Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1857-03-21
Ube Autt- 9Inprrp Buolr.
THR DRED SCOTT CASE.
SLAVERY ALONE NATIONAL"
JUDGMENT OF CHEF JUSTICE TANEY.

JUDGMENT OF CHEF JUSTICE TANEY
ChiefJustice Taney, in delivering the opinion
Of the Court said that this case, after argument
the last Torn, was directed to be reargued at the
present Term, owing to difference of opinion exist
ing among members of the Court. aud in order to
give the subject more mature deliberation.
There were two leading questions--frst, Had
the Circuit Court of the United States for the
District Of Missouri, jurisdiction in the case? and
if it had jurisdiction, was its decision erroneous
or not
The defendant denied, ty plea in abaemen., the
jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the United
States on the ground that the plaintiff sis negro
Of African descent, his ancestors Of pure
African blood, and were brought into this country
and sold as slaves and therefore the plaintiff lis
not n citizen of the State of Missouri" To this
plea the plaintiff demurred and the Court sus.
tained the demurrer Thereupon the defendant
pleaded over, and justified the trespass the
ground that the plaintiff ana 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 a tone of voice almost inaudi.
ble) to say, in substance that the question first to
be decided was, whether the plaintiff entitled
to sue in court of the United States. This was
peculiar question: and for the first time brought
before the Court under such circumstances; but il
had been bro ught here, and it the duty of the
Court to meet and to decide it. The question was
simply this, can a negro, whose ancestors were inn
ported and sold rs slaves, become member of
tho political community formed and brought into
existence by the Constitution of the United States
and, as such, become entitled to all the rights and
immunities of citizen, of which rights is
suing in the Courts of the United States in cases
therein specified In discussing this question we
must not coniound the rights of a citizen which II
State may confer within its own limits, with the
rights of a citizen within the limits of the United
States. No one can be a citizen of the United
States unless under the provisions of the Consti-
tuition; but it does not follow that man, being a
citizen of one State, must lie recognized such
by every State in the Union. lie may be citi-
zen in one State and not recognised such in
another. Previous to the adoption of the COnst-
tuition, every State might confer the character Of
citizen, and endow a man with all the rights per
tanning to it, This was confined to the boundaries
OF State. and gave him no rights beyond its linn
its. Nor have the several States surrendered this
power by the adoption of the Constitution. Every
State may confer the light upon alien any
other class or description OF persons, who would
to ali in,ents and purposes he citizen of the
State. but not a citizen in the sense used in the
Constitution of the United States. lie would not
thereby become a citizen of the United States, and.
therefore, could not sue in any court in the United
States. nor ouid he enjoy the ipmunites "fa Cit
iizen in the other States His rights would lie
fined strictly to his own State. The Constitution
gives Congress the power to establish "a uniform
rule of naturazntion;" consequently, no State, by
naturalizing an alien, could confer upon him the
rightsan immunites of all the States under the
Genea9f Government. 1t is very clear therefore,
that no State can, by any act, introduce new
member into the political Union created by the
Constitution.
The question then arises whether the rrovis.
ions of the Constitution of the Unted States in
relation to personal rights to which citizen OF II
State is entitled. embraced negroes Of the African
race, at that time in the country, afterwards i'm
ported, or made free firm any State, and whether
it is in the power of any Sta to make such one
a citizen Of the State, and endow him with full cit
jzenshp in any other States without their consent?
Does the Constitution of tho United States act up
on him, an clothe him with all the rights of a
citizen The Court think the Affirmative cannot
be maintained; aud, if net, the plaintiff could not
be Il 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 ana
description of persons at the time of the adoption
Of the Constitution, regarded citizens Of the
several States, became citizens of this new politi
cal body, and n3ne other. 1t was formed for them
and their posieritv and for nobody else; and all
the rights and immun;ies were intended to em-
brace only those Of State communities, or those
who became members according to the principles
on which the constitution was adopted. 1t
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 property on
an equality.
II becomes necessary, therefore, to determine
who were citizens of the several States when the
Constitution adopted 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 nations
They who were recognized citizens of the
States declared their independence of GreatBritain
4 81 Ia =. III ,ca A.. H..
of persons, who had been imported as slaves, or
their descendants, were not recognized or intend
ed 20 he included in that memorable instrument
the Declaration Of Independence. 1t is difficult at
this day to realize the state Of public opinion
spectng that unfortunate class, with the civilized
and enlightened portion of the world, at the time
of the Declaration of Independence and the adop-
tion of the Constitution; but history shows they
have for more than century been regarded as be
ings of an Inferior order and unfit associates for
the white race, either socially or politically, and
had no rights which white men were bound to re-
spect; and the black man might be reduced 20 Sla-
very, bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary
article Of merchandise TEis opinion, at that time
was fixed and universal with the civilized portion
of the white race. 1t was regarded axiom
in morals, which no one thought of disputng and
every one habtuay acted upon it, without doubt
ing for q moment the correctness of the opinion.
And in no nation was this opinion more fixed and
generally acted upon than in Englaud; the sub
Jecte OF whlcn Government hOt ohly seizeu tueIn
or the Coast of Africa, but took them as ordinary
merchandise, to where they could make profit on
them. The opinion thus enter tained was univer-
sally impressed on TIE Colonists this side of tke
Atlantic; accordingly, negroes of the African race
were regarded by them as property, and held, and
bought and sold, such in every one of the thir.
teen Colonies which united in the Declaration of
Independence and afterward formed the Cunstitu.
ton. The doctrine Of which we have spoken was
strkngly enforced by the Declaration of Inde-
pendence. II begins thus "When, in the course
of human events, it becomes necessary for one
people to dissolve the political bonds which have
connected them with another, and to assume among
the powers Of the earth the separate and equal
station to which the laws Of nature and of natures