her enacted, That all that part of the tes included within the following limits, f as are hereinafter expressly exempted act, to wit, beginning at a point on the te of Missouri, where the thirty-seventh crosses the same; thence west on said dary of New Mexico; thence north on irty-eight; thence following said bounoundary of the Territory of Utah, on the _tains; thence northward on said summit atitude; thence east on said parallel to e State of Missouri; thence south with aid State to the place of beginning, be, eated into a temporary government by. f Kansas; and when admitted as a State ry, or any portion of the same, shall be th or without slavery, as their Constitutime of their admission:

? apply to the Territory of Kansas the 10, and 14, respectively.]

[U. S. Stat. at Large, X., 277-290.]

Dred Scott Decision

March 6, 1857

ed Scott case (Dred Scott v. Sandford) are as ro slave, the property of Dr. Emerson, a surgeon n 1834 Scott was taken by his owner from MisRock Island, Ill., and from thence, in 1836, to

dence in free territory. Judgment was rendered in his favor, but was reversed in 1848 by the Missouri supreme court, to which the case was carried on writ of error. In the meantime, Scott and his family passed under the control of John F. A. Sandford of New York. In 1853 Scott brought suit for damages against Sandford, in the United States circuit court for the district of Missouri, on the alleged ground of illegal detention of himself and family as slaves. The defendant pleaded that Scott, being a negro, and born of slave parents, could not be a citizen of Missouri, and hence could not be a party to a suit in the United States courts. The plea was overruled, but on other grounds Scott's claim to freedom was denied, and judgment rendered against him. The case was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court, where it was twice argued, in February and December, 1856. The decision was rendered March 6, 1857. Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the court, but separate opinions were read by each of the eight associate justices. It has been well said that "to ascertain what the judgment of the court really was, it is necessary to compare the nine opinions and tabulate the results." The legal doctrine of the decision, so far as the question of slavery was concerned, was set aside by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

REFERENCES.

- Text in 19 Howard, 393-633. For contemporary discussions, see Benton's Historical and Legal Examination of the Dred Scott Case; Gray and Lowell's Legal Review of the Case of Dred Scott; Foot's Examination of the Case of Dred Scott.

...

[Opinion of the Court.]

There are two leading questions presented by the record: 1. Had the Circuit Court of the United States jurisdiction to hear and determine the case between these parties? And, 2. If it had jurisdiction, is the judgment it has given erroneous or not?

The plaintiff in error, who was also the plaintiff in the court below, was, with his wife and children, held as slaves by the defendant, in the State of Missouri, and he brought this action in the Circuit Court of the United States for that district, to assert the title of himself and his family to freedom.

The declaration is in the form usually adopted in that State to try questions of this description, and contains the averment necessary to give the court jurisdiction; that he and the defendant are citizens of different States; that is, that he is a citizen of Missouri, and the defendant a citizen of New York.

The defendant pleaded in abatement to the jurisdiction of the court, that the plaintiff was not a citizen of the State of Missouri, as alleged in his declaration, being a negro of African descent,

ver over. And he therefore put in sunnich issues were joined, and at the trial at were in his favor. Whereupon the

of error.

pleas in bar, it will be proper to dispose ave arisen on the plea in abatement. ght of the plaintiff to sue in a court of e reasons therein stated.

by it is legally before us, and the court the facts stated in it disqualify the plainzen, in the sense in which that word is of the United States, then the judgment. -rroneous, and must be reversed.

er, that this plea is not before us

demurrer, and judgment of the court = us upon this record, the question to be facts stated in the plea are sufficient to not entitled to sue as a citizen in a court

re us . . . and it becomes, therefore, our he facts stated in the plea are or are not e plaintiff is not entitled to sue as a citiUnited States.

y serious question, and one that now for brought for decision before this court. y those who have a right to bring it, and t and decide it.

this: can a negro, whose ancestors were ry and sold as slaves, become a member ty formed and brought into existence by Jnited States, and as such become entitled rivileges, and immunities, guarantied by tizen. One of these rights is the privilege he United States in the cases specified in The court must be understood as speak

ing in this opinion . . . of those persons [only] who are the descendants of Africans who were imported into this country and sold as slaves. . .

We proceed to examine the case as presented by the pleadings. The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the "sovereign people," and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can, therefore, claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. 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. . . .

In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a state may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. 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 a citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character, of course, was confined 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

t be a citizen in the sense in which that itution of the United States, nor entitled courts, nor to the privileges and immuher States. The rights which he would ed to the State which gave them. e, that no State can, by any Act or law the adoption of the Constitution, introthe political community created by the 1 States. It cannot make him a member king him a member of its own. And for introduce any person, or description of ended to be embraced in this new politistitution brought into existence, but were from it.

es, whether the provisions of the Constipersonal rights and privileges to which hould be entitled, embraced the negro in this country, or who might afterwards en or should afterwards be made free in in the power of a single State to make ted States, and endue him with the full very other State without their consent. the United States act upon him whenee under the laws of a State, and raised tizen, and immediately clothe him with zen in every other State, and in its own

firmative of these propositions cannot be nnot, the plaintiff in error could not be a ssouri, within the meaning of the Consties, and, consequently, was not entitled to

, and every class and description of perime of the adoption of the Constitution