. Sandford noch vor Plessy v. Ferguson oder Korematsu v. United States als das allgemein schlimmste Urteil des Obersten Gerichtshofes bezeichnet, das dem Gericht fast ein Jahrhundert lang einen schlechten Ruf brachte. (de)
- Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that held the United States Constitution did not extend American citizenship to people of black African descent, enslaved or free; thus, they could not enjoy the rights and privileges the Constitution conferred upon American citizens. The Supreme Court's decision has been widely denounced, both for its overt racism and for its crucial role in the start of the American Civil War four years later. Legal scholar Bernard Schwartz said that it "stands first in any list of the worst Supreme Court decisions". Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes called it the Court's "greatest self-inflicted wound". The decision involved the case of Dred Scott, an enslaved black man whose owners had taken him from Missouri, a slave-holding state, into Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory, where slavery was illegal. When his owners later brought him back to Missouri, Scott sued for his freedom and claimed that because he had been taken into "free" U.S. territory, he had automatically been freed and was legally no longer a slave. Scott sued first in Missouri state court, which ruled that he was still a slave under its law. He then sued in U.S. federal court, which ruled against him by deciding that it had to apply Missouri law to the case. He then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In March 1857, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision against Scott. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Roger Taney, the Court ruled that people of African descent "are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States". Taney supported his ruling with an extended survey of American state and local laws from the time of the Constitution's drafting in 1787 that purported to show that a "perpetual and impassable barrier was intended to be erected between the white race and the one which they had reduced to slavery". Because the Court ruled that Scott was not an American citizen, he was also not a citizen of any state and, accordingly, could never establish the "diversity of citizenship" that Article III of the U.S. Constitution requires for a U.S. federal court to be able to exercise jurisdiction over a case. After ruling on those issues surrounding Scott, Taney struck down the Missouri Compromise as a limitation on slave owners' property rights that exceeded the U.S. Congress's constitutional powers. Although Taney and several other justices hoped the decision would settle the slavery controversy, which was increasingly dividing the American public, the decision only exacerbated interstate tension. Taney's majority opinion suited the slaveholding states, but was intensely decried in all the other states. The decision inflamed the national debate over slavery and deepened the divide that led ultimately to the American Civil War. In 1865, after the Union's victory, the Court's ruling in Dred Scott was superseded by the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which abolished slavery, and the Fourteenth Amendment, whose first section guaranteed citizenship for "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". (en)
- El Caso Dred Scott contra Sandford (también conocido como El Caso Dred Scott) fue una demanda judicial, crucial en la historia de los Estados Unidos, resuelta por la Corte Suprema de dicho país en 1857, en el que se decidió privar a todo habitante de ascendencia africana, fueran esclavos o no, el derecho a la ciudadanía y se le quitó al Congreso la autoridad de prohibir la esclavitud en territorios federales del país. La decisión fue redactada por el Juez Presidente Roger B. Taney. La furia que causó este fallo entre los abolicionistas fue factor importante en la explosión de la guerra de Secesión. (es)
- Dred Scott auzia edo Dred Scott v. Sanford auzia AEBetako historiako auzi garrantzitsuenetako bat izan zen. Ebazpenaren arabera afrikar jatorrizkoak (esklabo izan ala ez) ezingo ziren inoiz AEBetako herritar izan. Dred Scott (1799 - 1858ko irailaren 17) esklaboak salaketa ipini zuen Dred Scott Sanforden aurkako auzian, 1856an. Scott eta bere emaztea, Harriet, jaiotzez esklaboak izan ziren, baina esklabotza ilegala zen iparraldeko estatuetan bizi ziren, Wisconsinen eta Illinoisen (artean, Wisconsinen zati bat besterik ez zena), hain zuzen ere. , jabea, 1843an hil zen eta 1846an, Scottek Emerson andreari askatzeko eskatu zion, iparraldeko estatuetan bizi izateak askatu zituelakoan. Auziak hamar urte iraun zituen, oso korapilatsua izan zelako, baina azkenean Auzitegi Gorenak esklaboaren eskaera atzera bota zuen. Esan behar da epaile gehienak hegoaldekoak zirela. Auzitegiaren arabera Scottek, beltza zenez, ezin zuen eskaerarik egin AEBetako epaitegietan, ez baitzen amerikar herritarra. Baina ebazpenaren ondorioak haratago joan ziren. Auzitegiak esan zuenez, Wisconsinen ere ezin zen askea izan Kongresuak estatuetako esklabotasunarekiko politika ezin zuen ezarri eta. Horrek Missouriko hitzarmena baliogabetu zuen. Estatu guztiak esklabotasuna onartzeko edo gaitzesteko gai ziren. Dred Scott, azkenean, aske hil zen, 1858an, zaharra zela; jabe berriak askatu zuen eta lau hilabetera. (eu)
- Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), adalah putusan Mahkamah Agung Amerika Serikat yang menyatakan bahwa orang Afrika Amerika, baik yang budak maupun bukan, tidak dapat menjadi warga negara Amerika Serikat dan maka tidak memiliki kedudukan hukum di pengadilan federal. Putusan ini juga menyatakan bahwa pemerintah federal tidak memiliki wewenang untuk mengatur perbudakan di wilayah-wilayah federal yang diperoleh setelah didirikannya Amerika Serikat. Selain itu, Mahkamah Agung Amerika Serikat juga menyatakan Kompromi Missouri tidak konstitusional, sehingga menjadikannya undang-undang Kongres kedua yang dinyatakan tidak konstitusional. Dred Scott, seorang budak Afrika Amerika yang dibawa pemiliknya ke wilayah yang sudah menghapuskan perbudakan, mencoba menuntut kebebasannya. Berdasaran putusan 7-2 yang ditulis oleh Roger B. Taney, mahkamah menolak permintaan Scott. Meskipun Taney berharap putusannya akan menyelesaikan masalah perbudakan, putusan ini malah memicu perlawanan dari kaum anti-perbudakan di utara, terutama . Sebagian besar ahli saat ini (dan banyak ahli hukum pada masa itu) menganggap putusan mahkamah mengenai perbudakan sebagai dictum dan bukan yang mengikat. putusan ini nantinya menjadi salah satu pemicu tidak langsung Perang Saudara Amerika. Putusan ini digantikan oleh Undang-Undang Hak Sipil 1866, yang memberi kewarganegaraan penuh kepada orang kulit hitam. Para ahli saat ini menganggap putusan ini sebagai putusan terburuk yang pernah dibuat oleh Mahkamah Agung Amerika Serikat. (in)
- Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sandford (Dred Scott contre John F. A. Sandford) est une affaire à l'origine d'un arrêt historique de la Cour suprême des États-Unis d'Amérique, rendu en mars 1857 (Arrêt 60 U.S. 393, 19 How. 393, 15 L.Ed. 691). Elle est généralement citée comme Scott v. Sandford, Dred Scott v. Sandford ou the Dred Scott Case (l'affaire Dred Scott). L'orthographe Sandford est une erreur du greffe de la Cour dans la transcription de l'arrêt, le nom devrait être Sanford sans d, mais on rencontre les deux formes. La requête concernait, outre Dred Scott, sa femme Harriet, et leurs filles, Eliza et Lizzie Scott. L'opinion de la Cour a été, entre autres : * que la Constitution de 1787 (dans sa version à cette époque) ne prévoyait pas que des personnes d'origine africaine, esclaves ou libres, soient ou puissent devenir citoyens et que le requérant ne disposait donc pas de base légale pour agir; * que la clause du 5e amendement à la Constitution (qui concerne, entre autres, le droit, dans une affaire criminelle, de ne pas être privé de sa liberté sans procédure légale régulière, en anglais « due process of law » ) ne donnait pas au gouvernement fédéral le pouvoir de libérer des esclaves amenés sur un territoire fédéral; * que la Constitution ne permettait pas au Congrès de bannir l'esclavage et que le Compromis du Missouri était inconstitutionnel. L'opinion de la Cour a donc été de rejeter la demande de Dred Scott par 7 voix contre 2. La Cour était alors présidée par le Juge Roger Brooke Taney qui a rédigé l'opinion. Cet arrêt de 1857 aurait contribué au déclenchement de la guerre civile, quatre ans plus tard, en 1861. Après la victoire de l'Union, en 1865, fut adopté un 