Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1857-03-20
THE TIONALITY or SLAVERY
Decision OF the supreme Court OF Il
United States in the Dred Scott Case

Decision OF the supreme Court OF the
United States in the Dred Scott Case.
Abstract Of the opinion Of the majority Of
the Court as pronounced By CHIEF Justice
Tdney
Dred Scott, plaintiff against John F. A. Sanford Of
New York, administrator Of the estate of DR..
Emerson and owner of Dred Scott and his
family
The following facts appear on the record
q" In 1894 the plaintiff was a negro slave
belonging to DR.. Emerson, who was a sur
geon IN the army OF the United States. In
tnat year (lS34) said Dr. Emerson took
the Jaintiff from the State of Missouri to
the military post at Rock Island in the
state of Illinois, and held him there as
slav: until the month of April, 1896. At
the time last mentioned, said DR.. Emerson
removed the plaintiff from said military
post to Fort Smelling, situated on the west
bank of the Mississippi river, in the terri
tory known ~ Upper Louisiana, acquired
by the United States from France and situ-
ated north of the latitude OF SO degrees 80
minutes north, and north of the state OF
Missouri Said DR. Emerson held the
plaintiff in slavery at said Fort Smelling
until 1888 In the year 1898 Harriet (who
is named in the second count of the plain
tif's declaraton) was the slave of Major
Taliarerro, who belonged to the army of the
United States. In that year (IS3j) said
Major ralaicrrO took said Harriet to said
Fort Smelling, n military post situated as
hereinbefore stated, and kept her there as a
slave until the year 1896, and then sold and
delivered her as a slave at Fort Smelling un-
to said Dr. Emerson, hereinbefore named
and said DR.. Emerson held said Harriet
in slavery at said Fort Smelling until the
the year 1893. In the year lS3G,the plain
tih and said Harriet, at said Fort Smelling
with the consent of said DR.. Emerson. who
then claimed to be their master and owner,
intermarried and took each other for hus-
band and wife Eliza and LIZZIE. named In
the third count of the plaintiffs declara-
ton, are the fruits of that marriage. Eliza
is about fourteen years old, and was born
on board the steamboat Gipsey, north of
the north line of the state of Missouri and
upon the Mississippi river ; Lizzie is about
seven years old, and was born in the state
of Missouri, at the military post called
jefferson Barracks In the year 1898, said
DIR Emerson removed the plaintiff and said
Harriet, and their said daughter Eliza from
said Fort Smelling to the state of Missouri,
where they have ever since resided. Be
fore the commencement Of this suit, said
Dr. Emerson sold and conveyed the plaintiff,
said Harriet Eliza and Lizzie, to the de-
!endant as slaves, and the defendant claim
ed to hold each of them as slaves. At the
times mentioned in the plaintiffs declara-
ration, the defendant, claiming to be owner
as aforesaid, laid his hands upon said plain
tiff Harriet, Eliza and Lizzie, and impris-
oned them doing in this respect. however
no more than what he might lawfully do il
they were of right his slaves at such times
The court first discussed the question Of
the citizenship of negroes, or persons of
| African blood, and connectedlv of their
right to sue in the United States courts.
The defendant denied, by plea in abatc
ment, the jurisdiction of the circuit court
: o;r tho United States, on the ground that
the nIoip,iT .,s !, negro Of African descent,
~ ri..-.-...- r.. 800 or pure tS.-i"an blood
and were brought into this country
sold as slaves, and therefore the plaintiff
"is not a citizen of the state of Missouri"
To this plea the plaintiff demurred and the
court sustained the demurrer Thereupon
Tho dofenda"t pleaded uNri, HuI Justified the
trespass, on the ground that the plaintiff
and his family were his negro slaves The
chief justice proceeded to say that the qucs-
ton first to be decided was, whether the
plaintiff was entitled to sue in a court of
the United States. This was peculiar
question, and for the first time brought he
fore the court under such circumstances; but
it had been brought here and it was the duty
/ of the court to meet and to decide it. The
| question was simply this, can negro whose
ancestors were imported and sold as slaves,
become member of the political com
munity 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, one Of which
rights is suing in the courts of the United
States in cases therein specified
In discussing this question we must not
confound 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 he
a citizen of the United States unless under
the provisions of the constitution but it
does not follow that a man, being n citizen
of one state, must be recognized as such by
every state in the Union lie may be a
citizen in one state and not recognized as
such in another Previous to the adoption
of the constitution, every state might CON
fer the character of citizen, and endow a
man with all the rights pertaining to it.
This was confined to the boundaries of II
state, and gave him no rights beyond its
limits. Nor have the several states surrcn-
dered 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 intcnts and
purpose, be citizen of the state, but not Il
citizen in the sense used in the constitution
of the United States. lie would not there
by become citizen of the United States and
therefore, could not sue in any court in tn,
United or other states. His rights wOulC
be confined strictly to his own state TIL,
constitution gives Congress the power t,
establish "a uniform rule Of naturaliza
tion;" consequently no state, by naturaliz
ing an alien, could confer upon him th
, rights and immunities of all the states un
der the general government 1t is Yer.
clear, therefore, that no state can, by an.
, act introduce n new member into tn
political Union created by the constitution
, The question then arises, whether til
provisions OF the constitution OF the Unite
States in relation to personal rights t
which citizen of q state is entitled, EN-
brace negroes of the African race at tina
time in the country, or afterwards imported
or made iree.from,anyktate; and whether it /
, in the power oiany state to make such on
a citizen of the state, and endow him wit
full citizenship in any other state withou
' their consent Does the constitution OF tn
= United States act upon him, and clothe hr
= with all thu rights of a citizen' The cour
3 thinks the affirmative cannot be maintained
= and, if not, the plaintiff could not be
q citizen of Missouri within the meaning q
- the constitution, nor a citizen Of the Unite
= States, and, consequently, no tentited
. sue in its courts,
l. 1t is true that every person, and ever
d class and description of persons at the tim
e of the adoption OF the constitution, regar'
r. ed us citizens of the several states, hecam
,r citizens of this new political body, and nor
70 other, Ii was formed for themselves an