T^^^C^^^?> ^__ ___ ^^%^' 
 
 ^^ 
 
 THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. 
 
 OPINION OF CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY, 
 
 AN INTRODUCTION 
 
 L> K. J. Ti. VAN E V.R I E. 
 
 AN A P P E N_D I X, 
 
 CO.NTAI.VIXG AN ESSAY O.V THE 
 
 VV^ NATURAL HISTORY OF THE PROGNATHOUS RACE 
 
 (Df Blankinii, 
 
 ORIGINALLY WRITTEX FOR 'rHK NEW YORK DAY-BOOK 
 BT 
 
 i) It S. A. C A 11 T \V R I a H T, 
 
 OF NEW ORLEAX.S. 
 
 I I»ri?LL-irKI) RY VAN LVRIIC, IIORTON k OX, 
 
 AT TlIK OKKICK OK THK XKW YOltK nAV-BOOK, 40 AX.N STREST, XEW YOKK. 
 
 PRICES :— Single Copies, 25 cents ; Five Copies, $1 ; Twelve Copi 
 $2; Fifty Copies, $6; One hundred Copies, or over, $10 per 100, 
 
 I \ 
 
 s:^w3rj-^)=^j: 
 
 • Si *. 
 
 ies, il I 
 
 • 4) 
 
 >^^r^ 
 
 '6 
 
 ft
 
 x**' 
 
 «/ 
 
 r- 
 
 ■*^=i 
 
 T O IN^'S 
 
 LIFE 
 
 OK 
 
 ANDEEW JACKSON, 
 
 m THREE OCTAVO VOLUMES, WITH STEEL PORTRAITS. 
 PRICE $2 50 PER VOL. 
 
 The work is sold by subscription only. The first volume is now ready; Ihe se- 
 cond and third are to follow at intervals of three or four months. The press have 
 spoken of the work in terms of high commendation. 
 
 This is decidedly the most comprehensive, truthful and faithful biography of 
 Jackso.v ever written, and not only for this, but for its simple, pure and elevated 
 style it must stand unchallenged be.'bre the literary world. — Nashville (TVnn.) Ban- 
 ner of Peace. 
 
 Jackson stands. out in this work of remarkable graphic power and naturalness 
 as the lifelike, indomitable and real man he wa^. — Memphis Presbyterian Sentinel. 
 
 It is an honest book throughout. — Nashville Union. 
 
 He has made the picture as natural as life, and as fascinating as it is natural. — 
 Memphis Avalanche. 
 
 It is a work of thrilling interest, and leaves the impre-s of candor and truth on 
 every page. — Memphis Appeal. 
 
 This book, so full, so tlioroiigh, and so important, is having a very rapid sale, 
 and will hold a prominent place in e^ery well-selected library in America. — 
 Clarksville {Tenn.) Jeffersonian. 
 
 Everybody who has read it praises " Parton's Life of Jackson." — Clarksville 
 Chronicle. 
 
 Here is a life which is a life indeed, and before which the conventional and com- 
 mon-place biographies of modern times sink into stupidity and insignificance. — 
 iV. Y. Journal of Commerce. 
 
 Every page is aiiw. It is romantic as a raeditcval romance, and yet has the ad- 
 vantage of being true. — Iloijie Journal 
 
 The three volumes will succc.s.<ively present Jack.son na the Pioneer, the Soi.niEn, 
 the Statesman; and with so interesting a subject the publishers confidently promise 
 in Mr. Pakto.v'.s work one of the most attractive and valuable biographies ever 
 given to the American public. 
 
 MASON BROTH P:RS, Pubushkrs, 
 
 5 il- 7 MERCER ST., NEW YORK 
 
 ik>. 
 
 *A\ 
 
 itv
 
 THE DEED SCOTT DECISION. 
 
 OPINION OF CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY, 
 
 wnu 
 
 AN INTRODUCTION 
 
 DR. J; H. VAN EVRIEi 
 jxao, 
 
 AN APPENDIX, 
 
 OOMTADONa AS ISSAY OS THK 
 
 NATUEAIi HISTORY OF THE PROGNATHOUS RAGS 
 
 (Df MmM, 
 
 ORIGINALLY WKl'lTEN FOR THE NEW YORK DAY-BOOK, 
 BT 
 
 DK. S. A. CARTWRIGHT, 
 
 OF NEW ORLEANS, 
 
 PUBUSHED BY VAN EVRIE, HORTON * CO., 
 is nn omca of iia x«vr tork dat-book, 40 iss street, wit tobx. 
 
 1860.
 
 ExTlJED according to Act of CoDgress, ia the year 1S59, 
 
 bt van EVRIE, HORTON &, CO., 
 
 In the Clerk's CCBce of the District Court for the Southern District of New York.
 
 / ^17? 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 DR. J. H. VAN EVRIE. 
 
 This opinion of Chief Justice Taney and those of his eminent colleagues of the 
 Supreme Court of the Republic, is an epoch in our civil history, which is doubtless 
 destined in all future time to be a land mark in American civilization. 
 
 The facts in the case are all very simple, distinct, common-place, and the conclu- 
 sions from them plain and unavoidable; nevertheles?, this decision, except the 
 Declaration of National Independence in 1776, is the most momentous event that has 
 ever occurred on this continent, and the results destined to flow from it can be 
 second only in importance to tliose ^\ hich have followed tbat memorable event. The 
 Declaration of 1776 announced a truth the most stupendous that ever fell from 
 mere mortal lips— the Dred Scott decision confirms a principle essential to the pre- 
 servation and success of the former, and which otherwise would needsbe bat little bet- 
 ter than '-sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal." Unlike the homogeneous population 
 of Europe, American society ismade up of diverse races, each having its own specific 
 wants and necessities, and therefore any social or political organism that is not in 
 accord with these fundamental facts— these unchanging and unchangeable ordi- 
 nances of the Eternal— must rest on false foundations, and work out evil only to 
 all concerned. 
 
 The doctrine of 1776, that all (white) men "are created free and equal," is univer- 
 sally accepted and made the basis of all our Institutions, State and National, and 
 the relations of citizenship— the rights of the individual— in short, the status of the 
 dominant race, is thus defined and fixed for ever. 
 
 But there have been doubts and uncertainties in regard to the negro. Indeed, 
 many (pcrhips most) American communities have latterly sought to include him 
 in the ranks of citizenship, and force upon him the status of the sup-Tior race. 
 
 This confusion is now at an end, and the Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott deci- 
 sion, has defined the relations, and fixed the status of the subordinate race /oreyer— 
 for that decision is in accord with the natural relations of the races, and therefore 
 can nerer perish. It is based on historical and existing facts, which are indisputable, 
 and it is a necessary, indeed unavoidable inference, from these facts. 
 
 A few years after Columbus had discovered and planted a Spanish colony in the 
 island of St. Domingo, there were some negroes (slaves) imported from Spain into 
 the island, and they were found to hi so superior to the natives as laborers on the 
 Spanish plantations, that others were soon afterwards imported directly from Africa, 
 and finally into all or nearly all of the Spanish possessions. The British colonies 
 in the northern and temperate latitudes did not need t'lis special class or kind of 
 labor, but as they werein pr>s.ses3;on of vast territories, and labor of every kind needed 
 for the conquest over these barren and boundless solitudes, they, too, imported
 
 vl INTRODUCTION. 
 
 tility to those of Europe, but it convinccfl the upholders of the latter that thiij bnstl- 
 lity coulJ never Ci-ust- until one or the other was overthrown. 
 
 Fortunately, too. Tor the friends of niDtiarchy and privilefje, materials oxistfd 
 which only uiM-ded to be lulroitly managed to strike a f Ion and perhaps deadly blow 
 at the new system, without the risks of war, or even those ordinarily d p-iident 
 on failure of any kind ; and which, if puccesfful at all, would be wholly so, fjr it 
 was at the centre, the heart, the very sources of life itnelf, that the blow would bo 
 aimed. One-sixth of our population were negroes — a subordinate social element — 
 which, incorporated and anjilgaraated with the white citizen'^hip. wonhl so d'base 
 and di-'teriorate the latter, that equality would be undermined, lost and annihilated 
 altogether, and Duin )cracy rendered impracticable and impossible for ever. 
 
 Will any one doubt this, or venture to say that we might incorporate the nf^gro 
 element of our population with the white citizenship, and yet pres.Tve our institu- 
 tions, the purity of our principles, the life of our democritic system ? If there arc 
 Buch, they have only to cu-st their eyes to thj populations soutVi of us to witness the 
 ruin, the degradation, the punishment, misery, and even death that follows all mch 
 attempts to incorporate dillerent races into the same system : and the negro ele- 
 ment being still further removed from us, would, were the British or abolition 
 theory reduced to practice, bring upon us only a more rapid and more fearful 
 punishment. 
 
 It is not to bo supposed that English and European statesmen understood this 
 matter, in what way or manner the ruin and overthrow of the new ideas they so 
 dreaded could be accomplished by means of this negro element of our population, 
 but instinct, if not reason, taught them that it might be decisive and ovei whelming. 
 It is, indeed, prob ible that in the first instance they merely resorted to that tradi- 
 tional maxim of the British aristocracy, divide and conquer, which has come down 
 from tlie old Norm.iu nobility, aud which has been and is now the leading principle 
 of British policy. 
 
 Here was one-sixth of the population shut out from all the chances and enjoy- 
 ments of political and social intercourse, a.id which, though they were unable to ap- 
 peal to it. or to use it as a national instrument for attacking the repu'dic in the 
 ordinary way, mig'.thi wieldod in som; mode or form, p-nhaps equally or even 
 more etkctive, though that mode or form was indefinite and inip\lpvble tu the Bri- 
 tish mind. But bj this as it may, or whatever may have been the reaMinings 
 of the enemies of democratic institutions, the motives and the results arrived at 
 admit of no doul»t whatever. Their system, if it may be called thus, rested on wrong, 
 on falsehood, o;\ the ignorance, poverly, aud degradation of the misses — ours on 
 the principles of eternal truth, ou the natural and inalienable right of all (white) 
 men to the sam- p)litc.il privileges and legil rights; and the instinctive hostility 
 of oppiwing systems, the innate and irreco;icilal)le conflict of hostile pr'nc pies, 
 the necessary warlarj of truth and fa!s hood, of right and wrong, of light 
 and darkae.ss, impelled them, and now impels them, and always will impel 
 th^'m, to nuke war upon us openly or secretly, in the battle-lielil. or the still more 
 dangerous liolJ of opinion, until one or the other is overthrown, until Democracy 
 and Democr.itic in^titutioIl3 arc the recognized order of European society, or cor- 
 rupted by Harope.in opinion and enfeebled by monarchical inlluences. we adopt 
 their dogma of a single race, and in vain and impio\is eflorts to reduce it to prac- 
 tice, colla|)se into the ruin, degradation, and social destruction of our neighbors, 
 the heterogeneous and amilgam.ited hordes of Mexico. Central America. Ac. 
 
 This instinctive hostility, blind as it may have been at lirst, therefore impelled 
 the enemies of liberty to avail themselves of this negro element for the overt irow 
 of liberty. British and European writers set up the theory or dogma of a single
 
 INTRODUCTION. rU 
 
 -race; that the negro. Indian, &c., of America had the same nature, the same wants, 
 and therefore the same rights as white men; and the British government, under 
 the youngir Fitt, f illowed clo?e upon the heels of those writers to reduce 
 the dogma to practice. They be^an the warfare by an attaclc on the African 
 '•slave" trade ; and under the lead of Wilbcrforce, perhaps the sleeltcst and most 
 adroit hj'pocrile the world cvirsaw, they enlisted nearly tlie entire moral and re- 
 ligions sentiimnt of England, and with the close connection and almost absolute 
 submission of the sam • classes among ourselvts to British opinion, they obtained 
 at the very beginning the support and sympathy of the religious world in behalf 
 of a cause not merely founded on falsehood, but which, if successful, would work 
 out evi's to human kind and to all concerned so stupendous as to be beyond the 
 possibilities of our language to measure or to express them. Wilberforce was a 
 narrow-minded bigot, of the most bigoted school of British Toryism , and in his long 
 parliamentary career, probably never missed a vote when new burthens were to 
 be imposed upon the peopl ■, or any chance offered for strengthening the tyranny 
 under whicli the millions groped their way through a dark and cheerless exist- 
 ence; and the simple fact thatsuch aman was the leader and champion of the cause 
 of " humanity " and " liberty,"' was itself an unmistakable proof of its false- 
 hood. But here. too. as in the subsequent phases of the mighty imposture, multi- 
 tudes of good, honest, and well meaning people labored under a misconception. 
 The African '"slave" trade, when isolated or viewed by itself, seemed, and perhaps 
 was in many r<S[)f'cts. cnul and inhuman, and therefore it was natural that moral 
 and relig'ous people were anxious to put it down and interdict it altogether ; but 
 while this was the profss d oliject of the British government, it was, in fact, a 
 mere incident in the British (negro) policy. That policy is now, if it was not 
 then, perfectly clear and distinct. It was, and it is, to reduce to practice the 
 teachings of British and monarchical writers, to equalize races — to "abolish" the 
 distinclions tl;at s parate negroes from white men— in short, to carry out in prac- 
 tice the dogma or doctrine cf a single race, and putting down the " slave" trade 
 was only an incident, a single step in the monstrous programme. There were 
 other causes al^o in operation at the time which compelled the British government 
 to make its anti-" tlaveiy" or free negro efforts in America one of the most pro- 
 minent features of its general policy. The teachings of Voltaire and the Encyclo- 
 pediasts had borne thrir fruits, and the long-suffering and voiceless millions in 
 France had risen wiih a strength as terrible as it was irresistible, sweeping away 
 kings and nobles, and every form of wrong and oppression almost in a f^ingle day; 
 and the ."spirit thus aroiis; d threatened to spread over all Europe, and to accom- 
 plish thi; same results in every nation. The British aristocracy then became the 
 rallying print for the enemies of the people — the centre of hope, the very sheet ; 
 anchor of the old oppre sion«, which for centuries had crushed and brutalized the * 
 millions, and this pretended love of liberty in America served to blind and delude 
 the masses in England, and thus to reconcile them to the warfare carried on against 
 liberty in Europe. But the five hundred millions wrung from the sweat and toil 
 and degradation and misery of English laborers, to put down the " slave trade," 
 and give liberty to negroes in America, was expended for crushing out liberty as 
 ab.solutely. though not fo directly, as the three thousand millions expended in 
 Europe. ImUed it was infinitely worse and infinitely more atrocious in the results 
 woiked out, for to simply crush out the rights of the people in Europe wa< kind- 
 ness and mercy in comparison with the evils dependent on the success of their 
 "free" negro policy in America. 
 
 With our mental habits borrowed from Europe, and the almost abject submia- 
 Bion to British opinion, it is to be expected that these stupendous efforts to delude
 
 Tiii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 U3 into the adoption of British ''anti-f-lavery'' ideas, and the rapport of their "anti- 
 Blavery'' policy, would b' measurably Miccessful. On a hasty and suptrticial view, 
 it seemed to be the cause of morality and religion, and therefore the Church, the 
 mnistiy, the entire religious body among us becam-infcted, more or Uss, w ith th 8 
 moial I'prosy — a leprosy a thou-and tim' s over more fatal, and, wht-n disclosed in 
 its real character, more hideous tiian ever curs'.'d Jlw or fc'yrian in the days of 
 old. It pi-rvaded all classes and poi-ou' d all minds, and, strangest of all, it per- 
 verted the Juilic'ary; and though lawyers as a class are usually literal and mat- 
 ter-of-fact in their mental habits, th"y have been led by this world-wide diliison to 
 utterly ignore fact, and distort rtason itself into the grossest folly. An Eiiglis-h 
 judge had dticiiled that by the common law all white m' n were free in England, and 
 therefore dLschar>.'ed a negro from the control of h s master, who had brought him 
 to London! This English precedent, like most British precedents, was accepted by 
 our Courts as the rule, unqu,>8tionjd and unquestionable, and therefore '"slavery" 
 became wiih American jurists, as well as politicians, the creature of the lex loci, 
 without name or habitation in tiie world, except that given it by municipal law; 
 and yet no such law could be found, or can now b? found in all America ! And 
 th's ruling of Chief Justice Mansfi. Id, until quite recently, has been univer- 
 sally admitted. Mr. Clay, Mr. Webster, Colonel Benton — all the great lawyers and 
 eminent legislator;?, have assumed that •' slavery,'' tho social subordination of the 
 negro, th • ijatural relation of the diverse elements that compose our populatio.i, 
 wase.-tabli-hed by municipal law, and therefore could have no existeace beyond 
 the sjih re of such law ! 
 
 Such hal be(n the Briti-h prec; dent, and their opinions, already perverted by 
 British and Europ a;i writers. They never doabted its soundness, though it obvi- 
 ously has no foundation of fact, and therefore involves a palpable absurdity. For 
 many years but little mischi' f attended thd false theories and absurd as-'umptions 
 prevai.ing on the subj- ct as far as these States were concomrd, though the practi- 
 cal anti-'- slavery" policy of England has demoralized and destroyed the countries 
 Bouth of our limits. 
 
 But a lime has now come when this ial.^ehood and folly can be indulged no 
 longer without carrying with it infinite danger — indeed, the certainty of destruc- 
 tion to the Union itself— in f.ict. the le.\st of evils, in comparison with the practical 
 success of the British or anti-slavery theory. The negro clement has expanded 
 into four millions— every one knows that it must remain here forever— it is rapidly 
 increasing, and the time, therefore, is at hand when the false theories so long im- 
 posed on our people must be e.xploded, and the true status of this race fixed be- 
 yond question. It therefore was no accident, still less was it by management of 
 any kind, that this Dred Scott case was brought before the Supreme Court for a 
 final decision, by the highest legal authority in the Republic or on the continent. 
 The facts in the case, as sU^ted elsewhere, were perfectly simple, and the inference 
 from these f icts un ivoidable. A master had carried his '-slave" [Dred Scottl into 
 the feder.il Territories, and as there w.is no local or municipal law fstnblisliing 
 "slavery"' in these Territories, according to the rule laid down by the English chief 
 justice, and so long and disgracefally submitted to by .\morican courts, the 'slave" 
 w.is entitled to freedom! But the Supreme Court, conlining itself to the actual, 
 historical and material facts involved, reversed the foreign and monarchic.il rule. 
 The progenitors of this negro (Dred Scott) were brought here 'slaves;" the off- 
 •ipring followed the condition of the parents — there was no local law or municipal 
 regulation altering this condition in the present instance — therefore Dred Scott 
 rem lined in that condi ion. a so-called slave. 
 
 Could anything bo clearer, more logical or truthful, than this decision ? Of
 
 INTRODUCTION. ix 
 
 course, slavery or freedom has nothing to do wiih the mntlcr. They arc terms of 
 comparison, having reference to conditions of our own race, and are utier per- 
 versions, misapplication?, absurdiii's, when applird to negroes; but as we have no 
 other terms familiar to the common mind, we mu'^t, lor tlic present at least, con- 
 tinue to employ them in this connection. The court simply called on the 
 other side to show any law, if it could, altering the status of this negro, and as that 
 did not exist, or was not forthcoming, of course it decided that Died Scott's condi- 
 tion remained the same as his progenitors', and therefore directed him to be re- 
 turned to his master. But the anti-"slavery ze;xlots insist that the "Missouri 
 Compromise" was such law; that Congress, having omct d a hiw forbid- 
 ding the introduction of negro '-slaves." that those carried into the Territory became 
 ipsofacto free men. This is simply absurd, so far as the status of the negro is con- 
 cerned, whatever may be the political quesiion involved. If Congress had power 
 to exclude " slave" owners from the Territories, it no more followed that the 
 "slave'' should become a ''freeman" than that his skin should become white ; but 
 the court also held that as this was a federation of States. Congress had no power 
 to exclude any class of citizens, and therefore that the Missouri compromise was 
 unconstitutional. 
 
 At last, then, and in conclusion, we have reached the culm'nating point of the 
 ■wildest, the most senseless, the most disgusting, and wilhal the most dangerous de- 
 lusion that ever afQicted an intelligent people, or threatened to destroy the 
 peace, order, and safety of human society. 
 
 Whatever the course or the legislation of sovereign States, henceforth and for- 
 ever the status of the negro, his relation to the white citzens, and the rights of 
 the latter in respect to "slave" property, are now clearly defined within the Federal 
 jurisdiction. And this decision must be accepted and sustained by the northern 
 masses, or there must be disunion and dismemberment of the Union ; for the 
 States and people having this negro element in their midst, cannot, even if they 
 would, consent to any compromise in this rcsp?ct, and therefore if the northern 
 people, led astray by the agents and dupes of the enemies of Democracy, refuse 
 to abide by it, there is for the south no alternative but disunion and the esta- 
 blishment of a new confederacy in conformity with the wants and necessities of 
 southern society. It remains, then, for the honest and patriolic citizens of the 
 North who would avoid this calamity of disunion, and save for their offspring the 
 glorious institutions won by the blood and .sacrifices of their fathers, to abandon 
 the false mental habits imposed on them by the enemies of these institutions, 
 and, accepting the fixed and immutable truths of the Dred Scott decision, to 
 regard as enemies to the peace of the country, and indeed to the safety of 
 society, all those who, under the pretence of negro liberty, would render libertj 
 for tb« white man impossible.
 
 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 
 
 DECEMBER TERM, 1856. 
 
 DEED SCOTT 
 
 versus 
 
 JOHN F. A.. SANDFORD. 
 
 Pred Scott, Plaintiff in Error, v. John F. A. Sandford. 
 
 I. 
 
 1. Upon a writ of error to a Circuit Court of the United States, the transcript of the record of all 
 the proceedings in the case is brought before this court, and is op'.n to its in-ipecliou and rei isioii. 
 
 2. When a p'ea to the jurisdiction, in abatement, is overruled by the court up<in demurrer, :ind the 
 defendant ph ads in bar, and upon these pleas the final judgmeut o; the court is in his liiviir — 
 if the p'aintiff lirings a writ of error, the jud.ment of the court upon the jdea in al)atement 
 is biifore this cnurt. alihnugh it was in favor of the plaintitT— and if tlie court ened in ovenu iiig 
 it, the judgmen! must be reversed, and a mandate issued to the Circuit Court to dismiss the ease 
 for want of juris iictiun. 
 
 8. In the Circuit Courts of the United States, the recorl must show that the case is one in which 
 by the Constitution an 1 laws of tlie United S ates, the court lia i jurisdiction — and if this docs not 
 appear, and the court sives jul.;m nt ei her fir plaintiff or def niant, it is error, and the jmlg- 
 ment must be revered by this court — and the parties cannot by consent waive the objection to 
 the jur.sdiclion of the Circuit Court. 
 
 4. A free negro of the A'rican race, whose ancestor's were brought to this country and sold as slaves, 
 is liol a •• c tizen" within the meaning cif the Constitution of the United Slates. 
 
 6. When the Constitution wasadoptid, they were not regarded in any of the Stales as mem^^ersof the 
 commun ty whicli constituted t::e s ate, an 1 were n it numbered among its " pei>iile or citizens." 
 Consequent'y, the speci 1 riglits and imm in ties guaiantie I tocitizi-ns do not apply to them. AikI 
 not being " citizens " witliin the meaning of the Coustitution, tliey are not entilleii lo sue in that 
 character in a court of the United .Stales, and the Circuit Cmrl has not jurisdict on in such a suit. 
 
 6. The only two c-iuse-i in tlie Constitution whirh point to this ric, treat thtm as persons whom it 
 was morally lawful to dual in as artic !es of properly and to hold as slaves. 
 
 7. Since the adoption of the Con-ititutinn of the Unite 1 Stiites, no state can by any suhspquent law 
 mike a foreigner or any otl.er de-cription of person . citizens of the United Slates, nor eulille Ihein 
 to the rights and priv leges se ured lo citizens hy that instrument. 
 
 8. A State, by its laws pas-ed since the a 'opt on of tlie Const tution, miy put a foreigner or any 
 other description of pt-rsmis upon a footing with its own cit wns, as to all the ri.;hts and i rivilei^es 
 enjoye i by them witliin its dom.nion, and by its laws. But that wid not mike ..in) a (•itiz<Mi of Uie 
 United Slates, nor entitle him to sue in its courts, nor to any of the privU ties aud imiuuniiitg of 
 a citizen in ano.her State. 
 
 0. The change in pubic opinion and feelintr in rela'ion to the African race, which has t.iken pl.ncc 
 giuce the adipt on o the Constitution, cannot change its construction ami ini-anlng, an.i it must 
 be construed and administeiei now acuoiding to its true meaning and iuteuliou when il was for- 
 med and adopted. 
 
 10. The plaintdf having admitted, by liis demurrer to the pica in abatement, thut his ancestorH were 
 iniporte<l from A.iica and sdd as slaves, he i~ not a citizen of the Sale of .Missouri a. coriiiii^ to the 
 Const. tution of the United States, and was not eniilK-d to sue in that character in the Circuit 
 .Oiurt. 
 
 11. Till- being the rase, the judgment of the court below, in avor of the plaiutitf on the plea la 
 abatement, was erruneuua. 

 
 11 THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. 
 
 n. 
 
 1. Bu» if the p'e'* in aMtement in not brought up by thin writ of <Tror, the obje'tion to the citii- 
 ennhip of til- pl.ilntifT is still appart-nt "U the recor.l, as he iiim-elf. in mikin:? out liLs cm'^e, nt itej 
 that lie it "{ Afi a i ilesceiit, wa- born a vlaTC, :«n 1 c'.aimt tliat he an 1 his family b cvine entitle 1 
 to fre^-d m by bein? taken by their owner to rcmde in a territory wliere niavery it prohibiiel by act 
 d Cuitgrv'!- — an 1 that, in addition to thi'i claim, he liim elf becam ■ entitled to fre d .m b, bein^ 
 taken to Kock Ulaiid, in the State of Illinois — and being free when he wa:i brough: back lo Mutdouri, 
 he was by tiie laws of that State a citizen. 
 
 S. If, therefore, the fjcta he states do not ^ive him or his family a rt|;ht to freedom, the plaiotilT is 
 still :i >'avc, ami not entitled to sue as a " citii-n," an 1 the jud.ra-nt of the Circuit Courl wa« 
 erri'neous on that ground also, without any reference to the pl»;i in abatement. 
 
 5. The Circuit Court cm give no judgment fT plaintiff or defen'lant m a case wher-" it lia< not juris- 
 dictinn. no matter whether there be a plea in abatement or not. And unless .t appeir-i upon the 
 faie of tue ;erord, wlien b ought here by writ of errur, that the Circuit Court had jur.Mliclim, the 
 juilgment must be reversed. 
 
 The cas ' of Caprou r. Van Noorden (2 Cranch, 126) examined, and the principles thereby decided, 
 reaffirmed. 
 