13e amendement à la Constitution, qui a aboli l'esclavage en proclamant que « Ni esclavage ni servitude involontaire, si ce n’est en punition d’un crime dont le coupable aura été dûment convaincu, n’existeront aux États-Unis ni dans aucun des lieux soumis à leur juridiction. Le Congrès aura le pouvoir de donner effet au présent article par une législation appropriée. » En 1868 fut ratifié le 14e amendement, qui garantit que « Toute personne née ou naturalisée aux États-Unis, et soumise à leur juridiction, est citoyen des États-Unis et de l’État dans lequel elle réside... Aucun État ne fera ou n’appliquera de lois qui restreindraient les privilèges ou les immunités des citoyens des États-Unis ; ne privera une personne ... de sa liberté ... sans procédure légale régulière ; ni ne refusera à quiconque relève de sa juridiction l’égale protection des lois. » (fr)
- ドレッド・スコット対サンフォード事件(英:Dred Scott v. Sandford、またはDred Scott Case、またはDred Scott Decision)は、1857年にアメリカ合衆国最高裁判所で判決が下されたアメリカ合衆国の歴史の中でも転換点となった事件である。この判決は、アフリカ人の子孫が奴隷であるか否かに拘らず、アメリカ合衆国の市民にはなれないとし、アメリカ合衆国議会は連邦の領土内で奴隷制を禁じる権限がないとした。判決主文は最高裁長官のロジャー・トーニーによって書かれた。 この判決は、いわゆる「血を流すカンザス」紛争の「」側の肩を持ったことになった。ボーダー・ラフィアンズたちはカンザスが自由州になるとミズーリ州からの逃亡奴隷にとって天国になることを恐れていた。判決は奴隷制度廃止運動家を激怒させた。奴隷制に関する論議を二極化することは南北戦争に導く大きな要因になったと考えられている。1850年は逃亡奴隷取締法が罰則付きで強化された年であり、奴隷制に関する対立は激化していた。 この判決の一部は、アフリカ系アメリカ人の市民権と諸権利を扱っているが、後にアメリカ合衆国憲法修正第13条と第14条で覆されることになった。 (ja)
- De zaak Dred Scott vs. Sandford was een Amerikaanse rechtszaak in de jaren jaren-1850, waarbij een slaaf zijn vrijheid trachtte te verkrijgen. Uiteindelijk werd de zaak in 1857 door het Amerikaanse Hooggerechtshof in het voordeel van Scotts eigenaar beslecht. (nl)
- 드레드 스콧 대 샌드퍼드 판결(영어: Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 1857년 3월 7일)은 노예제도에 대한 미국 연방 대법원의 판결이다. 이 판결에서 미국 연방 대법원은 노예로 미합중국에 들어온 흑인과 그 후손은 그가 노예이든 노예가 아니든 미국 헌법 아래 보호되지 않으며, 미국 시민이 될 수 없기 때문에 연방 법원에 제소할 권리가 없다고 결정하였다. 또한 연방 정부가 미국 영토 내의 노예제도를 금지할 권리가 없다고 판결하고, 정당한 법의 절차 없이 주인으로부터 노예를 빼앗을 수 없다고 판결했다. 드레드 스콧은 주인과 함께 자유주로 갔으며, 자신의 자유를 위해 소송을 시도했다. 대법원장인 로저 토니가 작성한 7-2의 판결문에서 미 연방 대법원은 스콧의 요청을 기각하고, 미국 역사상 두번째로 미국 의회법안이 헌법에 일치하지 않는다는 판결을 했다. 로저 토니는 그의 판결로 노예제도에 대한 의문이 영원히 해결되기를 원했지만, 그 판결은 즉각 대중적인 비난을 불러왔다. 대부분의 학자들과 많은 동시대의 정치인(당시 새로 설립된 공화당의 지도부)들은 영토 내에서 노예제도에 대한 그의 판결이 종전의 판례에 맞지 않으며, 단지 방론일 뿐이라고 여겼다. 이 판결은 남북 전쟁의 간접적인 기폭제가 되었고, 전쟁 후 미국 수정 헌법 제13조·제14조·제15조로 대체되었다. 이 판결은 미국 연방 대법원 역사상 가장 최악의 편결로 여겨지고 있다. (ko)
- Il caso Dred Scott contro Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), è un celebre caso discusso davanti alla Corte suprema degli Stati Uniti d'America nel 1856 e deciso con una sentenza del 6 marzo 1857, appena due giorni dopo l'insediamento della presidenza di James Buchanan, che stabilì che gli afroamericani costretti in schiavitù negli Stati Uniti d'America non erano tutelati dalla Costituzione statunitense né avevano diritto di proporre un'azione giudiziaria, non essendo cittadini statunitensi né potendo diventarlo. La Corte, inoltre, sancì la incostituzionalità del "compromesso del Missouri" e di qualsiasi legge federale che vietasse o limitasse la schiavitù, poiché ciò avrebbe violato il diritto di proprietà privata garantita dal V emendamento costituzionale, essendo gli schiavi proprietà privata. La sentenza della Corte Suprema, scritta dal Presidente della Corte Roger B. Taney, ebbe l'effetto di inasprire il dibattito politico sull'abolizione della schiavitù. Essa fu uno dei temi focali nei dibattiti della campagna elettorale delle elezioni di metà termine del 1858 per il seggio di Senatore dell'Illinois fra Abraham Lincoln e Stephen A. Douglas ed in ultima analisi fu una delle concause della guerra di secessione. La sentenza fu superata con l'adozione nel 1868, durante la Presidenza di Andrew Johnson, del XIV emendamento. (it)
- Dred Scott v. Sandford var ett avgörande i Förenta Staternas högsta domstol under 1857, som fråntog afroamerikaner alla medborgerliga rättigheter, oavsett om de var slavar eller friköpta, och vidare tilläts slaveriet i de federala territorierna. Även Missourikompromissen förklarades vara i strid med USA:s konstitution och upphävdes därmed. (sv)
