Counter Racism Now! Campaigns

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Supreme Court ruled that "black" people could never be citizens.


Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) Ruled that "black" people could never be citizens.

"In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permiting slavery in all of the country's territories.

The case before the court was that of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom.

Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression -- wrote in the Court's majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The framers of the Constitution, he wrote, believed that blacks '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. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it.'

Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, 'all men are created equal,' Taney reasoned that 'it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . .' " from

see that actual wording of that decision here

"The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement [people of African ancestry] compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States." -
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney

The NEW questions before us are,-

How many people classified as "White", who are breathing air at this time, secretly agree with this decision?

Following the 80 / 20 rule, I'd say about 20% of them agree with this decision. 223,553,265 (the total population of "White" people, considered to be "White alone" and reside in the so-called United States.), multiplied by .20, equals 44,710,653 people. My theory is that this 44,710,653 is the exact amount of smart and powerful "White" people who are practicing White Supremacy in the so-called United States.

Would not today's "White Privilege" represent "the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States." ?

Why would such people still exist? 

Because their ancestors set the foundation for this kind of belief to continue on, behind the scenes.

Supreme Court decisions had a profound effect on the whole so-called United States. The mass media of that time had a profound influence on "White" people (and it still does). It made sure that they stayed informed on what was going on.

When did the Supreme Court over turn this ruling?

If you know when, please post a comment or call 510.984.2472.

1 comment:


    The Arguments
    Errant Position #1: The term "citizen of the United States" as used in the 14th Amendment, means the same thing in the opening verse of the U.S. Constitution.

    Truth: The phrase "Citizen of the United States", as used in the opening of the U.S. Constitution, does not have the same meaning as the term "citizen of the United States", as used in the 14th Amendment.

    The phrase "Citizen of the United States", as used in the opening of the U.S. Constitution, is shorthand for "All the Citizens of the 13 independent nations [called "states"] that are a party to this Constitution". This meaning is made unmistakably clear when one reads the words of Chief Justice Taney in the Dred decision. To our knowledge, no rational person has ever contended otherwise.

    Chief Justice Taney makes it crystal clear that the phrase "people of the United States", and its pre-Civil War synonym, "Citizen of the United States" (as used in the opening of the U.S. Constitution), have a meaning that is forever fixed. It is forever fixed (according to Taney) because those phrases mean only what the men who wrote them, and voted on them, meant them to mean. That is the preeminent rule of constitutional interpretation.

    In other words, neither you, nor I, nor the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court can indulge in revisionist history in order to pretend that the words now mean something new and different than they did the day the author wrote them. Whether we like it or not, those words mean (forever) only the white citizens of the 13 independent states (and all states admitted to the Union thereafter).

    That is not a racist statement; that is a historical legal reality. Sometimes a historical legal reality may bruise our modern conscience and sensibilities, but the fact that we may feel bruised and angry does not change what the men who wrote the document meant when they wrote the words.

    Because the phrase "Citizen of the United States", as used in the opening of the US Constitution, has a fixed meaning for all time, it obviously can never be used to mean people of African decent brought here for the purpose of slavery, or their posterity; so says the US Supreme Court.


Thank You For Your Comments