 4. When the recrd, a« brought here by writ of error, does n 't show that the Circuit Court hid ju- 
 risdiciion, this court has jurisdiction to reTise ani correct the error, like any other ernr in tbo 
 court b low. It does not and cannot dismiss the ca^e fir want of junsiliction here ; for that would 
 leave th- erroneous jud;.;men: of the court b-low in fill force, anJ the pa ty :njured with -ut rem- 
 edy. Rut il must reverse the ju Igment, an 1, as in any other ca<e of reversal, send a mandate to 
 the Circuit C >urt to conform its judgment to the opinion of this court. 
 
 6. The ilifferen'-e of the jurisdiction in this court in the cises of writs of error to State courts and to 
 Circuit Courts of the United States, pointed out ; and the mistakes ma le as to the jurisdiction of 
 this court in the latter case, by confounding it with its lim.te 1 juris lictim in the former. 
 
 0. If the court reverses a jud;^ent upon the ground that it appears by a p.articular part of the re- 
 cord that the Circuit Court hid not jurisdiction, it does not takeaway the jurinJiction of thi-i court 
 to exauiin • into and correct, by a reversal of the j.id^m 'nt, any other errors, either as to the ju- 
 risdiction or any other matter, where it appsars from other parts of the recor I t!iat the Circuit 
 Court had l.iUeii :nto error. Dn the contrary, it is the daily an i familiir practice of thu court to 
 reverse on several grounds, where more than on? error appears to have b?en committed. And the 
 error of a Circuit Court in its juris licti m stands on the same i^round, and i« to be treated in the 
 same manner as any other error upon which its judgment is founded. 
 
 7. The decision, therefore, that the juigment of the Circuit Court upon the plea in ahatement is er- 
 rnneous, is no rea-on why the alleged error apparent in tlieexception should not al<o be examined, 
 anil the judgment reversed on that ground aUo, if it discloses a want of jurisdiction ia the Cir- 
 cuit Court. 
 
 It is often the duty of this court, after having decided that a particular deci-ion of the Circuit 
 Court was erroneous, to examine into otiier al egi-d errors, and to correct them if tliey are found to 
 esist. .Anl tills has been uniformly d)ne by this court, when the questions are in any degree con- 
 oecte I with tlie controversy, and the silence of the court might create doubts Wuich would lead to 
 further and use .ess litigation. 
 
 in. 
 
 1. The facts upon which the plaintiCT relies did not give him his freedom, and make him a citizen of 
 tIis.souri. 
 
 5. The clause in the Constitution authorising Congress to make all needful rules and r^gulatinns for 
 the gover.ira-nt of the territory and other pripert,' of the Unite! States, appliei only to territory 
 within the c'.iarti-rel limits of some one of the States when they wre ol nies of (Jreat Brit.iin, 
 an I which was surrendered by the Brit sh Guvernmeat to the oli Confederation of the States, in the 
 treaty of pjicc. It d >es nr>t appiy to territory ac<iair.-d by the present Federal Government, by 
 treaty or conquest, from a foreign nation. 
 
 Th- cue of thu .Vinjrican an I IJ e an Insurance Companies v. Canter (1 Peters, 511 ) referred to and 
 examined, sh iwing that the d -cision in this case is n it in conflict with that opinion, an 1 that the 
 court did n it, in the case referr -d to, decide up tn the construction of the cla ise of the Constitution 
 above mentioned, because the case bel^ure them did not make it ne.essiry to decide the question. 
 
 S. The United States, under the present Constitution, cann it acjuire territory to be held as a colony , 
 to he governo I at its will an 1 pleasure. Bat it may acjuire territory which, at the time, has not a 
 popul tliiin that fits it to becom^i a S ate, and miy govern it as a T rrit ry until it \in a popula- 
 tion which, in the judgment of Congress, entitles it to b« admitted as a State of the Union. 
 
 4. D.iriiig the ti ne it remains a Territory. Cin^reis miy legislate over it within the S'^ope of its coa- 
 stilutioiial powers in relation to ci izens of the United Stite< — an I miy establish a Te.Titorial Gov- 
 ernment — and the form of this locil Government must b- rejuLated by the dis ret on of lx>n- 
 gre-s, but with powers not exceeilmg those which Congress itself, by the Constitution, is authorised 
 to exercise over oitizeos of the United States, in respect to their rights uf persons or rights of pro- 
 perty. 
 
 IV. 
 
 L The territory thus acquired, is acquired by the p>ip\e of the Unite! States for their common and 
 
 equ il b !:ij:it, thrjavh their aj -nt au 1 trjstee, tiu KeJer lI Goveriraent. C ingress c\n exercise no 
 
 p "••r o»nr t le rigiits of p srions or property of a citixon in the Territory whi.h is pro.ijbited by the 
 
 \ C MKtitution. Tiij Gaveriimtnt an 1 the citii»n, whenDver the Territory is open to settlement, both 
 
 • enter it with thoir res ective rights define 1 an 1 liinitel hy the Constitution. 
 
 IS. Concresi have n> right to prohibit the citizens of any particular Stite or States from taking up 
 , thjir 110 n • there, wiiile it permits citizens of other States to cio so. .Vor ha* it a right to give prir- 
 Iloges to one class of citizens which it refuse* to another. The territory is ac'iuired for tlieir equal 
 I and comiuoa beasllt — and if open to any, it must be open to all upon e^ual and the same term*.
 
 THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. IS 
 
 8. Every citizen ha* a riiht to take with him into the Terriiory any article of property which the 
 Const'ituti. n of the United States recognises as property. 
 
 4. The Constitution of the Unite 1 States recognises slaves as properly, and pledges the Federal Got- 
 ernnv, nt to protect it. And Congress cannot exerci-e any more aullio:ily over property of that des- 
 cription tlian it may constitutionally exerci.se over property ol nny other kind. 
 
 6. Tlie act of Tonsress, therefore, prohibit ng a citizen of the Unite 1 State.' from taking with him his 
 Bhves when he removes t i the Territory in question to reside, is an exercise of authority over pri- 
 vate propertv whi^li is not warranted hy the Constitution — and the removal of the plaintilT, i>j hi» 
 owner, to that Territory, gave him no title to freedom. 
 
 . V. 
 [ 1. Tlie plaintiff himself acquired no title to freedom by being taken, by his owner, to Rock Island, in 
 Illinois, an I bro aght back to Missouri. Thi- court has heretol'ore deciled that the sbitus or con- 
 dition of a person of African descent depended on the laws of the State in which he resided. 
 
 2 It has been .settU d by the decisions of the highest court in Missouri, that by the laws of that State, 
 a slave does not become entitled to his freedom, where the owner takes him to reside in a State 
 where slavery is not permitted, and afterwards brings him back to Missouri. 
 
 Conclusion. It follows that it is apprirent upon the record that the court below erred in ita judg- 
 ment on the plea in abatcmc ut, and also erred in giving judgment for the defendant, when the ex- 
 ception shows that the plaintilf was not a citizen of the Ui.ited States. And as the Circuit Court 
 had no juri>dictiMn, either in the case stated in the plea in abatement, or in the o:.e stated in the 
 exception, its judgment in favor of the defeudant is erroneous, and must be reversed. 
 
 Tms case wns brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United 
 States for tlie district of .Missouri. 
 
 It was an actina of tre.spais vi et artnis iostituted ia the Circuit Court by Scott 
 agaiusi Sai.d Old. 
 
 Prior to th; institution of the present suit, an action was brought by Scott for 
 his tieedom in ihe Circuit Court of St. Louis county, (State court,) where there 
 was a verd ct and judoment in his favor. On a writ of error to the Supreme Court 
 of the St ite, the judgmcMit below was revenged, and the case remanded to the Cir- 
 cuit Court, where it \vasco:itinned to await the decision of the easy now in question. 
 
 The dechir:ition of Scott contained thrc counts: one, that Sand ford had as- 
 saulted the plaintiff ; one. tliat he Lad assaulted Harriet Scott, his wife j and one, 
 that he had assaulted Eliza Scott and Lizzie Scott, his children. 
 
 Sand ford ajipeared, and filed the following plea: 
 Diiii.v Scorr ) 
 
 V. > Plea to the Jurisdution of the Court. 
 
 John F. A. Saxdfokd. ) 
 
 Apnir. Term, 1854. 
 And the said John F. A. Sandiord, in his own proper person, comes and says that 
 thi.< court o ight not to have or take lurther cognizance of the action afoiesaid, be- 
 cause lie t^ays that said cause of action, and each and every of them, (if any such 
 have aceru' d to the said Dred Scntt,) acciued to the said Dn-d Scott out of the ju- 
 risdiction of this eourt, and e.xclusively within Ih? jurisdiction of the courts of the 
 State of .Missouri, for that, to wit: the said plaintilf. Dred Scolt, is not a citizen of 
 the State of Mis~onri, as alleged iu his declaration, because he is a negro of African 
 descent ; his ancestors were of pure African blood, and were brous^Ut into this 
 country and sold as negro slaves, and this the said Sandford is ready to verify. 
 Wherefore lie prays judgment whether this court can or will take farther cognizance 
 ot the action atoresaid. 
 
 John F. A. Saxdford. 
 
 To this plf-a there was a demurrer in the usual form, which was argued in April, 
 1854, when th • < ourt gave judgment that the demurrer should be sustained. 
 
 In May, 18.5L the d fendant, in pursuance of an agreement between couqecI, and 
 with the have of the court, pleaded in bar of the action: 
 
 1. Not guilty. 
 
 2. That the plaintiff wa<5 a negro slave, the lawful property of the defendant, 
 and, as such, the d f ;ndaiit gently laid his hands upon him, and thereby had only 
 restrained lim. as th'i dfendant had a right to do, 
 
 3. That with ro-p 'Ct to the wife and danghters of the plaintiff, in the second and 
 third counts of the declaration in< ntioned, the defendant had, as to them, only acted 
 in the sam- mimer, and in virtue of the same legal right. 
 
 In the first of these pleas, the plaintiflf joined i.ssne ; and to the second and third 
 filed replications allejiing that the d feiidant, of his own wrong and without the 
 cauie in his second and third pleasi alleged, committed the trespasses, Sm.
 
 14 THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. 
 
 The cownecl then filed the following agreed ptatement of fact.", viz : 
 
 lu the year 18:U, tin; pi lintilf wis u ii.'Kro slave bel.)nging to Dr. Em'^runn, who 
 was a surgto:i in the army of the Unit-d States. In that yeir, 18;J4, paid Dr. Em- 
 erson tcok the pliintift" Irom the Stati.' of .Missouri to the rcilitary post at Hock Is- 
 land in the State of Illinois, and held him there as a slave until the month of April 
 or .May, 1836. At the time la.«t mentioned, "-aid Dr. Emerson removed the plaintiff 
 from s.iid military post at Kock Island to the military post at Fort Snelllng, situate 
 on thi; west bank of th - Mississippi river, in the Teiritnry known as Upper Lonsi- 
 ana, acquired by th" United States of France, and situate north of the latitude of 
 thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north, and north of the Stale of Missouri. Said 
 Dr. Einer80u''held the plaintitf in slavery at said Fort Suelliug, from said Jast-men- 
 tioned date until the year 1838. 
 
 In the year 1835, Harriet wliots nanirl m the second count of the plaintiffs dec- 
 laration, WIS the nej;ro slave of Major Taliaferro, who belonged to the army of the 
 United States. In that year, IBS.'}, said Major Talialerro took said Harriet to said 
 Fori Snelliiig, a military post, situated as hereinbefore stated, and kept her there as 
 a slave until thi! year 1830, and th- n sold and delivered iier as a slave at said Fort 
 Sneiling unto the said Dr. Emerson hereinbefore named. Said Dr. EmiTsOu held 
 sad Harriet in slavery at said Fort Sneiling until the yetir 1838. 
 
 In th • year l.S3-i. the plaintiff and said Harriet, at .said Fort Sneiling, with the 
 consent of said Dr. Em rson, wlio ti)en claimed to be their mastir and owner, inter- 
 married, and took each other lor hnsband and wife. Elizi and L zzie, named in the 
 third count or the plaintiff's decliir.ition, are the fruit of that marriage. Eiizi is 
 about lourieen years old, and was boin on board the steamboat (iipscy, north of the* 
 north line of the State of Missouri, and upon the river Mississippi. Lizzie is about 
 seven years old. and was boru in the Stale of Missouri, at the military post called 
 Jefferson B irra -ks. 
 
 In th ■ year 1838, said Dr. Emerson removed the plaintiff and said Harriet and 
 their said dau;^luer Eliza, from said Fort Suelliug to the State of Mi-souri, where 
 they hav(! ever since resided. 
 
 Before the commencement of this suit, said Dr, Emorson sold and conveyed the 
 plaintiff', :said Harriet, Eliza, and Lizzie, to the detenda;it. as slaves, and the defen- 
 dant has ever since claim d to hold them and each of tin m as slaves. 
 
 At the tim 'S m ntion-'d in the plaintiff's declaration, the defend int cl limlng to be 
 owner as af'oiesaid. laiil his hands npo:i said plaintitf. Harriet, Eliza and Lizzie. ;ind 
 imprisoned them, doing in thi- re-pect, however, no more than what he m ght law- 
 fully do if tiiey were of right his slaves at sucii times. 
 
 Further proof may be given on the trial for eth r party. 
 
 It is agreed that Dred Scott brou;^ht suit for h s freedo;n in the Circuit Court of 
 St. Louis county ; that there was a verdict ami jii'lgm -nl in his favor ; that on a 
 writ of error to the Snprem' Court, the judgnii nl b^low was reversed, and the 
 Bam ' remanded to the Circuit Court, where it has been continued to await the de- 
 cision of th s ca-e. 
 
 la .May 1854, the cause went before a jury, who found the following verd'ct, viz : 
 "As to the first issue joined in this ca>e. we of the jury fi.id the def ndant not i>uil- 
 ty ; and as to the issue secondly above joined, we of ilie jury li.id tliat befon; and at 
 the time when, &c., in the first count nvntioned, the said I'red Sooit was a n 'uno 
 slave, llie lawful property ot the defendant ; and as to the i.v.Hi.- thirdly above join- 
 ed, we, the jury, find that before and at the time when. itc. in the se-;ond and third 
 counts mentioned, the said Harriet, wife of said Dred Scott, and Eliza and Lizzie, 
 the dinixhters of the said Dred Scott, were negro slaves, the lawful propjrly of the 
 defendant. " 
 
 Wlieri.Mipon the court gave judgment for the defendatit. 
 
 AfuM- an ineffectual motion for a new tiial, the plaintiff filed the following bill of 
 exceptions. 
 
 On (he (rial of this cause by the jury, the plaintiff, to maintain the i.ssues on his 
 part, read to the jury the following a^ire d statement of ficls, (see agioement above.) 
 No further testimony was given to (he jury by eith' r party. Tuer. upon the plain- 
 tiff moved the court to give to the jury the following instruction, viz : 
 
 " Th.it iipo 1 th • f'iicts a:.,'reed to by th ■ parties, they ought to find for the plantiff. 
 The court ref'iis d to give such instruction to the jury, and the plaintiff, to such re- 
 fusal, then and there duly excepted." 
 
 The court then gave the following instruction to the jury, on motion of the defea- 
 dout:
 
 THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. U 
 
 "The jury are instructed, tbat upon the facts in this case, the law is with the de- 
 fendant " The plaiiiliff excc'pled to this instruction. 
 
 Upon these exceptions, the case came up to this court. 
 
 It was argued at December term, 18G5, and ordered to be reargued at the preaeut 
 term. 
 
 It was now argued by Mr. Blair and JJfr. G. F. Curtis for the plaintiff in error, 
 and by Mr. Geyer and Mr. Johnson for the defendant in error. 
 
 Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court 
 This case has been twice argued. After the argument of the last term, differen- 
 ces of opinion were found to exist among the members of the court ; and as the 
 questions in controversy arc of the highest importance, and the court was at that 
 time much pressed by the ordinary business of the term, it was deemed advisable to 
 continue the case, and direct a reaigument on some of the points, in order that we 
 might have an opportunity of giving to the whole subject a more deliberate consid- 
 eration. It has accordingly been again argued by counsel, and considered by the 
 court; and I now proceed to deliver its opinion. 
 
 There are two leading questions presented by the record : 
 
 1. Had the Cii-cuit Court of the United States jurisdiction to hear and determine 
 the case between these parties? And 
 
 2. If it had jurisdiction, is the jud^jment it has given erroneous or not? 
 
 The plaiaiiff 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 ot the United States for that district, to as- 
 sert 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 : 
 tbat he and the defendant are citizens of different States ; that is, that he is a citi- 
 zen 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, whose ancestors were of pure African blood, and 
 who were brought into this country and sold as slaves. 
 
 To this plea the plaintiff demurred, and the defendant joined in demurrer. 
 The court overruled the plea, and gave judgment that the defendant should 
 answer over. And he therefore put in sundry pleas in bar, upon which issues 
 were joined; and at the trial tbe verdict and judgment were in hia favor. 
 ■\Vhereupoa the plaintiff brought this writ of error. 
 
 Before we speak of the pleas in bar, it will be proper to dispose of the ques- 
 tions which have arisen on the plea in abatement 
 
 Tbat plea denies the right of the plaintiff to sue in a court of the United 
 States, lor the reasons therein stated. 
 
 If tbe question raised by it is legally before us, and the court should be of 
 opinion tbat the facts stated in it disqualify the plaintiff from becoming a citi- 
 zen, in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United 
 States, then the judgment of the Circuit Court is erroneous and must be reversed. 
 
 It is suggested, however, that this plea is not before us ; and tbat as the 
 judgment in the court below on this plea was in favor of tbe plaintiff, he does 
 not seek to reverse it or bring it bo-fore tbe court for revision by his writ of 
 error ; and also that the defendant waived this defence by pleading over, and 
 thereby admitted tbe jurisdiction of the court 
 
 But in making this objection, we think tbe peculiar and limited jurisdiction 
 of courts of tbe United States has not been adverted to. This peculiar and 
 limited jurisdiction has made it necessary, in these courts, to adopt different 
 rules and principles of pleading, so far as jurisdiction is concerned, from those 
 which re;culaie courts of common law in England, and in tbe different states of 
 tbe Union which have adoptid tbe common-iaw rules. 
 
 In the.se last-mentioned Courts, wb' ic their character and rank are analagous to 
 that of a Circuit Court of the United States ; in other words, wbere tbey are what 
 the law terms courts of general juri.-idiction; they are presumed to have jurisdiction 
 unless tbe contrary appear.'j. No averment in the pleadings of tbo i)laintiff is ne- 
 cessai-y, in order to g.ve jurisdiction. If the defendant objects to it, be must plead
 
 16 THE DRro SCOTT DECISION. 
 
 it specially, and nnlo8« the fact on which he relics is found to be true by a jury, or 
 adtnlttvd to bu true by the plaintiff, the jurisdiction cannot be disputed in an ap- 
 ptll:ite court. 
 
 Now, it is not nccps^ary to inquire whether in cnurts of that d-Fcription a party 
 who pli'iids over ii bar. \vh n a j)!' a to llie juii-diction h is be •n rule! a<;;iin~t hitu, 
 does or dO' s not waive his ]ilea: nor whether upon a jiulpincnt in his favor on the 
 pleas in bar, and a writ of error brou.ht by the jdaintll. the qnestinn upon the 
 plea iu abateim nt would be open for revision in the iippeilate <our:. C ise-< that 
 may h;ive been decided in such conns, or ruh s that may have been laid down by 
 common-law pleaders, can have no i iflnence in the decision in this court, llecuuse, 
 under the Con.stiiution and laws nf the United Stut<'p, the niles wh ch poveru the 
 pleadings in it> courts, in questions of jurisdiction, stand on different prineiple.^ and 
 are regulated by different laws. 
 
 Thi-: diHeience arises, as we have .'aid, from the peculiar character of the Gov- 
 eniment of the United State-^. For alihough it is sovereign and ^np!•eme in it^ 
 appropriate sphere of action, yet it (loe< not posse-s all the powers which usually 
 belong to the sovereignty of a nation. Certain specified powers, enumerated in 
 the Coiistitut'ou. have been conferred upon it; and mither the legislative, execu- 
 tive, uor judicial depa'tments of ihe Government can lawfully exercise any author- 
 ity beyond the limits markel out by t!ie Constitution. And in regulating the 
 judicial department, the ca^i-s in which the courts of tlie United .Sta'es shall hive 
 jurisdiction are particularly and specifically eiumerated and defined; and they are 
 not authorized to tike ci guizance of any cape which does not come within the des- 
 cription therein specilied. Hence, wh'-u a plaintiff sues iu a court of the United 
 States, it is nece-saiy that he should show, in his p'eading■^, that th- suit he biiusis 
 is within the jurisdiction of the court, and that he is entitled to sue there. And if 
 Le omits to do this, and should, by any oversight of the Circuit C 'urt, obtain a 
 judgment in his favor, the jmlgment would be rever.'^ed in th(! appellate court for 
 want ol juri-dictiou in the court helow. The jurisdiction would not be presumed, 
 as in the case of a common-law English or State court, unltss the contrary appeared. 
 But the record, when it comes before the appdlate court, must t^how, attirmuivdy, 
 that the inferior court had autlioriiy, under t!ie Constitution, to hear and deter- 
 mine the case. And if the plaint'ff claims a right to sue in a Circuit Court of the 
 United States, under that provision of the Constitution which gives jurisdiction in 
 controversies b 'tween citizens of d'fferent States, he must disti.ictly aver in hia 
 pleadings that th-y are citiz'us of diffr-uit Slates; and he cannot maintain his suit 
 without showing that fact in the pleadings. 
 
 This point was decided in the case of IJingham v. Cabot, (in 3 Pall.. 382). and 
 ever pince adhered to by the court. And iu Jackson v. Ashton ,8 Pet.. 148), it 
 was held that the objection to which it wa-; opcu could not be waived hy the oppo- 
 site party, because consent of parties could not give jurisdiction. 
 
 It is ne 'dless to accumulate cases on this ^ul'j ct. Tlio-e already referred to, and 
 the cases ofCapronw. Van Noorden, (in 2 Cr , 126), and Moutalet v. MuiTiy. (i 
 Cr., 46), are sufhcient to show the rule of which we have spoken. The cii.«e of Cap- 
 ron V. Van Noorden strikingly illutrates the dilference between a common-law court 
 and a court of the United States. 
 
 If, however, the fiu;t of citiz-nship is averred in the declaration, and the defen- 
 dant does not deny it. and put it in issue by plea in abatement, he cannot offer 
 evidence at the trial to disprove it, and consequently cmnot avail himself of the 
 objection in the ajjp^ Hale court, uiiles-^ the delect should he apparent in some other 
 part of the record. For if there is no plea in ahatem'ut. and the want of jurL-^dic- 
 tion does n )t appear in any other [)artof the tra i-cripl lirou^dit up by the writ of er- 
 ror, the undisi)uied avcrmentof c liz'n>hip in the declaration must be taken iu this 
 court to he true. In this case, the citiz iiship is averred, but if i^^ denied by the de- 
 fendant in th ' manner r quired by the rules of pie idin,', and the fact upon wh ch 
 the denial is ba.s d is admitted Ity the dennirrer. And. if the plea and demurrer, 
 and judgment of the court lielow upon it, :.re before us upon this record, the ques- 
 tion to be d'cidetl is, whether the f icts sta-e 1 in the pi a are sufhcient to show that 
 the plaintilf is not (uitiiled to sue as a ciiiz n in a court of tlie United States. 
 
 We think they are before us. The plea in ahatement and the juilgm^nt of the 
 court upon it, are a part of the jud c al proc -cdings in the Circuit Court, and are 
 there r -corded a- such ; and a wiit of error always brings uji to the superior court 
 the whole record of tiie proc 'cdings in t!ie court below. And in the case of the 
 Uuitnd :ntutes i> Smith (11 Wheat., 172,) thi&coui't said, thai the caiw bciug brought
 
 THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. 17 
 
 np by writ of error, the whole record was undt^r the consider.itinn of this court. 
 And this bein? the case in the present instanc-i, thi' plea in ali-.iti'in 'nt is necessarily 
 under con^deratioii ; and it become-^, therefore, our dutv to deciilf whether th" facts 
 stated in the plea are or are not snflicient to show that the plaiitiQis not entitled to 
 bue as a citizen in a court of t'.ie United States. 
 
 This i> crtainly a very serious qne-tion, and one tliat now for the first lime has 
 been brun<,'ht for decision before this court. But it is lironght here by those who 
 have a right to bring it, and it is nur duty to meet it and de.ide it. 
 
 The question is simply this : Can a negro whose ancestors were imported into 
 this country, and sold as slave.^, become a member of (he pol tical community for- 
 I med and brought into existence by the Coiisiiiution of tlie United States, and as 
 such become entitled to all the rights and piivile,i,'es and immnnitii s gnaranti d to 
 the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United 
 States in the cases specilied in the Constitution. 
 
 It will be observed, that the plea applies to that class of person? only whose an- 
 cestors were negroes of the African race, and imported into this country, and sold 
 and held as slaves. The only matter in issue before the court, therefore, is, wht'ther 
 the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be emancipati d, or who are bora 
 of parenis who had become free before their birh, are citizens (if a State, in the 
 sense in which th • word citizen is nsedjn the Constitution of the United States. And 
 this being the only matter in dispute on the pleadings, the court must be under- 
 stood as speakingin this opinion of that class only, that is, of those p rsons who are 
 the descendants of Africans who were imported into this. country, and sdd as slaves. 
 " The situation of this population was altogethT unlike that of th^ Indian race. 
 The latter, it is true, formed uo part of the colonial communities, and never amal- 
 gamated with ihem in social connections or in government. But although they 
 were uncivilized, they were yet a free ami independent p..ople. a socia'e:! together 
 in nations or tribes, and gov(rned by their own laws. Many of these political com- 
 munities were situated in territories to which the wiiite race claimed the ultimate 
 right of dominion. But that claim was acknowledged to be snlject to the right of 
 the Indians to occupy it as long as they thought proper, and neitlier the English nor 
 colonial Governments claimed or exercised any dominion over the tribe or na- 
 tion by whom it was occupied, nor claimed the right to the possession of the terri- 
 tory, until the tribe or nation consented to cede it. These Indian Governments were 
 regarded and treated as foreign Governments, as much so as if an oce.in liad separa- 
 ted the red man from the white ; and their freedom has constantly been acknowled- 
 ged, from the time of the first emigration to the English colonies to the present day, 
 by the different Governments which succeeded each other. Treaties have beeen ne- 
 gotiated with them, and their alliance sought for in war ; and the people who com- 
 pose these Indian political communities have always been treated as foreigners not 
 living under our Government. It is true that the course of events has brought the 
 Indian tribes within the limits of the United States under subjection to the white 
 race ; and it has been found necessary, for their sake as well as our own, to regard 
 them as in a state of pupilage, and to legislate to a certain extent over them and 
 the territory they occupy. But they may, without doubt, like the subjects of any 
 other fi'reign Government, be natnraliz'^d by the authority of Congress, and become 
 citizens of a State, and of the United States ; and if an individual should leave 
 his nation or tribe, and take up his abode among the white poi)ulation, ho would 
 be entitled to all the rights and privileges which would belong to an emigrant from 
 any other foreign people. 
 
