Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1857-03-21
Who are Citizens Of the United States r
Can Negroes be Citizens}
TnE oriNioNsor lupeEs CURTIS AND MCLEAN
GupuEME fnUnT.


of the U. S. court. il the bred Scott case, are
go elaborate, that il is beyond our power 10
give either OF Them in full. The two great
points in issue between them and the slave hold
ing majority Of the court, are, frst-are ne
groes or colured persons, not slaves, citizens Of
the United States, and therefore competent to
sue and he sued in the United States courts :
and second lis slavery a local and municipal
institution, over which Congress has power in
the territories, or a general and national condi-
tion, protected and sustained by the constitution,
beyond the interference ofCongress, in the ter
riiories, and in passing through free states =.
Messrs Curtis and Mclean agree, in opposition
to the majority, that negroes may be citizens,
and that slavery is a local institution under the
power of Congress in the territories. Oftheir
arguments on The first point, We propose here
20 give some account, reserving to another pa
per presentation of their opinions and author
hes on The second and greater question. Judge
Curtis is very full and complete on the question
Of citizenship, his discussion of that point oc-
cupying some five or six newspaper columns !;
while Judge Mclean devotes but about one col
umn to it.
The first and prominent fact in reference Ia
1he subject, is that the United States coustiiu-
ton nowhere defines the elements of citizen
Il tacilly leaves the matter TO the states, or ac-
cepts as citizens the whole people of the country
Judge CuRTis says the citizens of The United
States, at the time Of the adoption Of the CON
stituton, could have been-no other than citizens
Of the United States, under the confederation.
That government was in existence when the
present constitution was framed, so that when
the constitution speaks Of citizen ofthe Unit
ed States, it speaks of him as he existed under
the government which obtained at the time of
its adoption. Il may he safely said that the
citizens Of the several states were citizens Of the
United States under the confederation. That
government was simply a confederacy of the sew
eral states possessing few defined powers over
subjects of general concern, each state retaining
every power, jurisdiction and right not express
ly delegated to the United States in Congress
assembled. And no power was thus delegated
to the government ofthe confederation, 10 acl on
any question of citizenship or TO make any rules
ia respect thereto. To determine whatever ma
tive born descendants of Africans were then
considered citizens of the United States, it is
only necessary TO know whether such persons
were citizens Of any of the several states al the
time the constitution was adopted. There is
no doubt ofihis. All free descendants ofsaves
in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York,
New Jersey and North Carolina were citizens
of those states, and possessed The franchise of
electors on equal terms with other citizens
To prove this, Judge Curtis quotes from the
records of the supreme court of North Carolina
the opinion, as delivered by Judge Castor, up
on a case which involved the decision of this
question. We quoe:-
According to the laws of this state" sayl Mr..
Justice Castor in delivering the opinion ofthe court
''all human beings within it who are not slaves,
fall within one or two classes. Whatever distinc-
tions may have existed in the Roman laws between
citizens and free inhabitants, they are unknown to
our institutions. Before our revolution all free
persons, born within the domnions of the king of
Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion.
were native born British subjects--those born out
OF his allegiance, were aliens. Slavery did not ex-
list in England, but il did in the British colonies.
Slaves were not, in legal parlance, persons, but
property. The moment the incapacity--the dis
aualiRoation of zis,S tI.s
persons, and were then either British subjects or
not British subjects, according as they were or we're
not born within the allegiancefof the British king.
Upon the revolution, no other change took place in
the laws of North Carolina than was consequent on
the transaction from colony, dependant on an
European king, to free and sovereign state
Slaves remained slaves. British subjects in North
Carolina became North Carolina freemen For
eigners, until made members of the state, remain
ed aliens. Slaves mannmitted here, became free
men, and, therefore, if born within North Carroll
ma, citizens ofNorth Carolina and all free per-
sons born within the state are born citizens of the
state The constitution extended the elective fran
chise to every freeman who had arrived at the age
of Il, and paid public tax; and it is matter Of
universal notoricty, that under it, free persons,
without regard to color, claimed and exercised the
franchise, until it was taken from free men of COL
or few years since by our amended constitution
In a subsequent case before the same court
this decision was referred TO as authorative and
decisive, having been arrived at after much
study and care. In Massachusetts the descend
ants of slaves have exercised the right OF fran.
cbise from that time to the present New York
has since attached new qualifications, as nee
essary for colored voters, and New Jersey has
DISTINGUISHED them entirely as voters But this
fact shows only that before the restrictions were
established, no such restrictions existed.
The fourth of the fundamental articles of the
confederation was that ''ihe free inhabitants OF
each of these states, paupeis, vagabonds, and
SOgitives from justice, excepted, shall be ell
titled 10 all the privileges and immunities Of
free citizens in the several states.'' This in
cluded free negroes, and an attempt to introduce
the word ''white," before inhabitants, = was
voted down, ouly two states supporting it,
Thus, at The time Of The adoption Of the consii
tution under the confederation free colored per
sons were recognized as cities of the seyeraI