During the Dred Scott case the argument of the state was made by Mr Sanford who disputed the jurisdictional claim and alleged that Scott was a descendant of an imported African slave, and by reason of such fact could not be a citizen of any State. Scott did not dispute his ancestry, but contended other allegations in his suit made evident that he had been emancipated, and therefore could have the status of citizen. The Court held that neither Scott nor any other person of African descent—whether or not emancipated from slavery—could be citizen of a state, and therefore was unable to bring suit in federal court on the ground of diversity. Taney spent pages 407-421 of his decision chronicling the history of slave and negro law in the British colonies and American states. His goal was to ascertain whether, at the time the Constitution was ratified, federal law could have recognized Scott (a Negro descendant of a slave) as a citizen of any state within the meaning of Article III. Relying upon statements made by Charles Pinckney, who had claimed authorship of the Privileges and Immunities Clause during the debates over the Missouri Compromise,[19] Taney decided: the affirmative of these propositions cannot be maintained. According to Taney, the authors of the Constitution had viewed all blacks as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.
Posted on: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 17:26:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015