 \Ve proceed to examine the case as presented by the pleadings. 
 
 The words •' people of theUnited States" and •' citizens" are synonymous terms, 
 and mean th'i same thing. They both de-scribe the political body who, according to 
 our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the pow(.T and con- 
 duct the Governraent*through their representatives. They are what we familiarly 
 call the "sovereign people," and every citizen is one of this peo])lft and a constitu- 
 ent member of this sovere-igiity. The question before us is, wh tlnr the class of 
 persons described in the plea in abitemi-nt compose a portion of this p'()])le, 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 "citz-ns" in 
 the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which 
 that instrument provids 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 raje, and, whether eiuancip.ited
 
 18 THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. 
 
 or not, j'^t remained Piibjpct to their authority, and had no rights or privileges bat 
 Burh as Uiosc who li'ld the power and the gi)VL'rnnie;)t miih' choo,=e to jiraat them. 
 
 It is not the province of the court lo decide upon the justice or inju-ticf, the pen 
 licy or impolicy, of tiie-c laws. The decision of that qiie-tion b ■h'nged ti> ihe 
 political or law-making powf-r; to thosi-who fonntd ih- povc regni y and fiam<d the 
 Con-iitution. The duty of the court is, to interpret the in-tninvnt they have 
 fraun-d, witli the best lights we can obtuin on the sulject.and to administer it a.'? we 
 find it. according to its true intent and meaning wiien it was adoptt-fl. 
 
 In discusi'iiig tliis qui'Stion, we must not cmfunnd Iherigh's ot cit Z'n=hip whic'i a 
 Slatt' may confer witnin its own limit.«, and the rights of citiz'-iiship as a in mh r of 
 the Union. It does not by any means follow, l)(Cin«e he has all the right* and 
 privileges of a citiz-n olaSiaie. that he mn-t be a citizen of the Uniti-d State s. He 
 m ly have all the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yi-t not be in- 
 titled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other Sate. For. previous to the 
 adoption of tlie dmstitution of the United States, every State had t!ie undouht-d 
 right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, a' d to endow him 
 with all it* rights. But this character of conrs- was confined to Ih'boundari'S ol the 
 State, and gave him lo rights or privileges in other States beyond those S'Cured to him 
 by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the siverai States surren- 
 dered the power ot conferring these rights and privileges by adopting tlie Constitu- 
 tion of the United States. E.ich State may still confer them upon an ali-n, or any 
 one it thiaks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not 
 be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the 
 United States, nor entitled to sue as s-uch in one of its courts, n^r to the privileges 
 and immunities of a citizen in the other State.*. The ri;;hts which he would acquire 
 would be restricted to the State which gave them. The Constitu'iion has conferred 
 on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right 
 is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Conse- 
 quently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an 
 alien invest him with the rights and privlh gcs secured to a citizen of a State under 
 the Federal Government although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he 
 would undoubtedly be eutitlt d to the rijihts of acitiz'n, and clothed with all the 
 rights and immunities which the Constitution and laws of the State attached to that 
 character. 
 
 It is very clear, therefore, that no State can, by any act or law of its own, pns.«ed 
 since the adoption of the Constitution, introduce a new member into the pijitcal 
 community created by tlie 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 
 eame rea.>-on it cannot iiitr. duce any person or d' scription of persons, who were not 
 intended to be embraced in this new political family, which the Constitution brought 
 into existence, bvit were intendid to be excluded Irom it. 
 
 The question then arises, whether the provisions of the Constitution, in relation 
 to the personal rights and privileges to which the citizen of a State shonfll be en- 
 titled, embraced the negro African r.ace, at that time in this country, or who might 
 afterwards be imported, who had then or .should afterwards lie mule fiee in any 
 State; and to put it in the power of a single State to make him a citiz-n of the 
 United Slates, and endue him with the full rights of citizenship in every other 
 State without their consent? Does the C(mstitution of the United States act upon 
 him whenever he shall be made free undtr the laws of a State, and raised there to 
 the rank ol a citizen, and immediately clothe him with all the privileges of a citi- 
 een in every other State, and in its own courts? 
 
 The court think Ihe affirmative of these prop )sitions cannot be maintained. And 
 if ii cannot, the plaint tf in error could not bu a citizen of the State of Mis.souri, 
 within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and, consequently, was 
 not entitled to sue in its courts. . 
 
 It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who wore at 
 the time of the adoption of the Constitution recogaizi d as citizens in the .several 
 States, becum- also citizens of this in-w political body; but none other; it was for- 
 mi.'d by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the per- 
 sonal lights and privileges guaranti'd to citizens of this new sovereignty were 
 intended to embrace those only who were then membirs of the several State com- 
 munities, or who should aft< rwards by birthrglit or otherwis • become memi ers, 
 according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was 
 founded. It was the union of those who were at that time members of distinct and
 
 THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. 18 
 
 separate political communities into one polit'cal fiinily, whose power, for cortaia 
 spec; tied purposes, was to extend over tiie whole tenitory of the Uiiitd States. 
 And it gave to each citizen rights and privileges outside of his State which he did 
 not befoi e possess, and placid hini in every other Suite upon a perlect eqiuility 
 with its own citzens as to rights of person and rights of property; it made him a 
 citizen of the United States. 
 
 It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several 
 States when the Constitution was adopted. And in order to do tiiis. we must recur 
 to tiie governments and instituiions of the thiriejn colonies, when they separated 
 from Great Britain and formed new suvereigniies, and took their pLice.s in ihu fam- 
 ily of iiidependent nations. We must enquire wh^j, at that time, were recognized 
 as the people or citizens of a State, wliose riglits and liberties had been outragi'd 
 by the E.iglisli Government ; and who decland tin ir indep ■nibnicc, and assumed the 
 powers of Government to defend their rights by lorce of arms. 
 
 In the opinion of the court, the legislation and h. stories of tlic times, and tlie lan- 
 guaj;e used in the Declaraiion of Independerice, ^how, that i.eith. r the class of per- 
 sons'^ who had been impor;ed as slaves, nor their de cendants, whether they had be- 
 come free or not, were ihc.i acknowledged as a part of the people, nor iuteuded to 
 be iuclnd d in the general words used in that m. morable instrument. 
 
 It is ditacult at ihi< d ly to realiz3 the state of public opinion in relation to that 
 unfortun.ite race, which prevailed in the civilized and eulighiened portions of the 
 world at th' time of the Decl.iration of Indeptnideace, and when the Constitution 
 of the United States Wiis Iramed and adopted. But the pub ic history of every 
 European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken. 
 
 They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, 
 and altogether unfit to a'^sociaie with the white race, either in social or political re- 
 lations ; and so fir inferior, th.it they had no rights which the white man was bound 
 to respect ; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his 
 benefit. lie was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of mei chaiidise 
 and tralTic, whenever a prollt eould bemadeby it. This opinion was at that time li,\ed 
 and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an 
 axiom in morals as well as m politics, which no O'le thonpht of disputing, or snp- 
 posed to be open to d spate ; and men in every grade and po-ition iu soceiy ilaily 
 and habitually acted upon it in their private pur-uits, as well as in mailers of pub- 
 lic concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion. 
 
 And in no uatioa was this opinion nore firmly fixed or more uniformly acted up- 
 on than by the English Government and English people. They not only seized 
 them 0:1 tlie coast of Afiica. and sold them or held them in slavery for their own 
 u-se ; but they took them as ordinary articles of m^ichandise to every country 
 where th-y could make a profit on them, and were far more extensively engaged 
 iu this commerc«, than any other nation in the world. 
 
 The opinion thus entertained and act./d upon in England was naturally impres- 
 sed upon the colonies they founded on this side of the Atlantic. And, accordingly, 
 a negro of the African race was regarded by them as an article of proi)erty, and 
 held, and bought and sold as s;ich, iu every oneot the thirteen colonies wnich nnited 
 in the Declaration of Independence, and ;.fterwards formed the Constitution of the 
 United Slates. The tlavis were more or less numerous iu the dltfu-ent colonics, as 
 slave labor was lound more or less profitable. But no one seems to have doubted 
 the correc n ss of the prevailing opinion of the time. 
 
 The legislation of the dillereut colonies furnishes positive and indi-putable proof 
 of tlii~ fact. 
 
 It would be tedious, in this opinion, to enumerate the various laws they pa.s«cd 
 upon ihis suiyeet. It will be t-udicient, as a sample of the legi-laiion which then 
 generally prtvaih d throughout the British colonies, to give the laws of two of 
 them ; one being still a large slaveholJing State, and the other the first State in 
 which sluv ry ceased to exist. 
 
 The provi.ice of Maryland, in 1717, (ch. 13, s. 5,) passed a law declaring ''that 
 if any Ire; negro or mn'laito intermarry with any while woman, or if any while 
 man shall inier.narry with any negro or mulatto woman, such negro or mnlitto 
 shall b come a slave during lile, excepting mulaltoe- born of white women, who, 
 for such intermarriage, sliall only become s. rvants for seven years, to be disposed 
 of as the jutices of the coun:y court, where such marriage so happens shall think 
 fit; to be applied bv them towards the support of a public school wthin the and 
 county. And any "white man or white woman who shall iuiermarry asafore.-aid,
 
 20 THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. 
 
 with any negro or miHatto, such white man or white woman shall become servants 
 during the term of seven years, and shall be disposed of by the justices as alorc 
 BaiiJ. ami be applied to tho uses aforcpaid." 
 
 The iitlier colonial law to which we refer was passed by Massachusetts in 1705, 
 (chap, fi.) It is entilli'd " An act for the better preventing of a spurious and m'X- 
 cd is.-ui'." lie; and it provides, that " if any negro or mulatto shall pre.'^ume to smite 
 or strike any p -rson of the Engli>h or othir Christian nation, such negro or mulatto 
 sh ill 1)6 severely whipped, at the di.-cretion of the justices before whom the otfender 
 shall be convicted." 
 
 And "tnat none of her Majesty's English or Scottish snbji'cts, nor of any other 
 Christian nation, within this province, shall contract matrimony with any negro or 
 mulatto ; nor shall any person, duly autliorised to solemnize m irriage, presume to 
 join any such in m:\rriage, on pain of forfeiting the sum of fifty pounds; one 
 moiety thereof to her Majesty, for and towards the support of the Government with- 
 in this province, and the other moiety to him or them that shall inform and sue for 
 the same in any of her Majesty's courts of record within the province, by bill, plaint, 
 or information." 
 
 We give both of these laws in the words used by the respective legislative bodies, 
 because the language in which they are framed, as well as the provisions contained 
 in tliem.show, too plainly to be misunderstood, the degraded condition of this un- 
 happy race. They were still in force when the Revolution began, and are a faithful 
 index to the state of feeling towards the class of persons of whom they speak, and 
 of the po-ition they occupied throughout the thirteen colonies, in the eyes and 
 thoughts of the men who framed the Declaration of Independence and e.-tabli^hed 
 the Suite Constitutions and Governments. They show that a perpetual and impas- 
 sable barrier was intended to be erected between the white race and the one wtiich 
 they had reduced to slavery, and governed as subjects with al)solute aud despotic 
 power, and which they then looked upon as so far below them in the scale of created 
 beings, that intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were 
 regarded as unnatural and immoral, and punished as crimes, not only in the parties, 
 but in the person who joined them in marriage. And no distinction in this respect 
 was made between the free negro or mulatto and the slave, but this stigma, of the 
 deepest degradation, was fixed upon the whole race. 
 
 We refer to these historical facts for the purpose of showing the fixed opinions 
 concernirg that race, upon which the statesmen of that day spoke and acted. It 
 is necessary to do this, in order to determine whether the general term^ u-ed in the 
 Constitution of the United States, as to the rights of man and the rights of the 
 people, was intended to include them, or to give to them or their posterity the ben- 
 efit of any of its provisions. 
 
 The language of the Declaration of Independence is equally conclusive : 
 
 It begins b.y declaring " liiat when in the course of human events it becomes neces- 
 sary for one jieople to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with 
 another, and to as-ume among tlie powers of the earih the sopara'e and equal 
 station to which tlie laws of nature and nature's God entitle them, a decent respect 
 for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which im- 
 pel them to the separation." 
 
 It then proceeds to say : " We hold these truths to be self-evident :_ that all men 
 arc created equal ; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 
 rights ; tliat among them is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ; that to fo- 
 cure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the 
 consent of llie governed." 
 
 Tlie gi'neial words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human fam- 
 ily, and if they were used in a similar instrnment at this day would be so under- 
 stood. But it is too clear for dispute, tiiat the enslaved African race were not 
 intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted 
 this declarat on ; for if the language, as understood in that day. would embrace 
 them, the conduct of the distinguished men who franied iho Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence would liave been utterly aud flagrantly ineonssieni with the principles 
 they a.«^8erted ; and instead of the sympathy of mankind, to which they so confi- 
 dently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke aud 
 rejtrobatioii. 
 
 Yet the men who framed this declaration were great men — high in literary ac- 
 quirements-high in their sense of honor, and incapable of asserting principles 
 iuoousisleut with those on which they wore acting. They perfectly understood the
 
 THE DEED SCOTT DECISION. 21 
 
 meaning of the language they used, and bow it would be understood by others 5 
 and they knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to 
 embrac! the negro race, which by coininou coiisfot, had bein excluded from civil- 
 ized Governments and the family of nations, and do'imed 10 slavery. They spoke 
 and acted according to the ihea established doctrines and pr.nciple^^. and in the 
 ordinary language of the diy, and no one minmilerstood them. The unhappy black 
 race were separated from the white by indelible marks, and laws long before estab- 
 lished, and werent'ver thony,ht of or spoken of except as properly, and when the 
 claims of the owner or the profit of the trader were suppo-ed to need protection. 
 
 This state of public opinion had undergone no change when the Constituliou waa 
 adopted, as is equally evident from its provisions and language. 
 
 The brief preamble sets forth by whom it was formed, for what purposes, and for 
 whose benefit and protection. It declares that it is formed l.y the people of the 
 United States ; that is to say, by those who were members of the difi'erent political 
 communities in the several States ; and its great object is declared to be to S'.cure 
 the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. It speaks in general 
 terms of the people of the United States, and of citizens of the sevt ral States, when 
 it is providiusi for the exercise of the powers granted or the privileges secnredto 
 the citizen. It does not define what description of persons are intended to be in- 
 cluded under the.se terms, or who shall be regarded as a citizen and one of the 
 people. It uses them as terms so well understood, that no further description or 
 definition was necessary. 
 
 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 p.^ople 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 the importation which it thus 
 sanctions was uuqu-stlonsbly of persons of the race of which we are speaking, as 
 the traffic in slaves in ihe United States had always been confined to them. And 
 by the other provision the States pledge them-elves to each other to maintain the 
 right of property of the master, by delivering up to him any slave who may have 
 escaped from h;s service, and be found within their resp ctive territories. By the 
 first above-mentioned clause, therefore, the right to purchase and hold this property 
 is directly saiictioued and authorized lor twenty years by the people who framed 
 the Constitution. And by the second, they pledge themselves to maintain and up- 
 hold the right of the master in the manner specified, as long as the G oveniment 
 they then lonned should endure. And these two provisions show, conclusively, 
 that neither the description of persons therein referred to. uor their descendants, 
 were embraced in any of the other provisions of the Constitution ; for certainly these 
 two clauses were uui intended to confer on them or their posterity the blessings of 
 liberty, or any of the personal rights so carefully providtd for the citizen. 
 
 No one of that race had ever mi.^ruted to the United Stales voluntarily ; all of 
 them had been brought here as articles of merchandise. The number that had beeu 
 emmcipated at that time were but few in comp u-i-on with those held in slavery ; 
 and th-y were identified in the public mind with the race to which they belong.-d, 
 and regarded as a part of the slave population rather than the free. It is obvious 
 that they were not even in the minds of the framers of the Constitution when they 
 were conferring sp 'cial rights and privileges upou the citizjns of a state in every 
 other part of the Union. 
 
 Inde'^d. when we look to the condition of this race in the several Stat' s at the 
 time, it is impossible to believe that these rights and privileges were intended to be 
 extended to them. 
 
 It is very true, that in that poition of the Union where the labor of the negro 
 race was found to b3uns:iited to the climate and unprofitable to the master, butf.w 
 slaves were h Id at the time of the Ueclaralion of Inde-pendence ; and when the 
 Coustitiitioii was adopred. it had entirely worn out in one of them, and measures had 
 been taken for its graduil aboliiion in several others. But this change had not 
 beeu produced by any change of opinion in relation to this race ; bnt Ijecanse it 
 was discovered, from --xp rieuje. that sl.ive labor wa^^ unsuiie 1 to the cliimte and 
 productions of these States: for som; of the States, where it had ceas'd or nearly 
 cea.sed to exist, were actively engaged in th .' slave trade, procuring cai goes on the 
 coast of .\fri:a. anl transporting them for sale to those parts of the Union where 
 their labor was fou;id to be proiitable, and suited to the climate and productions. 
 A.ad this traiij Was opj.ily carnei on, aud fjriuaes accumulated by it, without re-
 
 22 THE URED SCOTT DECISION. 
 
 proach fi-om the p^opln of the Stati'S where they rosifled. And it can hanlly be 
 suppo'i'd that, in th<! States wh-Tc it wu- then cmmt'-iiaiiced in it-; wor-t form— that 
 is, iu ih.' Feiziire and transport ition— the people could have rigarded those who 
 were •■mancipal'd ivs entitled to equal r jrhis with tlicm-elv. s. 
 
 And we miy heea^ain refer, in support of ttiis proposition, to the plain and 
 unequivocal lansua^re of the laws of the s*'veral State-, some pa-sed after the Dec- 
 larat on of Indi p ■iid'-nce and h-fore the Consliiutiou was adopted, and some since 
 the G')vernm<Mit wont into operation. 
 
 We need not refer, on this point, partictil irly to the laws of the present slave- 
 holding .^tates. The-r statute book^ are full of provision.* in relation to tliis class, 
 in the same spirit with the Marylan<l law which we have l.efore qnot'd. They 
 have continued to treat them as an inferior cla-s. and to snliject them to strict po- 
 lice regulations, drawing a broad line of distinction between the citizen and the 
 slave riices, and leg slaiing in relation to th m upon the same princ'ple which pre- 
 vailed at tiie lime of the Declaration of Independence. As relates to these .^tafes, 
 it is too plain for arsnraent, that they hav- never been regarded as a part of the 
 people or citizens of the State, nor supposed to possess any poi.tical riglits which 
 / the dominant race might not withhold or -(rant at their pi- asure. And as h ng ago 
 I as 1822, the Court ot Appeals of Kentucky decided that free negroes and mulaitoes 
 were not citizens wiihin the meaning of the Constitution ot the United States ; and 
 the correctness of this decision is recognized, and the same doctrine aflarmed, IQ 
 1 Meigs's Tenn. Reports, 331. 
 
 And if we turn to the legislation of the States where slavery had worn out, 01 
 measures taken for its speedy abolition, we shall find the same opinions and princi- 
 ples equally fixed and equally acted upon. o , . v 
 
 Thus Massaclms' tts, in 1786, parsed a law similar to the colonial one of whicb 
 we have spoken. The law of 1786. like the law of 170.5, rorl)ids the marriage of 
 anv white person with any negro, Indian, or mulatto, and infliets a penalty of fitly 
 pounds upon any one who shall join them in marriage; and declares all such 
 marriat'es absolutely null and void, and d grades thus the unhappy issue of the 
 marriage by fixin;; upon it the stain of bastaidy. And this mark of d'gradatiun 
 was renewed and again impressed upon the race, in the careful and deliberate prep- 
 aration of their revised code puhlished in 1836. Tiiis code forbids any person from 
 joining in marriage any white person with any Indian, n. gro, or mulatto, aud sub- 
 jects the party who shall ottend in this respect, to imprisonment, not exceedmg six 
 months in the common jail, or to hard labor, and to a fine of not less than fifty nor 
 miu-e than two hundred dollars ; and like the law of 1786, it declares the marriage 
 to be absolutely null and void. It will be seen that the punishment is increased 
 by the code upon the person who shall marry them, by adding imprisoumeut to a 
 
 pecuniary penalty. . , , . ^ , . , ,.• <■ .u- 
 
 So, too in Connecticut. We refer more particular'y to the legi-lation of this 
 State, because it was not only among the first to put an end to slavery within its 
 own territory, but was the first to fix a mark of reprobation upon the .\frican slave 
 trade. The law last mentioned was pis-ed in (Jctob r. 17S8. about nine monlhs after 
 th'- State had ratified and adopted the present Constitution of the United States; 
 and by that law it prohibited its own citizens, under severe ponalii'S, from enga- 
 gin" in the tradi', ami declared all policies of insurance on the v«vsel or cargo made 
 in the State to be null and void. Dot up to the time of the adoption ol the 
 Constitution, thi-re is nothing in ih" Icirislaiion of the State indicating any change 
 of opinion as to the relative rights and position of the white and black raci s in this 
 country, or indicating that it meant t > place the latter, when free, upon a level with 
 iis citizens. And certainly nothing which would have led the slaveholdiiig States 
 to suppose that Connecticut designtMl torlaim for them, under the new Consrtitution, 
 the iqual rights and privileg'-s and rank ot citizens in every other State. 
 
 The first step taken by Conn.'ct'cut upon this subject was as early as 1774, when 
 it passed nn act forbidding the further importation of slaves into the State. But 
 the section containing the prohibition is introduced by the following preamble : 
 
 " .\ii(l whereas the increase of slaves iu this State is injurious to the poor, and 
 inconveni 'nt." 
 
 This lecital would appear to have been carefully introduced, in order to prevent 
 any misunderstanding of the motive which induced the Legislature to pass the law, 
 and places it distinctly upon the interest and conveidence of the white population — 
 excluding the inlereuce that it might have been intended in any degree for the 
 benefit of the other.
 
 THE DRED SCOTT DECISION'. 23 
 
 And in the act of 1784, by wh ch the issue of slaves I'orii after (he timo thoreiu 
 mentioned, were to be tree at a crrtain ag»*, the secton is again introduced by a 
 preanildo as-igning a f-imilur motive for thr act. It ii^ in ilie-c ware's : 
 
 " Whereas .'Oiind policy roriuire-; thai the abidiiion of slavery ^hould be effected 
 as soon Its may be c. ns sttnt with tlie ri-ht-; of indiv duals, and the public .'■ately 
 and welfare '' — showing that the right of prep; rty in the master was to be proticled, 
 and tliat ih" meamre was one of i)Oiicy, and to prevent the injury and iuconve- 
 n ence, to ihe whites, of a skive population in tlie State. 
 
 And still fnrtiier pursuing itsl> gi-laiion, we (ind that in the same statute passed 
 in 1774. which prohibit d the further importation if slavis into the State, there is 
 also a provision by which any negro. Indian, or inuhitto .-servant, who was found 
 wandering out of tlie town or placo to whicli he belonged, without a written pasa 
 such as istiiiTein described, was made Table to be seized by a ly one, and taken 
 before the next authority t > be examiutd and delivered up to his master — who was 
 required to pay the charge which had accrued ther.'by. And a sub-eqnenl section 
 of ilie satne liw provMes, that if any frej negro shall travel without such pass, 
 and ^hall be stopped, seiz d. or taken up, he shall pay all charges arising thereby. 
 And this law was in full operation when tlie Constitution of tlie United tsiates waa 
 adopted, and was not repealed till 1797. So that up to that time free negroes and 
 mul ittoes were as,«ociatt'd with servants and slaves in the police regulations estab- 
 lished by the laws of the State. 
 
 And agiiii, in IfciSS. Coiuiecticut pas=ed another law, which made it penal to set 
 up/)r establish any school in that Stale for the iustruction of persons of the African 
 race not inhabitants of the Slate, or to instruct or teach in any such school or in- 
 stitiiiion. or board or harbor for that purpose, any such person, without the previous 
 conseiu in writing of the civil authority of the town in which such school or insti- 
 tution might be. 
 
 And it appears by (he case of Crandall v. the State, reported in 10 Conn. Rep., 
 340. that upon an iuforination filed agaiii.st Prudence Crandall for a violation of this 
 law. one of the points raised in the defence was, that the law wa.s a violaiiou of the 
 Co i-titiition of the United States ; and that the pjrsons instructed, a'though of the 
 Airicin race, were citiz -ns of other States, and therefore entitled to the rights and 
 privil g 's of citiz 'lis in the State of Connecticut. But Chief Justice Da<rget, before 
 whom tiie case was tried, held, that persons of that description were not citizens of 
 a State, within the m-aning of the word citizen in the Constitution of the United 
 Slates, a id were not theretore entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens 
 iu other States. 
 
 The ca-e was carried up to the Supreme Court of Errors of the State, and (he ques- 
 tion fully argued there. But the case weut off upou another point, and no opinion 
 was I xpressed on t'lis question. 
 
 We have made this particular examination into the legislative and judicial action 
 of Connecticut, because, :ri)m the early hostility it displayed to the slave trnde on 
 the C'^ast ot Africa, we m ly expect to find the laws of that State as lenient and 
 favoral)le to the subject race a^ those of any other State in the Union; and if we find 
 that at the time the Constitution was adopted, they were not even there raised to 
 the rank of ciiiz-ns, but were still held and treated as pmperly, and the laws rela- 
 ting to tlieai passed with reference altigether to the interest and convenience of the 
 wh:te race, we shall hardly find them elevated to a higher rank anywhere else. 
 
 A brief notice of the laws of two othLT Stales, and we .shall pass on to other 
 con>ideratio:is. 
 
 By the laws of New Hampshire, collected and finally passed in ISl."), no one was 
 p-rmiit d to 1 e enrolled in the militia of the State but Iree white citiz -ns ;_and tjie 
 same provision is found in a suU-equent collection of the laws, niadt! in 1855. 
 Nothing coulil more strongly mark the entire repudiation of the African race. The 
 alien is exclude<l, becnu-ie, being born in a loreign country, ho cannot be a member 
 ol the community iiniil he is naturalized. But wliy are tlv AlViean race, born in 
 the State, not p-rmitted to share in oni; of the highest duties of the citizen? The an- 
 f-w. r is obviou-; he is not, by the institutions and laws of the State, numbered 
 among its peo|)le. He lonns no part of the sovereignty of the State and is not 
 thereiore c illed on to uphold and defend it. 
 
 Agiin. in 1822, Rhode Island, in its revised code, passed alaw forb'dling persons 
 wh)°were authorized to join persons in marriage, from joining in marriage any 
 whi e person with aay negro, Indian, or mulatto, under the p malty of two hundred 
 dollars, aud declaring all such marriages absolutely null and Void; aad the same law
 
 24 TIIK I)RE1> SCOTT DECISION. 
 
 was ajrain re enacted in its revis-d co.l<- of 1844. So that, down to the last-mon- 
 ti-ned poriod, the .stio li^'cst mark of Inferiority and degradation was fastened upon 
 the Afiican race in Ihiit State. 
 
