Dred Scott vs. Sanford, Minority Opinion
...t to the Constitution? If they had wanted this class separation, then they would have perceived to write a separate condition stating how each nationality was to be treated. In the Legal aspect of this case, we have to look at whether or not the trial court held the jurisdiction to hear the case at hand. It is the majority opinion that they did not, We think they [people of African Ancestry] are not [citizens], 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 privileged which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. (http://laws.findlaws.com/us/60/393.html) But I have not seen in the Constitution where they could have found a distinction between which set of men are to be considered citizens at which are not. It is true that in Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution it distinctly states that “No person held to Service or Labour in one state, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”(Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 3) There is, however, no evidence in this case that would deem the plaintiff in error wrong in his attempt to seek justice based on this provision. I must then interpret the meaning behind the words in the Constitution to mean that all men, who are to be considered citizens of a state, are to be granted the rights of citizens as they are outlined in the Bill of Rights. Under the tenth amendment to the Constitution, the states and people are to be given the rights not specifically granted to the Federal Government, including the right to make any person a citizen of the state and the right to forbid slavery in that territory or state. The questions that arises from this is, does a person who is a citizen of the state automatically become a citizen of the Nation and if a man in servitude were to reside in a state that bans slavery, is he to automatically become a citizen of that state. Which, in my opinion he does. When the plaintiff in error entered into the state of Illinois that, pursuant to the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, was at the time a “Free” state, he became a citizen of that state. The fact that he continued in servitude now becomes irrelevant. Since the defendant was a citizen of the state of New York, this now becomes a dispute between citizens of different states, and falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts. In explaining my reasoning for considering the plaintiff a citizen of the United States, I will look at the marriage of the plaintiff. By allowing a legal and binding marriage between the plaintiff and his wife, Harriet Scott, in the state of Missouri, the state is conceding that they are to be considered citizens of that state. For marriage is a legal institution that is sanctioned by the states, and is a matter to be discussed by the state. Since there has been no evidence brought to show that the s...