Dred Scott v. Sandford 1857 National Archives

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

Quote: Dread Scott vs John F. A. Sandford Court ruling. 3/6/1857; DRED SCOTT, PLAINTIFF IN EROR, V. John F. A. SANDFORD. D Group 267, National Archives Building, Washington , DC.

In this ruling, the Federal Supreme Court declared that the slaves could not be expected to protect the federal government or court, not the United States citizens. The Federal Congress has no authority to prohibit slavery from the federal domain.

In 1846, the black man Dread Scott and his wife Harriette, who had been slaves, filed a lawsuit in search of the St. Louis Touring Court for freedom. They argued that they were free because they lived in a free area where slavery was prohibited.

They were in them. They lived with a slave Army Surgeon in Fort Snell, Wisconsin, which was the free territory. The freedom of the Scott's family was proved because they were detained for a lon g-term slave and then returned to slave. The court has made such a ruling in the past.

However, what was considered to be a simple lawsuit by two civilians was a 1 1-year court struggle, one of the most inferiors in the United States Supreme Court. Scott was defeated and was contested in the Missouri court. Later, Scott filed a new federal lawsuit and eventually reached the Supreme Court.

Dread Scott litigation increased its scope and importance in the Supreme Court, and slavery was the most explosive problem in American politics. By the time the Dread Scott incident reached the Supreme Court, the case had a huge political impact on the United States.

On March 6, 1857, Judge Roger B. Tanny read out a large number of opinions that the slaves were not the United States citizens, thus protection from the federal government or court. The Federal Congress has no authority to prohibit slavery within the federal territory. With this decision, the nation has approached the civil war. Quotation: Dread Scott vs John F. A. Sandford case Federal Supreme Court ruling. 3/6/1857; DRED SCOTT, PLAINTIFF IN EROR, V. John F. A. SANDFORD. D Group 267, National Archives Building, Washington , DC.

Teach with this document.

Transcript

Dread Scott litigation increased its scope and importance in the Supreme Court, and slavery was the most explosive problem in American politics. By the time the Dread Scott incident reached the Supreme Court, the case had a huge political impact on the United States.
On March 6, 1857, Judge Roger B. Tanny read out a large number of opinions that the slaves were not the United States citizens, thus protection from the federal government or court. The Federal Congress has no authority to prohibit slavery within the federal territory. With this decision, the nation has approached the civil war. Quote: Dread Scott vs John F. A. Sandford Court ruling. 3/6/1857; DRED SCOTT, PLAINTIFF IN EROR, V. John F. A. SANDFORD. D Group 267, National Archives Building, Washington , DC.
In this ruling, the Federal Supreme Court declared that the slaves could not be expected to protect the federal government or court, not the United States citizens. The Federal Congress has no authority to prohibit slavery from the federal domain.
In 1846, the black man Dread Scott and his wife Harriette, who had been slaves, filed a lawsuit in search of the St. Louis Touring Court for freedom. They argued that they were free because they lived in a free area where slavery was prohibited.
They were in them. They lived with a slave Army Surgeon in Fort Snell, Wisconsin, which was the free territory. The freedom of the Scott's family was proved because they were detained for a lon g-term slave and then returned to slave. The court has made such a ruling in the past.
However, what was considered to be a simple lawsuit by two civilians was a 1 1-year court struggle, one of the most inferiors in the United States Supreme Court. Scott was defeated and was contested in the Missouri court. Later, Scott filed a new federal lawsuit and eventually reached the Supreme Court.
Dread Scott litigation increased its scope and importance in the Supreme Court, and slavery was the most explosive problem in American politics. By the time the Dread Scott incident reached the Supreme Court, the case had a huge political impact on the United States.
On March 6, 1857, Judge Roger B. Tanny read out a large number of opinions that the slaves were not the United States citizens, thus protection from the federal government or court. The Federal Congress has no authority to prohibit slavery within the federal territory. With this decision, the nation has approached the civil war.
Scott vs. Sandford's ruling was the worst in the history of the Supreme C sooner by many law scholars, and was overturned by Article 13 and 14 of the United States Citizen's Constitution.
This document is available online tools, Docsteach, to teach using the documents of the National Bunkan. Find an educational activity that incorporates this document or create your own online activity.
December 1856

Dread Scott (misconception plaintiff) vs. John F. A. Sandford.
After a misconception in the United States patrol court, a copy of all the litigation records related to the lawsuit is submitted to the court and provided by the court.
The opposition to jurisdiction accompanied by a reduction was rejected by the court after the opposition, and if the defendant spoke based on these reasons in court, the final decision of the judge would be advantageous to the plaintiff, the court. If the judgment is incorrect, the ruling must be destroyed, and a command to reject the case due to lack of jurisdiction is issued by the patrol court.
In a US court, the record shall show that the case is a case where the court has jurisdiction by US constitution and law. If it is not shown and the court shows any of the plaintiffs or defendants, it is incorrect, and the judgment must be destroyed by the court.
The free African blacks, which their ancestors were brought to the country and sold as slaves, are not "citizens" in the meaning of the United States Constitution.
At the time of the adoption of the constitution, they were not considered a member of the community that make up the state, and were not counted as "citizens or citizens." Therefore, the special rights and exemptions guaranteed to the citizens were not applied to them. In addition, they do not have the right to file a lawsuit in such a position, not the "citizen" in the sense of the Constitution, and the patrol court has no jurisdiction against such a lawsuit. Scott vs. Sandford's ruling was the worst in the history of the Supreme C sooner by many law scholars, and was overturned by Article 13 and 14 of the United States Citizens' Constitution.
This document is available online tools, Docsteach, to teach using the documents of the National Bunkan. Find an educational activity that incorporates this document or create your own online activity.

December 1856
Dread Scott (misconception plaintiff) vs. John F. A. Sandford.
After a misconception in the United States patrol court, a copy of all the litigation records related to the lawsuit is submitted to the court and provided by the court.
The opposition to jurisdiction accompanied by a reduction was rejected by the court after the opposition, and if the defendant spoke based on these reasons in court, the final decision of the judge would be advantageous to the plaintiff, the court. If the judgment is incorrect, the ruling must be destroyed, and an order to reject the incident due to lack of jurisdiction must be issued by the patrol court.

In a US court, the record shall show that the case is a case where the court has jurisdiction by US constitution and law. If it is not shown and the court shows any of the plaintiffs or defendants, it is incorrect, and the judgment must be destroyed by the court.
The free African blacks, which their ancestors were brought to the country and sold as slaves, are not "citizens" in the meaning of the United States Constitution.
At the time of the adoption of the constitution, they were not considered a member of the community that make up the state, and were not counted as "citizens or citizens." As a result, the special rights and exemptions guaranteed to the citizens were not applied to them. In addition, they do not have the right to file a lawsuit in such a position, not the "citizen" in the sense of the Constitution, and the patrol court has no jurisdiction against such a lawsuit. Scott vs. Sandford's ruling was the worst in the history of the Supreme C sooner by many law scholars, and was overturned by Article 13 and 14 of the United States Citizen's Constitution.
This document is available online tools, Docsteach, to teach using the documents of the National Bunkan. Find an educational activity that incorporates this document or create your own online activity.
December 1856

Dread Scott (misconception plaintiff) vs. John F. A. Sandford.
After a misconception in the United States patrol court, a copy of all the litigation records related to the lawsuit is submitted to the court and provided by the court.

The opposition to jurisdiction accompanied by a reduction was rejected by the court after the opposition, and if the defendant spoke based on these reasons in court, the final decision of the judge would be advantageous to the plaintiff, the court. If the judgment is incorrect, the ruling must be destroyed, and a command to reject the case due to lack of jurisdiction is issued by the patrol court.

