Harvard re-examines Dred Scott decision

Associated Press ^ | 04/08/07 | STEVE LeBLANC

[MamaTexan]

The Scott decision was wrong even at the time, as it claimed blacks had never been and never could be citizens of the United States.

As the Constitution was written, they could not. The Founders, being great students of history, established our country in a manner similar to that of Rome, which had 3 different types of persons:.

Among the Romans, the libertini, or freedmen, were formerly distinguished by a threefold division. They, sometimes obtained what was called the greater liberty, thereby becoming Roman citizens. To this privilege, those who were enfranchised by testament, by the census, or by the vindicta, appear to have been alone admitted: sometimes they obtained the lesser liberty only, and became Latins; whose condition is thus described by Justinian: "They never enjoyed the right of succession [to estates] .... For although they led the lives of free men, yet, with their last breath they lost both their lives and liberties; for their possessions, like the goods of slaves, were detained by the manumittor."§ Sometimes they obtained only the inferior liberty, being called dedititii: such were slaves
St. George Tucker’s VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

libertini = freeman = State or civil citizen ONLY
Latins = denizen = naturalized citizen
dedititii = slave

-----

That power, with regard to persons born in the US, had previously been left to the States, with a citizen of a State automatically considered a citizen of the United States.

YES! Someone else knows the States were the ones with that authority. :-) A citizen of a State was considered a citizen of these United States, or a collective State citizen.

A citizen of the United States, or 'US citizen' is a federal citizen.

§ 1218. The inhabitants enjoy all their civil, religious, and political rights. They live substantially under the same laws, as at the time of the cession, such changes only having been made, as have been devised, and sought by themselves. They are not indeed citizens of any state, entitled to the privileges of such; but they are citizens of the United States. They have no immediate representatives in congress.

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution

-----

Taney arrogated to the Court not only the right to decide who was a citizen as of 1857, but who could EVER be a citizen. This rather breathtaking assumption of power to the federal government is amazing in those who theoretically supported states’ rights.

Taney only pointed to the opportunity, it was the US Court that took it. Something they had no right to do.

However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.
James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions

[Non-Sequitur]

bump

[MamaTexan]

Ack- sorry. Here's a better link-

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1212--22

[jonascord]

Look up “Aryan Nation”. That bunch’s IQs plus an equal gaggle of Dims would total to room temperature. The MSM like to point at them and tag the entire Right as Nazis. The fact that the NSDAP was socialist slips by these dim, sorry fetishists, what with them getting all sweaty about high boots and black leather. That there are only about 15 who aren’t in jail is a bonus.

[presidio9]

Actually, the Nazis were socialists. The fringe groups of which you speak are too insignificant to be grouped along side of the left. Certainly they don’t support any traditional candidates on the right.

[Sherman Logan]

Well. You’re the first person I’ve seen claim that the US constitution made a distinction between real citizens and those with Latin Rights!

A naturalized American citizen is a citizen in every way a natural-born citizen American is. The single distinction is that the naturalized citizen is not eligible to be elected President. This is quite different from the Latin Rights citizens of Italy, who had many disabilities, most notably no franchise.

[Sherman Logan]

Your link is with regard to citizens of the United States resident in DC. Most of them, at the time written, presumably were born in one or other State. On leaving DC and moving to a State, they became citizens of that state as soon as they met the residency requirements.

Please explain how your link is relevant to whether Dred Scott, or any other black man, was forever incapable of being a citizen of the United States, now and for eternity.

[yankeedame]

I hope that you are either making a bad joke or you are completly ignorant of what it was that Taney ruled.

Which is it?

(best Jewish mother accent): What? This is a choice?

[Sherman Logan]

The Declaration of Independence expressed the country’s aspirations. It was a glowing example of (somewhat overheated) rhetoric, among the greatest poetry ever written.

The Constitution, with the minor exceptions of the Preamble and the Bill of Rights, is an instruction manual for how to run the country’s machinery. It has almost nothing to say about what the country should DO with its machinery. It is generally as dry as dust and just about as tasty.

The two documents admirably serve two very different purposes. The French, OTOH, have generally insisted on mixing up their statement of aspirations with the machinery of government.

In the time we’ve had one Republic, they’ve had three monarchies, two Empires, a Consulate, a Commune and at least five Republics (depending on how you figure it).

I think the American system works better. :)

[Sherman Logan]

Do you believe in the sanctities (sic) right of private property in human beings?

[colorado tanker]

Harvard probably didn’t see it, but Dred Scott has direct relevance to Roe v. Wade. Taney had to resort to emanations and penumbras to twist the Constitution to say blacks are not people, which the Constitution never said, just like the Constitution had to be twisted in Roe to find babies are not people and moms have a Constitutional right to kill them. Both were very much activist, non-originalist decisions.