 It would be impop.Mlile to enumerate and comprc-is in the ?pace usually allotted 
 to an opinion of a court, the vari..ui^ laws, marking the condtion ot thi.s race, 
 which wen- passed from time to time after {\v' R'jvolutioii, and before and since the 
 adoption of ihe Constitution of tiie United State.«. In addition to tlio.'-o air. ady refer- 
 red to, it is sufficient to say, that Chanc-llor K<nt, whise accuracy and n gemch no 
 one will qu'Slion, states in the sixth edition ol' his Commentarii's (published in 1848, 
 2 vols., 258, note 6.) that in no part of the country except Maine, did the African 
 race, in point of fact, participate equally with the whites in the exercise of civil and 
 political rights. , 
 
 The legislation of the States therefore shows, in a manner not to be mistaken, the 
 inferior a"id subject condition of that nice at the time the Constitution was adopt'd, 
 and long afterwards, throughout the thirtei'ii Stats by which that in>trnment was 
 framed; and it is hardly consistent with the ropect due to these States, to suppose 
 that they regarded at that time. a« fellow-citize.is and members of the Fovereignty, 
 a class of beings whom they had thus stigniatiz'd; whom, as we are bound, out of 
 respect to the State sovereignties, to assume tin. y had deemed it just and n.-cessary 
 thus to stigmatize, and upon whom they had impressed such deep and enduring 
 marks of inferiority and degradath n; or, tliat wh.nthey met in convention to form 
 the Constitution, they looked uponlhem as a portion of th.nr constituents, or d.'signed 
 to include them in the provisions so carefully inserted for the security and protec- 
 tion of the liberties and rights of their citizens. It cannot be supposed that they 
 intended to secure to them rights, and privileges, and rank, in the new political 
 body throughout the Union, which every one of th.m denied within the limits of its 
 own dominion. More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveliolding 
 States regarded tin m as incUub'd in the word citizens, or would have consented to 
 a Constitution which might compel them to receive ihera in that character from 
 another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and im- 
 munities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws 
 and from the police regulaiions which they considered to be necessary for their «.wn 
 safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizena 
 in any one State of th- Union, the right to enter every other Stale whenever they 
 pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without ob-truclion, 
 to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they plea-ed at every h<_)ur of 
 the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some vh.lation of 
 law for which awhile man would be punished; and it would give them the full 
 liberty of sp -ech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which lis own 
 citizens might speak ; to hold public meetings upon political all'aiis, and lo k-'cp 
 and cairy arms wherever they went. And all of this w.aild be done in the face of 
 the subject race of Ihe sain- color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing 
 discontent and insubordination amung them, and endangering the peace and safety 
 of the Slate. ^, , , , ,,. 
 
 It is impossible, it would seem, to believe that the great men of the slav.holding 
 States, who took so large a share in framing the Constitution of the United Suites, 
 and exercised so much influence in procuring its adoption, could hav.' been so for- 
 getful or regardless of their own safety and the safety of those who trusted and 
 confided in them. • i . •.. 
 
 Besides, this want of foresight and care would have been utterly inconsist.nt with 
 the caution displayed in piovidingfor the admission of new members into this polit- 
 ical family. For," when tiiev gave to the citizens of each State the piivilegos and 
 immiinilies of citiz ns in the several Slates, they at Ihe same time took from the 
 several States the power of naturalizaiion. and confined that p.iwer exclusively 
 to the F.'deial Government. No Slate was willing to p(>rmit another Siate to d."- 
 terminc who should or should not be adinitled as one of its citizens, end entitled 
 to demand o inal rights an.l privil-ges wiih their own p '.iple, within their .iwn ter- 
 ritories. The right of naUiralizition was therelore. wiili .mo accord, snrrender.'d 
 by the States, and confided t ) the Federal Government And this power gran ed 
 to Congress lo establish an uniform rule of natur.iliznlwn is. by the well understood 
 moaning of ihe w.u-d. conlined to persons born in a for.'ign country, under a lor.Mgn 
 Government. It is not a power 10 rai.se to the rank of a citizen any one liorii in the 
 United States, who, from b rth or parentige. by ihe laws of the counlry. belongs 
 to au inferior and subonliiiatu class. And when we find the States guarding them-
 
 u 
 
 THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. 25 
 
 selves from the indiscreet or improper admission by other States of emigrants from 
 other countries, by giving the power exclusively to Congress, we camiot fail to si e 
 that they could never have left with the States a much m ire important power- 
 that i*. the power of transforming into citizL'us a innnerous class of persons, who in 
 that cliaracter would be much more dangerous to the peace and safely of a large por- 
 tion oftlio Union, than the few foreigners one of theStates might improperly naturalize. 
 
 The Constitution upon its adoption obviously toolc from the Slates all power 
 by any sub-equent legislation to introduce as a citizen into the political family of 
 the United States any one, no matter where he was born, or what might be his 
 character or Ci;ndiiioa ; and it gave to Congress the power to confer tins character 
 uiion tiiose only who wi're born outside of the dominions of the United States. 
 And no law of a State, therefore, passed since the Constitution was adopted, caa 
 give any right of citizenship out>ide of its own territory. 
 
 A clauseVimilar to the one in the Con-titution, in relation to the rights and im- 
 munities of citizens of one State in the other States, was contained in ihe Articles 
 of Confederation. But there is a ditf.-rence of language, which i-^ worthy of note. 
 The provision in the Anicles of Confederation was ■' that the free inhabitants of 
 each of the States. paupiTs, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice, excepted should 
 be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of free citiz'^ns in the several States. 
 
 It will be observed, that under this Confederation, each State had the rmht to de- 
 cide for itself, and in its own tribunals, whom it would acknowledge as a free inhab- 
 itant of another State. The term free inhabitant, in the generality of us terms, 
 would certainly include one of the African race who had been manumitted. But no 
 example, we think, can be found of his admission to all the privileges of citizenship 
 in any Slate of the Union after these Articles were formed, and while they contin- 
 ued ill force. And, notwithstanding the generality of the words " fi ee inhabitants, 
 it is very clear that, according to their accepted meaning in that day, they did not 
 include the African race, wiieiher free or not: for the fifth section of the ninth 
 article provides that Congress i-hould have the power " to agree upon the number 
 ot land forces to be raised, and to make requisitions from each Staie for its quota 
 in proportion to the number of tvhite iuhabitanti in such State, which requisition 
 should be binding." , ^, ,. <• j- 
 
 Words cou'd hardly have been used which more strongly mark the line ot dis- 
 tinction between the citizen and the subject; the free and the subjugated races. 
 The latter were not even counted when the inhabitants of a State were to be em- 
 bodied in proportion to its numbers for the general defence. And it cannot for a 
 momf nt be supposed, that a class of persons thus separated and rejected from those 
 who formed the sovereignty of the States, were yet intended to be included under 
 the words "free inhabitants," in the preceding article, to whom privileges and 
 immunit'es were so carefully secured in every State. . . 
 
 But altliough this clause of the Articles of Confederation is the same m principle 
 •with that inserted in the Constitution, yet the comprehensive word inhabitunt, 
 which iiii',dit be construed to include an emancipated slave, is omitted; and the 
 privilege is confined to citizens of the State. And this alteration in words would 
 hardly have been made, unless a different meaning was intended to be conveyed, or 
 a possible doubt removed. The just and fair inference is, that as this privilege was 
 afiout to be placed under the protection of the General Government, and the words 
 expounded by its tribunals, and all power in relation to it taken from the S:ateand 
 its couits, it was deemed prudent to describe with precision and caution the persons 
 to whom this high privih'ge was given— and the word ci/ism was on that account 
 substituted for the words free inhabitant. The word ciliz( n excluded, and no doubt 
 intended to exclude, foreigners who had not, become citizens of si me one of the 
 Stati s when the Constitution was adopted; and also every description of persons 
 who were not fully recognised as citizens in the several States. Tlii<, upon any fair 
 construetion of the instruments to which we have referred, was evidently the object 
 and purpo-e of this change of words. 
 
 To ail this ma's of proof we have still to add, that Congress has npeatcdly legis- 
 lated upon the same construction of the Cons itut on that we have given. Three 
 laws, two of which were pussed almost immediately after the Government went into 
 op'ration, will l)e abundantly sufficient to show this. The two first are particularly 
 worthy of notice, because many of the men who assisted in training the Constitution, 
 and took an active part in procuring its adoption, were then in the halls of legisla- 
 tion, and ceriainly undersiood what they meant when they used the words '-people 
 Of the United Stat.s " and " citizen " in that well-coasidered instrument. 
 
 ^
 
 26 THE DliED SCOTT DECISION 
 
 The first of these nct'^ is the naloralizat'ou law. which was passed at the second 
 Bessoii of th" first Co i<^re«s. March 2(). ITjQ, andcoatiaes the right of becomiug citi- 
 zens " td aliens bein^free white persons " 
 
 Now. the Consiitutioa does n'>t limit the power of Congress in this re^p^et to 
 white pM-son*. A ul ih y may. if they think proper, anth iriz-^ the n.itura'.izit on "f 
 any one nf any color, wlio was born under allef^iance to another Governm. at. But 
 tlie l;in:u;ii;e of tin- law above quoted, sliows tint citz nsh'p at th it tim'i wa- p'^r- 
 fectly under-itood to be confined to the while race ; and that they alone constituted 
 the -overeignty in the gover.iment. 
 
 Ci)n;»res.s mi;;ht, as we before said, have author zed the nat iraVzation of Indians, 
 bec;iu-ie they were aliens and foreigner--. But, in their ihe:i untutored aid savage 
 state, no one would have thought of admittiiii; th-ni asc tiz!u^ in a civiliz-'d ora- 
 munjty. And, m u-eover. th • alroeiti-s tiny li id but recently cimimitted. when th-y 
 were tlie allies of Great Brit.iin in the R -voiulionary war, wt re yet fasli in th'-reeol- 
 lect on of the people of the United St ites. and they were even tiien guard ng t'lem- 
 Eelv s against the threatened renewal of Indian ho.stiliti'S. No one supposed then 
 tliat any Indian would ask f>r. or w.is capable .f enjoying ih'^ piivil-ge-^ "fan 
 Americaucitzeu, and the word white was not used w^th any particular refennce to 
 them. 
 
 Neitlier wa.s it u=!ed with any reference to the African race imported into or born 
 in this country; because Congre-s had no pow r to natur dz" th-m. and therefore 
 there was no nee 's-ity for using pariinilar words to e.xclnde th -m. 
 
 It would seem t'» have been used m-rely because it fcdlowed out tlie line of divi- 
 sion wiiich the d'ns'itution has drawn between the citizen r:vce. who form d and 
 h' Id the Government, and the African race, which they held in subject on and 
 slavery, and governed at their own plea-siire. 
 
 Another of th" early laws of wliich we have spoken, is the first militia law. which 
 was passed in 1792, at the first session of the second Congres-s. The languaije of 
 this law is equally plain and significini with the one just ni' nt'oncd. It directs that 
 every '-free ablelbodied white male citizen' shall l;e enroll, d in the niiUtia. The 
 word Mj/uVe is eviiently used to exclu'le the African race, and tlie word -citizMr' 
 to exclude unnaturalized foreigners ; the latter forming no p irt of the soveieignty, 
 owing it no allegian e, and therof )re under no oldigation to defend it. Thi Airicim 
 race, however, bor.i in the country, did owe alle<>i.ince to th • Government, whetlwT 
 they w re s'aves or free; but it is repudiat d. and rejected from the duties and obli- 
 g.itioiis of citizenship in marked lanij;uage. 
 
 Tiie tliiid act to which we hive alluded is even still more decisive; it wa« parsed 
 as la:e as 181:5, (2 Stnt, h09.) and it provides: " that from and after the toruiiua- 
 tion of th ; war in which the United S:at-s are now engag d with Great Br tain, it 
 sh ill not lie lawful lo employ, on board of any pul>lij or private ves.sels of the 
 Uiii ed Stat 's. any pers m or persons except citizen.s of the Uuit.d .States, or persons 
 of color, natives < f the United Stales." 
 
 Here the line of distinction is drawn in express words. Prrsons of color, in the 
 ju'lginent of Con,'n-ss, were n't included in the w•^rd citizens, and they are described 
 as another and d tferent class of p-isons, and authorized to be employed, if bora in 
 the United St it"S. 
 
 And even as lute as 1^20, (chap. lOi, sec. 8.) in the charter to the c ty of \Vash- 
 ingtou. the corporation is authorized " to restrain and'prohibit the niglr.ly and 
 other di-onlerly meetings of slaves, free negroes, and mula'toes."' tiius a-so;iating 
 them tOL-^ether in its legislation; and after prescril)ing the punishment that may be 
 inliict 'd on the si ive«. jiroceeds in the following words-. '• And to punish such tree 
 negroes and mulatto "s l»v penalties not exceeding twentv dollars for any o;ie offence; 
 and in cise of the in ibility of any su.h free negro or mulatto to pay any such p-n- 
 alty a id cost thereon, to cause iiira or her to be co;iHned lo hibor for any lini" not 
 ex(;eed ng six calendar mouths'' And in a subsequent part of the saiiie section, 
 th' act authorizes tlie corporation " to prescribe the terms and coiul.tions upon 
 \vfv<-,'> free n -groes and mulittoes may reside in the city." 
 
 Ths law. like the laws of the States, shows that this class of persons were gov- 
 prned by special lerr slation directed expresdy to thun. and always connected with 
 provi-iois for the governmi-nt of slaves, and not with tliose lor the government of 
 fie; white citizens. And after such an uniform course of Icc'sla'ion as we have 
 stated, by the colo lies, by ih ■ States, and by Congress running ihroigh a period of 
 m>re than a ceutny. it would seem that lo call persons thus marked and stigmati- 
 zed, "citizens" of the United States, "fellow-citizens,'' a coustitueut part of the
 
 THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. 27 
 
 sovereignty, wouM be an abuse of terms, and not calculated to exalt the character 
 or an American citizen in the eyos of other nations. 
 
 The conduct of the Executive D''paitra'»nt of the Government has been in per- 
 fect harmony npon this subject with this course of Icjjislat on. Thi; qncstiou was 
 brought ofBcially before the late Williim Wirt, when he was the At'onipy Gi'ni'ral 
 of the United States, in 1821, and he decidi'd that the words '•' citizL-ns of the United 
 Statfs ■' were u?ed in the acts of Congress in the same sen<e as in the Constitution; 
 and that free p'?rson3 of color were not citizf^ns. within the m"aning of the Consti- 
 tution and laws; and this opinion has been confirra'd by that of the late Attorney 
 General, Caleb Cushing. in a recent case, and acted upon by ttie Secrotiry of 
 State, who refused to grant passports to them as " citiz jns of the United States." 
 
 But it is said that a person may be a citizen, and entitled to that character, al- 
 though he does not possess all the rights which may belong to other Lit'zons; as, for 
 example, the right to vote, or to hold p irticular o!Q;es ; and that yet, wlion he. 
 goes into another .-^tate, he is entitled to be recogniz hI there as a citizen, although 
 the State may measure his rights by the rights which it allows to persons of a liko 
 character or class resident in t:ie State, and refuse to him the full rights of citizen 
 ship. 
 
 This argument overlooks the language of the provision in the Constitution of 
 which we are speaking. 
 
 Undoubtedly, a person may be a citizen, that is, a member of the community who 
 form the sovere'gnty, although he exercises no share of the political power, and is 
 incapacitated frim holding p. irt'cular office. Women and minors, who form a part 
 of the political fimily, cannot vote ; and when a property qualification is reqnired 
 to vote cr hold a pirticular office, those who have not the necessary qualihcation 
 cannot vote or hold the office, yet they are citizen'. 
 
 So. too, a person may be entitled to vote by the law of the Stato, who is not a 
 citizen even of the State itself. And in f-ome of the States of the Union foreigners 
 not naturalized are allowed to vote. And the State m ly give the right to free 
 negroes and mul.ittoes. but that does not make ih m citizens of the State, and still 
 le.«s of the United States. And the provision in the Constitution giving privileges 
 and immunities in other States, do"S not apply to them. 
 
 Neither does it apply to a person who. b-i:ig the citizen of a State, m'grates to 
 another State. For then he becomes subject to the Jaws of the State in which he 
 lives, and ho is no longer a citizen of the St ite from which he removed. And the 
 State in whch he reside-? may then, unquestionably, determine his status or condi- 
 tion, and place him among the cl iss of persons who are not recognized as citizens, 
 but belong to an inferior and subject race ; and may deny him the privileges and 
 immunities enjoyed by its citizens. 
 
 But so far as mine rights of persons are concerned, Ihs provision in question is 
 confined to citizens of a State who are temp' larily in another Sate without taking 
 up their residence there. It gives them no'political rights in the Slate, as to voting 
 or holding office, or in any other respect. For a citizen of one Stite has no ri'.'ht 
 to p irticipate in the government ot another. But if he rank- as a citizen in tlie 
 State to which he belongs, within the meaning of the Constitution of the United 
 States, then, whenever he goes into another State. t!ie Constitution clothes him. aa 
 to the rijihts of person, with all the privileges and immunities which belong to citi- 
 zens of the State. And if persons of the African race are citiz -ns of a State, and 
 of the United States, they would b'? entitled to ail tliese privileges and immunitie? 
 in every State, and the State could not restrict them ; for they would hold these 
 privileges and immunities under the paramount authority of the Federal Govern- 
 ment, and its courts would l)e bound to maintain and enforce them, the Constitu- 
 tion nn 1 laws of the State to the contrary notwithstanding. And if the States could 
 limit or restrict them, or place the party in an inferior grade, this clause of the 
 Constitution would be unmeaning, and could have no opnation ; ;ind would give 
 no rights to the citizen when in anoth-r State. lie would have non- but whit the 
 State itself chise to allow him. This is evidently not the construction or ra'-aning 
 of the clause in question. 11 guaranties rights, to the citizen, and the State cannot 
 withhold them. And these rights are of a character and would lead to consequences 
 which make it absolutely certain that the .\(rican race were not included under the 
 name of citizeiis of a State, and were not in the contemplation of the framers of 
 the Constitution when these privileges and immunities were provided for the protec- 
 tion of the citizen in f)ther States. 
 
 The case of Legrand v. Uarnall ( 2 Peters, 664 ) has been referred to for the pur-
 
 28 THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. 
 
 pose of sbowiiinf tliat this court lias (lec'uled that the d'scendant of a slave may sue 
 as a citize.i in a court of the Unitwl States; but the case itself shows that the ques- 
 tion did not arise and could not have arisen in the case. 
 
 It appear- from the report, that Darnall was born in Maryland, and was the son 
 of a white man liy one of his slaves, and his father executed certain instmrnenls to 
 manumit hirn, and d'vised to him some landed properly in the State. This property 
 Darnall aft'-rw.irds sold to L"grand, the appellant, who give his notes for ihi' pnr- 
 ch.ise-mon'-y. But becouiing afterwards apprehensive that the app<dlee had not 
 b e.i emancipated according to the laws of Maryland, he refused to pay the notes 
 until he could be better satisfied as to Darnall's right to convey. Darnall, in the 
 mean time, had taken up his ns'dence in Pennsylvania, and brought suit on the 
 notes, and recovered judgment in the Circuit Court f jr the district of .Maryland. 
 
 The whole proce 'ding, as appears by the n-port, w is a i amic ible one ; Legrand 
 •being p'lfectly willing to pay the money, if he could obtain a tit'e, and Darnall 
 not wishing him to pay unless he could make him a good one. In point of fact, the 
 whole proceeding was under the direction of the counsel who argnel the case for 
 the appellee, who was the mutual friend of the parties, and confided in by both of 
 them, and who-e only objict was to have the rights of both parlies established by 
 judi -ial decision in the most sp -edy and lea.st e.xpen>ive manner. 
 
 Lfgrand, ther.'fore, raised no olyection to the jurisdiction of the court in the suit 
 at law. b -cause he was himself anxious to obtain the judgm"nt of the court upon 
 hi< tile. Consequently, there was nothing in the record before the court to show 
 that Daraall w.i.s of African descent, and the usual ju Igment and asvard of execu- 
 tion was entered. And L'giand thereupon filed his bill on the equity side of the 
 Circuit Court, stating that Darnall was born a slave, and had not been legally em- 
 ancip ited, aid could not therefore take the land devis.'d to him, nor make Legrand 
 a good title ; and praying an injunction to restrain Darnall from proceeding to ex- 
 ecution on the judgment, which was granted. Darnall answered, averring in his 
 answer that he was a free man, and capable of conveying a good title. T<stimony 
 was taken oa this p lint, and at the hearing the Circuit Court was of opinion that 
 Darnall wa< a free man and his title good, and dissolved the injunction and dismiss- 
 ed the bill ; and ihat decree was aflirmed here, upon the appeal of Legrand. 
 
 Now, it is difficult to im igine how any question about the citizenship of Darnall, 
 or his right to sue in that character, can be supposed to have ari-^en or heen decided 
 in that cas ■. The fact that he was of African descent was first brought before the 
 court upon the bill in equity. The suit at law had th 'n pas-ed into judgment and 
 award of execution, and the Circuit Court, as a court of law, had no longer any 
 authority over it. It was a valid and legal judgment, which the court ihit rendered 
 it had n a tie power to reverse or set aside. And unless it had juri-diction as a 
 court of equity to restrain him from using Its process as a court of law, Dirnall. if 
 he thought proper, wouhl have been at liberty to proceed on his judgment, and 
 compel the payment of tin; money, although the allegatiois in the bill were true, 
 and he was incapable of making a title. No other cjurt coulJ have enjoined him, 
 for certainly no .Stite equity court could interfere in that way with the judgment 
 of a Circuit Court of the United States. 
 
 But Ihi C:rc lit Court; as a court of equity certainly had equity jurisdiction over 
 its own judgm -nt as a court of law, without regard to the cliaracler of the parties ; 
 and had not only the right, but it was its duty — no matt-r who were the pariit'S in 
 the judgment— to prevent them from proceed ng to enforce it by execution, if the 
 court was satisti-d that the money was not justly and equitably due. The ability 
 of Darnall to convey did not dep -nd upon his citiz'uship, hut upon his title to free- 
 dom. And if h • was fr e, he could hold and convey prop rty, by the laws of .Mary- 
 land, aithougli he wa-i not a citizen. But if he was liy law still a slave, he could 
 not. It was t'p'ivTore the duty of the court, sitting a-* a court of equity in the latter 
 case, 'o prevent him from u-ing its process, as a court of common law, to compel 
 Ihe piymeut of th ■ puicha-e m.)uey, when it was evident that the purchaser must 
 lose the land. But if he was free, and could make a title, it was equally the duty 
 of 'he court not to suffr L 'grand to k'ep the land, and refuse the payment of the 
 money, upon tae gr^iun I t!iat Darnall was inc ipabh; of suing or Ijeing su 'd as a 
 citizen in a coart o; the United States. The character or c;tiz n-hip of the parlies 
 had no conu'-ction with the (jueslion of jurisdiction, and the ma'ter in dispute had 
 no r lation to th • citizenship of Darnall. Nor is such a question alluded to in the 
 opinion of the Court. 
 
 Besides, we are by no means prepared to say that there are not many cases, civil
 
 THE URED SCOTT DECISION. 29 
 
 as well 03 criminal, in which a Circuit Court of the United States may exercise ju- 
 risdiction, although one of the African race is a party ; that broad question is not 
 before the court. ^ The question with which we are now dealin-j; is. wh.th. r a person 
 of the African race can l)e'a citizen of the United States, and l)ecome thireiiy en- 
 titl'd to a spi'cial privilege, by virtne of his t.tle to that character, and which, un- 
 d-.r the (Jon-titution. no one biit a citizen can claim. It is manlftst that t'le ca-^e of 
 LeuTand and Dariiall has no bearing ou that question, and can have uo applicalioa 
 to the case no >v before the court. ,, - „ .. 
 
 This case, however, strikingly illustrates the consequences that would follow the 
 construction ol the Constitution which would give the power contended f.>r to a 
 State. It would in efif.'ct give it also to an individual. For if tic fath.-r o( young 
 Darnall had manumitted him in his lifetime, and sent him to re-ide in a State which 
 recogn zed him as a citizen, he might have visited and sojourned in Maryland when 
 he pleased, and as lo^g as he pleased, as a citizen of the Unit-d States ; and the 
 State officers and tribunals would be compelled, by the paramount authority of the 
 Consiitut'on, to receive him and treat him as one of its citizens, exempt from the 
 laws and police of the State in relation to a person of that description, and allow 
 him to enjoy all tbe rights and privileges of citizenship withDUl nspi'Ct to the laws 
 of Maryland, although such laws were deemed by it absolutely essential to its own 
 safety. 
 
 The only two provisions which point to them and include them, treat them aa 
 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 Gov- 
 ernm -nt of special, del-gated, powers, no authority beyond these two provi-ions 
 can be constitutionally exercised. Tlie Government of the United States had no 
 right to ■nterlere tor any other purpose but that of protecting the rights of tlie owner, 
 leaving it aliOi^ether with the several States to deal with this race, whether eman- 
 cipated or notr as each State may think justice, humanity, and the interests and 
 safety of socii'ty, require. The States evidently intended to reserve this power ex- 
 clusivelv t3 themselves. 
 
 No one, we presume, supposes that any change in public opinion or feeling, in 
 relation to this unfortunate race, in the civilized nations of Europe or in this country, 
 should induce the court to give to the words of the Constitution a more liberal 
 cou'^truction in their favor than they were intended to bear when the instniraeiit 
 was framed and adopted. Such an argument would be altogether inadmissible in 
 any tribunal called on to interpret it. If any of its provisions are deemed nnju-t, 
 there is a mode prescribed in the instrument itself, by which it may be amended ; but 
 while it remains unaltered, it must be construed now as it was understood atthe 
 time of its adoption. It is not only the same in words, but the same in meaning, 
 and delegates the -^ame powers to the Government, and reserves and secures the 
 same rights and privileges to the citizen ; and as long as it continues to exist in its 
 present form, it speaks not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and 
 intent with whieh it spoke when it came from the hands of its framers, and was 
 voted on and adopted by the people of the United States. Any other rule of con- 
 struction would abrogate the judicial character of this court, and make it the mere 
 reflex of the popular opinion or passion of the day. This court was not created fjy 
 the Constitution for such purposes. Higher and graver trusts have been confided 
 to it, and it must not falter in the path of duty. 
 
 What the construction was at that time, we think can hardly admit of doubt. 
 We have the language of the Declaration of Independence and of the Artich s ot 
 Confederation, in addition to the plain words of the Constitution it-elf; we have 
 the legislation of the different States, before, about the time, and since, the Consti- 
 tution was adopted ; we have the legislation of Conijress, from the time of its 
 adoption to a recent period; and we have the constant and uniform action of the 
 Executive Department, all concurring together, and heading to the same result 
 And if anything in relation to the construction of the Constitution can be regarded 
 as settled, it is that which we now give to the word '• citizen " and the word "people." 
 
 And upon a full and careful consideration of the subject, the court is of opinion, 
 that, upon the fact-i stated in the plea in abatement, Drd Scott was not a citizen ()t 
 Missouri within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and not enti- 
 tled as such to sue in its courts; and, consequently, that the Circuit Court had no 
 iurisdictiou of the case, and that the judgment on the plea in abatim nt is erroneous. 
 