In a US court, the record shall show that the case is a case where the court has jurisdiction by US constitution and law. If it is not shown and the court shows any of the plaintiffs or defendants, it is incorrect, and the judgment must be destroyed by the court.

The free African blacks, which their ancestors were brought to the country and sold as slaves, are not "citizens" in the meaning of the United States Constitution.

At the time of the adoption of the constitution, they were not considered a member of the community that make up the state, and were not counted as "citizens or citizens." Therefore, the special rights and exemptions guaranteed to the citizens were not applied to them. In addition, they do not have the right to file a lawsuit in such a position, not the "citizen" in the sense of the Constitution, and the patrol court has no jurisdiction against such a lawsuit.

The only two clauses in the Constitution which refer to this race treat them as morally lawful property and as persons to be held as slaves.

Since the adoption of the Constitution, no State may by any subsequent law make any alien, or any other person of any kind, a citizen of the United States, or grant to him the rights and privileges guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution.

A State may, by laws enacted after the adoption of the Constitution, make any alien, or any other person, subordinate to its citizens, as to all the rights and privileges enjoyed within its sovereignty and by its laws; but this shall not make him a citizen of the United States, or give him the right to sue in its courts, or to receive the privileges and immunities of citizens in other States.

Changes in public opinion and feeling with respect to the African race which have taken place since the adoption of the Constitution cannot alter the interpretation and meaning of the Constitution, which must now be constructed and administered according to its true meaning and intent when it was made and adopted.

Plaintiff, who, in his defiance of the petition for commutation, admitted that his ancestors were imported from Africa and sold as slaves, is not a citizen of the State of Missouri under the Constitution of the United States, and has no right to a citizenship of that nature in the Circuit Court.

Being so, the judgment of the lower court in favor of plaintiff on the ground of recusal is erroneous.

But even if the challenge to recusal is not overruled by this error, plaintiff's challenge to citizenship is clear from the record, and he further alleges that it was by the laws of the State that he acquired a right of freedom by being removed to Rock Island, Illinois, and was free when he returned to Missouri.

Therefore, if the claim does not give the plaintiff or its family the right to freed, the plaintiff is still a slave, has no right to appeal as a "citizen," and does not say any reason for the appeal. This is also a mistake.
District Court cannot make a ruling for plaintiffs or defendants, whether or not there is an objection of repellent in cases. And the ruling must be destroyed unless it is clear that the District Court has jurisdiction on the record of the recorded recorded here. Capron v. Van noORDEN (2 cranch, 126) examined, and the decisions of the determined authorities were supported.
If the record submitted by the misconception does not show that the Federal District Court has jurisdiction, the court examines and corrects the correction of the incorrect and corrections, similar to other mistakes in the lower level. There is. This lawsuit cannot or cannot be rejected due to lack of jurisdiction. This is because the wrong judgment of the lower class remains completely effective, and the affected parties cannot receive compensation. However, the ruling must be destroyed, and as in other destruction, the ruling must be inserted to match the court's opinion and submitted to the Federal District Court.

The judge pointed out the difference in jurisdiction of misdivisions in the state court and the United States District Court. In addition, there is an error in the latter of the court's jurisdiction with the restricted jurisdiction in the former.

Other parts of the record that the Federal District Court was incorrect to the jurisdiction and other issues, even if the court abandoned the ruling because it was found from a specific part of the record that the federal district was lacking in jurisdiction. If it is found from, the court of jurisdiction to examine and correct other errors by destroying the ruling is not deprived of the court. Rather, if there are multiple errors, it is the daily and customs of the court to destroy the ruling for many reasons. The mistakes of the federal district of the District Court are based on the same basis, and should be treated in the same way as the other errors that were the basis for the judgment. Therefore, if the claim does not give the plaintiff or its family the right of freedom, the plaintiff is still a slave, has no right to appeal as a "citizen," and does not say any reason for the appeal. The judgment is also incorrect in this regard.

District Court cannot make a ruling for plaintiffs or defendants, whether or not there is an objection of repellent in cases. And the ruling must be destroyed unless it is clear that the District Court has jurisdiction on the record of the recorded recorded here. Capron v. Van noORDEN (2 cranch, 126) examined, and the decisions of the determined authorities were supported.

If the record submitted by the misconception does not show that the Federal District Court has jurisdiction, the court examines and corrects the correction of the incorrect and corrections, similar to other mistakes in the lower level. There is. This lawsuit cannot or cannot be rejected due to lack of jurisdiction. This is because the wrong judgment of the lower class remains completely effective, and the affected parties cannot receive compensation. However, the ruling must be destroyed, and as in other destruction, the ruling must be inserted to match the court's opinion and submitted to the Federal District Court.

Other parts of the record that the Federal District Court was incorrect to the jurisdiction and other issues, even if the court abandoned the ruling because it was found from a specific part of the record that the federal district was lacking in jurisdiction. If it is found from, the court of jurisdiction to examine and correct other errors by destroying the ruling is not deprived of the court. Rather, if there are multiple errors, it is the daily and customs of the court to destroy the ruling for many reasons. The mistakes of the federal district of the District Court are based on the same basis, and should be treated in the same way as the other errors that were the basis for the judgment. Therefore, if the claim does not give the plaintiff or its family the right to freed, the plaintiff is still a slave, has no right to appeal as a "citizen," and does not say any reason for the appeal. This is also a mistake.

Therefore, it is not considered that the decision of the patrol court based on a sense of gradation is incorrect, and if the mistake that caused from the exception has been destroyed, and if a lawsuit of the patrol court is discarded, it will be discarded. Must be done. It is often the court obligation to focus on other errors after judging that the court's specific judgment was incorrect, and if the existence of an error is found, it is often corrected. This is what the court has been uniformly when the question is related to the controversy, and if the court's silence could lead to a more unused lawsuit.

The fact that the plaintiff depends on the plaintiff is not a citizen of Missouri.

The constitutional clause that gives the Federal Council the authority to enact all necessary rules and regulations to govern the United States territory and other property is the state and border of any of the Great Britain colonies. Applies only to the territory in contact. It does not apply to territory obtained by the current federal government by treaty or conquest. The American and Ocean Insurance Company vs. Canter Case (1 Peters, 511) was quoted, and the ruling of this case did not contradict this opinion, and the court was interpreted in the constitutional clause in the case quoted. I didn't decide.

Under the current constitution, the United States cannot acquire territories that are freely governed as colonies. However, it is possible to acquire territories that do not have the appropriate population to become a state, and can continue to govern as a territory until the parliamentary decision has been recognized as a federal state. Therefore, there is no judgment that the judgment of the patrol court based on a sense of gradation is incorrect, and errors and judgments caused by the exception have been discarded, and this is disclosed, and the patrol court's case is disclosed. Then it must be discarded. It is often the court obligation to focus on other errors after judging that the court's specific judgment was incorrect, and if the existence of an error is found, it is often corrected. This is what the court has been uniformly when the question is related to the controversy, and if the court's silence could lead to a more unused lawsuit.

The fact that the plaintiff depends on the plaintiff is not a citizen of Missouri.

The constitutional clause that gives the Federal Council the authority to enact all necessary rules and regulations to govern the United States territory and other property is the state and border of any of the Great Britain colonies. Applies only to the territory in contact. It does not apply to territory obtained by the current federal government by treaty or conquest. The American and Ocean Insurance Company vs. Canter case (1 Peters, 511) was quoted, and the ruling of this case is inconsistent with this opinion, and the court is interpreted in the constitutional clause. I didn't decide.

