Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • On Dred Scott v. Sanford

    Uploaded by

    Dan Goodman
    69 views9 pages
    At the time of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Dred Scott v. Sanford, in the year of 1856, there were black citizens as well as black slaves. Black citizens were descendants of blacks who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Black slaves were descendants of blacks who were slaves at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. There were also free persons of color; that is, black slaves emancipated, before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States of America as well as after the adoption of the Constitution. The case of Dred Scott v. Sanford dealt with free persons of color; that is, with black slaves emancipated, after the adoption of the Constitution of the United States of America. Therefore, the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, had nothing to do with black citizens. