NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... basement. It is therefore the duty of the court to decide whether the facts stated in the plea, are or are not sufficient to show that the plaintiff is not entitled to sue as a citizen in the court of the United States. The provisions of the Constitution of the United States in relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the citizens of a state should be entitled do not embrace the negro African race, at that time in this country, or who might afterwards be imported, who had then been or should afterwards be made free in any state. Such provisions of the Constitution do not put it in the power of a single state to make out one of the negro African race a citizen of the United States, and to endue him with the full rights of citizenship in every other state without their consent. The Constitution of the United States does not act upon one of the negro race whenever he shall be made free under the laws of a state, and raise him to the rank of a citizen, and immediately clothe him with all the privileges of a citizen of any other state, and in its own courts.
The plaintiff in error was a negro slave, and brought into a free State (Illinois), and in the free territory of the United States for about four years, during which time he was married to another negro slave who also was in said free territory. One of their children (Eliza) was born on the River Mississippi, and another of their children was born in the State of Missouri, to which state he had returned. Held, that the plaintiff in error could not be and was not a citizen of the State of Missouri, within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and consequently was not entitled to sue in its courts. The legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show that neither the class of persons who had been imported as shaves nor their dependents, whether they had become free or not, where then acknowledged as part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that instrument. The dependents of Africans who were imported into this country and sold as slaves, when they shall become emancipated, or who are born of parents who had become free before their birth, are not citizens of a state in the sense in which the word "citizen" is used in Constitution of the United States.
The enslaved African race was not internet to be included in, and formed no part of, the people who formed and adopted the Declaration of Independence. When the framers of the Constitution were conferring special rights and privileges upon the citizens of a state in every other part of the Union, it is impossible to believe that these rights and privileges were intended to be extended to the negro race. The words of the Constitution should be given the meaning they were intended to bear, when that instrument was framed and adopted. Where this court has decided against the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court on a plea of abatement, it has still the right to examine any question presented by exception or by the record, and may reverse the judgment for errors committed, and remand the case to the Circuit Court for it to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction. The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. The Act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned (thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude), is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void.
Neither Dred Scott himself, nor any of his family were made free by being carried into such territory; even if they had been carried their by their owner with the intention of becoming permanent residents. Scott was not made free by being taken to Rock Island in the State of Illinois. As Scott was a slave when taken into the State of Illinois by his owner, and was there held as such, and brought back into Missouri in that character, elly his status, as free or slave, depended on the laws of Missouri and not of Illinois. He and his family were not free, but were, by the laws of Missouri, the property of defendant ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Missouri. On November 2, 1853, Dred Scott, by his attorney, filed in the clerk's office of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Missouri, the following declaration against the defendant, John F. A.
Sanford: Dred Scott, of St. Louis, in the State of Missouri, and a citizen of the State of Missouri, complains of John F. A. Sandford, of the City of New York, and a citizen of the State of New York, in the plea of trespass for that the defendant heretofore, to wit: on the 1 st day of January, A. D. 1853, at St.
Louis in the County of St. Louis and State of Missouri, with force and arms assaulted the plaintiff, and without law or right held him as a slave, and imprisoned him for the space of six hours and more, and then and there did threaten to beat the plaintiff and to hold him in prison, and restrained of his liberty, so that by means of such threats the plaintiff was put in fear and could not attend to his business, and thereby lost great gains and profits which he might have made and otherwise would have made in the prosecution of his business, to wit: $ 2, 500, and other wrongs to the plaintiff then and there did, against the peace and to the damage of the plaintiff $ 3, 000. And also for that the dependent heretofore on the 1 st day of January A. D. 1853, with force and arms at St. Louis aforesaid, an assault did make on Harriet Scott, then and still the wife of the plaintiff, and then and there did imprison Harriet, and hold her as a slave, without law or right, for the space of six hours, and then and there did threaten to beat said Harriet and hold her as a slave, so that by means of the premises said Harriet was put in great fear and pain and could not and did not attend to the plaintiff's business, and the plaintiff lost and was deprived of the society, comfort and assistance of said wife, and thereby lost great gains and profits, of the value, to wit: of $ 2, 500, and other wrongs to the plaintiff, the dependent then and there did, against the peace and to the plaintiff's damage, $ 3, 000. And also for that the defense heretofore, to wit: on the 1 st day of January, A.
D. 1853, with force and arms at St. Louis aforesaid made an assault on Eliza Scott and Lizzie Scott, then and still infant daughters and servants of the plaintiff, and then and there imprisoned and held as slaves said Eliza and Lizzie, for a long space of time, to wit: six hours, and then and there did threaten to beat said Eliza and Lizzie and hold them as slaves and restrained of their liberty, so that by means of the premises, said Eliza and Lizzie were put in great fear and could not and did not attend to plaintiff's business as otherwise they might and would have done, and the plaintiff thereby lost the comfort, society, service and assistance of his said children and servants, of great value, to wit: $ 2, 500, and other wrongs to the plaintiff $ 3, 000, and the plaintiff on account of the aforesaid several grievances, brings suit, etc. by his attorney
Free research essays on topics related to: six hours, great fear, negro race, circuit court, dred scott
Research essay sample on Dred Scott Negro Race
