纪念1954年美国最高法院在布朗诉堪萨斯州托皮卡教育委员会案中废除学校种族隔离决定50周年

Charles U. Smith
{"title":"纪念1954年美国最高法院在布朗诉堪萨斯州托皮卡教育委员会案中废除学校种族隔离决定50周年","authors":"Charles U. Smith","doi":"10.2307/j.ctv17260cf.7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Brown v the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas U. S. Supreme Court public school desegregation decision on (hereafter the Brown Decision), I was tempted to refer to it as a \"celebration of the Golden Anniversary of the legal end to racial segregation in the public schools of the United States.\" When the decision was rendered, on May 17, 1954, I was so elated that I was confident that 50 years later public school racial desegregation would be a thing of the past and a truly \"golden celebration\" would be highly appropriate. And while I still am convinced that the Brown Decision was a necessary and fundamental prerequisite for human dignity, race relations, personal/social adjustment, equal educational access, and progress toward the American Ideal, events that have emerged and continuing efforts to obscure, evade, emasculate, and override the Decision, demand that we have an \"observance\" rather than a \"celebration\" in its \"golden\" year. I There can be no doubt that the Brown Decision was one of the Court's most important, judicially ground-breaking, precedent-setting ones, with far-reaching impacts on the U. S. Congress, lower federal and state courts, state legislatures, the Presidency, federal agencies, private corporations and businesses, and of course, all levels of public and federally assisted educational institutions. To put all of this into proper perspective, I think that it is imperative that we examine, at least briefly, philosophies, societal patterns and court rulings that established, regulated, and limited the roles, status, and behavior of Negroes (blacks) in the United States, prior to the Brown ruling. It is generally accepted that Negro slavery was introduced into the United States colonies at Jamestown, Virginia in 1619. This slavery, though, was not confined to the southern and border states but reached visible and significant numerical levels as far north as New York City (Singer, 2003). There is also documented evidence that some Negroes (blacks) served as indentured servants, but it has been clearly shown that the overwhelming majority of Negroes brought from Africa to the colonies from the early 1600s to the 1800s were held as property, and existed in total involuntary servitude - for approximately two and a half centuries. II The most notable efforts to modify the slave system and upgrade the status of Negroes was the Dred Scott lawsuits, brought to establish himself and his family as free (non-slave) persons. Dred Scott was born a slave and was owned by Peter Blow in St. Louis, Missouri. Scott subsequently had several owners/masters. From 1830 to 1842 Scott, who married Harriet Robinson, also a slave, spent time in Illinois and Wisconsin, both non-slave states, in service to his then owner Dr. John Emerson, a military surgeon. In 1842 the Scott family returned to St. Louis with Dr. Emerson and his wife, and Emerson died in 1843. In 1846, the Scotts sued Mrs. Emerson for their freedom in the St. Louis Circuit Court and although the Court ruled against them, in 1847 it did permit them to refile their lawsuit. In 1850, the jury in the second trial decided that the Scotts should be free because of their years of residence in the non-slave territories of Wisconsin and Illinois. Mrs. Emerson then appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court in 1852 which overturned the Circuit decision and returned the Scotts to slavery. In 1853-54, lawyers on Scott's behalf filed suit in the U. S. Federal Court in St. Louis that also ruled against Scott. In 1856-57 the Scott case was appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court (case now named Scott ν Sanford). It was the decision of the Court that Scott must remain a slave not a citizen, and therefore as personal property was not eligible to bring suit in federal court, and that he had never been free. (See: the Washington University Libraries and the Missouri State Archives). In March of 1857, U. …","PeriodicalId":88326,"journal":{"name":"The Negro educational review","volume":"56 1","pages":"19-32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"34","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Observing the Fiftieth anniversary of the 1954 United States Supreme court School desegregation decision in Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas\",\"authors\":\"Charles U. Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/j.ctv17260cf.7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"As we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Brown v the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas U. S. Supreme Court public school desegregation decision on (hereafter the Brown Decision), I was tempted to refer to it as a \\\"celebration of the Golden Anniversary of the legal end to racial segregation in the public schools of the United States.