 We are aware that doubts are entertained by some of the members of the court, 
 whether the plea in abatement is legally before the court upon this writ of error*
 
 30 THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. 
 
 but if that plr>a is regarded as waived, or out of the case upon any other groundj 
 yet the qiiesiion as to the juridiction of the Circuit Court is presented on the face 
 of the bill of txception itself, taken by thi" plaintiff at the trial; fur he admits that 
 he and his wife w re born slaves, but endeavors lo mflic out his title to freedom 
 and citizen-hip by showing that they were taken by their owner to certain places, 
 hervinalt r mentioned, where slavery could not by law exist, and that they thereby 
 became free, and upon their return to Missouri became citizens of that State. 
 
 Now, if ihe removal of which he .speaks did not give them their freedom, then by 
 his own admissiiiu he is still a slave; and whatever opinions may be entertained ia 
 favor of the ciiizenship ot a free person of ihe African race, no one supposes that a 
 slave is a citizen of the Stat" or of the United Stats. If, th>'refore. the acts dune 
 by his own.r did not make them free pei>ons, he is still a slave, and certainly inca- 
 pable of suing in the character of a citizen. 
 
 The principle of law is too well settled to be disputed, that a court can give no 
 judgment, for either party, where it has no jurisdiction; and if, upon the showing of 
 Scott him-elf, it app -ared that he was still a slave, the >^as- ought to have been dis- 
 missed, and the judL'ment against him and in favor ol the defendant lor costs, is. like 
 that on the plea in abatement, erroneous, and the suit ought to have been di.-missed 
 by the Circuit Court for want of jurisdiction in that court. 
 
 But, before we proceed to exannne this p irt of the case, it may be proper to no- 
 tice an objection taken to the judicial authority of tins court to decide it; and it has 
 been said, that as this court has decided against the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court 
 on the plea in abatement, it has no right to examine any question presented by the 
 exceptio.i; and that anything it may say upon that part of the case will be extra-ju 
 dicial, and mere obiter dicta. 
 
 This is a manifest mistake ; there can be no doubt as to the jurisdiction of thib 
 court to revise t!ie judgment of a Circuit Court, and to reverse it for any error ap 
 parent on the record, whether it be the error of giving judgment in a case ovei 
 which it had no jur sdiction. or any other material error; and this, too, whethei 
 there is a plea in abatement or not. 
 
 The objection appears to have aris?n from confounding writs of error to a State 
 court, with writs uf error to a Circuit Court of the United States. Undoubtedly, 
 upoii a writ ot error to a Slate court, uiili ss the record shows a case that gives ju 
 risdiciion, ihe case must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction in this court. And if 
 it is dismissed on that ground, we have no rigiit to examine and decide upon any 
 questio.i presented by the bill of exceptions, or any other part of the record. Bui 
 writs of error to a State court, and to a Circuit Court of the United States, are reg- 
 ulated by different laws, and stand upou entirely difierent prineiple.s. And in a 
 writ of error to a Circuit Court of the United States, the whole record is before this 
 court for examination and decision; and if the fum in controversy is large enough 
 togive juri-diciioii, it is nut only the right, but it is the judicial duty of the court, to 
 examine the whole cise as pres nted by the record; and if it appears upou its face 
 that any material error or errors have been committed by the court below, it is the 
 duty of this court to reverse the judgment, and remand the case. And certa'nly an 
 error in p.is>ing a judgment upon tlie merits in favor of either party, in a "case 
 which it was not aiiihoriz'd to try, and over which it had no jurisdiction, is as grave 
 an error as a court can commit. 
 
 The plea in abatement is not a plea to the jurisdiction of this court, but to the ju- 
 risdiction of the Circuit Court. And it appwirs by the record before us, that the 
 Circuit Court c< mniitted an error, in deciding that it had jurisdiction, upon the facts 
 in the case, a Imittrd by the pie ulings. It is the duty ol the appellate tribunal to 
 correct this error; l)Ut tiiat coul 1 not be d 'Ue by dism'ssing the cas • for want of 
 jurisdict on here — for tiiat would leave the erroneous judgment in full force, and 
 the injured party without remedy. And the app dl ite court tiiTelore exercises the 
 power for wh ch alone appellate courts are con-tiiuted, by reversing the judg- 
 ment of the court lielov for this error. It exercises its projier and appropriate 
 jurisdiction over the judgment and proceedings of the Circuit Court, as they appear 
 upon the record hrotig'.it up by the writ of error. 
 
 The correct on of one erru- in the court below does not deprive the appellate 
 court of the power of examining further into the record, and correcting any other ma- 
 terial errors which miy have bjen comm tied by the inferior court. There is cer- 
 tainly no ml" of l.iw — nor any practice — nor any decision of a court — which even 
 quesiions this power in tiie ap|)ellate tribunal. On the contrary, it is the daily 
 pract.ce of (his court, and of all appellate courts where they reverse the judgment of
 
 THE DEED SCOTT DECISION. 31 
 
 an inferior court for error, to correct by its opinions whatever errors iiny nppear 
 on tliereconl material to the case; and they have always held it to be tii< ir duty to 
 do so where thesileiice of the court mi^'ht lead to miseojistmcliinor Aitinv coniro- 
 Ter.-y, and the point has been relied on by cither side, an<l aiyiied before tin- cmirt. 
 In thecase belore us, we have already decided that the Circuit Court irnd iu 
 deciding th it it had jurisdiction upon the lacts admitted by tlie pl'-adi igs. And it 
 appears that, in the further prutrress of the ca-e, it acted upon the crr^ mous priuci- 
 pl • it had di cided nn the pleadin^is. and gave judgment for the defendant, where, 
 up »n the fiicts admitted in the exc ption, it had no jurisdicti<in. 
 
 We are aialjss to under.-tand nponwh^U priiicipleof law. ai)plicable to appellate 
 jurisdiction, it can be supposed that this court has not jud cial authority to coiTcct 
 tile l;ist-menlioned error, hecause they had beforn corrected tlie former; or by what 
 process of reasoning it can be made out, tliat the error of an inf rior court in actu- 
 ally pronouncing judgment for one of the parties, iu a casein whicli it had no juris- 
 diction, cannot be looked into or corrected by this court. bicau>e we have decided 
 a similar question presented iu the pb-adings. The last point is distinctly prehcited 
 by the facts contained in the plaintiffs own bill of exceiiti"ns, which he himself 
 brings here by this writ of error. It was the point which cbieliy occupied theatt(,n- 
 tion of the counsel on both sides in the argument — and tiiejudgmeuc which this court 
 must render up )n both errors is precisely the same. It must, iu each of them, exer- 
 cise jurisdiction over the judgment, and reverse it for the ermrs committed by the 
 court below; and issu^ a mandate to the Circuit Court to conform iis judgment to 
 the opinion pronounced by this court, by dismissing theca^e for want of jurisdicfon 
 in the Circuit Court. This is the constant and invariable practice of this court, 
 where it reverses a judgment for want of jurisdiction in the Circuit Court. 
 ' It can scarcely be necessary to pursue such a qmstion furtlier. The want of 
 jurisdiction in the court below may appear on the record without any plea in abate- 
 ra;nt. This is familiarly the ca~e where a court of chanctry has exercised jurisdic- 
 tion iu a case where the plaintiff had a plain and adequate remedy at Liw, and it so 
 ajjpears by the transcript when brought here by appeal. So also where it appears 
 th.it a court of adniiiaity has exercised jurisdiction in a ca-e belonging exclusively 
 to a Court of common law. In the.se cases there is no plea in abatrment. And for 
 the same reason, and upon the same principles, where the defect of jurisdiction is 
 patent on the record, this court is bound to reverse the judgment, although the de- 
 fendant has not pleaded iu abatement to tlie jurisdiction of the, inferior court. 
 
 The cases of Jackson v. Ashtou and of Caproa v. Van Noorden, to which we have 
 referred in a previous part of this opinion, are directly in point. In the la'^t-men- 
 tioned case, Capron brought an action against Van Noorden in a Circuit Court of 
 tiie United States, without showing, by the usual averments of citizenship, that the 
 court had jurisdiction. There was no plea in al)atement put in, and the parties went 
 to trial upon the merits. Tlie court gave judgm"nt in favor of the defendant with 
 costs. The plaintiff thereupon brought his writ of error, and thi- court reversed the 
 judgment given in favor of the defendant, and remanded the case with directions to 
 dismiss it, because it did not appear by the transcript that the Circuit Court had 
 juiisdiction. 
 
 Tlie ca<e before us still more strongly imposes upon this court the duty of examin- 
 ing' whether the court below has not committed an error, in taking juri.-diction and 
 giving a judgment for costs in favor of the defendant; for in Capron v. Van Noordea 
 the judgment was reversed, because it did not appear that the p.irties were citizens 
 of different Stat' s. They might or might not be. But in thisc.iseit docs appear 
 that the plaintiff was born a slave; and if the facts upon which lie rel es have not 
 made him tree, theu it appears affirmatively on the record that he is not a citizen, 
 and consequently his suit against Said.brd was not a suit bHween ciiiz us of diffe- 
 reui Slates, and the court had no authority to pa.ss any ju<lgni nt betweni the par- 
 ties. The suit ouzht, in tiiis view of it, to have been dismissed by the Circuit Court, 
 and its judgm nt in fivorof Sandford Is erroneous, and rauslb ■ reversed. 
 
 It is true that th" result either way, by dismiss il or by a judgment for the defen- 
 dant, m.ikes very little, if any, difference in a pecuniary or personal point of view 
 to either party. But the fact that the result would be very ne.irly th- sani'; to the par- 
 ties in either form ofjudgmmt, would not justify this court in sanctioning an error in 
 the julgtn 'ut whch is p.itent on the re;ord, and which, if Siiuctioned, miifiit be 
 dr.iw.i into precele.it, and lead to seriou- mischief md injustice in some fiture suit. 
 
 We proce.'d, th-rerore, to inquire whether the facts relied on by the plaintiff en- 
 titled him to bis freedom.
 
 32 THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. 
 
 The case, as he himself states it, on the record brought here by his writ of error, 
 is this : 
 
 The plaintiff was a negro slave, belonping to Dr. Emerson, who was a porgeon 
 in tlie army of the UniUd St;itos. In the year 1834, be look the pla'ntiff from the 
 State of Mis^diiii to uie military post at Rock ]>laii<l, in ihe State of Illinois, 
 and iield him tliere as a slave unlii the month of April or May, 1830. At the time 
 last meiitidnul, said Dr. Emerson removed the plainiitl' fmni said military post at 
 Rock Island to the military post at Fort Snelling. situate on the we<t bank of the 
 Mi>sis!-ippi rivtr, in the tcnitory known as Upper Louisiana, acquired by the Uni- 
 ted Stales of France, and siiuate norih of the latitude of thirty-six deixrees ih'riy 
 minutes nortli, and nortii of the State of Mi.'Souri. Sa d Dr. Emer-oa held the 
 plaintiff in slavery at said Fort Snelling, from said last-mentioned date until the 
 year 1838. 
 
 In the ye;ir 18.35, Harriet, who is named in the second count of the plaintiff's 
 declarati<m. wa-* the nej^ro slave of Major Taliaferro, who belonged to the army of 
 the United States. In tliat year. 1835, .'■aid Major Taliaferro took sai<l Il.irri't to 
 said Fort Snellins:, a military post, situated .as hereinbefore slated, and kept her there 
 as a slave until the year l!^3(), and then sold and delivered her as a slave, at said 
 Fort Snelling, unto the said Dr. Emerson hereinbelore named. Said Dr. Emerson 
 held said Harriet in slavery at, said Fort Snelling until the year 1838. 
 
 In the year 183G. the plaintiff and Harriet intermarried, at Fort Snelling. with 
 the consent of Dr. Em rson, who then claimed to be their master and owner. Eliza 
 and Lizze, named in the third count of the plaintiffs declaration, are the fniit of 
 that marriage. Eliza is about fourteen years old, and was born on board the steam- 
 boat Gips'-y, north of the norlh line of the State of Missouri, and upon the river 
 Mis>issippi. Lizzie is about seven years old, and was born in the State of Missouri|^ 
 at the military pest called Jiffi-rson Barracks. 
 
 In the y(ar'l838, said Dr. Emerson removed the plaintiff and said Harriet, and 
 their said daughter Eliza, from said Fort Snelling to the State of Mis-ouri, where 
 they have ever s nee residi d. 
 
 Before the comtnencenieiit of this suit, said Dr. Emerson sold and conveyed the 
 plaiiitilf. and Harrier, Elizn, and Lizzie, to the defendant, as slaves and the defen- 
 dant has ever since claimed to hold them, and each of them, as slaves. 
 
 In considering this part of the controversy, two questions arise: 1. "Was he, 
 togethiT with his family, free in Missouri by reason of the stay in the territory of 
 the United States hereinbefore mentioned? And, 2. If they were not, is Scott him- 
 self free by reason of his removal to Rock Island, in the State of Illinois, as stated 
 in the above adinis-ions? 
 
 We proceed to examine the first question. 
 
 The act of Congress, upon which the plaintiff relies, declares that slavery and in- 
 voluntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, shall be forever i)r' hibited 
 in all that pirt of the territory ceded l)y France, under the name of Louisiana, 
 which lies north of Ihirly-six degrees thirty minutes norlh latitude, and not included 
 within the limits of Missouri. And the difficulty which mei ts us at the threshold 
 of this part of the inquiry is, whether Congress was authorised to pass this law 
 under any of the powers granted to it by the Constitution ; for if the authority is 
 not given by that instruinint, it is the duty of this court to declare it void and in- 
 operative, and incapable of conferring freedom upon any one who is held as a slave 
 under the laws of any one of the States. 
 
 The counsel tor the plaintiff has laid much stress upon that article in the Consti- 
 tution which confers on Congress the power " to dispose of and make all needful 
 rules and r( gulations ruspecling the terriloiy or other projierty belonging to the 
 Uiiiied Stales ; ' but, in the jud-ment of the court, that ])rovision has no bearing 
 on the presrnt controversy, and the power there given, whatever it may be. is con- 
 fim d, and was intended to b- conlined, to the territnry wh ch at that time belonged 
 to, or wasclained by, the United States, and was within their boundaries as settled 
 by the treaty with (Jreat Britain, and can have no intluence ui)on a territory after- 
 wards acquired from a foreign Government. It was a special pi ovi^ion for a known 
 and pariieular territory, and to meet a present emergeney. and nothing more. 
 
 A brief summary ot'lhe hi>tory of the times, a-^ well as the careful and measured 
 terms in wliicli the article is framed, will show the correctness of this proposition. 
 
 It will be remembered that, from the commencement of the Revoluntionary war, 
 serious difficulties existed between the States, in relation to the disposition of large
 
 THE DEED SCOTT DECISION. 33 
 
 and unBcttlcd trrritorii s which were ii)cliidi d in the chartered liiBits of some of th« 
 States. And simie of the other State-, and nrirc e-p c ally Miryland, wliich had 
 no niisitiU'd liiiids, insist' d that as tlie nnncciipicd lands, if wrcsti'd from Greal 
 Britain, would "\vi' their prest-rvaiioii to the connnoii purse and llio common sword, 
 the niMuoy ari.iiig fioni llieni ought to be Hpplied in ju-i jjropoition anionj^ the sev- 
 eral States to pay the expenses of the war. and ou;;lit noi to i>e ajjpropriated to 
 the use of the Slate in who.-e charterc d limit- tliey m ght hap|ie;i t" lie, to the ex- 
 clusion of the other State-. Iiy whose comb ned ellorl- and common expiiise the 
 territory was deleiideil and preserved against the claim of the I>r!ti>h Guvernmfnt. 
 These difficulties caused nuich uneasiness during the war, while the ii-sue was in 
 some degree doubtlul, anil the future lionndar.i s of the United Stales yet to be 
 delin"d by treaty, it we acliieved our independence. 
 
 The majority of the Congress of ilie ('onfeih ration obviously concurred in opin- 
 ion with the Slate of Maryland, and de-ired to nblain from the States which claimed 
 it a cession ot this lirritory. in order that Congress might raise money on this 
 security to cany on the war. This :ip])ears by tiie ^e^oluti()n parsed on the (ith of 
 September, 1780, strongly urging th" States to cede thi se lands to the United 
 States, both foi the sake of peace aiid union among tliem-elve-, and to maintain the 
 public credit ; and this was toltowed by the resolution of October 10th, 1780, by 
 which Congress pledged itself, that it the lands were ceded, as reconimiMided by 
 the resolution above mentioned, they should be d:^po?ed of for ihe common benelit 
 of the United States, and be settled and formed into distinct republican States, which 
 should become members of the Federal Union, and have the same rights of sover- 
 eignty, and freedom, and independence, as other States. 
 
 But these difficulties became much more i-erious after peace took i)lace, and tho 
 boundaries of the United States were established. Every State, at that time, felt 
 severely the pressure of its war debt ; but in Virginia, and some other States, there 
 were large territories of unsettled lands, thi; sale of which would enable them to 
 discharge their obligations without much ineonveu'e ice ; while other Slates, which 
 had no such resource, saw before tliem many years of h( avy and burdensome tax- 
 ation; and the latter insisted, for the reasons before staled, that tlie-e un-ettled lands 
 should be treated as the common properly of the States, and the proceeds applied 
 to thi'ir common beneit. 
 
 The letters from the statesmen of that day will show how much this controversy 
 occupied their thoughts, and the dangeis that were appreheneh'el fre)m it. It wag 
 the disturbing element of the time, and fears wereent 'rtaiued that it might dissolve 
 the Confederation by which the Slates were then united. 
 
 These fears and dangers were, howver, at onee removed, wlien the Slate of 
 Virginia, in 1781. voluntarily ceded to the United States the mmense tract of coun- 
 try lying northwest of the river Ohio, and which was wiihia ihe ackn wledged limits 
 of the Slate. The only object of the State", in making this ce'ssion, was to [nit an 
 end to the threatening and exciting contreivirsy, and to enable the Cengress of 
 that time to dispose of the lands, and appropriate the prcceeds as a common fund 
 for the common benefit of the States, It was not ceded because it was inconvenient 
 to the State to h iliand govern it. nor fmm any expectation that it cejuld be better 
 or more conveniently governed by the' United Stat s. 
 
 The example of Virginia was soon afii'rwards followe'd by other States, and, at 
 the time of the adetption of the Constitution, all of ihe Staie-, similaily situated, 
 had ceded their unappreipriated lands, exeept Noith Candina and Ge'eirgia. The 
 main object lor which thesecessions were desired and mad', w.>son account of their 
 money value, and to put an end to a dangerous ceintrover-y, as to wlio was justly 
 entitled to th<' procee.'ds when the lanel should l)e sedd. It i< necessary to bring thia 
 part of the history e>f thea • ces-ions thu-disiiiictly into view, b-can.-eit will enable 
 us the betti'r to comprehend the phraseology of the article in the Constitution, bo 
 often referre d to in the «rgume'iif. 
 
 Undoubtedly the- powers of sovereignty and the eminent domain were ceded with 
 the land. This was essential, in orde r to make; it « ttectual. and to accomplish its 
 obje'cts. But it must be remembered tiiat. at that tim', thi re was nei Ge)vernment 
 of the' United States in existence with ennm"iiited and 1 luiied |)e>we'rs ; what was 
 then calle'dthe United Siales, were thlrt 'en a p irate, sove-ieign, inehpindent States, 
 which had ente:ed into a leagu" or confed. ration f r their nuitual protection and 
 advantage, and th- Congress of the Uiiii< d States was compe)sed ot the repiesentar 
 lives of these separate tovercignlieB, meeting together, us equals, to discuss and
 
 S4 THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. 
 
 drcide on certain Tticamres which the Statos, by the Articli'S of Confed'Tation, had 
 aprc'd to Mibniit to their decis oil. But tliis Coiif<derati<ni had none ot iho aitri- 
 bntfsol sovereignty in logi>lative, executive, or judicial pnwer. It \va.« liltl'- more 
 th m ii congress of araliassadors. iimhnrlsed to represent sepiirate nations, in maittrs 
 in which they had a common c "nceni. 
 
 It was tills congress th.it accepted the c^ssion from Vircinia. They had no power 
 to accept it under the Articles ol Confi'dirution. But ihey liad an uiidoulit«(l ri;;ht, 
 as independent soverigiities. to accept any cession of territory lor tiieir common 
 l»e:iefit, w hicli all of them absented to ; a;id it is equally cb ar. that as their common 
 pniperty, and having no sup rior to control them, they had the right to exerci-e ab- 
 solute dominion over it, subject only to the restriciiins which \'irginia had imposed 
 in her act of cession. There was, as we have said, no Governm 'iii of ihe Un ted 
 States then in existence with special eiuim'*rat«d and limited powers. The terri- 
 tory l)elonged to sovereignties, who, sutijcct to the limitations above menii>ned, 
 had a riglit to establish any form of Govci nmeut they pleased, by comp;»ct or treaty 
 anion -f them-ehe-, and to regulate rights of per.-on and rights of property in the 
 ten itory, as th-y ni'ght deem proper. It \va« by a Congress, representing tiie author- 
 ity of these several and srpiirate sovereignti' 8, and acting under their autnoiiiy 
 aid command ( but not from any authority d< rived from the Articles of Contedein- 
 tioi,) that the instrument usually called the ordinance of 1787 was adopted; ngu- 
 latiiig in much detiil the principles and the laws by which this territory should be 
 governed; and among otiier i)iovisions, slavery is prohibited in it. We do not ques- 
 tioi tlie power of the States, by a^ireement among themselves, to pass this ordin- 
 ance, nor its obligatory forceiu the territory, while the confederation or league of the 
 States in their separate sovereign character continued to exist. 
 
 This W.IS the state of things when the Constitution of the United States was form- 
 ed. The territory ceded by Virginia I elonged to the several confederated States as 
 common prop' rty. and they iuuruiiited in establishing in it a system of government 
 and jurisprudence, in order to prepaie it for admission as States, according to the 
 ter; s of the cession. They weie about to d'ssolve this federative Union, and to .=ur- 
 render a portion of th -ir indep ndent sovereignty to a new Government, which, for 
 certain purposes, would make the people of the several States one people, and wliich 
 was to be supreme and eontiolling wi'hin its sphere of action throughout the United 
 States; but this Government was to be carefully limited in its powers, and to exer- 
 cisi' no authority b-yond those expn s«ly granted by the Constitution, or necessarily 
 to be iinp'i'd' from the language of the in-trument, and the objects it was 
 intended lo accomplish; and as this league of States would, upon the adoption of 
 the new Government, cea<e to have any power over the territory, and the ordinance 
 they had agreed upon be incapable of execution and a mere nullity, it was obvious 
 that some provision was necessary lo give the new Government sufficient power to 
 en ible it to carry into . ffect the objects for which it was c ded. and the compacts 
 and agreements which the Sates had made with each other in the e.X' rc!.«e of their 
 po.vers of sovereignty, it was uece<s.ary that the lands should be sold to pay the 
 war debt; thit a Government and sy-:tem ot jurisprudence sliould be maintaiu'd in 
 it. to protect the citizens of the United States who should migrate to the territory, 
 in their rights of person and of property. It was also necessary that the new Gov- 
 ernment, about to be adopted, should be authorized to maintain Ihe claim of the 
 United Slates to the unappropriated laud'^ in North Carolina and Georgia, which had 
 not then l)e(!n cedi-d. but the cession of which was contidently anticipated upon 
 Bome terms that would be arranged between the G'-neral Government and these 
 tw) States. And. moreover, there were many articles of value besides this pro- 
 perty in land such a: arm-*, military stores, munitions, and ships of war, which 
 W'le the c iminoii prop -rty of the Slate-", when acting in their independe it charac- 
 ters as confed nates, which neiilier th? new Government nor anyone else would 
 have a right to take |)os<es<iou of. or control, without authority Vrom tiiem; and it 
 was to place these things under the guardianship and protection of Ihe new Govern- 
 m( nt, atid to clothe it with the necessary powers, tiiat the clause was inserted in the 
 Constitution which gives Congress ihepower " to dispose of and make all ne- dfnl 
 rnl s and ie,'uiatioas respecting the territory or other property belonging to the 
 Un ted States." It was intended f >r a specific purpose, to provide for tlie things 
 we have mentioned. It was to transfer to the new Government tlie property then 
 held in common bv the Sta'es, and to give to that Government power to apjdy it to 
 the object- ftir which it had b "en destined by mutual agreement among the Statis 
 before their le.igae was dissolved. It applied only to the property which the States
 
 THE URED SCOTT DECISION. S5 
 
 held in common at that time, and has no reference whatever to any territory or 
 other property which the ntw sovereignly might afterwards itself acfiuire. 
 
 The language us 'd in the clausi', ihe arraiigem>,'nt and conibiiiatiou of tlie powers, 
 and tht; som'-what unu.«nal phraseology it usis, when it speaiisof the political power 
 to be eX' rciscd in the govirnnieiit of the territory, all indicate tlie di.-ign and mein- 
 ing of the clause to l>e such &< we have nien tinned. It does not speak of any ter- 
 ritory, nor ot Terri orics, but uses langu;>ge which, according to its legitimate mean- 
 ing, paiuts to a partieul.ir thing. The power is given in relation only to the 
 territory of the United States — that if, to a territory then in existenc, and then 
 known or claimed as the territory of the United States. It begins its enumeration 
 of powers by that of di-posing, in other words, making sale of the hinds or raising 
 money fn)m them, whicii. as we have already said, was the main olj-ct of the ces- 
 sion, and which is accordingly the first th^ng provided for in the article. It th'U 
 gives the power which was necessarily associated with the disposition and sale of 
 the lands — tliat is. the power of making needful rules and regulations respecting the 
 territorv. And whatever construction may now be given to th-^se words evi-ry one, 
 we think, must admit that they ar-' not. the words usually employed hy state-men 
 in giving supreme power of legislation. They are certainly very u:ilike the words 
 used in the power granted to legislate over territory which the new Gov rnm' nt 
 might afterwards ii.self obtain by ces-ion from a State, either for its sent of Govern- 
 ment, or for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings. 
 
 And the same power of making n.'ed'ul rules respecting the teriitory is, in pre- 
 cisely the same language, applied to the nther property belonging to the United 
 States — associating the power over the territory in this respect with the power over 
 movabl*' or per-onal prop"rty — that is, the ships, arms, and munitions ot war, which 
 thna belonged in common to the State sovereignties. And it will liardly be s lid, 
 thai this power, in r' lalion to the last-mentioned objects, was deemed necessary to 
 be thus sp ci-tUy given to the new Government, in order to authorize it to make 
 needful rules and regulations respectiig the ships it might itself buld. or arms and 
 muniti )ns of war it m ghl itself ma'mracture or provide f^or the i)uljlic s ivic'. 
 
