Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1857-03-25
THE DRED SCOTT CASE-OPINION OF CHIEF
JUSTICE TANEY.

ion of the Court, said that this case, alter argu-
ment at the last term, was directed to be rear
gued at the present term, owing to difference oi
opinion existing 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 United States for the
District of Missouri, jurisdiction in the case
and if it has jurisdiction, was its decision er-o-
ncous OF not?
The defendant denied, by plea in abatement.
the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court OF the
United 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;thcre-
fore the plaintiff " is not citizen of thctAatc
OF Missouri" To this plea the plaintiff deNlr-
rcd, and the court sustained the demurrer.
Thercuuon the defendant pleaded ever, and
Justified the trcspass on the ground that the
plaintiff and his family were his negro >lavcS ;
and statement of facts argued to by both par
ties, was read in evidence.
The Chief Justice having stated the facts in
the case, proceeded to say, i'll substance, that
the question first to he decided WAS, whether
plaintiff WAS entitled to sue in u Court OF the
United States. This was Il 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 the court to
meet and decide it. Tie question WAS simply
this, can a negro, whose ancestors were import
cd and sold as slaves, become a member OF the
political community formed and brought into
existence by the Constitution Of the United
States, and, as such. become entitled to all the
rights and i!rmunticS Of acltizen, one OF which
rights is sUeinc in the courts Of the United
States in cases therein specified. In discussing
this question we must not coaiOund the rights:
Of citizen which State may confer wiihip
lis own limits. with citizen o! the nlcd
States. No one can Ic 4 citizen ol the United
States unless under the provisions OF the Con-
stiluliun; but docs not follow that man:
being citizen vi one State, must hc recognized
IL: such bv every State in tic CniOn. He may
he citizen in one State Mll not recognized as
such in another Previous TO the adoption of
ihe Constitution, every State might confer the
character of ctiZen and cndow man with
all the rights pertaining to it. This WAS conlln-
ell TO tic boundaries ol State and gave them
no rights beyond its limits. Nor have the sew
clal States surrendered this power by the atlnp
confer the right upon al alien VI Oh any other
class ur descriptions Of persons. WHO would To
ali intents and purposes. bca citizen OF the
State, but not Il citizen i'll the sense used in tic
Constitution Of the United States, lie would
not thereby become q citizen OF tie United
States and, therefore could not sue in any court
in the United States, nor could he enjoy the
nmuni;ics Of a citizen ill the othcr States.
His rights would be confined strictly to his own
State. the Constitution gives Congress the
power to establish IA unilunn rule Of ratulasi
zatDn;;; consequently no State, by natnralizin@
an alien, could confer upon Linn the rights and
immunitcs OF all the States. under the General
government. 1t is very clear therefore, that
no State cNn, by any act, introduced licw mem
hcr into the political riion created by the
Constitution. Tie question then arises, whether
tic provisions OF the Constitution the !iitc'!
States in relation to personal rights, to which
citizen of Il State i ciilitlc;l. cmbracci! negroes
Of the African race. 1T that lime in t!c country.
or afterwards inherited u! mad" free l:V:n ANY
State: and wicincr 1t is III The power, .! amy
State to make S,ic.l il one citizen uf the State.
anl cnlow linn with iul! citizenship III amy
o!:er State; without their consent? Docs tie
Constitution oi the United States act upon him.
and cIotue him with ;!i tic rights Vi 4 citizen
The Court tliiik tic affirmative cannot hr
lnantaincd and. if not. He plaintiff cuml'l nul
be citizen Of Missouri within the meaning u:
the Constitution, not Il citizen OF the United
States, and consequently NOT entitled 10 ste in
its Courts.
II is true that every person, and every class
and description Of persons at the time OF the
adoption Of the Constitution, regarded as clt!-
zclis of the several states, became citizens oi
this new political body. and nonc other. II
was for them and their po:,eEty: and for nobody
else; and all tic rights and immunitles were
intended 10 embrace only those Of State Conf
muni,ics or those who became members accord
ing to the principles on which the Constitution
WAS adopted 1t was Il Union Of those who
were member; of the political communities,
whose powers, for certain specified purposes en-
tended over tic whole territories of the United
States. and gave each citizen rights outside lis
State which lie did not bcI1rc possess, and rlac-
ed all rights Of persons and property on an
equality.
1t ccomc necessary, therefore, 10 determine
who were citizens Of the several States when
the Constitution WAS adopted In order 70 do
this, we must rccur to the Colonies wien thcJ
scparated from Great Britain, formed new COM
munities. anil took their place among tue family
of nations They. who were recognized is citi-
zen, of the States. declared their independence
of treat Britain: and defended it by force oi
arms. Another class Of persons, who had been
imported as slaves, or li;c!r descendants, were
moi recognized or intended to he included in
l. l,n Il,f tIIt,1 nj
Independence. |; Is difficult, at this day, 10
realize the State Of public opinion, respecting
that unfortunate class, with the civilized and
enlightened portion Of the world, at the time
OF! the Declaration uf Independence and the
a!op;;ou of the Constitution: but history shows
they have, for more than 4 century, been re-
carried Us beings Of all Inferior order and unfit
associates for the wlitc race: either socially or
pGlitical!yE and had 10 rights which white men
were bound TO respect and the black man
might be reduced to slavery, bought ard sold,
AMI treated rs an ordinary article OF merchan-
disc. Tliis opnion at that time, was fixed and
universal with the civilized portion OF the white
race. 1t was regarded as an axiom in morals,
which no one thought Of diSputing, and every
one lr,litualy acted uron it, without doubling
fUr Il moment the correctness OF the opinion.
Ant, in no nation was this opinion more fixed
or mon generally acted upon than in England,
the subjects of Which Government not only
seized them on the Coast of Africa, but took
them as ordinary merchandise, to where +hey
could make profit on them. The opinion thus
entertained, was universally impressed on the
Colonies this side of the Atlantic; accordingly,
NEGROES of the African race were regarded by
.hem as property, and held, and bought, and