Under the current constitution, the United States cannot acquire territories that are freely governed as colonies. However, it is possible to acquire territories that do not have the appropriate population to become a state, and can continue to govern as a territory until the parliamentary decision has been recognized as a federal state. Therefore, it is not considered that the decision of the patrol court based on a sense of gradation is incorrect, and if the mistake that caused from the exception has been destroyed, and if a lawsuit of the patrol court is discarded, it will be discarded. Must be done. It is often the court obligation to focus on other errors after judging that the court's specific judgment was incorrect, and if the existence of an error is found, it is often corrected. This is what the court has been uniformly when the question is related to the controversy, and if the court's silence could lead to a more unused lawsuit.

The fact that the plaintiff depends on the plaintiff is not a citizen of Missouri.

The form of local government is regulated by the discretion of Congress, but its powers shall not exceed those which Congress exercises over the citizens of the United States by the Constitution.

The territory thus acquired is acquired by the inhabitants of the United States, through the Federal Government, its agent and trustee, for the common and equal benefit. Congress cannot exercise any power over the personal or property rights of the citizens in the territory which the Constitution prohibits. The government and the citizens enter, each with their respective rights as defined and limited by the Constitution, whenever the territory is opened for settlement.

Congress has no right to prohibit the citizens of any state from residing there, but the citizens of other states are permitted to do so. Nor does it have the right to give privileges to one class of citizens and deny them to another. The territory is acquired for the common and equal benefit, and if it is opened to any, it must be opened to all on equal and equal terms.

All citizens have the right to bring into the territory all property which the Constitution of the United States recognizes as property.
The Constitution of the United States recognizes slaves as property and commands the Federal Government to protect them. And Congress cannot exercise over this kind of property the powers it constitutionally exercises over any other kind of property.

Thus, the act of Congress prohibiting the citizens of the United States from taking slaves with them when they move into the territory is an exercise of power over private property not justified by the Constitution, and the movement of the plaintiffs' owners into the territory did not give them a right of freedom.

Plaintiffs themselves did not acquire a right of freedom by being removed from their owners to Rock Island, Illinois, and then brought back to Missouri. This Court has held that the status and condition of Africans depends on the laws of the state in which they reside.

According to the Supreme Court in Missouri, if the law of the state took a slave to a state where slavery was not allowed, and then brought back to Missouri, the slave had no right to gain freedom. I'm doing it. Synopsis, according to the records, it is clear that the lower court was wrong with the ruling against the complaint, and although there were exceptions to indicate that the plaintiff was not a US citizen, there was a judgment that supported the defendant. It is also wrong to do it. In addition, the Federal Touring Court has no jurisdiction in the ruling of the decrease and the decision on exceptional rules, so the judgment that supports the defendant must be incorrect and canceled.

The case was abandoned by the Missouri Federal Touring Court as an error.

It is a Vi et almis violation litigation established in the tour in the Scott vs. Sandford case.

Before this lawsuit was filed, Scott filed a lawsuit in the St. Louis County Court (State Court) in search of his freedom, which was advantageous for him. A misconception of the State Supreme Court has abandoned the substance of the lower class, and the case was returned to the patrol court, where he waited for the appeal.

Scott's statement included three claims. One is that Sandford has assaulted the plaintiff. One is that Sandford assaulted his wife Harriet Scott. One was that Sandford assaulted his child, Eliza Scott and Lizzy Scott.

Sandford appeared and appealed:

Dread Scott vs John F. A. Sandford. Contact about the jurisdiction of the court.

April 1854 Missouri's Supreme Court ruled that if he took a slave to a state where slavery was not allowed, and then brought back to Missouri, he was free to slaves. It is confirmed that there is no right to gain. Synopsis, according to the records, it is clear that the lower court was wrong with the ruling against the complaint, and although there were exceptions to indicate that the plaintiff was not a US citizen, there was a judgment that supported the defendant. It is also wrong to do it. In addition, the Federal Touring Court has no jurisdiction in the ruling of the decrease and the decision on exceptional rules, so the judgment that supports the defendant must be incorrect and canceled.

The case was abandoned by the Missouri Federal Touring Court as an error.

It is a Vi et almis violation litigation established in the tour in the Scott vs. Sandford case.

Sandford appeared and appealed:

Dread Scott vs John F. A. Sandford. Contact about the jurisdiction of the court.

In April 1854, the Supreme Court in Missouri brought a slave to a state where slavery was not permitted by the state law, and then brought back to Missouri, the right to gain freedom. It is confirmed that there is no. Synopsis, according to the records, it is clear that the lower court was wrong with the ruling against the complaint, and although there were exceptions to indicate that the plaintiff was not a US citizen, there was a judgment that supported the defendant. It is also wrong to do it. In addition, the Federal Touring Court has no jurisdiction in the ruling of the decrease and the decision on exceptional rules, so the judgment that supports the defendant must be incorrect and canceled.

The case was abandoned by the Missouri Federal Touring Court as an error.

It is a Vi et almis violation litigation established in the tour in the Scott vs. Sandford case.

Sandford appeared and appealed:

Dread Scott vs John F. A. Sandford. Contact about the jurisdiction of the court.

April 1854

Also, John F ・ A. Sandford appears as a person, and the court must not make any more awareness of the lawsuits mentioned above, because the cause and each of the litigation and their (if there is such a thing). Thus, because the plaintiff Dread Scott is a young African young man, he is not a citizen of Missouri, as claimed in its declaration. His ancestors were pure African blood, imported into the country and sold as black slaves, which is where Sandford is trying to verify. For this reason, it will be known whether the court can further deepen knowledge or deepen the aforementioned act.

John F. A. Sandford

In this petition, there was one claim in the normal format, and in April 1854, the court ruled that it should support the survivors.

In May 1854, the defendant agreed with a lawyer, with the approval of the court, to the lawyers in this lawsuit:

innocence.

The plaintiff was a black slave and a defendant's legal property, so the defendant gently dropped his hand and was confined only as the rights of offspring.

Regarding plaintiffs' wives and daughters, the defendants acted only in the same way in the same way, as in the second and third statements of the aforementioned statement.

The plaintiff joined the issue in the first words. In the second and third arguments, the defendant argued that he had committed a crime without any reason.

Later, the lawyer submitted the following agreement: , and John F. A. Sandford appears as a person, and the court must not make any more awareness of the lawsuits mentioned above, because the cause and each of the litigation and their (if there is such a thing). Thus, because the plaintiff Dread Scott is a young African young man, he is not a citizen of Missouri, as claimed in its declaration. His ancestors were pure African blood, imported into the country and sold as black slaves, which is where Sandford is trying to verify. For this reason, it will be known whether the court can further deepen knowledge or deepen the aforementioned act.

John F. A. Sandford

In this petition, there was one claim in the normal format, and in April 1854, the court ruled that it should support the survivors.

In May 1854, the defendant agreed with a lawyer, with the approval of the court, to the lawyers in this lawsuit:

innocence.

The plaintiff was a black slave and a defendant's legal property, so the defendant gently dropped his hand and was confined only as the rights of offspring.

Regarding plaintiffs' wives and daughters, the defendants acted only in the same way in the same way, as in the second and third statements of the aforementioned statement.

The plaintiff joined the issue in the first words. In the second and third arguments, the defendant argued that he had committed a crime without any reason.

Later, the lawyer submitted the following agreement: John F. A. Sandford appears as a person, and the court must not make any more awareness of the lawsuits mentioned above, because the cause and each of the litigation and their (if there is such a thing). Thus, because the plaintiff Dread Scott is a young African young man, he is not a citizen of Missouri, as claimed in its declaration. His ancestors were pure African blood, imported into the country and sold as black slaves, which is where Sandford is trying to verify. For this reason, it will be known whether the court can further deepen knowledge or deepen the aforementioned act.

