Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1857-03-14
The bred Scott Case.-slavery alone
National"
OPINION OF CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY.


ion of the Court said that this case, after argu-
ment at the last Term, was directed to be
re-argued at the present Term, owing to differ
ence Of opinion existing among members Of the
Court, and in order TO give the subject more
mature deliberation.
There were two leading qnestions--6rst
Had the Circuit Court of the United States for
the District Of Missouri, jurisdiction in the case
and if |! had jurisdiction, was its decision erro
neous or not
The defendant denied, by plea in abatement,
the jurisdiction Of The Circuit Court of The Unit
ed States on the ground that the plaintiff sis
NEGRO Of African descent, his ancestors were
''of pure African blood, and were brought into
"this country and sold as slaves and there
fore the plaintiff "is.not citizen of the State
"of Missouri" To mis- plea the plaintiff de-
Inured, and the Court sustained The demurrer
Thereupon the defendant pleaded over, and JUS
tilted the trespass on the ground that the plain
and his family were his negro slaves and
statement of facts, agreed to by both parties,
was read in evidence.
The Chief Justice having stated the facts in
the case proceeded lin tone of voice al
most lnaudbe) TO say in substance, that the
question first 10 be decided was, whether the
plaintiff was entitled to sne in Court of the
United States. This was a peculiar question,
and for the first time brought before the Court
under such circumstances but it had been
brought here, and it was the duty Of Court 10
meet and to decide 1t. The question was simp-
ly this, can negro, whose ancestors we're i'm
ported and sold as slaves, become member of
the political community formed and brought in
TO existence by the Constitution of the United
States, and, as such, become entitled to all the
rights and immunities of citizen, one of which
rights is suing in the Courts Of the United
States in cases therein specified In discuss.
ing this question we must not confound the
rights of citizen which State may confer
within the limits Of the United States. No
one can be citizen of the United States unless
under the provisions of the Constitution but
it does not follow that man, being citizen of
one State, mnst be recognized as such by ev-
cry State in the Union. He may be citizen
in one State and not recognized as such in anoih-
er. Previous to the adoption OF the Constitu-
tion, every State might confer the character of
CITIZEN and endow man with all the rights
pertaining TO it. This was confined to the bound
aries of State, and gave him no rights beyond
its limits. Nor have the several States sur
rendered this power by the adoption OF the Con-
sttution. Every State may confer the right
upon an alien or any other class or description
of persons, who would, to all intents and pur-
poses, be citizen of the State, but not cili-
zen in the sense used in the Constitution of the
United States. He would not thereby become
a citizen of the United States, and, therefore.
could not sue in any cour, in the United States
uor could he enjoy the mmnnities of a citizen
in The other States. His rights would be con-
fined strictly 10 his own State. The Cons,itu-
lion gives Congress the power 10 establish "a
uniform rule of naturalization :" consequently.
no State, by naturalizing an alien, could confer
upon him the rights and immunites of all the
States under the General Government 1t is
very clear, therefore, that no State can, by any
."'-i-s' ssds'sN ue'traes,
aion then arises, whether the provisions of the
Constitution of the United States in relation to
personal rights TO which citizen of State is
entitled, embraced negroes of the African race
at that time in the country, or afterwards i'm.
ported, or made free from any State; and wheth.
'er 1t is in the power of any State to make such
one citizen ofthe State, and endow him with
full citizenship in any other States without their
consent Does the Constitution of the United
States act upon him, and clothe him with all
the rights of citizen! The Court think the
Affirmative cannot be maintained ; and, if not
the plaintiff conld not he citizen of Missouri
within the meaning Of the Constitution, nor .
citizen of The United States, and, consequently
not entitled TO sue in its Courts.
1t is true that every person, and every class
and description of persons at the time of the
adoption of the Constitution, regarded as citi.
zens of the several States, became citizens Of
this new political body, and none other. 1t wa.
formed for them and their pos.eriiy, and fo
nobody else and all The rights and immunitie,
were intended 10 embrace only those of Stat,
communities, or those who became members
according to the principles on which the con
siitulion was adopted. 1t was union of ,hos,
who were members ofihe political communities
whose power, for certain specified purposes, ex
tended over the whole Territories of the Unite,
States, and gave each citizen rights outside hi
Stale which he did not before possess. an,
placed all right OF persons and property on 81
equality.
1t becomes necessary therefore, TO determin,
who were citizens of the several States wbe,
the Constitution was adopted. In order TO d,
this we must recur 10 the Colonies when The,
separated from Great Britain, formed new com
munities, and took their place among the fami
ly of nations. They were recognized as citi
zens of the States declared their independenc
OF Great Britain, and defended it BY force O
arms. Another class of persons, who had bee,
amported as slaves, or their descendants, wer
not recognized or intended to be included in tina
memorable instrument-,he Declaration of In
depenGednce. It is Difficult, at this day to real
ne the state Of public opinion Respecting tina
unfortunate class, with the civilized and en-
llehtened portion of the world, at the time O
the Declaration OF Independence aud the adop
ton of the Constitution but history shows the,
have for more than century been regarded a,
beings Of inferior order, and unfit associates fo
the white race, either socially or politically
and had no rights which white men were bount
10 respect and the black man nniobt ha raJno