- O Caso Dred Scott (também conhecido por Dred Scott v. Sandford ou Decisão Dred Scott, sob registro 60 U.S. 393) foi uma decisão da Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos de 1857, que sentenciou que as pessoas de ascendência africana, importadas para o país e mantidas como escravas, ou os seus descendentes, quer fossem ou não escravos, não estavam protegidas pela Constituição dos Estados Unidos e que nunca poderiam se tornar cidadãs daquele país. Também decidiu que o Congresso não tinha autoridade para proibir a escravidão nos então territórios federais da União. O tribunal também declarou que, como os escravos não eram cidadãos, não poderiam requerer em tribunais. Finalmente, a decisão estabeleceu que os escravos — assim como os bens móveis ou propriedade imóvel privada — não poderiam ser retirados de seus donos sem o devido processo legal. O voto final no caso foi escrito pelo então Chefe de Justiça, Roger B. Taney. De acordo com Neil Gorsuch, o Caso Dred Scott foi um exemplo de Ativismo judicial, uma vez que a corte realizou uma interpretação ativista, pautada em princípios constitucionais e não no texto literal da Constituição dos Estados Unidos. A carta magna norte-americana nada dizia sobre escravidão, mas "a corte pensou que a decisão evitaria uma guerra civil". (pt)
- Sprawa Dreda Scotta – wydarzenie polityczne w historii Stanów Zjednoczonych, rozpoczęte w 1846 roku i zakończone wyrokiem Sądu Najwyższego jedenaście lat później. (pl)
- «Дред Скотт против Сэндфорда» (англ. Dred Scott v. Sandford) — известное дело Верховного суда Соединённых Штатов Америки, решением по которому было узаконено бесправное положение негров. Суд постановил, что все привезённые в Америку чернокожие и их потомки не являются гражданами Соединённых Штатов, не имеют права на его получение, не имеют права обращаться в суд и не могут быть отняты у владельца без суда. Решение было подготовлено Роджером Тони. (ru)
- 斯科特诉桑福德案( U.S. 393 (1857)),全称德雷德·斯科特诉桑福德案(Dred Scott v. Sandford),简称斯科特案(Dred Scott case),是美国最高法院于1857年判决的一个关于奴隶制的案件,该案的判决严重损害了美国最高法院的威望,更成为南北战争的关键起因之一。 黑人奴隶德雷德·斯科特随主人到过自由州伊利诺伊和自由准州(Territory)威斯康星,并居住了两年,随后回到蓄奴州密苏里。主人死后,斯科特提起诉讼要求获得自由,案件在密苏里州最高法院和联邦法院被驳回后,斯科特上诉到美国最高法院。美国最高法院审理期间由于《堪萨斯-内布拉斯加法案》和“流血的堪萨斯”的影响,此案被广泛关注,当选总统詹姆斯·布坎南和后来的总统亚伯拉罕·林肯都在公众场合表示将等待并服从最高法院的判决。经过两次法庭辩论,最终9位大法官以7:2的票数维持原判,首席大法官罗杰·坦尼撰写了判决意见,长达55页,主要论述以下3点: 1. * 即便自由的黑人也不是《美国宪法》中所指的公民,所以斯科特无权在联邦法院提起诉讼。 2. * 斯科特不能因为到过所谓自由准州威斯康星就获得自由,因为在威斯康星准州排除奴隶制的是《密苏里妥协案》,而制定《密苏里妥协案》超出了国会的宪法权力。 3. * 斯科特不能因为到过自由州伊利诺伊就获得自由,因为他一旦回到密苏里州,他的身份就只受密苏里法律支配。 虽然案件的名称是“Dred Scott v. Sandford”,但被告人实际为“Sanford”。这仅是一个文员的拼写错误,但法院没有纠正。南北战争后《美国宪法》增加了《第十三修正案》、《第十四修正案》和《第十五修正案》,从而废除了美国的奴隶制,并规定非裔美国人具有平等公民权。 (zh)
- http://www.brown.edu/Research/Slavery_Justice/documents/SlaveryAndJustice.pdf
- https://wilj.law.wisc.edu/issues-archive/volume-29-issue-3/
- https://web.archive.org/web/20070930201342/http:/www.historynet.com/magazines/civil_war_times/3037746.html
- https://web.archive.org/web/20080410024057/http:/www.infography.com/content/523931007610.html
- https://web.archive.org/web/20171222092856/http:/www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/DredScott.html
- https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/60us393
- https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep060/usrep060393a/usrep060393a.pdf
- http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9031170
- https://www.fedbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Book-Review-pdf-1.pdf
- http://www.theliberatorfiles.com/category/dred-scott-decision/
- http://landmarkcases.c-span.org/Case/2/Scott-V-Sandford
- http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle=3570&context=cklawreview
- http://one.npr.org/i/555247859:555247861
- http://www.nps.gov/jeff
- https://archive.org/details/dredscottdecisio1863unit/page/22/mode/2up/search/Crandall
- https://books.google.com/books%3Fid=2LoDAAAAQAAJ
- https://books.google.com/books%3Fid=E0TA7en4FqYC&pg=PA50
- https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/60/393/
- https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/60/393
- http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep060/usrep060393/usrep060393.pdf
- http://digital.wustl.edu/d/dre/index.html
- http://laws.findlaw.com/us/60/393.html
- https://openjurist.org/60/us/393
- dbr:Calvin_C._Chaffee
- dbr:American_Journal_of_Legal_History
- dbr:Robert_William_Wells
- dbr:Roe_v._Wade
- dbr:Roger_B._Taney
- dbr:Samuel_M._Bay
- dbr:Sanford_Levinson
- dbr:National_Historic_Landmark
- dbr:St._Louis_Public_Library
- dbr:Benjamin_Chew_Howard