 No one. it is believed, would think a moment of deriving the power of Congress to 
 make needful rules and regulations in relation to property ot this ki.d from this 
 clau.«e of the Constitution. Nor can it, upon any fair cons ruction, be ap|ilied to 
 any prop 'rty, Imt that which the new Government was about to receive from the 
 coiifederated States. And if this Ije true as to this property, it mu-^t be equally 
 true anl limited as to the territory, which is so carefully and precisely coutih d 
 with it — and like it ref rred to as property in the power granted. 'iJie concluding 
 words of the clau.=e appear to render this construction irresistilde ; for, after the 
 provisions we have mentioned, it jnoeeeds to say, " that nothing in the Constitution 
 shall be so cotistrued as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any par- 
 ticular State.'' 
 
 Now. as we have before sa'd, all of the States, except North Carolina and Georgia, 
 had made the C'ssion b"fore the Ci)nstiiutir)ii was adopted, according to the reso- 
 lution of Congress of October 10. 1780. The claims of other States, tl at the uiiap- 
 proi)riated lands in these two Slates should be applied to the comirio i lieu'lit, in 
 like manner, was still insisted on, but refused by the States And this iniinber of 
 the clause in que-fon evid iitly aiipli s to them, and can apply to noliniigelse. It 
 was to exclude the conclu-ion that either party, by ad^ pting the Constitution, would 
 surrender what thy d-enied their rights. And when tlie latter provision relates so 
 obviously to the nipappropriat'<l lands not yet ceded Ijy the States, and t!ie first 
 clause makes provis o:i fur those then actually ceded, it is impossibh;, by any just 
 rule of construction, to make the lir>t provision ge.ieral, and extend to all terri- 
 tories, wh ch the Federal Governme it might iu any way afterwanis acquire, when 
 the latt r i- plainly and unequivocally confined to a particular frritory; which was 
 a part of th ■ same controversy, and involved in the same dispute, aid depended 
 u()on llie same princph-s. The union of the two provisions in Ihe same clause 
 rIiows that they wi-re kinlnd subjects; and that the- whole clause is lo.'al, and r- 
 lates only to finds, within the limits ot the United States, wliich had 1) en jr then 
 were c'almed by a Sate; and that no other territory was in the mind of the fra- 
 mers of th^; Constitution, or int'^nded to be embrac d in it. Upm any other coi- 
 ftruction it would be impossible 10 account for the insertion of the last provision in 
 the place where it is found, or to comprehend why, or for what object, it was asso- 
 ciated with theprev'ous provision. 
 
 This view of the subject is couhrmed by the manner in which the present Govera
 
 36 THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. 
 
 meitof th'^ Utiit^'d Still's d!alt with the fuhj -ct as sooi as it caim int> oxUtenco. 
 It mn<t be Imrni; n miml that t'le simo Stat-s that lormiil the Ooilelention also 
 forme 1 and adopted thj njvr Goverum r.d, to which so large a po-tion of ihcir for- 
 m T 3 .VL-r.-iirn p »w ts were surr.'iidered. It mast als » be borni in mind that all of 
 th ;se -a:ii ; Soa es which hid Lhen ratiti -d the n;w Con-titirim were repn'SiiitiHl in 
 thi! C ingress which parsed the first law tor the g )vernm 'iit of t:ii-< territory; and 
 many of th" in.'inbers of tliat legislalii'e body had b«en deputies fr "-n the Sates 
 under the C mfederaion— had united in adopting th; ordinance of 1787, and assHt- 
 ed i 1 form! ig the no.v Govenim 'nt under which they were ihe;i aoiing, and who-e 
 pow i"s ihey were then eXTcisiiig. And it is obvious fro n the law they passed to 
 cirry i ito eff ct t'l" prnciples and provision-" of the ord'naic?. that they regard 'd 
 it as the act of the Stat js done in the ex -rcise of their legitim He powers at the lim?. 
 Th ! iiew(xo\'ernme li took the territory as itf luml it. and in the cmdition in wlii-h 
 it was' tr msferred, and did not attempt to undo anything that h id b jen done. And, 
 am y.ig th ■ e irHe't laws pa--<ed und'r th; new Gov.'rnm;nt, i-^ one r-'viving the or- 
 dinance of 1787, which had b -com; inoperative and a nullity upon the adoption of 
 the Co.istitution. This la.v introduces n? new form or principlei for its gnvern- 
 m nt, but reciter, in th' preamble, tliat it is pisn-d in order that this ordinance 
 may continue to have full eflfect, and proceeds to maite only those rules a id ro?nla- 
 tions wiiich were needful to adapt it to the new Government, into whose hands the 
 power had fallen. It appears, therefore, that this Congress regirde I the purposes 
 to wh ch thi; land in this Territory was to be anpli 'd, and the form of governm:; it 
 and princ'ples oljurspru lence which were to prevail there, while it remained in 
 the Territorial State, as already determined on by the States when th -y had full 
 p )wer a id right to make the d'cision; and that the new Governm -nt, having re- 
 ceived it in this conditiim, ouglit to carry substantially into eff ct the plans and 
 princ'pl'S which had bien previously adopted by the ritate%and which, no doubt, 
 the States anticipated when they surrend-red their power to the uew Governm'nt. 
 And if w ' regard this clause of the Constitution as pointing to this TeiTitory, with a 
 Territorial Governmentalready established in it, which had been ceded to the States 
 for tlie purposes hereinbefore mentioned — every word in it is perfectly appropriate 
 and easily understood, and the provisions it contains are in p 'rtect harmony with 
 th ' obj cts f)r which it was cede 1, and with thecondi;ion of its governm nit iis a Ter- 
 ritory at t le t ra '. We can, then, easily account for the manner in wnich the firet 
 Co igr 3-i 1 -gislat d on the subject — and can also understand why this power over 
 th ' territory wa^ associated ii the same clause witli the otiier property of the United 
 Slates, and subjected to the like power of making needful rules and regulations. 
 But if the clause is construed in the expanded sense contended for, so as to embrace 
 any territory acquired fr^m a foreign nation by the present Government, and to give 
 it in such territory a di-spnt'c and unlimited power over persons and jiroperty, such 
 as th'! conf'd 'rated States might exercise in their common prop;ity, it would be 
 difficult to account for the phra-^eology used, when co:np\red with other grants of 
 power — an I also for its association with the other provisions in the same clause. 
 
 The Co istitution has always been remarkable for the felicity of its arrangement 
 of d ffji-'Uit subjects, and the perspicuity and appropriateness of the language it 
 us 's. But if this clause is construed to extend to territory acquired by th ; present 
 Gov -rnm nt from a fi)reign nation, outside of the limits of any charter from the 
 British Government to a colony, it wouM be ditficult to say, why it was deemed 
 necessary to give the G )vernm -nt the power to sell any vacant lands belonging to 
 the soveieignty wh ch m'ght be found within it; and if this was u'cs^ary, wiiv the 
 grant of ihs p.iwer sliould precede the power to legislate over it and establish a 
 Governme it tlnTe ; and st 11 more dilTicult to say. why it was deemed n'cessary .so 
 specially and particularly ti grant the power to makeiieedlul rules and regulations 
 in relation to any p u's )nal or movable property it might acquire there. For the 
 words, niher property, neco-sarily. by every known rule of interpretation, must mean 
 properly of a diff-'ruit d 'Sjriptio i from territory or land. And the dilUculty 
 would periiaps be insurmountable in endeavoring to account for tlie listm'inbor of 
 the sente ice, wh ch provides that ' iiot!ii)ig in this Constitution shall bj so con- 
 Birued iis to pr jndice any claims of the United States or any particular Stite." 
 or to say how any particular .Stat" could have claim-! in or to a territory ceded bj 
 a foreign Government, or to account for associating this providou with the prece- 
 ding provisinns of the clause, wit i wliich it would app >ar to have no connectioii. 
 
 The words " needful rules and regulations " would seem, also, to have been cau- 
 tiousl/ u8Jd for some deiiaite object. Thej are not the worda usually employed bj
 
 THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. 81 
 
 8^at'i'•n"Il. wh>n I'loy m;.i!i to g ve tlie po.ver.s ot s iVL-r./urnty, or lo eotvbli.ili a 
 Gov .'in iKvit. i.r to aut'iorise its ustablishine it. Tbiia. in ilie \i\v lo re:iew and koop 
 alive 'hi! or liiiiace of 1787, luid to re-ijsta'>ii<li the Gov(;r iiiitjut, the title of 'lie 
 law is : "'An uci to provide lor the goveinineiit of the territory northwi'st of the 
 river Ohio." Airl in tlie C >iistilut;oa, when granting the power to legislate over 
 til- lenilory lii.it in ly be selecie.l lor the seal oi Governineat indepe.idontiy of a 
 Stile, ii d.M'S n >t .-ay Cjogre s s-h ill have p >wer •• lo make all neediul rules and 
 reguluii.ias re-pctii.;? ih; lerr.tory ;" but it d -clarcs lh.it "C^)ngre.-8 shall have 
 pover to exero.se oxjLisive l.gidation in all cases \vh.it~oever over .such District 
 ( no! cxjeeJin,' ton miles square ) as may, by c 'ssioii of partcular Slaies and the 
 aoo ptuioe oi Con^cress. bjc )m.; ihi seal of tlie Gover.imeat of the Uiiit.;d States. 
 
 The word-i '• rules and re,j;ulati->ns" are usually employed in the Constitution in 
 spealc n^ of some p.irticular sp'cilied p >wer which it means to confer on the Gov- 
 ernm nC. a id not, as we have .-e^n, wh 'U gr.inting general powers of k'gi>latioa. 
 As fore.ximple, in th- pirticular pow.n- to n^res-s "lo make rule.-, tor the govern- 
 ra-nl anl rjgaiitiun of t\\i land and naval forces, or ih: particular and sp.citic 
 p)wer I.) ivg ilale com n Tc; ;•' '• to esiablis'i an uniform rtde of naturalization;" 
 'toe tin mo ley and re^uLUe ih3 value thjreof." And loconslru; the words of 
 whicii we are sp -ak n,' as a gmjral and unlimit;d grant of sovereignty over terri- 
 tories whicj til J Govjrnm nt m ght afterwards acquire, is to use tliem in a sense and 
 fur a pup >se tor walch th y were not us' d in any other part of the instrument. 
 Bat if c ):ili.iel Id a part cul.ir Territory, in which a Government and laws had al- 
 rea ly 'leen e-t ibllshed, but which would require some alterations to adapt it to the 
 n w G.ver.immt, the words are peculiarly applicable and appropriate lor that 
 purpose. . 
 
 The necessity of fiis special providon in relitioa to property an 1 the rights or 
 propjrty h-id in comno.i bv the conL'der.ite 1 States, is illustrated by the first 
 claus ! of th; si.Kih article, this clause provides that "all debts, contracts, and en- 
 gaicem; Its eni Ted into before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid a- 
 gainst Ih : Unit ;d Sta;euiiider this Governm ;at as under the Confederation." Thia 
 provisioi. 1 ke tli -one und-rconsiderat o i, was indispensable if the new Cun.stitution 
 w,is alopt d Th; new Governm jnt was not a m-re change in a dynasty, or in a 
 form of g iveriin nt, leaving ihe nation or sovereig.ity the same, and clotned with 
 all the rigits. an I bound by all the obligations of the preceding one. But, when 
 the present Un te I States came into exisie.iCi und r the new Government, it was a 
 new p ditical i>ody, a new natio i, tiien tor the tirst time taking its place in the fami- 
 ly of nitio. is. It to>k uothing by succesdon from the Confederation. It had no 
 rigiit, as its suc:;essor, to a ly property or rights o! prop rty which it had acquired, 
 a:id was mil lia'ole for a ly of its obligat ons. It w.is evidently viewed in this light 
 by t!ie fra ners of tlie Con>titu'io:i. And as the several States would ceaseto exist 
 i,i their former c mf-d rated character upon the adoption of the Constitution, and 
 could not, in thai, character, again assemble tog itlier, special provisions were indis- 
 peisible to trans er to the new Government the pmpjrty and rights which at that 
 time th -y heid in com;non; and at the same time to authorize it lo lay la.ves and 
 apitropriat' mo i-y to pav the common debt which they had contracted; and this 
 power could n.iiy be given to it by sped il provisions in the Constiiut:on. The 
 clause il lelat o i to the territory an I other properly of the United States provided 
 fur die fir.st. an 1 the clause last quoUd provides for the other. They have no con- 
 nection with the general powers and rights of sovereignty delegated to the new 
 Gov rnm nt, and can neitiier e.ilarg; nor dimnish them. They were inserted to 
 me jl a pre.sent em Tgjiicy, and not lo regulate its powers as a Government. 
 
 Indeed, a simi ar provision wa- deemed neces-ary, in relation to treaties made by 
 the Coifed ral.o.i ; aid when in the cla ise next succeeding the one of which we 
 have last >p .k.'i, it is declared that treaties shall be the supreme law of the land, 
 care is lake i to include, by expre.-s words, tie Ireaiies made by the confederated 
 States. The language is : " and all treaties mid ', or which shall be made, under 
 the authority of the United States, s lall b ; the supreme law of the land." 
 
 Whelh r. ih;reloiv, We take the parte ilar clan-e in quesiion, by it-elf, or in con- 
 nection wit i ilie o h;r provoions ofihj Consiiiution, we think it clear, that it applies 
 only to liie pirticular territory of which we have spoken, and cannot, by any just 
 rule of in erpr^titi-n, be 'Xtnled lo territory which the new Governmeat might 
 aflerw.irds ooia n tro n a Ibreig.i nation, ConswiUL-ntly, the power which Congioss 
 may have law.ull/ exjrcisel in this Territory, waile it remained under a Territorial 
 Government, and which may have been sanctioned by judicial decision, can luratah
 
 38 TIIR DRKD SCDTT DECISION. 
 
 11' > justification nnl no !\rj;iiin"nt to support a similar ox'^mis? of power over f^ni- 
 tory iil'tirwiird-* :\c(iuireil by the Fed'T.il Gov.-r inioiit. SVc put aside, tli r'loro,. 
 aiiynrguineiit, drawn from prect-dents, shoving tlw cx'- nt nf Hil- po vi-r which the 
 Ge;ior"l (lov.Tnineiit ex.rciscd over elaviiy ia this Territory, as altogether iiiap- 
 plicublo to the c.ise before us. 
 
 But the case <if the American and Oc^an In-urance Companifs v. C inter (1 Pet., 
 511) lias been quoted usestablshiiig a ditTi-rent coiistnieiio i of thi-* ciiiu-e of tho 
 Coustituiion. Th re is. liowcver, not the sli^'^htesi conflic- b •tw.'eii the op nion now 
 giveu and t':ie one ref.rred to; and it is only by taking a single pentencc out of the 
 latter and s parating it from the context, tliiiteven an appearanc of conflict cm be 
 shown. We iie'd not comment on pucIi a mode of expound'Ug an opinion of the 
 court. Ind ed it most commonly misrepresents instead of expound n-^ v. And tiiig 
 is fully exemplilied iu the case referred to, wiiere. if one sent 'nee is taken by itself, 
 the oplniiin would appear to be in direct coiflict with that now trivi-n: but the 
 words which immediately f iU(-w that seutence ^bow tlint the court did not mean to 
 dec de tin; point, but merely affirmed the power of Congreas to establish a Govern- 
 ment in the Territory, le.iving it an op n question, whether that power was derived 
 from this clau^e iu the Constitution, or was to be nect3«arily inferred from a ])Owcr 
 to acquire territory liy cession from a foreign Govenunent. The- opinion on this 
 part of the case is phort. and we give the whole of it to show how well the selection 
 of a single sentence is calculated to mi-lead 
 
 The passage referred to is in page 542, in which the court, in speaking of the 
 power of Congress to establish a Territorial Government in Florida until it should 
 become a State, uses the f dlowing language : 
 
 " In the mean time Florida continues to be a Territory of the United States, gov- 
 erned by that clause of the Constitution whicli empowers Con.uress to make' all 
 medl'ul rules and resulalious respecting the territory or other prop-rty of the United 
 States. Perhaps the power of eoviruing a Territory belonging lo the United States, 
 which has not, l)y becoming a State, Mcquind the meais oT self government, may 
 re.sult. necissarily, from the facts that it is not within the jurisdiotinn of any partic- 
 ular State, and is witliiu the power and juri^dict'on of the United S atcs. The right 
 to govern may be the ineviialde consequence of tlie right to aocpiire territory. 
 Whichever may be the source from which the power is dcriveii, the possession oj it it 
 unquestionable^'' 
 
 ll is thus clear, from the whole opinion on this point, that the court did not tnean 
 to decide whether tlie power was d Tivel from t!ie clause iu the Constitution, or was 
 the nece-sary consequence of the right to acquire. They do decide t'lat th • power 
 in Con"-rcss is utique?tionabIe, and in this we entirely concur, a id n nhing will be 
 found Ml this opinion to the contrary. The power stands tirmly on the latter alter- 
 native put hy the court — that is, as "/Ae inevitable consequence of the right to acquire 
 territory.'' 
 
 And what still more cV-arly demonstrates that the eonrt d'd not mean to d'-ctde 
 the question, but leave it open for future consid ration, is the fict that the case w;\3 
 decided in the Circuit Court by Mr. Ju^ic • John-on. and his doc sion was affirmed 
 by the Supreme Court. His opinion at tho circuit is given in full in a note to the 
 case, ai:d in that opinion he states, in explicit term-, that the clause of t!ie Cousti- 
 tulicin applies only to the territory then within the limits of the United States, and not 
 to Florida, which had been acquired liy cession from Spa'n. This pari othisopin on 
 will be found in the note in page 517 of the rep )rt. But he does no! dissent from (ho 
 opinion of the .Supreme Court; thereby siiowing that, in his judgment, as well as tliat 
 of the court, the case before them did not call for adee'sion on that particular point, 
 and the court al stained from deciding it. And in a part of its opiiuon subsequent 
 to the passage we hav(! quoted, wiierc 'ho court speak of the legislative power of 
 Ccmgress iu^Floiida. they still speuk w r.h the pame reserve. And in page 546, 
 epcakin\' of the jiower of Congress lo autnorise the Territoral Legislature to estalv 
 lish courts tlx're, the court say: "They are legislative courts, created in virtue of 
 Ih ! ge leral right of sovereignty whieli oxi-ts in the (^>vernme:it, or in virtue of 
 that clause whkih < nibles Congress to m ike all needful rules and regulations respec- 
 ting tht! territory beh)ngitig to th-' United .States.' 
 
 It has been .-ai 1 that the construction given to tliis clause is new, and now for the 
 first lime brou-ht forward. Tlie ease of which we are sp -aking. and which has 
 been ^0 much dis.'n.-sed. show- that the fict is otherwi-e. It shows that precisi>ly 
 the same qii stioii came before Mr. Justice Johnson, at his circuit, thirty years 
 a-ro— waf lully cousidered by him, and the same coustruction giVen to the clause
 
 THE DEED SCOTT DECISION. 39 
 
 in the ConPtitution which is now given by this court. And tlint npon an appeal 
 from his dtclsloa the game question was brouiiht l)-'for'^ this CDUrt, but wis nut 
 decided because a deci.-i(in upon it wa-; not minired by the case before the court. 
 There is a;iothcr sentence in the opinio i whicli h;is been commented on, which 
 even in a siill more siriiiing manner shows how one may mislead or be misled by 
 taking out a single seuteuoe from the op'n o;i uf a court, and leaving ont of view 
 whut precedis and follows. It is in pag,- 5-i(J, near the close of tlie 0|>iiiion, in 
 which the ccmrt say: '• In legislating lor them,'" ( the tcrritoriis of tlie United 
 States,) '■ Congress exercises the conioinid powers of the General and o( a Slate 
 Government." And it is said, that as a Slate may unqnot onably jiroliibit slavery 
 witbia its territory, this stntenee decides in ell'ejt that Congress may do the same 
 in a territory of the United States, exercising there the pawer8 of a State, as well 
 as the power of the General Government. 
 
 The examination of this passage in the ca=e referred to, would be more appropri- 
 ate when we come to consider in another part uf this opinion what power Congress 
 can cons.ituiiu laliy exerci-o in a Territory, over the rights of person or rights of 
 property of a citizen. But, as it is in the s ime case with the pa-sage wo have be- 
 fore commen;ed on. we disposeof it now, as ii will save the court Irom the necessity 
 of referring again to the case. And it will be seen upo:i reading the page in which 
 this sentence is found, that it has no reference whatever to the power of Congress 
 over lights of p-TSon or rights of property — but relates altogether to the power of 
 e-tablishing judicial tribunals to a Iniinister the laws constitutionally passed, and 
 deliaiug the jurisdiction they may exercise. 
 
 The law of Congress establishing a 'I'erritorial Government in Florida, provided 
 that the Legislature of the Territory should have legislative powers over •' all right- 
 ful objects of legislation ; but no law should bj valid which was inconsistent wilb 
 the laws and Coosiitntioa of the United States.'' 
 
 Under the power thus conferred, the Legislature of Florida pa«sed an act, erec- 
 ting a tribunal at Key West to di'cide casis of salvage. And in the case of which 
 we are speaking, the question arose whether the Territorial Legislature could ba 
 authorised by Congres-. to establish sneh a tribunal, with such powers; and one ol 
 the parties, among other objections, in-isted tiiat Congr.'ss could not under the Con- 
 st;tut;ou authorise the Legislature of the Territory to establi-h such a tribunal 
 with sueh powei-s, but that it must be est iblished by Congress itself;_and thai a sale 
 of cargo made undi.-r its order, to pay salvors, was void, as made without legal au- 
 thority, and passed no property to the purchaser. 
 
 it is in disposing of this objection that tlie sentence relied on occurs, and tho 
 court begin that part of the opinio.i by stating with great precision the point which 
 they are about to decide. 
 
 they say : '• It h is been contended that by the Constitution of the United States, 
 the judicial power oi the United Stat'S extends to all cases of admiralty andinari- 
 tim,' jurisdiciion; and that the whole of ihe judieial power must be vested 'in one 
 Supreme Court, and in such interior courts as Congress shall from timi' to time or- 
 dain and estaljlf-h.' Hence it has bee;i argu/d that Coagress cannot vest admiralty 
 jurisdiction in courts created by the Territorial Legislature." 
 
 And after thus clearly stating the point h' fore them, and which they were about 
 to decide, they proceed to show that these Territorial tribunals were not constitu- 
 tinnal courts, but merely legislative, and that Congress might, therefore, delegate 
 tiie power to the Territorial Government to establish the court in question ; and 
 they conclude that part of the opinio i in the following words; -'Altliough admiralty 
 iurisdiction can be exe-rei-ed in tneStat'S in thos' courts only which are established 
 in pur.Mianc! (jf tlie third article of the Coastitution, the .«ame limitation does not 
 exte id to the Territories. In higislatiiiu' f^r tlhm. Congress exercises the com- 
 bined powers of the General and State Governm-nts.'' 
 
 Thus it will Ijc .seen by these quotations from the op"nion, that the court, after 
 Etatiijg the question it was about to decide iu a manner too plain to be misunder- 
 stood, proceeded to dicide it, and announced, as the opinion of the triliunal, that 
 iu organizing the judicial departm ,'nt of the Government in a Terr t ory of the 
 United States. C<tngie-s does not act nnd'T. and is not restricted by tiie third ar- 
 ticle in th • Constitution, and is noi bound, in a Territory, to ord lin an 1 cstalilish 
 courts in whicii the judges hold llieir < fliccs dur ng good b' havionr, but may ex- 
 crcis' the discrtionary power which a State ex- ici-.es in establishing its judicial 
 department, and regulating the juridiciioi of its courts, iind may authorize tho 
 Territ(»rial Government to establish, or may itself establish, courts iu which the
 
 40 THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. 
 
 ju(lf»es hol'1 their oflRc's for a tTm of yc irs only: and may vest in thorn judicial 
 power upon .suliji'Cts coiifiilfd to the juilic'iry «t tin- riiit<-(l Stitcs. And in doing 
 this, Congres-i undoub cdly i-X'Ttis-s th- combitiod pow r of the G"n«ral and a 
 State Government. It exerc s -s the di-cr t onarv power of a S ate Governm' nt in 
 authorizing the estahlishm lit of a court in which iIk- jiidge< hidd their appoint- 
 ments for a term of yeas only, and not dnrng good behaviour: and it exercises the 
 power of the General (iovernment in inve<iiiig that court with admiralty jurisdic- 
 tion, over which the General (Tovenim-nt iiadex -lu-^ive jnr sdicii n in tiie 'I'errii'iry. 
 
 No one, we presume, will question the correctness of that opini"n: nor is ih-re 
 anything in conHict with it in the opinion now given. The point de- ded in the case 
 cited has no relat.on to the question now b fore the court. That d<'pended on ttie 
 construction of the th'rd article of tlie Coi^^titntion. in relation to the Judiciary of 
 the United Stites, and the power which Congre8> might exercise in a Territory in 
 organizing th" judicial department of the Government. The ca-e In-lore us depends 
 upon other and different provisions of the Constitution, altogether sepirate and 
 apart from the one above mentioned Th • question as to what courts Congress may 
 ordain or establish in a Territory to administer laws which the Con-iitution author- 
 izes it to pass, and what laws it is or is not authorized by the Constitution to pass, 
 are widely ditferent — are regulated liy diff rent and separate articles of the Consti- 
 tution, and stand upon different piineiples. And we are satistied iliat nt) one who 
 reads attentively the page in I'eters's Reports to wh ch we have referred, can sup- 
 pose that the attention of the court was drawn for a mom nt to the question now 
 before this court, or that it meant in that case to say that Congress Imd a r ght to 
 prohibit a citizen of the United States frotn taking atiy property which he lawfully 
 held into a Territory of the United States. 
 
 This brings us to eximine by what provision of the Constitution the present 
 Federal Government, under its delegated and restricted powers, is authorized to ac- 
 quire territory outride of tlie original limits of the United States, and what powers 
 it may exerci-e therein over the jierson orproprty of a c tizeii of the United Slat- s, 
 \\hile it remains a Territory, and until it shall be admitted as one of the States of 
 the Union. 
 
 There is certainly no power given by the Constitution to the Federal Govern- 
 ment to establsh or ma'utain colonies borlering on the United States or at a dis- 
 tance, to be ruled nnd goverm d at it« own pleasure: nor to enlarge its teiritorial 
 limits in any way, except by the admission of new States. That power is plainly 
 given; and if a new .'^t.ite is adinitti d. it n^eds no further leg'slatioii from Congn ss. 
 because the Constitution iis -If d -fines the relative rights and p avers, and duties of 
 the State, and tiie citizens of the State, aiid the Federal Government. But no pow- 
 er is given to acquire a Territory to be held and governed permanently in that 
 character. 
 
 And inde "d the power exercised by Congress to acquire territory and establish a 
 Government tl ere, according to its own uniimited discretion, was viewed with 
 great j'alousy by the leading statesmen of the day. And in ihe Feiler ili-t. (No. 38.) 
 written by Mr. Madison, he speftks of th • acq lisiiion of the Xortliwestprn Territory 
 by theconfeder.ited States, by the cess on frotn Virgiina. and the cstablislunent of 
 a Government there, as an exercise of power not warranted by the Artid 'sof Con- 
 federation, an 1 dan.cerous to the lib'ities of th • people. And he urge* the adop- 
 tion of the Constitution as a security a:id safeguard against such an exercise of 
 power. 
 
