WhateffectdidtheSlaughterhouseCases haveonthecaseDredScottv.Sanford?

2011DanGoodman TheSupremeCourt,inthecaseofDredScottv.Sanford(60U.S.393),heldthat sincetheancestorsofablackmen,whowasmadeacitizenofaState,underArticle IV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitution,werenotcitizensattheadoptionofthe Constitution,thentheirdescendantscouldnotbecitizensoftheUnitedStates,under ArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitution.Or,inotherwords,ablackmanor womanwhoseancestorswereslavesattheadoptionoftheConstitutionofthe UnitedStatesofAmericacouldnotundertheConstitutionbecitizensunderArticle IV,Section2,Clause1: Thequestionissimplythis:Cananegro,whoseancestorswereimportedinto thiscountry,andsoldasslaves,becomeamemberofthepoliticalcommunity formedandbroughtintoexistencebytheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates,andas suchbecomeentitledtoalltherights,andprivileges,andimmunities,guarantiedby thatinstrumenttothecitizen?Oneofwhichrightsistheprivilegeofsuinginacourt oftheUnitedStatesinthecasesspecifiedintheConstitution. Itwillbeobserved,thatthepleaappliestothatclassofpersonsonlywhose ancestorswerenegroesoftheAfricanrace,andimportedintothiscountry,and soldandheldasslaves.Theonlymatterinissuebeforethecourt,therefore,is, whetherthedescendantsofsuchslaves,whentheyshallbeemancipated,orwho arebornofparentswhohadbecomefreebeforetheirbirth,arecitizensofa State,inthesenseinwhichthewordcitizenisusedintheConstitutionofthe UnitedStates.Andthisbeingtheonlymatterindisputeonthepleadings,the courtmustbeunderstoodasspeakinginthisopinionofthatclassonly,thatis, ofthosepersonswhoarethedescendantsofAfricanswhowereimportedinto thiscountry,andsoldasslaves..... Thequestionthenarises,whethertheprovisionsoftheConstitution,inrelation tothepersonalrightsandprivilegestowhichthecitizenofaStateshouldbe entitled,embracedthenegroAfricanrace,atthattimeinthiscountry,orwhomight afterwardsbeimported,whohadthenorshouldafterwardsbemadefreeinany State;andtoputinthepowerofasingleStatetomakehimacitizenoftheUnited States,andenduehimwiththefullrightsofcitizenshipineveryotherStatewithout theirconsent?DoestheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesactuponhimwheneverhe shallbemadefreeunderthelawsofaState,andraisedtheretotherankofacitizen, andimmediatelyclothehimwithalltheprivilegesofacitizenineveryotherState, andinitsowncourts? 1

Thecourtthinktheaffirmativeofthesepropositionscannotbemaintained.And ifitcannot,theplaintiffinerrorcouldnotbeacitizenoftheStateofMissouri,within themeaningoftheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates,and,consequently,wasnot entitledtosueinitscourts.DredScott:60U.S.(Howard19)393,at403,406 (1856).

http://books.google.com/books?id=CQ3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA403#v=onepage&q&f=false

IntheSlaughterhouseCases(83U.S.36)theSupremeCourtheldthatcitizenshipof aStatewasseparateanddistinctfromcitizenshipoftheUnitedStates;thatacitizen ofaStatewasseparateanddistinctfromacitizenoftheUnitedStates: OftheprivilegesandimmunitiesofthecitizenoftheUnitedStates,andof theprivilegesandimmunitiesofthecitizenoftheState,andwhattheyrespective are,wewillpresentlyconsider;butwewishtostateherethatitisonlytheformer whichareplacedbythisclause(Section1,Clause2oftheFourteenthAmendment) undertheprotectionoftheFederalConstitution,andthatthelatter,whateverthey maybe,arenotintendedtohaveanyadditionalprotectionbythisparagraphofthe amendment.SlaughterhouseCases:83U.S.(16Wall.)36,at74(1873).
http://books.google.com/books?id=DkgFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA74#v=onepage&q&f=false

ThatthereisacitizenoftheUnitedStates,andacitizenofaStatewhoisnota citizenoftheUnitedStatesisshownintheSupremeCourtcaseSunPrinting& PublishingAssociationv.Edwards(194U.S.37): WecometothecontentionthatthecitizenshipofEdwardswasnotaverredin thecomplaintorshownbytherecord,andhencejurisdictiondidnotappear. Inansweringthequestion,whethertheCircuitCourthadjurisdictionofthe controversy,wemustputourselvesintheplaceoftheCircuitCourtofAppeals,and decidethequestionwithreferencetothetranscriptofrecordinthatcourt. HadthetranscriptshownnothingmoreastothestatusofEdwardsthanthe avermentofthecomplaintthathewasaresidentoftheStateofDelaware,assuch anavermentwouldnotnecessarilyhaveimportedthatEdwardswasacitizenof Delaware,anegativeanswerwouldhavebeenimpelledbypriordecisions.Mexican CentralRy.Co.v.Duthie,189U.S.76;Hornev.GeorgeH.HammondCo.,155U.S.393; Dennyv.Pironi,141U.S.121;Robertsonv.Cease,97U.S.646.Thewholerecord, however,maybelookedto,forthepurposeofcuringadefectiveavermentof citizenship,wherejurisdictioninaFederalcourtisassertedtodependupon diversityofcitizenship,andiftherequisitecitizenship,isanywhereexpressly averredintherecord,orfactsarethereinstatedwhichinlegalintendment 2

