MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3121891158

Strader v. Graham: Kentucky's Contribution to National Slavery Litigation and the Dred Scott Decision

2009· article· en· W3121891158 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert G. Schwemm

Notice bibliographique

RevueUKnowledge (University of Kentucky) · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLawPolitical scienceEconomics
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In 1841, three Kentucky slaves in Louisville boarded a steamboat bound for Cincinnati. Within days, they had made their way to Detroit and then to permanent freedom in Canada. Their owner, a prominent central Kentucky businessman, soon tracked them down and tried to lure them back to bondage in the United States. When these efforts failed, he sued the steamboat owners for the value of the lost slaves in a Kentucky court. After ten years of litigation, this case reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court’s decision in favor of the Kentucky slaveholder would prove to be an important precedent a few years later when the Court considered the freedom claim of another slave, Dred Scott. The latter case, Dred Scott v. Sandford, may be the most important decision ever handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. Decided in 1857, Dred Scott was only the second time the Court held unconstitutional an Act of Congress, and it was a far more important exercise of this judicial review power than the first in Marbury v. Madison. Dred Scott prompted Abraham Lincoln’s rise to the presidency and was a major cause of the Civil War, the event that drove much of the subsequent United States history. Something like the Civil War may have occurred without Dred Scott, but the timing of the war and many of its particulars were shaped by this decision, as were the key provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, which still define to a great degree what liberty and equality mean in the United States today. The key issue in Dred Scott—how, if at all, a Negro could obtain his freedom by spending time on free soil—had also been considered by the Court in prior cases. This Article deals with one of these, Strader v. Graham, the case brought by the Kentucky businessman whose slaves escaped on the defendants’ steamboat and the only Kentucky slave case ever to reach the Supreme Court. In Strader, the Kentucky slave owner, Dr. Christopher Graham, had allowed three of his slaves who were musicians to go to Ohio and Indiana for occasional performances, after which they would return to Kentucky. When the slaves later fled to Canada, making the first part of their journey on a steamboat owned by Strader and other man, Graham sued the boat owners for the monetary value of his lost slaves. One of the defenses was that the slaves had become free as a result of their time in Ohio and Indiana and were therefore no longer Graham’s property at the time of their escape. The Kentucky Court of Appeals—then the state’s highest court—ruled for Graham, holding that the slaves’ brief sojourns to Ohio and Indiana had not changed their status in Kentucky, and the defendants appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In an opinion by Chief Justice Taney, the Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Kentucky court’s ruling because this ruling was based entirely on state law and then went on to declare that, in any event, it agreed with the Kentucky court’s determination that the slaves’ time in Ohio and Indiana had not changed their status. Both rulings—on the jurisdictional point and on the slaves’ status—were later relied on by the Justices in their opinions in Dred Scott. This Article provides a detailed description of Strader, including its factual background, its reflection of Kentucky slave law in the first half of the nineteenth century, and its significance for Dred Scott and other subsequent slave-related matters. Part I provides an overview of Kentucky slave law as it evolved up to the time of the Strader litigation. Part II describes Strader’s factual background and the Kentucky court decisions it produced. Part III covers Strader in the U.S. Supreme Court. Part IV deals with post-Strader events, including a review of the Dred Scott case and the role that Strader played in that litigation. Part V provides some concluding observations about how the Strader case reflects the role of slavery, law, and lawyers in antebellum Kentucky and what Strader and Dred Scott might teach us in the modern era.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,898
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,637

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,257
Écart entre enseignants0,246 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUKnowledge (University of Kentucky)Même sujetAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsTravaux en français237 207