- dbr:Benjamin_Robbins_Curtis
- dbr:Bleeding_Kansas
- dbr:Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
- dbr:Anticanon
- dbr:Huntsville,_Alabama
- dbr:John_Roberts
- dbr:Paul_Finkelman
- dbr:Republican_Party_(United_States)
- dbr:Reverdy_Johnson
- dbr:Robert_Cooper_Grier
- dbr:Robert_H._Jackson
- dbr:Charles_Calomiris
- dbr:Union_(American_Civil_War)
- dbr:United_States_Bill_of_Rights
- dbr:United_States_Congress
- dbr:United_States_Constitution
- dbr:David_M._Potter
- dbr:Due_Process_Clause
- dbr:Indian_agent
- dbr:List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_States
- dbr:The_Journal_of_American_History
- dbr:Obergefell_v._Hodges
- dbr:Timeline_of_the_civil_rights_movement
- dbr:S:Dred_Scott_v._Sandford/Concurrence_Campbell
- dbr:S:Dred_Scott_v._Sandford/Concurrence_Wayne
- dbr:S:Dred_Scott_v._Sandford/Dissent_Curtis
- dbr:S:Dred_Scott_v._Sandford/Dissent_McLean
- dbr:S:Dred_Scott_v._Sandford/Opinion_of_the_Court
- dbr:S:Dred_Scott_v._Sandford/Separate_Catron
- dbr:S:Dred_Scott_v._Sandford/Separate_Daniel
- dbr:S:Dred_Scott_v._Sandford/Separate_Grier
- dbr:S:Dred_Scott_v._Sandford/Separate_Nelson
- dbr:16th_United_States_Congress
- dbc:Missouri_in_the_American_Civil_War
- dbc:Pre-emancipation_African-American_history
- dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases
- dbr:Columbia_University_Press
- dbr:Confederate_States_of_America
- dbr:Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)
- dbc:Abrogated_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions
- dbc:History_of_St._Louis
- dbr:Escrow
- dbr:Northwest_Ordinance
- dbr:Panic_of_1837
- dbr:Rachel_v._Walker
- dbr:1846–1860_cholera_pandemic
- dbr:Citizenship_of_the_United_States
- dbr:Civil_Rights_Act_of_1866
- dbr:Frederick_Douglass
- dbr:Free_state_(United_States)
- dbr:Freedom_suit
- dbr:Gateway_Arch
- dbr:Google_Books
- dbr:Minnesota
- dbr:Mississippi
- dbr:Missouri
- dbr:Montgomery_Blair
- dbr:Conflict_of_laws_in_the_United_States
- dbr:Constitution_of_Illinois
- dbr:Continuance
- dbc:Legal_history_of_Missouri
- dbr:Thomas_Hart_Benton_(politician)
- dbc:Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War
- dbc:Presidency_of_James_Buchanan
- dbr:Antonin_Scalia
- dbr:Appeal
- dbc:Freedom_suits_in_the_United_States
- dbr:Legal_fiction
- dbr:Library_of_Congress
- dbr:Lincoln-Douglas_debates
- dbr:Louisiana
- dbr:Louisiana_Purchase
- dbr:Maine
- dbr:Slavery_in_the_United_States
- dbr:Strader_v._Graham
- dbr:Comity
- dbc:1857_in_United_States_case_law
- dbr:Federal_judiciary_of_the_United_States
- dbr:Front_organization
- dbr:Standing_(law)
- dbr:States'_rights
- dbr:Stipulation
- dbr:Manumission
- dbr:Brown_v._Board_of_Education
- dbr:C-SPAN
- dbr:Tuberculosis
- dbr:Westlaw
- dbr:William_Barclay_Napton
- dbr:William_H._Rehnquist
- dbr:Hearsay
- dbr:James_Harvey_Birch
- dbr:John_F._A._Sanford
- dbr:John_Ferguson_Ryland
- dbr:Landmark_Cases:_Historic_Supreme_Court_Decisions
- dbr:Laundry
- dbr:Law_clerk
- dbr:The_Impending_Crisis,_1848–1861
- dbr:Abolitionism_in_the_United_States
- dbr:Abraham_Lincoln
- dbc:Race_and_law_in_the_United_States
- dbr:African_Americans
- dbr:Alabama
- dbr:Alexander_Pope_Field
- dbr:American_Civil_War
- dbr:American_slave_court_cases
- dbr:Cuffee
- dbr:Dred_Scott
- dbr:Federal_question_jurisdiction
- dbr:Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
- dbr:Fort_Armstrong,_Illinois
- dbr:Fort_Jesup
- dbr:Fort_Snelling
- dbr:Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
- dbr:Francis_B._Murdoch
- dbr:Charlotte_Taylor_Blow_Charless
- dbr:History_of_slavery_in_Missouri
- dbr:History_of_slavery_in_Virginia
- dbr:Kansas–Nebraska_Act
- dbr:Privileges_and_Immunities_Clause
- dbr:Hamilton_Rowan_Gamble
- dbr:Harriet_Robinson_Scott
- dbr:Henry_S._Geyer
- dbr:Henry_Taylor_Blow
- dbr:James_Buchanan
- dbr:Jean_H._Baker
- dbr:Jefferson_Davis
- dbr:Taney_Court
- dbr:Court_clerk
- dbr:Article_III_of_the_United_States_Constitution
- dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Taney_Court
- dbc:United_States_slavery_case_law
- dbc:United_States_substantive_due_process_case_law
- dbr:Charles_Evans_Hughes
- dbr:Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States
- dbr:John_Brown's_raid_on_Harpers_Ferry
- dbr:John_Catron
- dbr:John_H._Van_Evrie
- dbr:John_Krum
- dbr:John_Marshall_Harlan
- dbr:John_McLean
- dbr:L._Ed.