\\\" When the decision was rendered, on May 17, 1954, I was so elated that I was confident that 50 years later public school racial desegregation would be a thing of the past and a truly \\\"golden celebration\\\" would be highly appropriate. And while I still am convinced that the Brown Decision was a necessary and fundamental prerequisite for human dignity, race relations, personal/social adjustment, equal educational access, and progress toward the American Ideal, events that have emerged and continuing efforts to obscure, evade, emasculate, and override the Decision, demand that we have an \\\"observance\\\" rather than a \\\"celebration\\\" in its \\\"golden\\\" year. I There can be no doubt that the Brown Decision was one of the Court's most important, judicially ground-breaking, precedent-setting ones, with far-reaching impacts on the U. S. Congress, lower federal and state courts, state legislatures, the Presidency, federal agencies, private corporations and businesses, and of course, all levels of public and federally assisted educational institutions. To put all of this into proper perspective, I think that it is imperative that we examine, at least briefly, philosophies, societal patterns and court rulings that established, regulated, and limited the roles, status, and behavior of Negroes (blacks) in the United States, prior to the Brown ruling. It is generally accepted that Negro slavery was introduced into the United States colonies at Jamestown, Virginia in 1619. This slavery, though, was not confined to the southern and border states but reached visible and significant numerical levels as far north as New York City (Singer, 2003). There is also documented evidence that some Negroes (blacks) served as indentured servants, but it has been clearly shown that the overwhelming majority of Negroes brought from Africa to the colonies from the early 1600s to the 1800s were held as property, and existed in total involuntary servitude - for approximately two and a half centuries. II The most notable efforts to modify the slave system and upgrade the status of Negroes was the Dred Scott lawsuits, brought to establish himself and his family as free (non-slave) persons. Dred Scott was born a slave and was owned by Peter Blow in St. Louis, Missouri. Scott subsequently had several owners/masters. From 1830 to 1842 Scott, who married Harriet Robinson, also a slave, spent time in Illinois and Wisconsin, both non-slave states, in service to his then owner Dr. John Emerson, a military surgeon. In 1842 the Scott family returned to St. Louis with Dr. Emerson and his wife, and Emerson died in 1843. In 1846, the Scotts sued Mrs. Emerson for their freedom in the St. Louis Circuit Court and although the Court ruled against them, in 1847 it did permit them to refile their lawsuit. In 1850, the jury in the second trial decided that the Scotts should be free because of their years of residence in the non-slave territories of Wisconsin and Illinois. Mrs. Emerson then appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court in 1852 which overturned the Circuit decision and returned the Scotts to slavery. In 1853-54, lawyers on Scott's behalf filed suit in the U. S. Federal Court in St. Louis that also ruled against Scott. In 1856-57 the Scott case was appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court (case now named Scott ν Sanford). It was the decision of the Court that Scott must remain a slave not a citizen, and therefore as personal property was not eligible to bring suit in federal court, and that he had never been free. (See: the Washington University Libraries and the Missouri State Archives). In March of 1857, U. …\",\"PeriodicalId\":88326,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Negro educational review\",\"volume\":\"56 1\",\"pages\":\"19-32\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"34\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Negro educational review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv17260cf.7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Negro educational review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv17260cf.7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 34

摘要

