一、引言德雷德·斯科特诉桑福德案(Dred Scott v.Sandford)~([1])始于有关斯科特身份的相对简单的争论,但却演化为复杂的法律纠葛。斯科特在密苏里州提起诉讼——在该州他是一个奴隶,其声称:之前他和其主人居住在伊利诺伊州,他已因此获得了自由。最高法院起初打算以相对有限的理由来处理该案。~([2])直到口头辩论阶段,问题才得以在该院提出——斯科特能否因为生活在由国会禁止奴隶制存在的准州而获得自由。~([3])多数大法官改变了最高法院的进程,决定放弃有限的判决而代之以一劳永逸地解决奴隶制问题。~([4])由坦尼 I. INTRODUCTION Dred Scott v. Sandford ~ ​​([1]) started with a relatively simple argument about Scott’s identity but evolved into a complex legal entanglement. Scott sued in Missouri, where he was a slave, claiming he had been freed since he and his host lived in Illinois. The Supreme Court originally intended to deal with the case on relatively limited grounds. ~ ([2]) It was not until the verbal debate that questions were raised in the court - could Scott be free because he lived in a quasi state that was barred by Congress from slavery. Most Judges changed the Supreme Court’s course and decided to abandon the limited verdict instead of solving the problem of slavery once and for all. ~ ([4]) by Tenney