John F. A. Sandford

In this petition, there was one claim in the normal format, and in April 1854, the court ruled that it should support the survivors.

In May 1854, the defendant agreed with a lawyer, with the approval of the court, to the lawyers in this lawsuit:

innocence.

The plaintiff was a black slave and a defendant's legal property, so the defendant gently dropped his hand and was confined only as the rights of offspring.

Regarding plaintiffs' wives and daughters, the defendants acted only in the same way in the same way, as in the second and third statements of the aforementioned statement.

The plaintiff joined the issue in the first words. In the second and third arguments, the defendant argued that he had committed a crime without any reason.

Later, the lawyer submitted the following agreement:

In 1834, plaintiff was a negro slave owned by Dr. Emerson, a surgeon in the United States Army. In 1834, Dr. Emerson took plaintiff from Missouri to the garrison at Rock Island, Illinois, where he kept her as a slave until April or May, 1836, in the territory known as Upper Louisiana, acquired from France, on the west bank of the Mississippi River, north of latitude 36°30′ north, and north of the state of Missouri. Dr. Emerson remained in servitude to plaintiff at Fort Snelling from that time until 1838.

In 1835, Harriet, mentioned in paragraph 2 of plaintiff's declaration, was a newborn slave of Major Taliaferro, who was in the United States Army. In that year (1835) Major Taliaferro is stated to have taken Harriet to said Fort Snelling, a military post here, and kept her there as a slave until 1836, when he sold and delivered her as a slave at said Fort Snelling to said Dr. Emerson, hereby stated. The said Dr. Emerson states that Harriet remained in slavery at said Fort Snelling until 1838.

In 1836, plaintiff and the said Harriet were intimated to each other and became husband and wife at said Fort Snelling, with the consent of the said Dr. Emerson, who then claimed to be their master and owner. Eliza and Lizzie, described in paragraph 3 of plaintiff's declaration, are children born of this marriage. Eliza was about 14 years of age and was born at Steamboat Gypsy, on the Mississippi River, north of the Missouri border. Lizzie was about seven years of age and was born at a military post in Missouri known as Jefferson Barracks.

In 1838, the said Dr. Emerson transported plaintiff, the said Harriet and the said daughter Eliza from Fort Snelling to Missouri where they have since resided.

Prior to the commencement of this action, the said Dr. Emerson sold and conveyed plaintiff, the said Harriet, the said Eliza and the said Lizzie to defendant as slaves, and defendant thereafter owned plaintiff, the said Harriet, the said Eliza and the said Lizzie, respectively, as slaves.

At the time described in the plaintiff's declaration, the defendant, who claims to be the owner mentioned above, has been confined to the plaintiff, Harriet, iris and Lizzy. However, in this regard, the defendant cannot do it legally.

In the trial, further evidence can be submitted for one of the parties.

It has been agreed that Dread Scott has filed a lawsuit in the St. Louis County Court for freedom and has been ruled and ruled. A high court misconception caused the lower law to be destroyed, and the ruling was warned by the patrol court, waiting for the ruling.

In May 1854, the trial was entrusted to the jury, and the jury made the following decision: "We are guilty of defendants for the first project included in this lawsuit." Regarding the project, we jurists are innocent to the defendant. "", In the first cause, Dread Scott was a black slave and a legal property of the defendant. ... In the second and third causes, Dread Scott's wife Harriet, Dread Scott's daughter iris and Lizzy was a black slave and a legal property of the defendant. "

The court ruled the defendant.

After the request for retrial ended, the plaintiff submitted the following exception bills.

In the trial of the judge's trial, the plaintiff read out the jury's agreement to maintain his issues: Later, the plaintiff filed a court to give the jury to give the following instruction:

"The jury had to support the plaintiff on the facts agreed among the parties. The court refused to give such an instruction to the jury, and was a plaintiff who refused. On the other hand, it was officially excluded.

The court gave the jury the following instructions by the defendant's proposal:

"In the facts of the case, the jury recommends that the law is in the defendant," the plaintiff disagatively.

With such an exception, this was brought to the court.

The incident was argued in December 1855 and was ordered to be rejected during this term. At the time described in the plaintiff's declaration, the defendant, who claims to be the owner mentioned earlier, has been confined to the plaintiff, Harriet, iris and Lizzy. However, in this regard, the defendant cannot do it legally.

In the trial, further evidence can be submitted for one of the parties.

The court ruled the defendant.

After the request for retrial ended, the plaintiff submitted the following exception bills.

In the trial of the judge's trial, the plaintiff read out the jury's agreement to maintain his issues: Later, the plaintiff filed a court to give the jury to give the following instruction:

The court gave the jury the following instructions by the defendant's proposal:

"In the facts of the case, the jury recommends that the law is in the defendant," the plaintiff disagatively.

With such an exception, this was brought to the court.

The incident was argued in December 1855 and was ordered to be rejected during this term. At the time described in the plaintiff's declaration, the defendant, who claims to be the owner mentioned above, has been confined to the plaintiff, Harriet, iris and Lizzy. However, in this regard, the defendant cannot do it legally.

In the trial, further evidence can be submitted for one of the parties.

The court ruled the defendant.

After the request for retrial ended, the plaintiff submitted the following exception bills.

In the trial of the judge's trial, the plaintiff read out the jury's agreement to maintain his issues: Later, the plaintiff filed a court to give the jury to give the following instruction:

The court gave the jury the following instructions by the defendant's proposal:

"In the facts of the case, the jury recommends that the law is in the defendant," the plaintiff disagatively.

With such an exception, this was brought to the court.

The incident was argued in December 1855 and was ordered to be rejected during this term.

The trial was spoken by Blair, W. F. Curtis, the misconfirmed plaintiff, and the defendant Gaeyer and Johnson.

Judge Teney gave a court opinion.

This case was dispute twice. After the speech in the previous fiscal year, there were differences in opinions among court members. The issue of this case was extremely important, and the court was also busy with the normal issue of the time, so we continued this case and talked about some issues in order to gain the opportunity to consider the whole case more carefully. It was considered desirable to resume. As a result, a lawyer r e-discussed and was examined in court. And I will give opinions from this.

The record has two major questions:

Did the United States District Court have jurisdiction to judge and decide the trial between the parties? and

If you had jurisdiction, was the ruling made by the district wrong?

The misconception plaintiff was also a plaintiff in the lower referee, but was detained by a defendant in Missouri with his wife and child. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court in the area to claim the freedom of the person and his family.

The oath is a format that is usually adopted in Honshu to consider this kind of problem, and includes the objections necessary to give the court of jurisdiction. In other words, the plaintiff is a Missouri citizen and the defendant is a citizen of New York.

The defendant claims that the plaintiff is not a citizen of Missouri, as he claimed in the declaration, but his ancestors were pure African blacks, and were recruited by this country and sold as slaves. did.

The plaintiffs disagree with this claim, and the defendant joined the proposer. The court rejected the opposition and said the defendant should answer. As a result, the defendant appealed several times and issued issues. In the trial, the defendant was judged and ruled. So the plaintiff submitted this error.

It would be appropriate to solve the questions that arise due to cancellation before stating the reasons for the cancellation. The trial was argued by Blair, W. F. Curtis on the misconception plaintiff, Gaeyer and Johnson of the misconceptions.

Judge Teney gave a court opinion.

The record has two major questions:

Did the United States District Court have jurisdiction to judge and decide the trial between the parties? and

If you had jurisdiction, was the ruling made by the district wrong?

It would be appropriate to solve the questions that arise due to cancellation before stating the reasons for the cancellation. The trial was spoken by Blair, W. F. Curtis, the misconfirmed plaintiff, and the defendant Gaeyer and Johnson.

Judge Teney gave a court opinion.

