The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1857-04-02
ICONTINUED.I

! - E.
CONTINUED.
| And it must be borne in mind, that the diff.
| culties which attend the allowance of the claims
of colored persons to be citizens OF the United
States are not avoided by saying that, though
each State may make them its citizens they
are not thereby made citizens of the United
States; because the privileges of general citi-
zenship are secured to the citizens of each
State. The language of the Constitution is,
The citizens of each State shall be entitled to
all privileges and immunities of citizens in the
several States" If each State may make such
persons Its citizens, they become as such, emit
tled TO the benefits of this article, if there be a
citizenship of the United States distinct from
the native born citizenship of the several States.
There is one view of this article entitled to
consideration in this connection. 1t It mani.
testify copied from the fourth of the Articles of
Confederation, with only slight changes Of
phraseology, which render its meaning mora
precise, and dropping the clause which ex.
cluded paupers, vsgabonds, and fugitiyes from
justice, probably because these cases could be
dealt with under the police powers of the States.
and special provision therefor was not neces
sary 1t has been suggested that in ADOPTING
1t into the Constitution, the words free in
habitants y were changed for the word 81 cit-
zens." An examination Of the forms of ex
preston commonly used in the State papers
OF that day, and an attention to the substance
OF this article of the Confederation will show
that the words " free inhabitants" as then
used, were synonymous with citizens When
the Articles of Confederation were adopted. in
July, l778 we were in the midst of the war of
the Revolution, and there were verv few nersons
then embraced in the words " free inhabitantsv
VINO were not born on our SOIL 1t was not a
time when many, save the children of the soil.
were willing to embark their fortunes in our
cause, and though there might be an inaccuracv
in the uses of words to call free inhabitants eli.
| lZens, 1T was then a technical rather than =
substantial difference. If we lock into the
constitutions and State papers of that period,
we hnd "the free inhabitants of these colonies
or the " free inhabitants of this State. or Com.
monwealth," employed to designate those whom,
we should now denominate citizens. The snh.
stance and purpose of the article proved il was
IN this sense 1t used these words: 1t secures IN
the free inhabitants of each State the privileges
and immunties of free citizens in every State
1t Is not conceivable that the States sbopId
have agreed to extend the privileges of citizen.
ship to persons not entitled to enjoy the privile.
ges OF citizens In the States where thew dwalt.
that under this article there was a class of npr.
SONS, In some OF the States, not citizens, to whom
were secured all the privileges and ipnmun;t;a.
of citizens when they went into other Statss.
and the just conclusion is, that tbough The
Constitution caused an inaccuracv of lsnguaga
1t left the substance of this article in the Ma
uonal Constitution the same as il was in tba
Articles of Confederation.
The history of this fourth article. rasnoot;n,.
the attempt to exclude free persons of coloT
from Its operation, has been already stated II
oO1nT"esrra,ls a -l-a,
fthe Confederation, free persons of color miobt
be entitled to the privileges of general citizen
ship, II otherwise entitled thereto, is clear
When this article was, in substance niaced in
and made part of the Constitution of the IJnited
States, with no change in its language calcula.
ted to exclude free coored persons from the
benefit of its provisions, the presumption is, to
say the least, strong, that the practical effect
which 1t was designed to have, and did have
under the former Government it was designed
to have, and should have, under the new Gov.
ernment.
1t may be further objected, that If free col.
ored persons may be citizens of the United
States, it depends only on the will of a master
whether he will emancipate his slave, and there
by make HIM citizen. Not so. The master
IS subject to the will of the State. Whether he
shall be allowed to emancipate his slave at all:
If so, on what oonditions and what ia to be the
political status of the freed man, depend. not
on the will of the master, but on the will of the
State, upon which the political status Of all it,
nativeborn inhabitants depends. Under the
Constitution of the United States, each State
has retained this power of determining the poIit
ical status of its native-born inhabitants. and
no exception thereto can he found in the Con
stltution. And II master in a siaveholdipg
State should carry his slave into free State,
and there emancipate him, he would not there.
by make him native-born citizen of that State
and consequently no privileges could be claimed
by such emsncipated slave as a citizen of tho
United States. For, whatever powers the
States may exercise to confer privileges Of cit.
lzenshlp on persons not born on their soil, the
Constitution of the United States does not rec
ognise such citizens. AS has already been said,
it recognises the great principles of public le.w'
that allegiance and citizenship spring from the
place of birth. 1t leaves to the States the m
plication Of that principle to individual cases
1t leaves 10 the citizens Of each State the priyi
leges and immunties of citizens ia eyery other
State. But it does not allow to the States The
power to make aliens citizens, or permit one
State to take persons bern on the soil of another
State, and, contrary to the laws and policy of
the State where they were born, make them
its citizens and SO citizens of the United States.
No such deviation from the great rule of public
law was contemplated by the Constitution; and
when any such attempt shall be actually made,
it is to be met by applying to it those rules Of
law and those principles of good faith which
will be sufficient to decide it and not, in nv
Judgment by denying that all the free native
born inhabitants of State, who are its citizens
under its Constitution and laws, are also citi-
zens Of the United States
1t has sometimes been urged that colored
persons are shown not to be citizens Of the
United States by the fact that the naturalza-
ton laws apply only to white persons But
whether person, horn In the Uuited States,
be or be not citizen, cannot depend on laws
which refer only to aliens, and do not affect the
ssasats Of persons born in the United States.
The utmost effect which can be attributed to
them is, to show that Congress has not deemed
1t expedient generally to apply the rule to COL
ored aliens. That they might do so, if thought
bit, is clear The Constitution has not excluded
them. And since that has conferred the power
on Congress to naturaize colored aliens, it GER
tainly shows color is not a necessary qualifca.
ton for citizenship under the Constitution Of
the United States 1t may be added, that the
power to make colored persons citizens of the
United States, under the Constitution, has been
actually exercised in repeated and important
instances. (See the Treaties with the Cnoctaws
of September u, 1880, act. Ia; with the
Cherokees of May %, 1886, art. II; Treaty OF
Guadalupe Hidalgo. February 2, l84S, art 81
l do not deem it necessary to review at
length the legislation of Congress having more
or less bearing on the citizenship of colored
persons 1t does not seem to me to have any
considerable tendency to prove that it has been
considered by the legislative department of the
Government, that no such persons are citizens
of the United States. Undoubtedly, they have