The true Democrat., 1857-03-31
Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Dred Scott Case.
CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY's OPINION

Ohiei justice Ianey, Tn delivering the opin lon of the court, said that this case. after arou ment at the last term was directed to be ref gued at the present term, owing to difference of opnon 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 tbf tnctof Missouri jurisdiction in the case and II It had jurisdiction, was its decision erroneous or not?
 The defendant denied, by plea in abatement the jurisdiction of the circuit court of the Uni ted States, on the ground that the plaintiff "h negro of African descent, his ancestors were of pure African blood, and were brought intc this country and sold as slaves" and therefore the plaintiff "is not citizen of the State of Missouri" To this plea the plaintiff demurred and the court sustained the demurrer There upon the defendant pleaded over, and justified the tresSpass, on the ground that the plaintiff and his family were his negro slaves, and a statement of the facts agreed to by both parties was read in evidence.
 The Chef Justice having stated the facts in the case, proceeded to say that the question 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 before the court under such circumstances; but it had been brought here, and 1t was the duty of the court to meet and to decide 1t. The question was simply this: Can negro whose ancestors were import ed and solo 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 lrh+ I ,c z which rights is suing in the courts of the Uni ted States in cases therein specified?
 In discussing this question, we must not con- found the rights of citizen which State may confer within its own limits, with the rights of citizen within the limits of the United States No one can be citizen of the Uni ted States unless under the provisions of the constitution; but it does not follow that man being citizen of one State, must be recogn zed as such by every State in the Union. He may be a citizen in one State and not recog- nized as such in another. Previous 10 the adoption of the constitution, every State might confer the character of a citizen and endow A man with all the rights pertaining to it. This was confined to the boundaries of 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 intcnts and purposes be citizen of the State, but not citizen in the sense used i'll the constitution of the Uni- ted States. tle would not thereby become a citizen of the United States, and, therefore. could not sue in the United or other States Ills rights would be confined strictly to his own State. The constitution gives Congres, the rlght to establish :" uniform rule of natu |. mIlZaton;" consequently, no State by natural : izing an alien, could confer upon him the rights and inimunties of all the States under the general government. It 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 pro- visions of the constitution of the United States in relation to personal rights to which citi- zen of 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 one citizen of a State. and endow him with full citizenship in any other State without their consent? Does the constitution of the United States act upon him. and clothe him with all the rights of q citizen ? The court think the affirmative cannot be maintained; and if not, the plaintiff could not be citizen of Missouri within the meaning of the constitution, nor a citizen of the United States, and, subsequently,. not entitled to sue in it's courts.
 It Is true that every person, and every class and description of persons at the time of the adoption of the constitution, regarded as cjtj- zens of thc several States became citizens of this new political body, and none other. It was formed for themselves and their postertv. and for nobody else; and all the rights and i'm munitieS were intended to embrace only those ot State communities, or those who became members according to the principles on which the constitution was adopted. It was a Union ot those who were members of the political communities, whose power, for certain speci- fled purposes. extended over the whole terri tories of the United States and gave each citi zen rights outside his State which he did not amt property on an equality.
 It becomes necessary. there fore. to deter mine who were citizens of the several States when the constitution was adopted. In order to do this, we must recur to the colonies when they separated from Great Britain, formeI new communities, and took their place among the family of nations. They who were recognized as cltlzcns of the States declared theirirdepen. dence of Great Britain, and defended it bv io'ce of arms. Another class of persons. who had been imported aS slaves. or their descend ants, were not recognized or intended to be in- cInded Tn that memorable instrurnent-the Declaration of Independence.
 1t Is difficult at this day to realize the state ot public opinion respecting that unfortunate class with the civilized and enlig ghtened DOT ton ot the world at the time of the Declara- ton oi Independence and the adoption of the constitution; but history shows they have for more that century, been regarded beings of an nieror order, and unfit associates for the white race, either socially or politically; and had no rights which white men were bound to respect; and the black man might be reduced to slavery bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise This opinion. at that tune, was fixed and certain with the clvl'iZcd portion of the white race. IL was regarded as an axiom in morals, which no one thought of disputing, and every one habltualy acted upon it, without doubtng for moment the correctness of the opnon- And III no nauon was this opinion more fixed and generally acted upon than in England, the suuects ot which government not only seized them upon the coast of Africa but took em as ordinary merchandise, to where they could make profit "n them. The opinion thus en- tertanci was universally impressed on the col"niots this side of the Az .ntic: accordingly negroes of the African race were regarded ly them as property, and held and bought. an, sold, as such, in every one of the thirteen col onies which united in the Declaration of h. dependence, and afterwards formed the consti tuton. The doctrine of which we have spo ken was strikiugy enforced by the Declaration of Independence, It begins thus: When il the course of human events, 1t becomes necrs sarv for one people tods%olve the political bond VII ch have Q nccted them with another,and t. assume among the powers of the earth th, separate and equal station to which the laws Q nature hnd of natures Gn, entitle them, a de cent respect 10 the opinions of mankind re qures that they shonld declare tha cause, which lmPel them [" the separation;" anc then proceeds: We hold these truths t, be self.evdent, that. all men are created equal that they are endowed by their Creator with