The record has two major questions:

Did the United States District Court have jurisdiction to judge and decide the trial between the parties? and

If you had jurisdiction, was the ruling made by the district wrong?

It would be appropriate to solve the questions that arise due to cancellation before stating the reasons for the cancellation.

This ground denies the plaintiff the right to bring an action on this ground in the courts of the United States.

If the question presented by this ground is lawfully before us, and the facts therein set forth are such as to prevent the plaintiff from being a citizen, within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, then the judgment of the District Court is erroneous and must be set aside.

But it is suggested that this appeal is not before us; and, as the judgment of the lower court on this claim was in the plaintiff's favor, he does not seek to have the judgment overturned, nor does he approach this court for review on a writ of miscarriage of justice.

But in raising this objection, no reference seems to have been made to the strange and limited jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. This peculiar and limited jurisdiction requires the courts of the United States to adopt rules and principles of conduct, as to jurisdiction, different from those governing the common law courts in England and in the several States of the Union which adopt the rules of the common law.

In the last-mentioned courts, where their character and classification resembles that of the district courts of the United States. In other words, such a court as the law defines as a court of general jurisdiction is presumed to have jurisdiction unless a contrary opinion is presented. It is not necessary to object to the plaintiff's arguments in order to confer jurisdiction. If the defendant objects, he must plead them specifically. Jurisdiction cannot be questioned in the appellate court unless the facts relating to the remains are found to be true by the jury or admitted to be true by the plaintiff.

Now, in such a court, there is no need to ask if the party in court arguments rejects an objection to the jurisdiction of the sel f-jurisdiction. In addition, if a court argument makes a ruling that is advantageous to you and a plaintiff is submitted by the plaintiff, the issue of objections will not be rejected at the appeal. Such a court case or the rules set by the Common Row breeders cannot affect the court's judgment. This is because under the constitution and law of the United States, the rules of domestic rights are regulated by different authorities and regulated rules for domestic petitions. It is said that in such a court, if the party who performs a court argument eliminates the opposition to jurisdiction against himself, it is not necessary to ask if the objection will be abandoned. Also, even if the plaintiff's oral errors have been ruled by the plaintiff, no objections will be rejected in the appeal court. Such cases in court and rules specified by the Common Law breeders cannot affect the following issues: Now, in such a court, it is not necessary to ask if the party who performs a court argument rejects an objection to the jurisdiction of the sel f-jurisdiction of the self. In addition, if a court argument makes a ruling that is advantageous to you and a plaintiff is submitted by the plaintiff, the issue of objections will not be rejected at the appeal. Such a court case or the rules set by the Common Row breeders cannot affect the court's judgment. This is because under the constitution and law of the United States, the rules of domestic rights are regulated by different authorities and regulated rules for domestic petitions. It is said that in such a court, if the party who performs a court argument eliminates the opposition to jurisdiction against himself, it is not necessary to ask if the objection will be abandoned. Also, even if the plaintiff's oral errors have been ruled by the plaintiff, no objections will be rejected in the appeal court. Such cases in court and rules specified by the Common Law breeders cannot affect the following issues: Now, in such a court, there is no need to ask if the party in court arguments rejects an objection to the jurisdiction of the sel f-jurisdiction. In addition, if a court argument makes a ruling that is advantageous to you and a plaintiff is submitted by the plaintiff, the issue of objections will not be rejected at the appeal. Such a court case or the rules set by the Common Row breeders cannot affect the court's judgment. This is because under the constitution and law of the United States, the rules of domestic rights are regulated by different authorities and regulated rules for domestic petitions. It is said that in such a court, if the party who performs a court argument eliminates the opposition to jurisdiction against himself, it is not necessary to ask if the objection will be abandoned. Also, even if the plaintiff's oral errors have been ruled by the plaintiff, no objections will be rejected in the appeal court. Such cases in court and rules specified by the Common Law breeders cannot affect the following issues:

This difference arises, as we have seen, from the peculiar character of the United States government. Though the United States government is sovereign and supreme in its proper sphere of operation, it does not possess all the powers which normally belong to the sovereignty of a nation. Certain powers are given to the United States government, as enumerated in the Constitution. Neither the legislative, executive, nor judicial branches may lawfully exercise their powers beyond the limits set forth in the Constitution. Moreover, in regulating the judicial branch, the cases over which the courts of the United States have jurisdiction are specifically enumerated and defined, and the courts have no power to exercise jurisdiction over any case not falling within the description therein set forth. Thus, when a plaintiff files a suit in a United States court, he must prove in argument that the suit he files is within the jurisdiction of that court, and that he has the right to sue there. If he fails to do so, and obtains a judgment in his favor under the supervision of a district court, the judgment will be set aside by the court of appeals for want of jurisdiction of the lower court. Jurisdiction is not presumed unless otherwise granted, as in the common law courts of England and the States. But the record is

This point was decided in Bingham v. Cabot, 3 Dall. 382, and has been maintained by the courts ever since. Also, in Jackson v. Ashton, 8 Pet. 148, it was held that the consent of the parties cannot confer jurisdiction, and therefore the objection cannot be waived by the other party.

We need not pile up the precedents on this question. What has already been said, and Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 Cr, 126, and Montale v. Murray, 4 Cr, 46, are sufficient to show the rule we have stated. Capron v. Van Noorden strikingly shows the difference between the common law courts and the United States courts.

But if the fact of citizenship is at the head of the declaration, and the defendant does not deny it, but contests it by PICA of recusal, he cannot introduce evidence to disprove it at trial, and therefore cannot invoke the rebuttal against the court, unless the defect is evident in other parts of the record. For, if there is no cause for recusal, and the defect of jurisdiction does not appear in other parts of the record cited by the letter of miscarriage of justice, the issue of the citizenship argument stated in the declaration must be considered. In this case, there is a huge amount of citizenship, but it is denied by the defendant in the manner required by the rule of reference, and the facts on which it is based are introduced by the remote party. And when the answer and judgment of the lower court are before us on this record, the question to be decided is whether the facts set out in the complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has no right to sue as a citizen in the courts of the United States.

We think that that comes first. The grounds for reduction and the decision of the court thereon are part of the judicial proceedings in the circuit courts, and are so recorded. And a writ of miscarriage of justice always brings before the Supreme Court the whole record of the proceedings in the lower court. In United States v. Smith, 11 Wheat., 172, the Court said that in cases cited by miscarriage of justice, the whole record was considered by the Court. And as it is in this case, the grounds for reduction are necessarily subject to review. It is therefore our duty to decide whether the facts set out in this complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has no right to sue as a citizen in the courts of the United States.

This is certainly a very important question, and one which this Court is now calling upon to decide for the first time. But the question has been raised by those who have a right to raise it, and it is our duty to respond to and decide it.

The problem is simply like this: The ancestors are imported into the country and sold as slaves, and have become a member of the political community formed and founded by the United States Constitution, and thus all rights, privileges guaranteed to citizens. Can you be exempted? One of the rights is the privilege of a lawsuit in a court in the United States in the case of the Constitution.

The basis for invalidation is that the ancestors are African blacks, only applied to those who are imported, sold as slaves, and restrained. Thus, the only problem that is being disposed of in the court is that the terms of citizens are used in the United States Constitution when the descendants of such slaves are released or from their parents who are free before birth. In the sense, it is whether you are a citizen of that state. Since this is the only problem in the argument, the court only describes in this statement about this kind of person, that is, the descendants of African who was brought to this country and sold as slaves. You have to understand that there is. The problem is simply like this: Blacks, which were imported into the country and sold as slaves, became a member of the political community formed and founded by the United States Constitution, and thus all rights guaranteed to the citizens. Can you receive privileges and exemptions? One of the rights is the privilege of a lawsuit in a court in the United States in the case of the Constitution.

