New Page 1Justice Curtis's Dissent in Dred ScottExcerptsMr. Justice CURTIS dissenting. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................So that, under the allegations contained in this plea, and admitted by the demurrer, the question is, whether any person of African descent,whose ancestors were sold as slaves in the United States, can be a citizen of the United States. If any such person can be a citizen, this plaintiffhas the right to the judgment of the court that he is so; for no cause is shown by the plea why he is not so, except his descent and the slavery ofhis ancestors. The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, 'a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of theConstitution.' One mode of approaching this question is, to inquire who were citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of theConstitution. Citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution can have been no other than citizens of the United States under theConfederation. By the Articles of Confederation, a Government was organized, the style whereof was, 'The United States of America.' ThisGovernment was in existence when the Constitution was framed and proposed for adoption, and was to be superseded by the new Governmentof the United States of America, organized under the Constitution. When, therefore, the Constitution speaks of citizenship of the United States,existing at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, it must necessarily refer to citizenship under the Government which existed prior to and atthe time of such adoption. Without going into any question concerning the powers of the Confederation to govern the territory of the United States out of the limits of theStates, and consequently to sustain the relation of Government and citizen in respect to the inhabitants of such territory, it may safely be said thatthe citizens of the several States were citizens of the United States under the Confederation. That Government was simply a confederacy of the several States, possessing a few defined powers over subjects of general concern, eachPage 1New Page 1State retaining every power, jurisdiction, and right, not expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled. And no power was thusdelegated to the Government of the Confederation, to act on any question of citizenship, or to make any rules in respect thereto. The wholematter was left to stand upon the action of the several States, and to the natural consequence of such action, that the citizens of each Stateshould be citizens of that Confederacy into which that State had entered, the style whereof was, 'The United States of America.' To determine whether any free persons, descended from Africans held in slavery, were citizens of the United States under the Confederation,and consequently at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, it is only necessary to know whether any such persons werecitizens of either of the States under the Confederation, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Of this there can be no doubt. At the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, all free nativeborn inhabitants of the States of NewHampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, though descended from African slaves, were not only citizens of thoseStates, but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors, on equal terms with other citizens. The Supreme Court of North Carolina, in the case of the State v. Manuel, (4 Dev. and Bat., 20,) has declared the law of that State on this subject,in terms which I believe to be as sound law in the other States I have enumerated, as it was in North Carolina. 'According to the laws of this State,' says Judge Gaston, in delivering the opinion of the court, 'all human beings within it, who are not slaves, fallwithin one of two classes. Whatever distinctions may have existed in the Roman laws between citizens and free inhabitants, they are unknown toour institutions. Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion,were native born British subjects those born out of his allegiance were aliens. Slavery did not exist in England, but it did in the British colonies.Slaves were not in legal parlance persons, but property. The moment the incapacity, the disqualification of slavery, was removed, they becamepersons, and were then either British subjects, or not British subjects, according as they were or were not born within the allegiance of the BritishKing. Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the laws of North Carolina than was consequent on the transition from a colonydependent on a European King, to a free and sovereign State. Slaves remained slaves. British subjects in North Carolina became NorthCarolina freemen. Foreigners, until made members of the State, remained aliens. Slaves, manumitted here, Page 2New Page 1became freemen, and therefore, ifborn within North Carolina, are citizens of North Carolina, and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. TheConstitution extended the elective franchise to every freeman who had arrived at the age of twentyone, and paid a public tax; and it is a matter ofuniversal notoriety, that, under it, free persons, without regard to color, claimed and exercised the franchise, until it was taken from free men ofcolor a few years since by our amended Constitution.' .................................................................................................................................................An argument from speculative premises, however well chosen, that the then state of opinion in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was notconsistent with the natural rights of people of color who were born on that soil, and that they were not, by the Constitution of 1780 of that State,admitted to the condition of citizens, would be received with surprise by the people of that State, who know their own political history. It is true,beyond all controversy, that persons of color, descended from African slaves, were by that Constitution made citizens of the State; and such ofthem as have had the necessary qualifications, have