 We do not moan, however, to question the power of Congress in this respect. 
 The power to expand the terr toiy of the United States by the adu) ss on of new 
 States is jdainly given: a id in the construction of this power liy all the ilepart- 
 ments of tlie (iovernment, it has lieen held to anliioriz" the acqui^iliim of ten iiory, 
 not fit for adiniss'on at the tim", but lol)' admitted as s>on as it- pipiilation and 
 situation would entitle it to admi sion. It is acquired to become a State, and not 
 to behf'ld as a c ihmyand L'overned l)y Co.igres- wiili ab-ojuieaulhoriiy; and as the 
 propriety of ad iTii I ti;"g a new Stale is cominitf;! to ihesomd discreti n of Congress, 
 the pow r to a q ir • teiritory for that purpose, to be held l>y Ihe United States 
 until it is in a suitable condiiion to become a Slate upon an equ d fo iting with the 
 other States, must rest upon the s ime di-cretiou. It i< a question tor the p >lit'cal 
 department ol lh<' Governtnent. and not the judiciil: au<l whatever the political 
 departme.it of the Govemmiit shall nc 'gnize as within the limits of the United 
 States, the judicial department is :il,s i bmnd to recog lize, a id to administer in it 
 the laws of the United States, so far as they apply, and to muinlaiu in the Territory
 
 THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. 41 
 
 the authority and rights of Ihe Government, and also the por-onnl rights and 
 riijhts of property of individual cit'zen«, i\s secured liy ti)e Coiistituiion. All we 
 m ';in to siy on lliis p int is. that, :is there i< no express regiiiuiion in th(! Constitu- 
 tion deliningtho power which tiie General Government may < xi-rcise ovtr thi- person 
 or property of a citizen in a Teriitory thus iu-qnind, ihe court niu.-t n( cei-sirily 
 look to thi- provisio.is a id j>rinc'ples of the C(jn<tituti(in, ami its distribution of 
 powers, for the rules and principles liy which its decision must be governed. 
 
 Taking this rule to guide us, it may be salely iissumed that ciii/.eas of tlie United 
 Stat".s who mij:iate to a Ten iiory lielo:igi;ig to the p opl-' of the Un ted Stab s, cannot 
 be ruled as mere colonists, depeudint upon tlie will of the Gem nil Government, and to 
 be governed liy any law.s it may think jirop'T to impose. The priixple upon which 
 our Goveininents rst, and upon wliicli alone they continue to exist, is the un on of 
 States, sovereign and indepen<lrni within their own limits in tiieir internal ami do- 
 mesiic cone rns, and bouiul togellier as one peoi)le by a General Governm 'ut, pos- 
 sessing certain onumeiated and r( stricted powers. d"legiited to if by the people of 
 the s 'veral States, and exercising supreme authority within the scope of the ])owers 
 granted to it, through ut the dominion of the Unit' d Slates. A imwer. iherelore, 
 in tlie Generd Govmnment to obtain and hold colonies and depend nt territories, 
 over which they m'glit legislate wiihout restriction, would b' incon.-i>tent wiih its 
 own existence in its present lorm. Whatever it acquires, it acijuires for the benefit 
 of the people of the several .^tat-s who created it. It is th"ir trustee act ng for 
 them, and charired with the duty of promdting the interests of the whole people of 
 the whole Union in the evereise of the powers specifically granted. 
 
 At the time when the Territory in question was obtained by ce-sion from France, 
 it contain! d no population lit to be associated together and admitted as a State; 
 and it th^ refore was absolutely necessary to hold poss '.'sion of it, as a TerritiTy be- 
 longing to thr United States, until it wa> settled and inhabilid by a civilized com- 
 munity ctpable of self-government, and in a condition to bo admitted on equal 
 terms with the other .Stales as a memljc- of the Union. But. as we have before said, 
 it was acquired by the General Governrn'mt, as the representative and trustee of 
 the people of the United States, and it must therefore be held in that character for 
 their common and equal benefit; for it was the people of the several States, acting 
 through their agent and r'presenlative. the Federal (Jovrrninent, who in fact acquired 
 th<'Ti rriiory in qu 'st'on. and the Gov< rnment holds it for tlieir common u?e until 
 itshall be associated with the other States as a member of the Union. 
 
 But until that time arrives, it is undoubtedly necssary that f-omo Government 
 Bhould be established in ord'T to organize society, and to protect the inh.ibitants in 
 their pn-sons and prop rty; and as the people of the United States could act in tiiis 
 ma'ter o ily throui,di ilie Government which represented them, and through which 
 they spoke a id acte<l when tlu' Territory was olitained, it was tiot o ily within the 
 scope of iis powers, but it was its duty to pass such laws and establisli such a Gov- 
 ernment as would enable those by whose autiioriiy they acted to reap the advant.igea 
 aniicipi^ted from iis acquisition, and to gather there a population wh eh would ena- 
 ble it, to a-sume the p isition to which it wasdtsiined among the S;at(Sof the Union, 
 The pow r to acquire nece.'-s uily carries with it the power to pn serve and apply to 
 the purposes tor which it wa- aequiri d. The form of governuu nt to be establ.shed 
 nec<s-ari!y n sted in the discretion of Congress. It wa.s their duly to otablish the 
 one that would Ijc best suited for the jirotection and security of the eiiizmis of the 
 United State-, and other inhabitants who m ght be authorized to take up theirabode 
 there, and that must always depend upon the existing condition of the Territory, as 
 to the number and ch iract r of its inhabilantr., and their situation in the Territory. 
 In some case- a (iover.iraent. consisting of persons appointed by the Federal Gov- 
 ernment, would b'St subserv • the interests of the Territory, win n the inhabitants 
 were ft'w an I scattered, and new to one another. In other instances, it would be 
 more advisable o co nmit the powers of self-governmi nt to the p 'ople who had set- 
 tled in thi Territory, as i)eiag tlie most competent to determine wh it was best for 
 their own interests. But some form of civil autlioiity would be absolutely neeea- 
 eary to organize and jir'serve c vlizeil society, and prepare it t > become a State ; 
 and what is tlie be-u form must al.vavs depend on the condition of th ■ territory at 
 the lime, and the choice of the mode innst depend upon the ex icise of a discretion- 
 ary power by Co igress, a'-ti ig wlihin the scope of it^ constiliuional authority, and 
 not infringnig upon th'i rights of per-so-i or rights of property of the citizen who 
 might go thu-re to reside, or for auy other lawful purpose, it was acquired by the
 
 42 THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. 
 
 exorris'^ of lliis (Vpcniioii, and it must be held and governed in like mannpr, until 
 it ''S fitii d lo !>■ 11 Slate. 
 
 But ihe powr of Coiiirre^P over the person or propffty of a ciiizfn can never 
 b** a ni' re d screiinnary power U!id>T our Cun^titulion and form ol GovernmenL 
 Th» powf|-s of (lie G'VtTnment and ihf rijj'ils and privilcg-s of (he ciiizi'ii an- rejj- 
 ulitel and plainly di-lined by the Constitution itsdf. Aiid when tiie T>riitiry 
 l)<'Com<8 i\ p:irt ot th" UniiMl Stutes. the Fdleral Govi-rnment ontt-is into po>se--ion 
 in ilie c!:aract<;r inipnssid upon it l>y tno.«<' wlio created it. It ei.ters upon it with 
 it« povers ovr thi' ctizen strictly defined, and limited by the Constiiiition. from 
 which it dfT ve.« it^ own existence, and by virlu'- of which alone it continu's to 
 exi-t and act as a Govemm'-nt aid sovereignty. It lias no power of any kind be- 
 yo id it; and it cannot, when it enters a Territory of tiie United Statis. put '«n its 
 character, and a.^i-urni' discivtinnary or despotic powers which ihe Con-tituton has 
 denied lo't. It cannot create for i Silf a new character s para; ed f.om the c 'izena 
 of the Unled States, and tlie duties it owes tlicm under the pMvisiun.s of the Cod- 
 stilution. Th" Territory beint; a part <tf tlie United States, tiie Gi.verninent and 
 the c t z -n both enter it undi r the antliority of the Constitut on, with thi ir reFpec- 
 tive rights defined and maiked out; and tlie Federal (Government can exercise no 
 power over his* person or property, beyond what that iustiumcnt confers, nor law- 
 fully deny any right which it has res -rved. 
 
 A reference to a few of the previsions of the Constitution will illuftrate this 
 pr 'position. 
 
 For eximple. no ono, we presume, will contend that Centres? can make any law 
 in a Territory respectin-.; the establishmetit of religion, or the tree exercise thereof, 
 or ahr'dcrinn; the trecilom of speech or of the pre-s, or the right of the people of the 
 Terriioiy peaceably to assemble, and to pciition the Government for the redress 
 of ffrievances. 
 
 Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and benr arms, nor the 
 right to trial l^y jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a crim- 
 inal proceeding. 
 
 These powers, and others, in relation to rights of person, wldi h it is not neces- 
 sary here to enumerate, are, in express and positive term<. den • d to the General 
 Govrnment: and the right- of private property have been guarded with • qual earo. 
 Tlius therghts of property are united with the rights of p -r-on. and placed on the 
 aim" ground by the filth amendment to the Con-titution, which provi !es that no 
 person sha'l b" d' privtMl of life, lilierty. a:'d iiroperty. without due process of law. 
 And an act of Congre-s which deprives a citizen of the Unite 1 States of his lilieriy 
 or property, merely 1 eraus" he came himself or brousiht lii* property into a partic- 
 ular Territory of the Ui.it>d Sijiie-', and who had committed no otfeuce against the 
 laws, could hardly be diirnifi il with the name of due proc-ss of law. 
 
 So. too, it wll harilly be contended that Congress could l>y law quarter a soldier 
 in a house in a T' rritory without 'he consent of the owu'r, 'n time of peace; nor 
 in time of war. hut in a manner prescribed by law. Nor could tliey by law forfeit 
 the property of a citizen in a Territoiy who was convicted of trea-on. for a longer 
 period than th • lite of the p rsou couvicied; nor take private property for public 
 use without jiist compen.-ation. 
 
 Til" powi rs over person and property of which we speak are not only not granted 
 to Congress, bnt an; in expres-i terms denied, and they are forbidden to exercise 
 them. And this prohil)lti< nis not confined to the States, but the word< are general, 
 and extetid to lli" whole territory over which the Con>t tution gives it power to 
 legis'at ". inc!u lingtho^e portions of it remaining under Trnitorial Government, as 
 well :is tha covred by .States. It is a total alisence of powi r everywhere withia 
 Ihe domitui n of the Unit d States, and places the citizens of a Terr'Iory. so far as 
 the-e riiihis are concerned, on the same looting with ci iz-nsot tlie States, and 
 guards them as firmly tmd plaitily against any inroads wiiich tlie General Govern- 
 ment mijlit attempt, under tne jilea of imi)lied or incid 'iital powers Atid if Con- 
 press itself canint do th's — if it is beyond the powers e(m!err d on the Fe<leral 
 Government — it will be admitted, we jire-ume, that il conld not i\uthorise a Terri- 
 torial flovc rnment to ex'ivisc Ihem. It could conler no power on aiiy heal Gov- 
 ernmnt. e-iahlisheil by its authority, to violate the pr. visions of the Constitution. 
 It setnjs. h()wev< r. to be supposed, that there is a «lifieri nee between jiropi rly in 
 a nlave and other pri perty. and that diflfvrent rules )nay be ap] lied to it in cxi>oun- 
 diug the Cousiituliun of tl.e United Slalca. And the laws and usages of uatious,
 
 THE DEED SCOTT DECISION. H 
 
 and tte writinga of eminent jurist'' upon tbo relation of master and slave and their 
 mutual rights and duties, and the powers which Goverumeuts 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 tlieir Gov- 
 ernment, and interfering with tbi'ir relation to each other. The powers of the Gov- 
 ernment, and the rights ot 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 exercifc others. It has no power ovi r tlie 
 person or property of a citizen but what the citiz' ns of the United Stites have 
 granted. And no laws or usages of other na'.ions, or reasoning of stutesmen or ju- 
 rists upon the relations of master and slave, can enlarge the j)owers of the Govern- 
 ment, or take from the citizens the rights tliey have reserved. And if the Consti- 
 tution recognizes the right of property of the master in a slave, and makes no 
 distinction between that description of property and oth^r prop 'rty owm d by a 
 citizen, no tribunal, acting under the authority of the United States, whether ii be 
 legislative, executive, or judicial, has a right to draw such a d stinct'on. or dei.y 
 to it the benefit of the provisions and guarantees which have been piovidtd for ihe 
 protection of private property against the encroachments of the Government. 
 
 Now, as w? have already said in an earlier part of this opinion, upon a dill'erent 
 po'nt. the right of propf^rty in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in ihe 
 Constitution. The rigtit to traffic in it, like an ordinary article of m^ rchandise and 
 property, was guarantied to the citiz mis of the United States, in every State that 
 might desire it. for twenty years. And the Government in express terms is pledged 
 to protect it in all future time, if the slave escapes from his owner. This is done in 
 plain words— too plain to be misunderstood. And no word can be found in the 
 Constitution which gives Congress a greater power over slave property, or which 
 entitles property of that kind to less protection than property of any Oiher des- 
 cription. The only power conferred is the power coupled with the duty of guarding 
 and protecting the owner in his rights. 
 
 Upon these consid-^rations. it is the op'nion of th" court that the act of Congress 
 which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of tliis kind in tlie 
 territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned, is not warranted 
 by the Constitution, and is therefore void; and that neither Dr< d Scott himself, nor 
 anv of his familv, were made free by being carried into this territory; even if tliey 
 had been carried there by the owner, with the intention of becoming a permanent 
 resident. 
 
 "We have fo far ex^imined the case, a' it stands under the Constitnt'on of the 
 United States, and the powers thereby delegated to the Fed'ral GovernuKnt. 
 
 But Ih're is another point in the ca.«e which depends on State power and State 
 law And it is contended, on the part of the plaintiff, that he is made free i.y being 
 taken to Rock Island, in the State of Illinois, independently of his re>id-nce in tlie 
 territory of the United States; and being so made free, he was not again reduced to 
 a state of slavery by being brougiit back to Missouri. 
 
 Our notice of this part of the case will be very brief; for the principle on which 
 it depends was decided in this court, upon much consideration in the case ot Sira- 
 deret al r Graham, reported in lOlh Howard, 82. In that case, the slav( shad been 
 taken fro-n Kf-ntncky to Oliio. with tiie consent of the owner, and afterwards brought 
 back to Kentucky And this court held that their status or condition, as free or 
 slave d.-pended upo'i th- laws of Kentucky, \\hen they w. re brongiit back into that 
 State and not of Ohio: and that this court had no jnrusdici:on to revise the jtulg- 
 ment'of a State court unon its own laws. Tiiis was tlie point directly before tlie 
 court, and (he decision that this court had not jurisdiction turned upon it, us will 
 be seen by the report of the case. . . ,v c. . nn- • i, i •= 
 
 So in this case. As Scott was a slave when taken into the State of Illinois by his 
 owner and was there held as such, and brought back in that character, hi>^ status, as 
 free or slave, d-p-nded on the laws of Missouri, and not of Illinois. 
 
 It ha" howev.T, been urged in the argum.'nt, that by the laws of Missouri he was 
 free en his return, and that this case, therefore, cannot be govein-d by the ca>e of 
 Sirad.T et al v. Grnl am. where it appeared, by the Ihw^ of K( mucky, tl.at the 
 Blaiiitiffs continued to be slaves on their return from Ohio. But whatever doubts 
 or oninioiis mav, at on-- tim-. have been entertained u|.on th's .-ubj. ct, we are sat- 
 ifificd upon a careful cxauiiuation of all the cases decld. d in the State courts oi
 
 44 THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. 
 
 Missouri referred to, that it is now firmly settled by the decisions of the highest 
 court ill the Statu, that Scott aud his fam ly upo;» their re urn were nttt tne, but 
 wre, by the liws of Mi^ouri, the property of the de:tndiiut; and that the Circuit 
 Court of the Uuited Suit -s had no jurisdiction, when, by tlie laws of the State, the 
 plaintiff w is a glave, and not a citizen. 
 
 Moreover, the plaintiff, it appears, brought a similar action apainst the defendant 
 in the State Court of Ml.-souri, claiming the freedom ofhim-olf a:id his family upon 
 the same grounds and the t-ame evidence upo:i which he rel es in the case belore the 
 court The case was carrii-d befure the Supreme Court of the Slat •; was fully ar- 
 gued there; and that court decided that neither the plaint ff nor his family were 
 entithd to freidom. and were still the slaves of the def-ndint; and rever^ed the 
 judgment of the inferior State court, whicii h id given a different decision. If the 
 plaintiff suppos'Ml t'.iatihis judgment of the Supreme Court of the Slate was erron- 
 eous, and that this court h;id jurLsdiction to revise and rev( rse it. the only mode 
 by which he could legally bring it bef )re this court was by writ of error directed to 
 tlie Supreme Court of thi Slate, requiring it to iranf^mit the record to this court. 
 If this had been done, it is tio plain for argum nt that the writ must have been 
 dismissed for want of jurisdiction in this court. The c;use of Strader and others v. 
 Gr.v'.iam is directly in punt; au'l, indeed, iddependentof anydeci-ion, the language 
 of the 2.5th secuon of the ace of 1789 is too char and precis ■ to admit of controversy. 
 
 But the plaintiff did not pursife the mode prescribed by 1 iw for brinudiig tlie 
 judgment of a State court before thi^ court for revision, b t suffered the case Ui be 
 remanded to the inferior State court, wliere it is >till co:itinued, and is, by agree- 
 ment of parlies, to await ihe judgment of this court on the point. All of this ap- 
 pears on the record beloie us, and by the printid nport of tiie case. 
 
 And while the case is yet open and pending in t!ie inf rior State court, the plain- 
 tiff goes into the Circuit Court of the United States, up.n the same case and tlie 
 same evidence, and against the same party, and proc eds to judgment, and then 
 brings here the same case from the Circuit Court, whic'i the law would n.)t have 
 penuitted him to bring directly from the State court. And if this court takes jnris- 
 dietion in iliis form, the result, so far as thi? riglits of the respective parties iire 
 concerned, is in every respect substantially the >aine as if it had in op ii vioiat'ou 
 of law entertained jiiVi-diction over tlie judgni 'tit of the State c^'urt upon a writ of 
 error, and revised and reversed its judgment upon the ground that its opinion upon 
 the question o! law w is erron /ous. It would i;l becom • this court to sanetion sueh 
 an attemfit to evad ■ tlie law, or to ex rcise an appellate power in th s circuitous 
 way, which it is forbidden to exercise in thedirect and regular and invariable loims 
 of judicial proceedings. 
 
 Upo:i tiie whole, therefore, it is the judgment of this court, that it appears by the 
 record before us that the plaintiff in error is not a citizen of Mis.-ouri. in the sense 
 in whieh that word is used in thj Constitution; and that the Ciicu t Court of the 
 United St it-s, for that reason, had nojutisliction in the case, aud could give no 
 judgment in it. Its judgment for the dei'endant must, consequently, ix^ leversed, 
 and a mandate issued, dir^cliug the suit to be diamissed for want of juriidic.iou.
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 [From the New York Day-Book, Not. 10, 1857.] 
 
 NATURAL HISTORY OF THE PROGNATHOUS SPECIES OF MANKIND. 
 
 BT DR. SAMUEL A. CAUTWRIQUT, OP NEW ORLEANS. 
 
 It is not intended by the use of the term Prognathous to call in question the 
 black man's humanity or tlic unity of tim hum in r.ices as a genus, but to prove 
 that the spsvies ot the ge:iu.s homo are not a unity, but a plural. ty, each i-s-aen- 
 tially different from the others — one of thum biiini? so unlik; thj other two— 
 the oval-headed Caucasian and the pyr.imidal-heud.'d .Mo:igoiia!i — as to be ac- 
 tually prognathous, like the brute creation; not that the negro is a brute, or 
 half man and half brute, bat a genuine human being, anatomically constructed, 
 about the head and face, more like the monkey tribes and the lower order of 
 animals than any other fp cies of the genus man. Prognathous is a tichnical 
 term derived from pro, before, and p;7iaihos, the jaws, iiidicat'ng that the muzzle 
 or mouth is anterior to the brain. The lowr animals, according to Cuvicr, are 
 distingui.shed from the Euiopi'au and Mongol man by the mouth and face projec- 
 ting further forward in the profile than the brain. He expres.scs the rule thus : 
 face anterior, (ranium posterior. The typical negroes of adult age, when tried by 
 this rule, are proved to belong to a diff rent sp C!c.'« from the man of Europe or 
 Asia, because the head and fnCJ are anatomic illy constructed more aft-r the fash- 
 ion of the simiadia; and the brute cre.ition than the Cauua-ian and .Mongolian .specii s 
 of mankind, their mouih and jaws projecting beyond the forehead contain ng the 
 anterior lobes of the brain. Moreover, their faces are proportioaally larger^than 
 their crania, instead of smiUer, as in the other two specie.-^ of the g^nus man. 
 Young monkeys and young negroes, however, are not prognathous like their par- 
 ents, but become so as thn' grow older. The head of the infant ourang outang is 
 like that of a well formed Caucasian child in the projection and height ot the fore- 
 head and the convexity of the vertea. The brain apfiears to be larger than it re- 
 ally i.", because the face, at b rth, has not attained its proporfoiial sizj. Tiie face 
 of the Caucasian infant is a little under its proportional s z,- when compared with 
 the cranium. In the infant negro and ourang outang it is greatly so. Although 
 80 much smaller in infancy than the cranium, the (ace of the young mo.ikey ulti- 
 mately outgrows the cranium; so, al.-o. doesthe face of the young negro, whereas 
 in the Caucasian, the face always continues to b- smaller than the cranium. Tne 
 Buperfices of the face at p iberty exceeds that of the ha'ry scalp both in the negro 
 and the monkey, while it is always less in the while man. Young n^onkeys imd 
 jroung negroes are sup Tier to white cliil hen of the s im ; age in m mory and other 
 intellectual facultie-. 1 ho white infant ooires into the world with its brain inclos- 
 ed by fifteen disunited bony plates— the occip'tal bi(n i b 'iiig dividi'd into four par;s, 
 the_ sphenoid into three, the iro.:tal into two, each of t'le two temporals into two, 
 which, with the two pirietals. make fifteen pla'es in all— the vomer and ethmoid 
 not being ossified at liirlh. The bon s of the head are not only disunited, but are 
 more or less overlapped at b rtii. in conscquenci of the 1 irgene3< of the Caucasian 
 childs head and the smallne-s of ts mo:hers p Iv's, giving the iiead a i elongat -d 
 form, and an irregula , knotty feel to tin- touch. The negro infa it. h.>wi'V(>r, i.s born 
 with a small, hard, smo'ith, nmnd 1 ead like a gourd. Instead ol the frontal and tem- 
 poral bones being divided into si.K plates, as in the white child, thy form but one bone 
 in the negro infant. The head is not only sma'ler than that ot tliewhit.- child, but the 
 pelvis of the negress is wid -r than ihit ot the white woman— its greater obliquity 
 also favors parturitiou and prevcnits mi.«carriage. 
 
 Negro c'.iildren and white ciiildr n an; alke at birth in one remarkable particu- 
 lar — they are b ilh born wkite, and so much alike, as far as color [^ concerned, as 
 scarcely to be distinguished from eic!i other. Ii a very short t'me. hiwevr, the 
 skin of the n 'gro infant begins to d irkm and cont nues t > grow d nk ;r until it b •- 
 comes of a shining black color, provide 1 theclrld b- heilthy Thi.'skiii will beco ne 
 bla k whether e.xposed to the air and lig'it or not. Th : black i ss is not of as de p 
 a shade during the first years of life, a.s afterwards. The black c ilor is uot so «l"ep 
 in the female as in the m le, nor in the feeble, sickly negro as in thj robu-t and
 
 46 APPENDIX 
 
 healthy. Blackness is a ch/vracteristic of the prognalhous species of the genus homo, 
 but all the vuiio ii's of all the i)ro:^aathoii8 ppccies aru not equiilly bliiok. Nor are 
 the indiviiliuiLs of the same family or variety eqiuilly 80. fh; lighter shades of 
 color, when uol d'Tived from admixture with Mongolian or Cauea>ian blood, indi- 
 cate degeneratiiin iu the prognalhous s^pecies. The IlolteutDt", Bushmen aud abori- 
 gin-s ot Aiislnilia are inferior in mind aud body to the typical African of Guinea 
 and the Nis^er. 
 
 The typical negroes themselves are more or less superior or inferior to one 
 anoth T pn cistly ii8 they approximate to or recede from the typical standard iu 
 color and forni, due allowance being made for age and ?cx. Tiie standard i- an 
 oily, shining black, and as far as the conformation of the head and face is concerned 
 ana the relative proportion of ncivous matter outside of the cranium to the quau- 
 tity of cerebral matter within it. Is found between the simiadia; aud the Caucasian. 
 Thus, in the tvpical negro, a pi'rpendicular line, let fall from the forehead, cuts otf a 
 large portion of the face, throwing the mout'i, the thick lips, and the prnjecting 
 teeth anterior to the cranium, but not the entire face, as in the lower an'mals and 
 monk'-y trib .s. AVhen all, or a greater part of the face is thrown anterior to the 
 line, the negro apprnximates th • monkey anatomically more than he doe.-? the true 
 Caucasian; and when little or none of the face is anterior to the line he approxi- 
 mates that mythical being of Dr. Van Evrie, a black white man, and almost ceases to 
 be a negro. The black mm occasionally seen in Africa, called the Bnture Dwiu, 
 with high nose, thin lips, and long straight hair, is not a negro at all, but a Moor 
 tanned by the climate — because his children, not exposed to tbe sun, do not become 
 black like himself The typical negro's nervous system is modelled a little diffe- 
 rent from the Caucasian and somewhat like the ourani? outang. The m'-dnllary 
 Epinal cord is largei' and more developed than in the white man, but less so than in 
 the monkey tribes. The occipital foramen, giving e.xt to the spinal cord, is a third 
 longer, says Cuvier, in proportion to its breadth, than in the Caucasian, and is so 
 obi que as to form an angle of 30' with the horizon, yet not so ol>l;que as in the 
 simiadia;, but sufficiently so to throw the head somewhat backwards and the face 
 upwards in the erect position. Henco, from the obliijuity of the head and th ,' pelvis, 
 the negro walks steadier with a weight on his head, as a pail of water for instance, 
 th in without it; whereas, the white man, with a weight on his head, has great diffi- 
 culty in maintaining his centre of gravity, owing to the occipital foramen forming 
 no angle with the cranium, the pelvis, the spine, or the thighs — all forming a 
 straight line from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot without any of the 
 obliquities seen in the negro's knees, thighs, pelvis and head— and still more evi- 
 dent in the ourang outang. 
 