The basis for invalidation is that the ancestors are African blacks, only applied to those who are imported, sold as slaves, and restrained. Thus, the only problem that is being disposed of in the court is that the terms of citizens are used in the United States Constitution when the descendants of such slaves are released or from their parents who are free before birth. In the sense, it is whether you are a citizen of that state. Since this is the only problem in the argument, the court only describes in this statement about this kind of person, that is, the descendants of African who was brought to this country and sold as slaves. You have to understand that there is. The problem is simply like this: The ancestors are imported into the country and sold as slaves, and have become a member of the political community formed and founded by the United States Constitution, and thus all rights, privileges guaranteed to citizens. Can you be exempted? One of the rights is the privilege of a lawsuit in a court in the United States in the case of the Constitution.

The situation of these inhabitants was entirely opposite to that of the Indian tribes. It is true that the latter did not form a part of the colonial community, and were not merged with it in social organizations or governments. But, although the two were not mutually exclusive, they remained free and independent peoples, united in nations or tribes, and governed by their own laws. Many of these political communities were situated in territories over which the white race claimed ultimate sovereignty. But this claim was recognized subject to the right of the Indians to occupy it as they saw fit, and neither the British nor the colonial governments asserted or exercised sovereignty over the territory until the tribe or nation agreed to cede it to them. These Indian governments were regarded and treated as foreign governments, as if an ocean separated the red and the white people; and their liberty has been continually recognized by various governments from the time of the first settlement in the British colonies down to the present day. Treaties have been negotiated with them, their alliances have been pursued in wars, and the peoples who constitute these Indian political communities have always been treated as foreigners living outside our government. Ε

We consider the case as presented in argument.

"United States people" and "citizens" are synonyms and have the same meaning. Both represent the political subjects that form sovereignty under the democratic system, grasp power through their representatives, and operate the government. The people we are familiar with as "sovereign people" are one of the people and members of the sovereign. The problem here is whether the people stated in the invalidated complaint are members of the people and members of their sovereignty. Therefore, the Constitution gives the United States citizens and cannot claim the rights and privileges to be guaranteed. On the contrary, they were considered to be subordinate and inferior classes that were obeyed by dominant races, and continued to obey their power, if they would not be released to slaves. There were no rights or privileges other than choosing to give them.

It is not a court to judge the fair, unfair, policy and fraud of these laws. The decision on this issue belongs to political and legislative power that forms sovereignty and enacted the constitution. The court's obligation is to interpret the documents enacted using the best lights obtained about the theme and operate as we found in accordance with the true intentions and meanings of adopted. 。 the United States "and" Citizens "are synonyms and have the same meaning. Both represent the political subjects that form sovereignty under the democratic system, grasp power through their representatives, and operate the government. The people we are familiar with as "sovereign people" are one of the people and members of the sovereign. The problem here is whether the people stated in the invalidated complaint are members of the people and members of their sovereignty. Therefore, the Constitution gives the United States citizens and cannot claim the rights and privileges to be guaranteed. On the contrary, they were considered to be subordinate and inferior classes that were obeyed by dominant races, and continued to obey their power, if they would not be released to slaves. There were no rights or privileges other than choosing to give them.

It is not a court to judge the fair, unfair, policy and fraud of these laws. The decision on this issue belongs to political and legislative power that forms sovereignty and enacted the constitution. The court's obligation is to interpret the documents enacted using the best lights obtained about the theme and operate as we found in accordance with the true intentions and meanings of adopted. 。 "United States people" and "citizens" are synonyms and have the same meaning. Both represent the political subjects that form sovereignty under the democratic system, grasp power through their representatives, and operate the government. The people we are familiar with as "sovereign people" are one of the people and members of the sovereign. The problem here is whether the people stated in the invalidated complaint are members of the people and members of their sovereignty. Therefore, the Constitution gives the United States citizens and cannot claim the rights and privileges to be guaranteed. On the contrary, they were considered to be subordinate and inferior classes that were obeyed by dominant races, and continued to obey their power, if they would not be released to slaves. There were no rights or privileges other than choosing to give them.

When discussing this issue, the state must not confuse the citizenship that the state can give in that country with the civil rights as a federal member. Just because you have all the rights and privileges as a state citizen cannot be a US citizen. Even if you have all the rights and privileges of a state citizen, you cannot get the rights and privileges of other citizens. Prior to the adoption of the United States Constitution, all states had the unusual right to give their favorite people as citizens and to give them all citizens' rights and privileges. However, this citizen of the citizen, of course, was limited to the state of the state, and did not give the right or privilege in other states more than being guaranteed by international law or state law. The adoption of the United States Constitution has not abandoned the authority or privilege of these rights and privileges. Any state can give these rights to foreigners, or those who believe it is right, or any type or human phase. However, the foreigner is not a citizen in the United States Constitution, and there is no right to sue in the United States Court as a citizen, and there is no right to receive the privileges and exemptions of citizens in other states. When discussing this issue, the right shall not confuse the citizens that the state that the state can give in the country's precincts and the citizenship as a federal member country. Just because you have all the rights and privileges as a state citizen cannot be a US citizen. Even if you have all the rights and privileges of a state citizen, you cannot get the rights and privileges of other citizens. Prior to the adoption of the United States Constitution, all states had the unusual right to give their favorite people as citizens and to give them all citizens' rights and privileges. However, this citizen of the citizen, of course, was limited to the state of the state, and did not give the right or privilege in other states more than being guaranteed by international law or state law. The adoption of the United States Constitution has not abandoned the authority or privilege of these rights and privileges. Any state can give these rights to foreigners, or those who believe it is right, or any type or human phase. However, the foreigner is not a citizen in the United States Constitution, and there is no right to file a lawsuit in the United States Court as a citizen, and there is no right to receive the privileges and exemptions of citizens in other states. When discussing this issue, the state shall not confuse the citizenship that the state can give in that country with the citizenship as a federal member country. Just because you have all the rights and privileges as a state citizen cannot be a US citizen. Even if you have all the rights and privileges of a state citizen, you cannot get the rights and privileges of other citizens. Prior to the adoption of the United States Constitution, all states had the unusual right to give their favorite people as citizens and to give them all citizens' rights and privileges. However, this citizen of the citizen, of course, was limited to the state of the state, and did not give the right or privilege in other states more than being guaranteed by international law or state law. The adoption of the United States Constitution has not abandoned the authority or privilege of these rights and privileges. Any state can give these rights to foreigners, or those who believe it is right, or any type or human phase. However, the foreigner is not a citizen in the United States Constitution, and there is no right to sue in the United States Court as a citizen, and there is no right to receive the privileges and exemptions of citizens in other states. What is that right?

No State, therefore, can, by any law or act enacted after the adoption of the Constitution, add a new member to the political community created by the Constitution of the United States; it cannot make him a member of the community by making him a member of its own state. For the same reason, it cannot introduce any individual or person who was not intended to be incorporated into this new political community created by the Constitution, and was intended to be excluded from it.

The question then arises, whether the provisions of the Constitution as to the personal rights and privileges which the citizens of a State should have, embrace any negro of African descent then in the country, or who could then enter any State; and whether it is the power of a State to make such a person a citizen of the United States, and to grant him the high rights of citizenship in all other States, without his consent; whether the Constitution of the United States can make a man free under the laws of one State, and there raise him to the status of a citizen, and immediately clothe him with all the privileges of a citizen in all other States, and in the courts of that State.

We find no support for the affirmation of these propositions. If this were not so, the plaintiff in the mistrial could not be a citizen of the state of Missouri within the meaning of the Constitution, and consequently would not have the right to sue in the courts of that state.

