The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1857-03-25
THE DREDD SCOTT CASE.
sLAFERY ALONE a~NATYoNAL.,
Judgment o chiefJ Justice fancy

opinion OF the court, said that this case
after argument at the last Term, was di
rected to be re-argued at the preseni
Term, owing to difference of opinion ex.
isting among members of the Court
and in order to give the subject more
mature deliberation.
There were two leading questions
first: Had the circuit Court of the Uni.
ted States for the District Of Missouri
jurisdiction in the case2 and if it had
jurisdiction, was its decision erroneous
or not2
The defendant denied by pleain abate-
ment, the jurisdiction IF the Circuit
Court of the United States on the ground
that the plaintiff sis a negro of African
descent, his ancestors were of pure Afri-
al blood, and were brought into this
country and sold as African slaves" and
therefore the plaintiff sis not a citizen of
the State of Missouri" To this plea the
plaintiff demurred, and the Court sus-
tanned the demurrer. Thereupon the
defendant pleaded over, and justified the
trespass on the ground that the plaintiff
and his family were his negro slaves; and
q statement of facts, agreed to by both
parties, was read in evidence.
4AS OA1SA OuSlAC6 -udNlug SCdI6u the
facts in the case, proceeded Gin a tone of
voice almost inaudible) to say, in sub
stance, that the question first to decide
was, whether the plaintiff was entitled to
sue in a Court of the United States
This was a peculiar question, and for the
first time hronght before the Court un-
der such circumstances; but it had been
brought here, and it was the duty of the
Court to meet and decide it. The ques-
ton was simply this, can a negro, whose
ancestors were imported and sold as
slaves, become a member of the political
community formed and brought into ex-
istence by the Constitution of the United
States, and, as such, become entitled to
all the rights and immunities of a citi-
zen, one of which rights is suing in
Courts of the United States in cases
therein specified? In discussing this
question we must not confound the rights
of a citizen within the limits of the Uni
ted States unless under the provisions of
the Constitution; but it does not follow
that a man, being a citizen of one State,
must be recognized as such by every
State in the Union. He may be a citi-
zen IN one State and not recognized as
such in another. Previous to the adop-
ton of the Constitution, every State
might confer the character of q citizen,
and endow a man with all the rights per-
tanning to it. This was confined to the
boundaries of a State, and gave him no
rights beyond its limits. Nor have the
several States surrendered this power by
the adoption of the Constitution. Every
State may confer the right upon an alien
or on any other class or description of
persons, who would, to all intents and
not a citizen 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 Courti in the U.s., nor could
he enjoy the immunities of a citizen in
the other States. His rights would be
confined strictly to his own State. The
Constitution gives Congress the power to
establish ia uniform rule of naturaliza-
tion;" consequently, no State, by natu-
ralizing an alien, could confer upon him
the rights and immunities of all the
States under the General Government.
1t is very clear, therefore, that no State
can, by any act, introduce 4 new member
into the political Union created by the
Constitution. The question then arises
whether. the provisions of the Constitu-
ton of the United States in relation to
personal rights to which a citizen of a
State is entitled, embraced negroes of the
African race, at that time in the country,
or afterwards imported, or made free
from any State; and whether it is in the
power of any State to make such a one
q citizen of the State, and endow him
with full citizenship in any other States
withou. their consent? Does the Con-
~stitution of the United States act upon
him, and clothe him with all the rights
of a citizen? The Court think the af-
frmatiye cannot be maintained; and, if
not, the plaintiff could not be a citizen
of Missouri within the meaning of the
Constitution, nor a citizen of the United
States, and consequently-no entitled to
sue in its courts.
1t is true, that every person, and ev-
cry class and description of persons at
the time of the adoption of the Constitu
ton, regarded as citizens of the several
States became citizens of this new body,
and none other. It was formed for them
and their posterity, and for nobody else; |
and all the rights and immunities were
intended to embrace only those of State
communities, or those who became mem
bers according to the principles on which
the Constitution was adopted. 1t was a
union of those who were members of the
political communities, whose power for
certain specified purposes, extended over
the whole territories of the United States
and gave each citizen rights outside his
State which he did not before possess,
and placed all rights of persons and prop
erty on an equality
It becomes necessary, therefore, to de-
who were citizens of the several
wbeu the Constitution was adopt
ed. In order to do this we must recur to
the colonies when they separated from
Great Britain, formed new communities,
and took their place among the family of
They who were recognized as
of the States declared their inde-
pendence of Great Britain, and defended
it by force of arms. Another class of
persons, who had been imported as slaves,
or their descendants, were net recognized
or intended to lie included in that memo
rable instrumeut-the Declaration of In
dependence. It is difficult to this day to
recognize the state of public opinion re-
s~pecting that uufortunate class, with the
aud enlightened portion of the
world, at the time of the Declaration of
--~-- a. o1n0fian of thu