- dbr:Larry_Schweikart
- dbr:Supreme_Court_of_Missouri
- dbr:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
- dbr:George_Ticknor_Curtis
- dbr:George_Tompkins
- dbr:Test_case_(law)
- dbr:Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
- dbr:Treason
- dbr:William_Scott_(Missouri_judge)
- dbr:Winny_v._Whitesides
- dbr:Wisconsin_Territory
- dbr:Missouri_Compromise
- dbr:Diversity_jurisdiction
- dbr:Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution
- dbr:Marbury_v._Madison
- dbr:Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey
- dbr:Plessy_v._Ferguson
- dbr:Springfield,_Illinois
- dbr:Springfield,_Massachusetts
- dbr:Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
- dbr:Hugh_A._Garland
- dbr:Seminole_War
- dbr:Don_Fehrenbacher
- dbr:Illinois
- dbr:Inauguration_of_James_Buchanan
- dbr:Kleppe_v._New_Mexico
- dbr:Know_Nothing
- dbr:Obiter_dicta
- dbr:Old_Courthouse_(St._Louis)
- dbr:Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War
- dbr:Shields_Green
- dbr:Wolters_Kluwer
- dbr:Pro_bono
- dbr:Substantive_due_process
- dbr:United_States_Reports
- dbr:Obiter_dictum
- dbr:Ohio_State_University_Press
- dbr:St._Louis_Fire_of_1849
- dbr:The_Dred_Scott_Case:_Its_Significance_in_American_Law_and_Politics
- dbr:Panic_of_1857
- dbr:Parallel_36°30′_north
- dbr:Separate_but_equal
- dbr:Slave_states_and_free_states
- dbr:United_States_circuit_court
- dbr:Robert_G._McCloskey
- dbr:St._Louis,_Missouri
- dbr:Wisconsin_territory
- dbr:U.S._State
- dbr:John_Anthony_Copeland
- dbr:Roger_Taney
- dbr:Property_Clause
- dbr:Jefferson_Barracks
- dbr:Parallel_36°30'_north
- dbr:Andrew_Jackson_administration
- dbr:U.S._LEXIS
- dbr:File:Roger_B._Taney_-_Brady-Handy.jpg
- dbr:File:Oil_on_Canvas_Portrait_of_Dred_Scott_(cropped).jpg
- dbr:Dennis-Jonathan_Mann
- dbr:File:USA_Territorial_Growth_1820_alt_cropped.jpg
- dbr:Kai_P._Purnhagen
- dbr:S:Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
- dbr:S:Dred_Scott_v._Sandford/Concurrence_Campbell
- dbr:S:Dred_Scott_v._Sandford/Concurrence_Wayne
- dbr:S:Dred_Scott_v._Sandford/Separate_Catron
- dbr:S:Dred_Scott_v._Sandford/Separate_Daniel
- dbr:S:Dred_Scott_v._Sandford/Separate_Grier
- dbr:S:Dred_Scott_v._Sandford/Separate_Nelson
- Justices Benjamin Robbins Curtis and John McLean , the only two justices who dissented in Dred Scott (en)
- Judgment reversed and suit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (en)
- dbr:Civil_Rights_Act_of_1866
- dbr:Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
- dbr:Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
- dbr:Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
- Kleppe v. New Mexico (en)
- dbc:Missouri_in_the_American_Civil_War
- dbc:Pre-emancipation_African-American_history
- dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases
- dbc:Abrogated_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions
- dbc:History_of_St._Louis
- dbc:Legal_history_of_Missouri
- dbc:Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War
- dbc:Presidency_of_James_Buchanan
- dbc:Freedom_suits_in_the_United_States
- dbc:1857_in_United_States_case_law
- dbc:Race_and_law_in_the_United_States
- dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Taney_Court
- dbc:United_States_slavery_case_law
- dbc:United_States_substantive_due_process_case_law
- دريد سكوت ضد ساندفورد كان قرارًا تاريخيًا للمحكمة العليا للولايات المتحدة قضت فيه المحكمة بأن دستور الولايات المتحدة لم يكن يقصد به تضمين الجنسية الأمريكية للأشخاص المنحدرين من أصل أفريقي، بغض النظر عما إذا كانوا مستعبدين أو أحرارًا، وبالتالي فإن الحقوق والامتيازات التي يمنحها الدستور للمواطنين الأمريكيين لا يمكن أن تنطبق عليهم. (ar)
- El Caso Dred Scott contra Sandford (también conocido como El Caso Dred Scott) fue una demanda judicial, crucial en la historia de los Estados Unidos, resuelta por la Corte Suprema de dicho país en 1857, en el que se decidió privar a todo habitante de ascendencia africana, fueran esclavos o no, el derecho a la ciudadanía y se le quitó al Congreso la autoridad de prohibir la esclavitud en territorios federales del país. La decisión fue redactada por el Juez Presidente Roger B. Taney. La furia que causó este fallo entre los abolicionistas fue factor importante en la explosión de la guerra de Secesión. (es)
- ドレッド・スコット対サンフォード事件(英:Dred Scott v. Sandford、またはDred Scott Case、またはDred Scott Decision)は、1857年にアメリカ合衆国最高裁判所で判決が下されたアメリカ合衆国の歴史の中でも転換点となった事件である。この判決は、アフリカ人の子孫が奴隷であるか否かに拘らず、アメリカ合衆国の市民にはなれないとし、アメリカ合衆国議会は連邦の領土内で奴隷制を禁じる権限がないとした。判決主文は最高裁長官のロジャー・トーニーによって書かれた。 この判決は、いわゆる「血を流すカンザス」紛争の「」側の肩を持ったことになった。ボーダー・ラフィアンズたちはカンザスが自由州になるとミズーリ州からの逃亡奴隷にとって天国になることを恐れていた。判決は奴隷制度廃止運動家を激怒させた。奴隷制に関する論議を二極化することは南北戦争に導く大きな要因になったと考えられている。1850年は逃亡奴隷取締法が罰則付きで強化された年であり、奴隷制に関する対立は激化していた。 この判決の一部は、アフリカ系アメリカ人の市民権と諸権利を扱っているが、後にアメリカ合衆国憲法修正第13条と第14条で覆されることになった。 (ja)