It is true that all individuals, all hieraries, and all kinds of people who were recognized as citizens in each state at the time the constitution were adopted became citizens of this new political organization. But there is no other person. The constitution was enacted by them and for their posterity, and not anyone else. And the personal rights and privileges guaranteed to the citizens of the new sovereignty are those who were members of some state communities, or later births, in accordance with the provisions of the constitution and the principle of established this sovereignty. For the reason, it was intended to include people to be a member. This is integrated as a member of a different political community at the time to one political family, and its authority extends to all territory of the United States for specific purposes. there were. Then, all citizens outside the state have the right and privileges that were not before their belongings, and in all other states, the rights of personal rights and property are completely equal as their citizens. I put it in. This has become a United States citizen.

Therefore, when the constitution is adopted, it is necessary to clarify who was the citizens of each state. To do so, 13 colonies must be separated from Great Britain, forming a new territory, and reconsidering the government at the time, which became an independent nation. At that time, who was recognized by the British government that had violated rights and freedom as a citizen of the state? And they declared independence and undertaken the government's authority to defend their rights by force.

According to the court's opinion, from the laws and history at the time, the words used in the declaration of independence, regardless of whether the people imported as slaves and their offspring were free, at the time. It was not recognized, and it was not intended to be included in the general words used in this memorable document. At the time the constitution was adopted, it is true that all individuals, all herself, and all kinds of people, which were recognized as citizens in each state, became the citizens of this new political organization. But there is no other person. The constitution was enacted by them and for their posterity, and not anyone else. And the personal rights and privileges guaranteed to the citizens of the new sovereignty are those who were members of some state communities, or later births, in accordance with the provisions of the constitution and the principle of established this sovereignty. For the reason, it was intended to include people to be a member. This is integrated as a member of a different political community at the time to one political family, and its authority extends to all territory of the United States for specific purposes. there were. Then, all citizens outside the state have the right and privileges that were not before their belongings, and in all other states, the rights of personal rights and property are completely equal as their citizens. I put it in. This has become a United States citizen.

According to the court's opinion, from the laws and history at the time, the words used in the declaration of independence, regardless of whether the people imported as slaves and their offspring were free, at the time. It was not recognized, and it was not intended to be included in the general words used in this memorable document. It is true that all individuals, all hieraries, and all kinds of people who were recognized as citizens in each state at the time the constitution were adopted became citizens of this new political organization. But there is no other person. The constitution was enacted by them and for their posterity, and not anyone else. And the personal rights and privileges guaranteed to the citizens of the new sovereignty are those who were members of some state communities, or later births, in accordance with the provisions of the constitution and the principle of established this sovereignty. For the reason, it was intended to include people to be a member. This is integrated as a member of a different political community at the time to one political family, and its authority extends to all territory of the United States for specific purposes. there were. Then, all citizens outside the state have the right and privileges that were not before their belongings, and in all other states, the rights of personal rights and property are completely equal as their citizens. I put it in. This has become a United States citizen.

It is difficult to understand the public opinion of this unfortunate racial public opinion when the independence declaration was made and the United States Constitution was enacted and adopted in the world civilized and enlightened. However, the history of all European nations is in a very simple way to confuse, indicating this ethnic group.

For more than a century, they have been considered a lowe r-level presence in any of the social and political relationships that are completely unsuitable for white people. And it was inferior enough to have the right to respect the whites. And the blacks were able to make them fair and legally slaves for their own benefits. Blacks were bought and sold and were always treated as ordinary products when they were profitable. This opinion was a solid and universal thing between the civilized parts of the white. It was regarded as a piggyback in both morals and politics. And people in all the status and position of society acted on a daily basis and usually based on this opinion, not only in public concerns but also in private activities.

And there is no country that has been integrated to the British government and the British people. They are not just capturing them on the African coast and selling them or kept them as slaves for their own use. They capture them on the coast of Africa, sell them for their own use and keep them as slaves, but also capture them as ordinary products in all countries that can make profits. He was widely engaged in this trade than the country.

The opinions embraced and acted in England were of course imprinted in colonies established on this side of the Atlantic Ocean. Thus, in all 13 colonies that united in the independence declaration and later formed the United States Constitution, the African ethnic Negro was regarded as a property, made a reservation and sold. Slaves were more or less in various colonies, as the slavery was more or less profitable. However, no one seemed to question the correctness of the general opinion at the time.

Various colonial legislation is evidence of positive and untrustworthy of this fact. Understand the state of public opinion on this unfortunate racial public, which was the state of the unfortunate races, which had been declared and adopted in the establishment and adoption of the United States Constitution, and in the world where the United States Constitution was enacted and adopted. Is difficult. However, the history of all European nations is in a very simple way to confuse, indicating this ethnic group.

Various colonial legislation is evidence of positive and untrustworthy of this fact. It is difficult to understand the public opinion of this unfortunate racial public opinion when the independence declaration was made and the United States Constitution was enacted and adopted in the world civilized and enlightened. However, the history of all European nations is in a very simple way to confuse, indicating this ethnic group.

Various colonial legislation is evidence of positive and untrustworthy of this fact.

It is boring to list various laws that have been established in this case. It would be enough to list two colonies as a sample of all British colonies at that time. One of them is still a great slave power, and the other is the first state where slavery was abolished.

In 1717 (CH. 5), Maryland said, "If a free black or mixed race married to a white woman, or if a white man marries a black or mixed woman, his black or mixed rampers are a lifetime. A slave, but a mixed race born of a white woman is an exception, and if such a marriage is made, it will be a clerk for only seven years and can be used as a court judge of such a marriage court. They are considered to be qualified to support the county, and the seve n-year period will be disposed of by the judge as described above.

According to the Colonial Law (Chapter 6), which was transmitted from Massachusetts in 1705, said, "If blacks or mixed races hit or beat other Christians or other Christians, the criminals were judged. At the discretion of the judge, the blacks or mixed rampers must be hit terribly. " "

"His Majesty British or Scottish people, or other Christians in this state should not contract with any black or mixed rampant. The court of His Majesty in this state is by bill, plaintiffs, or information." It is boring to list various laws that have been established in this case. It would be enough to list two colonies as a sample of all British colonies at that time. One of them is still a great slave power, and the other is the first state where slavery was abolished.

"His Majesty British or Scottish people, or other Christians in this state should not contract with any black or mixed rampant. The court of His Majesty in this state is by bill, plaintiffs, or information." It is boring to list various laws that have been established in this case. It would be enough to list two colonies as a sample of all British colonies at that time. One of them is still a great slave power, and the other is the first state where slavery was abolished.

This is because these laws are expressed in words used in each parliament, and the provisions contained in it are too clear to misunderstand this unfortunate state. Because it is shown. In the eyes and hearts of the people who created an independent declaration and enacted the government of each state, the emotions for those spoken in these provisions and the status they occupied in all 13 colonies. It is a faithful indicator indicating that it was something. They, they, are slaves, they dominate as vassals with absolute and tyranny, and then build a permanent and overwhelming barrier between those who have been considered much lower than themselves. It indicates that he was intended. The marriage between whites, blacks and mixed races was considered unnatural and immoral, and not only the parties but also the individuals who married the marriage were punished as a crime. In this regard, there was no distinction between free blacks and mixed races and slaves, and this stigma was given to all races with a deeper corruption.

The reference of such historic events is to show the stereotypes of this race that politicians at the time spoke and acted. Whether the general terms of human rights and the rights of the people used in the United States Constitution are intended to include them, or whether they intend to benefit them. To judge, you need to do so.