[yankeedame]

Excerpt from CJ R.B. Taney "Dred Scott" decision

"...Thus the rights of property are united with the rights of person and placed on the same ground by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law.

"And an act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty of property, without due process of law, merely because he came himself or brought his property into a particular territory of the United States, and who had committed no offense against the law, could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law...

"It seems, however, to be supposed that there is a difference between property in a slave and other property and that different rules may be applied to it in expounding Constitution of the United States. And the laws and usages of nations, and the writings of eminent jurists upon the relation of master and slave and their mutual rights and duties, and the powers which governments may exercise over it, have been dwelt upon in the argument.

"But, in considering the question before us, it must be borne in mind that there is no law of nations standing between the people of the United States and their government and interfering with their relation to each other. The powers of the government and the rights of the citizen under it are positive and practical regulations plainly written down. The people of the United States have delegated to it certain enumerated powers and forbidden it to exercise others.

"It has no power over the person of property of a citizen but what the citizens of the United States have granted. And no laws or usages of other nations, or reasoning of statesmen of jurists upon the relations of master and slave, can enlarge the powers of the government or take from the citizens the rights they have reserved.

"And if the Constitution recognizes the right of property of the master in a slave, and makes no distinction between that description of property and other property owned by a citizen, no tribunal, acting under the authority of the United States, whether it be legislative, executive, or judicial, has a right to draw such a distinction or deny to it the benefit of the provisions and guaranties which have been provided for the protection of private property against the encroachments of the government."

(Bold mine --YD

[yankeedame]

Do you believe in the sanctities (sic) right of private property in human beings?

That's a fair question. Yes, I do believe in the sanctities of private property. What constituted "private property" is open to debate, but the irrefutable fact was that, whether we in the dawn of the 21st century like it or not, in the middle of the 19th century, in the United States, human beings in a state of bondage were considered private property.

[huldah1776]

Absolutely. Each justice that voted yes on Roe should rend their robes in horror and repentance. Then maybe, just maybe, God’s wrath will lessen a bit. Otherwise, you think our society is immoral now? You have seen nothing. The Holy Spirit withdraws from the citizenship, and the wrath of God is seen throughout what is called NATURE. I was wondering why God had to use Moses to get the Israelites out of Egypt. Why did He just show up as a cloud and as fire? Why does God use earthquakes, drought, famine, war, plagues, disease? Where are our bees, why is the sun so hot? God created this world, like the vine over Jonah’s head when he was sent to Ninevah. What happened to the vine?

[huldah1776]

I have read the Bible only 7 times cover to cover and wonder where the Creator gives us rights. Can anyone tell me?

[Sherman Logan]

Perhaps I worded my question poorly. I am aware that slaves were considered property in 1857.

Do you believe, in a country that proclaims that all men are endowed by their Creator with a right to liberty, that anyone has a right to hold another in slavery? By “right” I mean the term in its truest sense, moral not legal.

I’m not asking whether some at the time believed in such a right, as it’s obvious they did. I’m asking whether you believe they were right to believe so.

[socrates_shoe]

> I’m not asking whether some at the time believed in such
> a right, as it’s obvious they did. I’m asking whether you
> believe they were right to believe so.

“Right” legally, or “right” morally?

It kind of brings us back to the question of whether the decision was wrongly decided or simply wrong morally.

[Sherman Logan]

Nobody has a right to do wrong.

My contention about the Scott decision being legally and factually wrong is not based on its ruling with regard to whether slavery is legal, but its power grab in claiming who had ever been or could ever be a citizen.

Nothing in the Constitution gave Congress or the Courts any such power.

The decision was factually incorrect, as black men had been and were full voting citizens at various places in the United States pretty much throughout the entire period from 1787 to 1857. The Court not only made this factually incorrect claim, it also claimed that black men could never become citizens of the US by either congressional or state action. I’d sure like somebody to point out the congressional clause that justified this decision.

[socrates_shoe]

> My contention about the Scott decision being legally and
> factually wrong is not based on its ruling with regard to
> whether slavery is legal, but its power grab in claiming
> who had ever been or could ever be a citizen.

And yet, the dissenters relied for their argument that a slave, removed from the jurisdiction of his slavery, became free on decisions of **European** courts, not American law.

Some folks around here get mighty upset when some current justices do things like that.

Perhaps we can agree on this, the reason Scott was a crappy, abominable decision is because in it the court stuck itself squarely in the middle of a question that was purposely constitutionally vague and politically charged. (Sounds like some other decisions one could name...)

Here’s a couple good articles about a book, “Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil” that you may find interesting:
http://hnn.us/articles/30419.html
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12085

[ALPAPilot]

Galatians 5:1

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

Exodus 20:13

You shall not kill.