- De zaak Dred Scott vs. Sandford was een Amerikaanse rechtszaak in de jaren jaren-1850, waarbij een slaaf zijn vrijheid trachtte te verkrijgen. Uiteindelijk werd de zaak in 1857 door het Amerikaanse Hooggerechtshof in het voordeel van Scotts eigenaar beslecht. (nl)
- Dred Scott v. Sandford var ett avgörande i Förenta Staternas högsta domstol under 1857, som fråntog afroamerikaner alla medborgerliga rättigheter, oavsett om de var slavar eller friköpta, och vidare tilläts slaveriet i de federala territorierna. Även Missourikompromissen förklarades vara i strid med USA:s konstitution och upphävdes därmed. (sv)
- Sprawa Dreda Scotta – wydarzenie polityczne w historii Stanów Zjednoczonych, rozpoczęte w 1846 roku i zakończone wyrokiem Sądu Najwyższego jedenaście lat później. (pl)
- «Дред Скотт против Сэндфорда» (англ. Dred Scott v. Sandford) — известное дело Верховного суда Соединённых Штатов Америки, решением по которому было узаконено бесправное положение негров. Суд постановил, что все привезённые в Америку чернокожие и их потомки не являются гражданами Соединённых Штатов, не имеют права на его получение, не имеют права обращаться в суд и не могут быть отняты у владельца без суда. Решение было подготовлено Роджером Тони. (ru)
- Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that held the United States Constitution did not extend American citizenship to people of black African descent, enslaved or free; thus, they could not enjoy the rights and privileges the Constitution conferred upon American citizens. The Supreme Court's decision has been widely denounced, both for its overt racism and for its crucial role in the start of the American Civil War four years later. Legal scholar Bernard Schwartz said that it "stands first in any list of the worst Supreme Court decisions". Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes called it the Court's "greatest self-inflicted wound". (en)
- Dred Scott versus Sandford war ein 1856/57 vor dem Obersten Gerichtshof der Vereinigten Staaten verhandeltes Grundsatzverfahren, dessen Ausgang als einer der wesentlichen Auslöser des Amerikanischen Bürgerkriegs gilt. In der US-amerikanischen Geschichtsschreibung wird Scott v. Sandford noch vor Plessy v. Ferguson oder Korematsu v. United States als das allgemein schlimmste Urteil des Obersten Gerichtshofes bezeichnet, das dem Gericht fast ein Jahrhundert lang einen schlechten Ruf brachte. (de)
- Dred Scott auzia edo Dred Scott v. Sanford auzia AEBetako historiako auzi garrantzitsuenetako bat izan zen. Ebazpenaren arabera afrikar jatorrizkoak (esklabo izan ala ez) ezingo ziren inoiz AEBetako herritar izan. Baina ebazpenaren ondorioak haratago joan ziren. Auzitegiak esan zuenez, Wisconsinen ere ezin zen askea izan Kongresuak estatuetako esklabotasunarekiko politika ezin zuen ezarri eta. Horrek Missouriko hitzarmena baliogabetu zuen. Estatu guztiak esklabotasuna onartzeko edo gaitzesteko gai ziren. (eu)
- Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), adalah putusan Mahkamah Agung Amerika Serikat yang menyatakan bahwa orang Afrika Amerika, baik yang budak maupun bukan, tidak dapat menjadi warga negara Amerika Serikat dan maka tidak memiliki kedudukan hukum di pengadilan federal. Putusan ini juga menyatakan bahwa pemerintah federal tidak memiliki wewenang untuk mengatur perbudakan di wilayah-wilayah federal yang diperoleh setelah didirikannya Amerika Serikat. Selain itu, Mahkamah Agung Amerika Serikat juga menyatakan Kompromi Missouri tidak konstitusional, sehingga menjadikannya undang-undang Kongres kedua yang dinyatakan tidak konstitusional. (in)
- Il caso Dred Scott contro Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), è un celebre caso discusso davanti alla Corte suprema degli Stati Uniti d'America nel 1856 e deciso con una sentenza del 6 marzo 1857, appena due giorni dopo l'insediamento della presidenza di James Buchanan, che stabilì che gli afroamericani costretti in schiavitù negli Stati Uniti d'America non erano tutelati dalla Costituzione statunitense né avevano diritto di proporre un'azione giudiziaria, non essendo cittadini statunitensi né potendo diventarlo. (it)
- Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sandford (Dred Scott contre John F. A. Sandford) est une affaire à l'origine d'un arrêt historique de la Cour suprême des États-Unis d'Amérique, rendu en mars 1857 (Arrêt 60 U.S. 393, 19 How. 393, 15 L.Ed. 691). Elle est généralement citée comme Scott v. Sandford, Dred Scott v. Sandford ou the Dred Scott Case (l'affaire Dred Scott). L'orthographe Sandford est une erreur du greffe de la Cour dans la transcription de l'arrêt, le nom devrait être Sanford sans d, mais on rencontre les deux formes. L'opinion de la Cour a été, entre autres : (fr)
- 드레드 스콧 대 샌드퍼드 판결(영어: Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 1857년 3월 7일)은 노예제도에 대한 미국 연방 대법원의 판결이다. 이 판결에서 미국 연방 대법원은 노예로 미합중국에 들어온 흑인과 그 후손은 그가 노예이든 노예가 아니든 미국 헌법 아래 보호되지 않으며, 미국 시민이 될 수 없기 때문에 연방 법원에 제소할 권리가 없다고 결정하였다. 또한 연방 정부가 미국 영토 내의 노예제도를 금지할 권리가 없다고 판결하고, 정당한 법의 절차 없이 주인으로부터 노예를 빼앗을 수 없다고 판결했다. 드레드 스콧은 주인과 함께 자유주로 갔으며, 자신의 자유를 위해 소송을 시도했다. 대법원장인 로저 토니가 작성한 7-2의 판결문에서 미 연방 대법원은 스콧의 요청을 기각하고, 미국 역사상 두번째로 미국 의회법안이 헌법에 일치하지 않는다는 판결을 했다. (ko)
- O Caso Dred Scott (também conhecido por Dred Scott v. Sandford ou Decisão Dred Scott, sob registro 60 U.S. 393) foi uma decisão da Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos de 1857, que sentenciou que as pessoas de ascendência africana, importadas para o país e mantidas como escravas, ou os seus descendentes, quer fossem ou não escravos, não estavam protegidas pela Constituição dos Estados Unidos e que nunca poderiam se tornar cidadãs daquele país. Também decidiu que o Congresso não tinha autoridade para proibir a escravidão nos então territórios federais da União. O tribunal também declarou que, como os escravos não eram cidadãos, não poderiam requerer em tribunais. Finalmente, a decisão estabeleceu que os escravos — assim como os bens móveis ou propriedade imóvel privada — não poderiam ser retira (pt)
- 斯科特诉桑福德案( U.S. 393 (1857)),全称德雷德·斯科特诉桑福德案(Dred Scott v. Sandford),简称斯科特案(Dred Scott case),是美国最高法院于1857年判决的一个关于奴隶制的案件,该案的判决严重损害了美国最高法院的威望,更成为南北战争的关键起因之一。 黑人奴隶德雷德·斯科特随主人到过自由州伊利诺伊和自由准州(Territory)威斯康星,并居住了两年,随后回到蓄奴州密苏里。主人死后,斯科特提起诉讼要求获得自由,案件在密苏里州最高法院和联邦法院被驳回后,斯科特上诉到美国最高法院。美国最高法院审理期间由于《堪萨斯-内布拉斯加法案》和“流血的堪萨斯”的影响,此案被广泛关注,当选总统詹姆斯·布坎南和后来的总统亚伯拉罕·林肯都在公众场合表示将等待并服从最高法院的判决。经过两次法庭辩论,最终9位大法官以7:2的票数维持原判,首席大法官罗杰·坦尼撰写了判决意见,长达55页,主要论述以下3点: 虽然案件的名称是“Dred Scott v. Sandford”,但被告人实际为“Sanford”。这仅是一个文员的拼写错误,但法院没有纠正。南北战争后《美国宪法》增加了《第十三修正案》、《第十四修正案》和《第十五修正案》,从而废除了美国的奴隶制,并规定非裔美国人具有平等公民权。 (zh)
- freebase:Dred Scott v. Sandford
- yago-res:Dred Scott v. Sandford
- http://sw.cyc.com/concept/Mx4rL94iH0T7RuugxklcQRC7DQ
- wikidata:Dred Scott v. Sandford
- dbpedia-ar:Dred Scott v. Sandford
- dbpedia-az:Dred Scott v. Sandford
- dbpedia-de:Dred Scott v. Sandford
- dbpedia-es:Dred Scott v. Sandford
- dbpedia-eu:Dred Scott v. Sandford
- dbpedia-fa:Dred Scott v. Sandford
- dbpedia-fi:Dred Scott v. Sandford
- dbpedia-fr:Dred Scott v. Sandford
- dbpedia-he:Dred Scott v. Sandford
- dbpedia-id:Dred Scott v. Sandford
- dbpedia-is:Dred Scott v. Sandford
- dbpedia-it:Dred Scott v. Sandford
- dbpedia-ja:Dred Scott v. Sandford
- dbpedia-ko:Dred Scott v. Sandford
- dbpedia-la:Dred Scott v. Sandford
- dbpedia-nl:Dred Scott v. Sandford
- dbpedia-no:Dred Scott v. Sandford
- dbpedia-pl:Dred Scott v. Sandford
- dbpedia-pt:Dred Scott v. Sandford
- dbpedia-ro:Dred Scott v. Sandford
- dbpedia-ru:Dred Scott v. Sandford
- dbpedia-simple:Dred Scott v. Sandford
- dbpedia-sv:Dred Scott v. Sandford
- dbpedia-tr:Dred Scott v. Sandford
- dbpedia-zh:Dred Scott v. Sandford
- https://global.dbpedia.org/id/4s6uE
- wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/Benjamin_Robbins_Curtis_-_photo.png
- wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/USA_Territorial_Growth_1820_alt_cropped.jpg
- wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/Justice_John_McLean_daguerreotype_by_Mathew_Brady_1849.jpg
- wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/Oil_on_Canvas_Portrait_of_Dred_Scott_(cropped).jpg
- wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/Roger_B._Taney_-_Brady-Handy.jpg
- Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sandford (en)
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of
- dbr:60_U.S._393
- dbr:Dred_Scott_V._Sandford
- dbr:Dred_Scott_v._John_F._A._Sandford
- dbr:Dred_Scott_v_Sandford
- dbr:Dred_scott_v._sandford
- dbr:Scott_v._Sandford
- dbr:Scott_v._Sanford
- dbr:Scott_v_Sanford
- dbr:60_US_393
- dbr:Dred_Scot_V._Sanford
- dbr:Dred_Scott_Case
- dbr:Dred_Scott_V_Sandford
- dbr:Dred_Scott_case
- dbr:Dred_Scott_decision
- dbr:Dred_Scott_descision
- dbr:Dred_Scott_v._John_F.A._Sandford
- dbr:Dred_Scott_v._Sanford
- dbr:Dred_Scott_vs._Sandford
- dbr:Dred_scott_v._sanford
- dbr:Dred_scott_v_sanford
- dbr:Dred_scott_vs._sandford
- dbr:Dred_scott_vs_Sandford
- dbr:Dredd_Scott_v._Sandford
- dbr:Dred_Scott_Decision
- dbr:The_Dred_Scott_Case
- dbr:The_Dred_Scott_Decision