在我们纪念“布朗诉堪萨斯州托皮卡教育委员会案”(以下简称“布朗案”)美国最高法院公立学校废除种族隔离判决50周年之际,我很想把它称为“庆祝美国公立学校种族隔离在法律上结束的金周年”。1954年5月17日,当判决结果出炉时,我欣喜若狂,确信50年后公立学校废除种族隔离将成为历史,而真正的“黄金庆典”将是非常合适的。虽然我仍然相信布朗案判决是人类尊严、种族关系、个人/社会调整、平等教育机会和向美国理想迈进的必要和基本先决条件,但已经出现的事件以及继续掩盖、回避、削弱和推翻该判决的努力,要求我们在其“黄金”年举行“纪念”而不是“庆祝”。毫无疑问,布朗案是最高法院最重要的判决之一,在司法上具有开创性,开创了先例,对美国国会、下级联邦和州法院、州立法机构、总统、联邦机构、私营公司和企业,当然还有各级公立和联邦资助的教育机构产生了深远的影响。为了正确地看待这一切,我认为我们有必要至少简要地考察一下在布朗案判决之前确立、规范和限制美国黑人的角色、地位和行为的哲学、社会模式和法院裁决。人们普遍认为,黑人奴隶制是1619年在弗吉尼亚州的詹姆斯敦引入美国殖民地的。然而,这种奴隶制并不局限于南部和边境各州,而是达到了可见的和显著的数字水平,远至北部的纽约市(Singer, 2003)。也有文献证据表明,一些黑人(黑人)担任契约仆人,但已经清楚地表明,从17世纪初到19世纪,从非洲被带到殖民地的绝大多数黑人被视为财产,并在大约两个半世纪的时间里处于完全非自愿的奴役状态。修改奴隶制度和提升黑人地位的最显著的努力是德雷德·斯科特诉讼,他使自己和家人成为自由人(非奴隶)。德雷德·斯科特生为奴隶,他的主人是密苏里州圣路易斯的彼得·布洛。斯科特后来有了几个主人/主人。从1830年到1842年,斯科特与同为奴隶的哈里特·罗宾逊结婚,他在伊利诺斯州和威斯康辛州度过了一段时间,为当时的主人、军医约翰·爱默生医生服务。1842年,斯科特一家带着埃默森博士和他的妻子回到圣路易斯,埃默森于1843年去世。1846年,斯科特夫妇在圣路易斯巡回法院起诉埃默森夫人,要求他们获得自由。尽管法院判他们败诉,但在1847年,法院确实允许他们重新提起诉讼。1850年,在第二次审判中,陪审团决定苏格兰人应该获得自由,因为他们在威斯康辛州和伊利诺伊州的非奴隶地区居住了多年。1852年,埃默森夫人向密苏里州最高法院提起上诉,该法院推翻了巡回法院的判决,将斯科特一家重新置于奴隶制之下。1853年至1854年,代表斯科特的律师向圣路易斯的美国联邦法院提起诉讼,法院也做出了不利于斯科特的裁决。1856年至1857年,斯科特一案被上诉到美国最高法院(该案现在被命名为斯科特·桑福德)。法院的裁决是,斯科特必须保持奴隶身份,而不是公民身份,因此,作为个人财产,他没有资格向联邦法院提起诉讼,而且他从未获得自由。(参见:华盛顿大学图书馆和密苏里州档案馆)。1857年3月,美国. ...
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Observing the Fiftieth anniversary of the 1954 United States Supreme court School desegregation decision in Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas
As we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Brown v the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas U. S. Supreme Court public school desegregation decision on (hereafter the Brown Decision), I was tempted to refer to it as a "celebration of the Golden Anniversary of the legal end to racial segregation in the public schools of the United States." When the decision was rendered, on May 17, 1954, I was so elated that I was confident that 50 years later public school racial desegregation would be a thing of the past and a truly "golden celebration" would be highly appropriate. And while I still am convinced that the Brown Decision was a necessary and fundamental prerequisite for human dignity, race relations, personal/social adjustment, equal educational access, and progress toward the American Ideal, events that have emerged and continuing efforts to obscure, evade, emasculate, and override the Decision, demand that we have an "observance" rather than a "celebration" in its "golden" year. I There can be no doubt that the Brown Decision was one of the Court's most important, judicially ground-breaking, precedent-setting ones, with far-reaching impacts on the U. S. Congress, lower federal and state courts, state legislatures, the Presidency, federal agencies, private corporations and businesses, and of course, all levels of public and federally assisted educational institutions. To put all of this into proper perspective, I think that it is imperative that we examine, at least briefly, philosophies, societal patterns and court rulings that established, regulated, and limited the roles, status, and behavior of Negroes (blacks) in the United States, prior to the Brown ruling. It is generally accepted that Negro slavery was introduced into the United States colonies at Jamestown, Virginia in 1619. This slavery, though, was not confined to the southern and border states but reached visible and significant numerical levels as far north as New York City (Singer, 2003). There is also documented evidence that some Negroes (blacks) served as indentured servants, but it has been clearly shown that the overwhelming majority of Negroes brought from Africa to the colonies from the early 1600s to the 1800s were held as property, and existed in total involuntary servitude - for approximately two and a half centuries. II The most notable efforts to modify the slave system and upgrade the status of Negroes was the Dred Scott lawsuits, brought to establish himself and his family as free (non-slave) persons. Dred Scott was born a slave and was owned by Peter Blow in St. Louis, Missouri. Scott subsequently had several owners/masters. From 1830 to 1842 Scott, who married Harriet Robinson, also a slave, spent time in Illinois and Wisconsin, both non-slave states, in service to his then owner Dr. John Emerson, a military surgeon. In 1842 the Scott family returned to St. Louis with Dr. Emerson and his wife, and Emerson died in 1843. In 1846, the Scotts sued Mrs. Emerson for their freedom in the St. Louis Circuit Court and although the Court ruled against them, in 1847 it did permit them to refile their lawsuit. In 1850, the jury in the second trial decided that the Scotts should be free because of their years of residence in the non-slave territories of Wisconsin and Illinois. Mrs. Emerson then appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court in 1852 which overturned the Circuit decision and returned the Scotts to slavery. In 1853-54, lawyers on Scott's behalf filed suit in the U. S. Federal Court in St. Louis that also ruled against Scott. In 1856-57 the Scott case was appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court (case now named Scott ν Sanford). It was the decision of the Court that Scott must remain a slave not a citizen, and therefore as personal property was not eligible to bring suit in federal court, and that he had never been free. (See: the Washington University Libraries and the Missouri State Archives). In March of 1857, U. …
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信