The wording of the independence declaration is also convincing:

In the process of human events, the political groups that a ethnic group had been linked to other people was eliminated, and the qualified independent equal status given by nature and the natural god between the grounds on the ground. When it is necessary to occupy, the true spirit that respects human opinions needs to declare the cause of the separation. " means that these laws are represented by words used in each parliament, and the provisions contained in it are too misunderstood to misunderstand this unhappy race. Because it is clearly shown. In the eyes and hearts of the people who created an independent declaration and enacted the government of each state, the emotions for those spoken in these provisions and the status they occupied in all 13 colonies. It is a faithful indicator indicating that it was something. They, they, are slaves, they dominate as vassals with absolute and tyranny, and then build a permanent and overwhelming barrier between those who have been considered much lower than themselves. It indicates that he was intended. The marriage between whites, blacks and mixed races was considered unnatural and immoral, and not only the parties but also the individuals who married the marriage were punished as a crime. In this regard, there was no distinction between free blacks and mixed races and slaves, and this stigma was given to all races with a deeper corruption.

The wording of the independence declaration is also convincing:

In the process of human events, the political groups that a ethnic group had been linked to other people was eliminated, and the qualified independent equal status given by nature and the natural god between the grounds on the ground. When it is necessary to occupy, the true spirit that respects human opinions needs to declare the cause of the separation. " This is because these laws are expressed in words used in each parliament, and the provisions contained in it are too clear to misunderstand this unfortunate state. Because it is shown. In the eyes and hearts of the people who created an independent declaration and enacted the government of each state, the emotions for those spoken in these provisions and the status they occupied in all 13 colonies. It is a faithful indicator indicating that it was something. They, they, are slaves, they dominate as vassals with absolute and tyranny, and then build a permanent and overwhelming barrier between those who have been considered much lower than themselves. It indicates that he was intended. The marriage between whites, blacks and mixed races was considered unnatural and immoral, and not only the parties but also the individuals who married the marriage were punished as a crime. In this regard, there was no distinction between free blacks and mixed races and slaves, and this stigma was given to all races with a deeper corruption.

The wording of the independence declaration is also convincing:

We make these truths sel f-evident. In other words, all people are equally built and are given the creator a right that cannot be handed over, and these rights include life, freedom and happiness. In order to guarantee these rights, the government is established, and its legitimate authority comes from the consent of the subject. "

The general words quoted above seem to include all mankind. However, it is very obvious for the opposition that the African race, which has been a slave, is intended to be included in some of the people who created and adopted this declaration. 。 The language that was understood at the time would encounter them, and the behaviors of the outstanding people who created the independence declaration would be completely inconsistent with the principles they claimed. And, rather than the sympathy of the humanity they have been confident, they will be blamed and discouraged from all over the world, and they will have received it.

However, the person who made this statement was a great person who had high literary knowledge, highly honorable, and could not assert the contradictory authority to the opponent he acted. They fully understand the meaning of the words they used and how they understand it. And they knew that they must not accept the black cause, excluded from civilized governments and nations of the state, and have been sentenced to slavery. They spoke and acted in ordinary words at the time in accordance with the established doctrine and principle. An unfortunate black melody has been separated from whites by a mark and law that has not disappeared long before it is established, and thinks about them, except when protection is needed for ownership and merchants. I never talked.

Such public opinion has not changed at the time the constitution was adopted.

The short preamble describes who, for what purpose, and for profit and protection. The preliminary sentence states that it was formed by the United States. In other words, it is by members of various political communities in each state. And it is declared that the great purpose is to secure the benefits of freedom for themselves and their compensation. When stipulating the exercise of the permissions and privileges given to the citizens, general terms are described in the United States and citizens in each state. It does not specify what kind of person is intended under these provisions, or who is considered a citizen and one of the people. It is used as a wel l-understood term that does not require explanation or definition.

However, the constitution has two clauses that directly and specifically point black struggle as a separate class, and it was clear that they were not considered as part of the government and citizens of the government. Is shown in.

One of these provisions is retained in 13 clause and declared the right to import slaves until 1808. The distribution of slaves in the United States was always limited to the race. In another clause, each state is obliged to maintain the ownership of the master, escape the master's service, and provide slaves discovered in each territory to the master. Therefore, in paragraph 1 above, the right to purchase and own this property is immediately ratified by those who enacted the Constitution and are allowed for 20 years. According to Article 2, if the government formed at that point survives, they are obliged to maintain and support the master's rights in a specified method. The decisive factors can be seen from these two clauses that neither the specified person nor the descendants in the constitution are included in the other provisions of the Constitution. This is because these two clauses do not intend to benefit from freedom to them and their descendants, and to give their own personal rights for the citizens. The short preamble describes who, for what purpose, and for profit and protection. The preliminary sentence states that it was formed by the United States. In other words, it is by members of various political communities in each state. And it is declared that the great purpose is to secure the benefits of freedom for themselves and their compensation. When stipulating the exercise of the permissions and privileges given to the citizens, general terms are described in the United States and citizens in each state. It does not specify what kind of person is intended under these provisions, or who is considered a citizen and one of the people. It is used as a wel l-understood term that does not require explanation or definition.

One of these provisions is retained in 13 clauses and declared the right to import slaves until 1808. The distribution of slaves in the United States was always limited to the race. In another clause, each state is obliged to maintain the ownership of the master, escape the master's service, and provide slaves discovered in each territory to the master. Therefore, in paragraph 1 described above, the right to purchase and own this property is immediately ratified by the people who enacted the constitution and are allowed for 20 years. According to Article 2, if the government formed at that point survives, they are obliged to maintain and support the master's rights in a specified method. The decisive factors can be seen from these two clauses that neither the specified person nor the descendants in the constitution are included in the other provisions of the Constitution. This is because these two clauses do not intend to benefit from freedom to them and their descendants, and to give their personal rights to the citizens. The short preamble describes who, for what purpose, and for profit and protection. The preliminary sentence states that it was formed by the United States. In other words, it is by members of various political communities in each state. And it is declared that the great purpose is to secure the benefits of freedom for themselves and their compensation. When stipulating the exercise of the permissions and privileges given to the citizens, general terms are described in the United States and citizens in each state. It does not specify what kind of person is intended under these provisions, or who is considered a citizen and one of the people. It is used as a wel l-understood term that does not require explanation or definition.

No one of the tribes was spontaneously moved to the United States. Everyone was brought to the product. The number of people released at that point was small compared to the number of people detained as slaves. And they were the same as the race they belonged in the public, and were regarded as part of the slaves, not the freedom. It is clear that the constitution has never thought of providing special rights and privileges to a certain state in all other areas of the federal.

In fact, given the situation of this race in each state at the time, it is unlikely that these rights and privileges would be expanded to them.

It is true that in some areas of the Federal World, which was found to be inconvenient for the master, the black labor forces did not match the climate and were inconvenient for the master. When the constitution was adopted, one of them had completely abolished slavery, and some other countries were taking measures to gradually abolish. However, this change was not caused by changes in opinions on the struggle. However, it has been revealed by experience that labor is not suitable for these state climate and products: in some states where slave trade has been cut off or almost interrupted. He was engaged, supplied cargo to the African coast, and was transported to various parts of the Federation, which was found to be useful and suitable for climate and product. The trade was openly continued, accumulating wealth without being accused of the residents where they live. It is unlikely that the liberation people have the same rights as themselves in the state, which was released in the worst confiscation and transfer.

Elim Poon - Journalist, Creative Writer

Last modified: 27.08.2024

A transcript of the original Supreme Court decision in the National Archives Posted Source. National Archives. Author. Roger B. Taney. About This. DocsTeach The online tool for teaching with documents, from the National Archives , Chief Justice Roger B. Taney read the majority opinion, which. This is a page from the compiled proceedings in Dred Scott v. John FA Sandford. This case was originally held federally in in the US Circuit Court.

Play

accepted