constitutesuchallegation,thatissufficient.Hornev.GeorgeH.HammondCo.,supra andcasescited. Asthisisanactionatlaw,weareboundtoassumethatthetestimonyofthe plaintiffcontainedinthecertificateoftheCircuitCourtofAppeals,andrecitedto havebeengivenonthetrial,waspreservedinabillofexceptions,whichformed partofthetranscriptofrecordfiledintheCircuitCourtofAppeals.Beingapartof therecord,andpropertoberesortedtoinsettlingaquestionofthecharacterof thatnowunderconsideration,Robertsonv.Cease,97U.S.648,wecometoascertain whatisestablishedbytheuncontradictedevidencereferredto. Inthefirstplace,itshowsthatEdwards,priortohisemploymentontheNewYork SunandtheNewHavenPalladium,waslegallydomiciledintheStateofDelaware. Next,itdemonstratesthathehadnointentiontoabandonsuchdomicil,forhe testifiedunderoathasfollows:OneofthereasonsIlefttheNewHavenPalladium was,itwastoofarawayfromhome.IlivedinDelaware,andIhadtogobackand forth.MyfamilyareoverinDelaware.Now,itiselementarythat,toeffectachange ofoneslegaldomicil,twothingsareindispensable:First,residenceinanew domicil,and,second,theintentiontoremainthere.Thechangecannotbemade, exceptfactoetanimo.Botharealikenecessary.Eitherwithouttheotheris insufficient.Mereabsencefromafixedhome,howeverlongcontinued,cannotwork thechange.Mitchellv.UnitedStates,21Wall.350. AsDelawaremust,then,beheldtohavebeenthelegaldomicilofEdwardsatthe timehecommencedthisaction,haditappearedthathewasacitizenofthe UnitedStates,itwouldhaveresulted,byoperationoftheFourteenth Amendment,thatEdwardswasalsoacitizenoftheStateofDelaware.Anderson v.Watt,138U.S.694.Bethisasitmay,however,Delawarebeingthelegaldomicilof Edwards,itwasimpossibleforhimtohavebeenacitizenofanotherState,District, orTerritory,andhemustthenhavebeeneitheracitizenofDelawareoracitizen orsubjectofaforeignState.Ineitherofthesecontingencies,theCircuitCourt wouldhavehadjurisdictionoverthecontroversy.But,inthelightofthetestimony, wearesatisfiedthattheavermentinthecomplaint,thatEdwardswasaresidentof theStateofDelaware,wasintendedtomean,and,reasonablyconstrued,mustbe interpretedasaverring,thattheplaintiffwasacitizenoftheStateofDelaware. Jonesv.Andrews,10Wall.327,331;ExpressCompanyv.Kountze,8Wall.342.Sun Printing&PublishingAssociationv.Edwards:194U.S.377,at381thru383(1904).
http://books.google.com/books?id=tekGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA381#v=onepage&q&f=false

TheSlaughterhouseCaseshadnoeffectonthecaseofDredScottv.Sanford.Ifa blackmanorwoman,whoseancestorswereslavesattheadoptionofthe Constitution,ratherthancitizens[Footnote1]orforeigners,isborninaparticular State,ratherthanintheUnitedStates(theFourteenthAmendment)[Footnote2], 3

thenheorshecanbeacitizenofthatparticularStateunderitsconstitution,butnot acitizenofaState,underArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitutionofthe UnitedStates. ________________________ Footnotes: 1.SeemyworkentitledProblemNotSolved:BlackCitizensandBlackSlaves whereIshowwithreferencestolegalauthoritythatbeforetheFourteenth Amendment,therewereblackcitizensaswellasblackslaves. 2.AcitizenoftheUnitedStates,underSection1,Clause1oftheFourteenth Amendment,isonewhoisbornintheUnitedStates,notaparticularState: NotonlymayamanbeacitizenoftheUnitedStateswithoutbeingacitizenofa State,butanimportantelementisnecessarytoconverttheformerintothelatter. HemustresidewithintheStatetomakehimacitizenofit.SlaughterhouseCases: 83U.S.(16Wall.)36,at74(1873).
http://books.google.com/books?id=DkgFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA74#v=onepage&q&f=false

ThelanguageoftheFourteenthAmendmentdeclaringtwokindsofcitizenship isdiscriminating.Itis:AllpersonsbornornaturalizedintheUnitedStates,and subjecttothejurisdictionthereof,arecitizensoftheUnitedStatesandoftheState whereintheyreside.Whileitthusestablishesnationalcitizenshipfromthemere circumstanceofbirthwithintheterritoryandjurisdictionoftheUnitedStates,birth withinastatedoesnotestablishcitizenshipthereof.Statecitizenshipisephemeral. Itresultsonlyfromresidenceandisgainedorlosttherewith.Edwardsv.Peopleof theStateofCalifornia:314U.S.160,183(concurringopinionofJackson)(1941).

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6778891532287614638

Thatallpersonsresidentinthisstate,bornintheUnitedStates,ornaturalized, orwhoshallhavelegallydeclaredtheirintentiontobecomecitizensoftheUnited States,areherebydeclaredcitizensoftheStateofAlabama,possessingequalcivil andpoliticalrights.(DeclarationofRights)ArticleI,Section2Constitutionofthe StateofAlabamaof1875. Note:ThisprovisionisnotinthecurrentconstitutionoftheStateofAlabama.

http://www.legislature.state.al.us/misc/history/constitutions/1875/1875_1.html

******* 4