Originally posted by lord of the mark
Incorrect - slaves WERE not persons at the time - free negroes most certainly WERE persons. Ergo questions of their status could not be considered the same as questions of property. And of course whether the blacks in question were in fact escaped slaves or free negroes being kidnapped was just what was at issue.
Whether negroes could be citizens was another question. SCOTUS in Dredd Scott said they were not - but this considered a radical new doctrine - in at least a few New England state Negroes could vote. Note that SCOTUS made its judgement in the context of whether a Negro could sue in Federal court - NOT whether they were property under the Commerce clause.
Incorrect - slaves WERE not persons at the time - free negroes most certainly WERE persons. Ergo questions of their status could not be considered the same as questions of property. And of course whether the blacks in question were in fact escaped slaves or free negroes being kidnapped was just what was at issue.
Whether negroes could be citizens was another question. SCOTUS in Dredd Scott said they were not - but this considered a radical new doctrine - in at least a few New England state Negroes could vote. Note that SCOTUS made its judgement in the context of whether a Negro could sue in Federal court - NOT whether they were property under the Commerce clause.
On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the government might choose to grant them.
For, previous to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confirmed to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the constitution of the United States...
It is very clear, therefore, that no State can, by any act or law of its own, passed since the adoption of the constitution, introduce a new member into the political community created by the constitution of the United States. It cannot make him a member of this community by making him a member of its own. And for the same reason it cannot introduce any person, or description of persons, who were not intended to be embraced in this new political family, which the constitution brought into existence, but were intended to be excluded from it.
But there are two clauses in the constitution which point directly and specifically to the negro race as a separate class of persons, and show clearly that they were not regarded as a portion of the people or citizens of the government then formed.
One of these clauses reserves to each of the thirteen States the right to import slaves until the year 1808, if it thinks proper...And by the other provision the States pledge themselves to each other to maintain the right of property of the master, by delivering up to him any slave who may have escaped from his service, and be found within their respective territories...
The only two provisions which point to them and include them, treat them as property, and make it the duty of the government to protect it; no other power, in relation to this race, is to be found in the constitution; and as it is a government of special, delegated powers, no authority beyond these two provisions can be constitutionally exercised. The government of the United States had no right to interfere for any other purpose but that of protecting the rights of the owner, leaving it altogether with the several States to deal with this race, whether emancipated or not, as each State may think justice, humanity, and the interests and safety of society, require. The States evidently intended to reserve this power exclusively to themselves...
All excerpts are from the Dred Scott opinion of CJ Taney.
I was incorrect in the use of the term "person" - it is used in the Scot opinion to refer to an individual, I was using it to refer to an individual member of the body politic, endowed with recognized and protected rights. The substance is correct - at the time, for Federal purposes, they had no recognized rights, regardless of emancipation.
Comment