 The norv(,'S of organic life are larger in the prognathous species of mankind than 
 in the Cauca.«ian species, but not so well developed as in the simiadiic. The brain 
 is about tenth smilb-r in the prognathous man than in the Frenchman, as proved 
 by actual measurement of skulls by the French savans, Palisot and Virey. Hence, 
 from the small bran a id the larger nerves, the digestion ot the prognatiious epecies 
 is better than that of the Caucasian and its animal appetites stionger, approaching 
 the >imiadae but stopping short of their beasliality. The nostrils of the prognathous 
 species of mankind ope i higher up than they do in the white or olive spjcies, but 
 not so high up as in the monkey tribes. In the gibbon, for instance, they open be- 
 tween the orbits. Althonirh the typical negro's nostrils open high up, yet owing to 
 the nasal bones being shot t and 11 it, there is no projectioti or prominence formed 
 between his orbits by the bones of the nose, as in the Caucasian sp cies. The nos- 
 trils, however, are much wider, about as wide from wing towing, as the white man's 
 mouth from corner to corner, and the internal bones, called the turbinate 1, on which 
 the olfactory nerves are spread, are larger and project nearer to the opening of the 
 nostrils t'lan in the whit; man. Hence the n "gro approximates the lower a limals in 
 his si-nse of smell, and can detect snakes by that sense alon-. All the sens /s are 
 more acute, but I's-; dlicate and discriminating, than the white man's. He has a 
 good ear for m<diMly but not for harmony, a keen taste and relish for foo 1 but less 
 diserimiu iting between the dilfecent kinds of esculent substances than the Cauca- 
 sian. His lips are imm wisely thicker than any of the white race, his nose broader 
 anil flatter, his chin smaller and more retreating, his foot flatter, broader, larger, 
 and the heel longer, while he has scarcely any calves at all to his legs when com- 
 
 Eared to an etiu.illy healthy and muscular white man. He does not walk flat oa 
 is feet but on the outer sides, in consequence of the sole of the foot havin^? a di- 
 rection inward ^, from the legs and thighs being arched outwards and ths knees bent. 
 The verb, from which hia Hebrew name la derived, points oat Uu." dere'f po^itio' of
 
 APPENDIX *7 
 
 the knees, and also clearly expresses the servile type of his ininS. Ham, the father 
 of Cun;uui, when trai\slat<d into plain English, r.-ads that a black man was the fa^ 
 tber of the slave or knee-bending s^pecies of mankind. 
 
 The blackness of th- proj^naiiioiis race, known in Ihi world's history as Ca- 
 naanites, Cu>-hiies, Ethiopians, black men or ncgrois, is not confined to the s^kin, 
 but pervMik's, in a greater or l-ss dgre •, the whole i:iward man down to the bones 
 tiiemselves, giving the flesh and the blood, the me mbrancs nnd every organ and 
 part of the body, cxcipt the bone!!, a darker hue tlian in the white race Wlio 
 knows but what Canaan's mother may have been a g' nuine Cu-hite, as Mack inside 
 as out, and that Cush, which m.'iins blackness, was the maik put uiou Cain? 
 ■Whatever may have been the m;irk set upon Cain, the m gro, in all aiie> ot the 
 world, has c.u"rled with him a mark equally etfieient in preventing liim from being 
 slain— the murk of blackness. The wild Arabs and hostile Amurican Indians in- 
 variably catch the black wanderer and make a slave of him instead of killing him, 
 as they do the white man. 
 
 NicU. PecUlin, in a work written last century entitled " De cult Athi'tpum," Albinns, in another 
 work, entitled " De sedeet causa efforts Athiop," as al~o the creat German anatomists. Jl.iners, F.bel, 
 and Soemmering, all bear witness to the fact tbat the muscles, blood, membranes, and al: the inter- 
 nal org ns of the body, (the bones alone excepted.) are of a darker hue in the negro than in the 
 white man. They estimate the difference in color to be equal to that which exists between the hare 
 and the rabbit. Who ever doubts the fact, or h.ig none of those old and impartial authorities at 
 hand— impartial because they were written before England adopted t!.e poHcy of pre.«sing religion 
 and science in her service to place white American republican freemen and Guinea negroes upon the 
 same platform— has only to look into the mouth of the first healthy typical negro he meets to be 
 convinced of the truth, that the entire membraneous lining of the inside of the cheeks, Ups and 
 gums is of a much darker color than in the white man. 
 
 The negro, however, must be healthy and in good condition — sickness, hard usage and chrome 
 ailments, pariicularly that cachescia, improperly called consumption, speedily extracts the color- 
 ing matter out of the mucou< men braues, leaving them pal^r and whiter than in Iht- Caucasian. 
 The bleaching process oi bad health or degeneration begins in the bloo.l, membranes ami muscles, 
 and finally extiaclii so much of the coloring pigment out of the skin, as to give it a dull, «^hy 
 Appearance, sometimes extracting the whole of it, converting the m-gro into the albino. Albi- 
 noism or cucoi-is does not necessarily imply hybridism. It occurs among the pure Africans from 
 any cause pr<Kiu(;ing a degeneration of the species. Hybridism, however, is the most prolific source 
 of tbat degeneration, ajmetimes the degeneration sliows itself by white spots, like the petals of 
 flowers, covering different parts of the skin. Tlie Mexicans are subject to a similar degeneration, 
 only that the spots and striiies are black instead of white. It is called the pinto with them. Even the 
 pigment of the iris and the coloring matter of the Albino's hair absorbed, giving it a silvery white ap- 
 pearance, and converting him into a clairvovant at night. According to I'rolessors Brown, Seidy and 
 Gibbs, the negro's hair Ls not tubular, like the" white miu's, but it is excentriciUyeliptical with Batten- 
 ed e iges, the coloring matter residing in the epidermis and not in tubes. In the place of a tube, the 
 shaft of each hair is surrounded with a scaly covering like sheep's wool, and, like wool, is capable of 
 being fvlled. True hair does not possess that property. Tlie degeneration called Albinoism has a 
 remarkable influence upon the hair, destroying its coarse, nappy, wooly api'carance, and converting 
 it into fine, long, soft, silky, curly threads. Often, the whol- external skin, so remarkably void of 
 hair in the healthy negro", becomes covered with a very fiue, sUky down, scarcely perceptible to 
 the naked eye, when transformed into the Albino. . 
 
 Mr. B.jwen, the celebrated Baptist missionary, (see his work entitled Central Africa and Missionary 
 Labors from 1849 to 1856, bv T. .1. Bowen, Charleston, Soutliem Baptist Publication Society, 18o7,) 
 met with a great m.iny eases of leucosis in SuU'lan or Xegrokind back of Liberia, and erroneously 
 concluded that these people had very Uttle, if any negro blood in them, and would be better subjects 
 for missionarv labors than the blacks of the same country. They are, however, nothing but whiU 
 black men, a degeneration of the negro proper, and are even less capable of perpetuating themselves 
 than the hybrids or mulattoes. Mr. Bowen is at a loss to account for the depopulation, which he 
 Terifieshas been going on in Soudan the last fifty years, threatening to leave the country, at no dis- 
 tant lime, bare of inhabitants, unless roads be c<mstructed by the Christians of the southern States 
 forcoram-rcial intercourse, and double exertions made to civilise and Christianise the waning popu- 
 lation of Central Africa before it entirely disappears. The good missionary, though sent out from 
 Georgia, was evidently taught in that British school which assumes th»t there is only a sm;,'le species 
 in the genus homo, in opposition to the Bible, that clearly designates three. That school quotes 
 the references iu the saired v.dume, implying unity in the genus—a unity which no one denies— to 
 disprove the exi stence of distinct siecies, and upon this fallacy builds the theory that negro, Indian 
 and white men are beings exactly alike, because they are human beings. Ergn, the liberty so bene- 
 ficlal to the white man, would be equally so to the negro— dis.egarding as a fable thos- words of the 
 Bible expres-ly declaring that the latter shaU be tervant of unanlt lo the former— words which 
 would not have been there if th;U kind of subordination called slavery was not the normal condition 
 of the nice of Ham. To expect to civihse or ChriitianLse the negro without the interTention of 
 slavery is to expeC. an impossibility. , .. ^. .■ ■ 
 
 Mr Bowen's experience and natural good jense occasionally got the better of hn theoretical 
 Tiews. Ihns, at paga 90, we find him confessing that "the nitive African negroes ought to have 
 in<ster»inobedi.ncetothedemands<if natural justice." At page 149 he leis us into the seciet 
 
 missii.narv, wh.. was present al the beheading, made n.. comment fur' aer than to >tate tim tact. 
 But he might h«»» added that the blood of that negro, anJ millioua ut others, will be leijuired at
 
 48 APPENDIX. 
 
 the hani^H of Vic'oria Rofcina hn<\ the Unile.l St»te» for having offioiouslT destroyed the ralue of 
 ne«;ro (jp'perty in AlncH by hriaking up the only trmle tliat evr prot.-cte<l the oatiTe Africani 
 •gainst tlie huti-lieri*"*, crut-Iliei' ami l■pprel<^il•^« of their mulatlo, M.Mirixli and Malioinme<1an 
 tyrantK It in ihe/-e hiitcl.Hriej> and cruel lien, and the lit lie care taW«-D of ihe hUck man in Africa, 
 the la,--t flflv yearn. Rince he became valueleRn Ihr .ugh B:iti»h and American pliilanlhropy, 'hat 
 li« at the root of the depopulating procen-i whi h ia (toing on in the "lark land of the Niger. 
 Km|itv hiig< are now fiileil with liead< instead of cowries. Mr. Bowen was surpri.sed to »ee ao 
 few black men in Smlan. where, half a century ago, he Navn tliey were »o oumeroua. But he 
 rather iei;ard>: it as a lortiinate circum.'^iance, as he haa do hope ol clirinlinniisiog the typical 
 neifrii, »• xcept ihrouifh slavery to Christian masters — and tha' idea ia iibh>irrent to the fchool ia 
 which liH wiis tauijtit ; but he has more hope from the mixed races, and thefe. he confesses, can- 
 not be .-ffi-ctually christianised until civilised. He deplores the bad example of the black 
 race, am<>i)g iheni, iheii- pul\gamy, &c., aa greatly in the way of civilising the mulattoea. But 
 he has overhi<keil the important fact, aa many do, tlat Ihe existence of the hybrids themselves 
 depends upon the existeni-e of the typical Anicana. The extiuclion of the lailer must, of necea- 
 sity. be Hooii followed by the extincliun of the former, as they cannot, for any length of lime, pro- 
 pagAte amc.og iht-mselves. 
 
 Mr. Bowen inferrt-d tliat the negroes of Central Africa, although diminishing in numbers, are 
 rising hiifher in the scale of humanity, from the very small circumstance that they do not emit 
 from their bodies so strong and so offensive an odor as the negro slaves of Georgia and theCaro 
 linaa do, nor are their skinsof so de. p a black. This isa good illustration ol the important truh, 
 that all the .langer of the slnvery question lies in the ignorance of Scripture and the natural his- 
 tory ol the nngro. A litile acqiaintance with the negro's natural history would prove to Mr. 
 B'lwen thai the strong odor emitted by the negro, like the deep piiftnent of the skin, ia an indica- 
 tion of high health, happini'ss, and good treatment, while its deficiency is a fure signofunhap- 
 pinesa, dist-ase. ba''. treatment, or degeneration. The skin ol a hatipy, hea'thy negro is not only 
 blacker and more oily than an unhappy, unhealthy one, but emits the strongest odor wh>-n the 
 body ia warraeri by extrcise and the aoul is filled with the most pleasurable emotions. In the 
 dance called pa/lintj juber. the odor emitted from the men, int->xic ited with ple.4sure. Is often 
 so p iwerfiil a^ to ilimw the negro women into paroxysms of unconsciousness, vulgo hysterics. 
 On another point of much importance there is no practical difference between the Rev. missionary 
 and that clearheaded, bold, and eccentric <dd Methoiiist, Dr. McFatlane. Roth believe that the 
 Bible can do ignorant, sensual sav:tge.s no good; both believe that n lUing but compulsatory 
 power cau restrain uncivilised barbarians fiom polygamy, itebriety. nc i other sinful practices. 
 
 The good mi-sionary, however, believes in the possibility of civili.siu, ihe inferior races by the 
 money and means of the Christian nations lavishly bestowed, after wU.'-h he thinks it will be no 
 difH:uU matter to convert them to Christiauiiy. Whereas the venera >le Methodist believes in 
 the impossibility of civilLsng them, and therefore concludes that the ttiuieu Word was not in- 
 tended for those inferior races who cannot read it. When the philusophy of the prognathous 
 species of mankind is better understood, it will be seen how they, the lowest of the human spe- 
 cies, can lie made partakers, equally with the highest, in tlie blessings and benefits of the Written 
 Word of God. The plantation laws against polygamy, intoxicating drinks and other besettiiig sins 
 of the negro race in the .savage state, are gradually and silently converting the African barbarian in- 
 to a moral, rational and civilised being, thereby lendeiing the heart a fit tabernacle for the reception 
 of Gospel IruUis. The prejudices of many, perhaps the majority of the southern people, against 
 educating the ne:;ioes they hold in subjection, ari.se from some vague and indefinite fears of its con- 
 sequences, suggested by the Abolition and British theories built on the false assumption that the 
 negro is a white man with a black skin. If such an assumiition had the .smallest degree of truth in 
 it, the more prolound the iguorance and the deeper sunk in barbarism the slaves were kept, the 
 better it would be for tliem and their masters. But experience proves Miat masters and overseer* 
 have nothing at all to fear from civilised and intelligent negroes and no trouble whatever in manag- 
 ing them — liiat allthe trouble, insubordinatijn and danger arise from the uncivilised, immorai, rude, 
 and grossly i,'nor'(nt portion of the servile race. It is not the ign irant semi barbarian that the 
 master or overseer entrusts with his keys, his mon^y, his h'^rse or his gun, but the most intelligent 
 ou th« plantation — one who.se intellect and morals liave undergone the best training. An educated 
 negro, <me whose intellect ami morals have been cultiva'.ed, is worth double the price of the wild, 
 unciil'ivated, black barbarian of Cuba, and will do twice as much work, do it better and wi^h le&s 
 trouble. 
 
 The prejudices against educating the negroes may also be traced to the neglect of American div- 
 ines in making th- mselves acquainted with Hebrew literature. What little the most of them know 
 of the meaning of Ihe untranslateil terms occuring in the Bible, and the siguifica.ion of the verbs 
 from wliicli thiy are derived, is mostly gathered from British commentators and glossary makers. 
 Who have blinked Ihe facts that disprove the Kxeter Hall dogma, that negro slavery is sin against 
 God. Hence, even in the South, the important biblical truth, that the white man derives his au- 
 thority to govern the negro from the Great Jehovah, is seldom proclaimed from the pulpit. If it 
 were proclaimed, the master race would see deeper into their responsibilities and look closer into the 
 duties they owe to ihe people whom God has given them as an inheriianoe, and their children after 
 them, so long as lime shall last. That mm has no fa th in Ihe Scriptures who believes that educa- 
 tion could defeat (jod's purposes, in subjecting Ihe black man to the government of the white. On 
 the contrary, experience proves its advantavies, to both parties. Aside and apart from Scripture au- 
 thority, natural history reveals most of the same facts, in re:arc| to the ne^ro that the Bible does. 
 It pioves the existence of at least three distinct s|)ecies of the g-nus man, dilfering in their instincts, 
 form, habiU ami color. The while species having qualities denied to the black — one with a free 
 and the other with a servile mind^ine a thinking and n-fleclive being, the oflur a creature of feeling 
 and imitation, almost void of retleclive faculties, and consequently unable to provide for and take 
 care of himself. The rel.itiim of master and slave would naturally spring up betwf'n two such diff- 
 erent snecies of men, even if there was no Scriplur" authority to support it. The relation thus es- 
 tablished, being n.itural, would be drawn closer together, instead o severed, b/ the ioferiur imit*< 
 ting the superior ia all his ways, or in other wurd;i, acquiring an eJucaaon.
 
 
 THK XEW YORK DAY-BOOK was »tarte<1 to coinlwt the moiicrii lieresies of AbxUtionism, 
 in<l 1ms ever since t-toaiUly |>ur.<up<l tlial object lt< rcniiluctur.s recuiriiiy.p t!iP (Trent fiict— which 
 a new era lias inaiiifunitetl, and which evpii tlie sovercivtris of Eiiri>|ie iimv bow befon — that opinion 
 rules the world. Kor a quarter of a century the imiiimi^ and dangerous doctrines of Abolitionism — 
 which sprang up in nionarchial ED-jland — have been illustriously pnipai^ated in the Tnite'l States. 
 For years no one ventured to question the funJanieu'nl piinriples which its advocates a'iopted as 
 the premise.^ of their ar,'uments. Milli<uis of imices of niaUer have been circulated, and th<Misands 
 upon thousands of dollars expended in gigantic efforts to corrupt nien'> minilK with the lioctrine 
 that negroes are entitled to the same rights as white men, and that the neifro race is not naturally 
 inferior, but artificially deeraded The ItAYnonK denies this :ind repils it. It seeks to show 
 tliat were the negro race incorporated and amalgainalecl with the white citizenihip, it would so 
 '..-base and ileteriorate the latter as to unileriiiim- 'quality nrrumg whiU: men and render Demo- 
 r:icy ami Republican institutions impracticable ami impossible. If any doubt should exist on 
 his iM)iDt it i.s only necessftry to look at Mexico, Central America and the countries south of us, 
 and witness the ruin, the degradation, the punishment, nii.sery, anarchy, and even death, which 
 follow all attempts to incorporate ilifferent races in the same political .system Yet, we have a 
 p:irty in the North, growing in strength, which advocates tliis, and repudiates the decision of the 
 Sui)reme Court, that negroes cannot be citizens of the United States, and boldly threatens to'sieze 
 the government and reverse the just ami righteous judgment ! Yea, more, it refuses to perform 
 the solemn obligations our fathers entered into when they formed the confederai-y ! It denies 
 co-equal States the .same riehts in the common Territories ! It makes voters of negroes in Massa- 
 chusetts, and places them even above white men ! In a word, it seeks to reverse ihe laws of 
 nature, as embodied In true Democracy, and restore to this countrv all tho>e artificial distinctions 
 which have made Europe the home of oppre.s.-;ion and the hospital of outraged ami down-trodden 
 humanity. It is now workinir with all the power which desperation infuses to elect a I're-ident 
 in 1860 who thall inaugurate its dangerous doctrines. Are iho.-e who wish to see our country 
 united and happy, as it is already proud and prosperous, going to stand still anil see this accom- 
 plished ? Can any one doubt th.it the success of such a party would not be fraught with untold 
 dangers to this Republic? Ami does not the jireseiii crisis demand the earnest co-operation of every 
 lover of his country to roll back tlie tide of public .'.eutiment, which years of active abolition 
 teachings have developed? Shall not a generatii>n be educated who will drive this Briti.sh dogma 
 from our soil ? lo all who feel that this is a desirable work— who feel that it is important and 
 necessary to defeat" thi.s sectional party in 1860— the DAY-BOOK look.s for patronage and active 
 jpport 
 
 THE EVENING DAY-BOOK 
 
 Is published KVERY AriT.li.NOOV (.-Sundays excepted), ai d .oiilains all the latest news up to the 
 hour olgolng to jiress. It h.is tlie latest telegraphic news from all parts of the country, city items, 
 Kliiropean news, full commercial and market reports, &c. 
 
 Teini~. ler viur..~^ix Dollars in advance. 
 
 THE "WEEKLY DAY-BOOK, 
 
 Containing all the principal matter of the daily, has n-' superior as a newspaper. The foreign and 
 domestic intelligence is full and complete, and il-. correspondence varied and interesting. It keeps 
 its readers posted upon all th'- leading eveuts of 'he day. and loses no opportunity to add to the 
 interest or variety of its columns. It is a quarto jourii il, with FoK-n -eight cotfM.NS of matter, all 
 of which is carefully prepared for country circulation. Just and discriminating notices ot new 
 publications are given by a compi-tent literary critic, and a story for the home circle is always fur- 
 nished from the pen of some good writer; thus combining the advantages of a literary journal and 
 a newspaper Great care is taken with the reports of market-, in order to present farmers, 
 planters, merchants, drover.s, kc , with a journal from the commercial metropolis of ihe Union, 
 containing a full and correct report of the Cotton, Grain, Cattle and I'loduce markets. Thrse fea- 
 tures of the DAY-BOOK have rendered it a fivorile even among those \y,h<>,'»' "•' puf'- I'ilh it-' 
 in politics. The price at wiiich the DAY-BOUK is furuished i.s lowi-i tlit,ii tiiat of any similar 
 pajier, a» will be seen by the following 
 
 TERMS. 
 
 Single copy, per annum $- f 
 
 Two copies, to one Post-office 3 I 
 
 Five copies 5 00 
 
 Twenty -one copies (one being to th>- getter-up of the club) 20 00 
 Payment is required invjiriably i.v AnVASCv., and the papir is always di-coniiuued at the expira- 
 tion of .tlie time of advance fay meot. Specimen copies sent CKKK. Subscriptions can commence 
 at any time. ^ 
 
 When drafts can be obtained, tli-y are safer than to send billn. But when inonev is rt-mitled by 
 Postmasters, or I'ostmaniets ar..- made arquiinled with the conteur.H of letters, Kent wo they can 
 certify, in case they are lost, iliai the money was dent, it is at our risk. 
 
 Allordering ■ -pern should be careful to write the l'i».-"l offlce, Cuuuty, and Slate tn/uU. Addremi 
 
 VAN EVRIE, HORTON & CO., 
 
 I'LIJLI.-HEIIS. No. -to AVN ST.. NEW YORK. 
 J8S- All are invited to sen 1 for Spenmen a-piet, nnd we thall e»:etm it a favor lo receive Lift* '/ 
 Names/or that purpose from any fHtnd nf tlie cause. 
 
 . .6^^. .^^v .^"^^ .tf^^^ . 
 
 <■ 
 
 l' -^ 
 
 08 lU
 
 ANTI-ABOLITION DOCUMENTS. 
 
 Negroes & Negro " Slavery." 
 
 The First an IiitVrior Race— The latter its Normal Condition. By J. H. Van 
 Evrie, M. D. Beine the intr(«lnctoiy chapter of a larger work. Price six cents. 
 Twealy copies for $1, or $4 per hundred. 
 
 The Died Scott Decision, 
 
 With an Tntroductinn by Dr. Van Evrie, and an Appendix by Dr. Cartwri(?ht. Nothing forgeneral 
 circulation has been more needed than an edition of the noted decision of Chief Justice TaneT. in 
 the celebrate d Drecl .'■■cutt case. It has been ro mis-represented and maligned by the " Repubhcjin " 
 pres.s. tiat only few know really what it contaioK. It has acconiingly been ifisued for general cir- 
 culation in Its present cheap :ind popular form. In order to make thp decision more complete, we 
 have prefixed an historical introduction by Dr. Van Kvrie, and added an appemiix by Dr. Cartwright 
 of New Urleans. Tlie two give a cnniplete picture of the entire " slavery '' question in its historical, 
 legal and physical is|>ects. Tliis decision should be circulated far and wide before the next I'resj- 
 d«-nti#l e'ection, as it gives the people just the information they need to vote intelligently, and it 
 is commended to IH-mocratic State, County and Town Ommittees. ^^ingle copies, 35 cents ; Five 
 copie.s, $1 ; Fifty copii-s, $6 ; Oue hundrid copies, orover, $10 per hundred. 
 
 cc 
 
 Negro Slavery Not Unjust.'* 
 
 Speech of Chas. O 'Conor, E=q., at the Union Meeting in New York. This bold, manly and 
 truly philosophical "peech marks an era in the great change in pabhc opinion now going on at the 
 Xorth on the subject of " .Negro Slavery." It should be read by every person who desires to com- 
 bat the false logic of the Abolitioni.-ts. A general circulati. n of it would exert a most powerful 
 influence in favor of the Democracy at the n«-xt election. Single copie-s 6 cents ; Twenty copies, $1 ; 
 $4 per hundred. 
 
 insr i='i=i.E]ss- 
 
 To be issued, April 1. 1860. 1 vol. 12mo., the large work of Dr. Van Evrie, on 
 
 Negroes and Negro Slavery. 
 
 The author of this publication has devoted several years to this inquiry, especially to that portion 
 "f 'he general subject, embiRcing the fptrific character of the negro, ami the n-itural re.lations of 
 Whites and negroes ; t^e result of which he is now preparfrd to lay before the public. 
 
 stripping olt the s in of the negro, he proposes to demonstrate the senses, a> well as the reason 
 that he is not a black wl;itf man, or a mau merely with a black skin, but a mrFKBKXT Ji.\u in>t 
 KloR .spKfiKS OK jjA.v : — that this difference is radical and total, and relatively as great in the pri 
 moril al .irrangt-nient of elementary particles, "r the single globule of blood, as in the color of tli- 
 skin, or the giosser lacts. p.iliKil. eio t'-- fnses ; — that it is original, iuvariable and indestructibl. . 
 as long as the pre.sent order of creation ilseli' lasts;— that the physical structure of the race is u>c>-^ 
 vaii y and jierpetually linkfd with corresponding faculties, capabilities, wants, necessities — in -li..'-; . 
 with a specific natuie, and thus isdesi;^:— I 'ly t!je Almighty Cnator for correrpondiiv.' porp"-! -, r 
 a social position, hatmonizini; with those wants, etc.: — that therefore all the 
 soci.il systi 111 of the ."viutli, being based on false assumptions, are themselves 
 that so called shiverv is neiiher a "wrong," nor an *'evil," nor is its extensii n 
 
 i*. is a noruial condition, a natural relation, liased upon the '"higher law," in h^mn^ny with the 
 order, progress, Hnd general well-being of the superior one, and absolutely essential to the verj 
 existence of the inferior r«ce. 
 
 i?everal thousand copies of the introiluctory chap'er of the above work have been circulate<l, and 
 :,•! t ., ,. , >' >o|t lias been su g«aer.<l. that the author has determined to postpone ita 
 
 is.«ue no longer. 
 
 It will, therefore, be ready for distribution on the first day of April next, and as the demand is 
 likely to be very large, all who desire to receive copies in season should send in their orders in 
 advance. 
 
 ^^00~ Evi ry person will l^e supplied in the < rder of his remittance, at the rate of 
 $1 tor each copy oidercd, and th< y will be sent by mailor expres.=. free ot charge. 
 
 NoTK. — The vidunie is piil.'lished by the author himself, in order to save the 
 charge.-* of publishers, and iluis lurnish it at a low rate lo the masses of ibe people 
 whom it is important to reach. 
 
 All th" above works bi ar directly upon the great crisis now before the country, 
 !inM sh( uld be placed in ihe hands of every person who d< sires weapons to combat 
 I he hi n ses ipf Ihe " Bt publicans.'' Th'-y will be sent, postage paid, at the above 
 rates. Addr ss 
 
 VAN EVRIE, HORTON & Co., 
 
 PUBLISHKHS OF DAY-HOOK, 
 
 Xkw York Cmr.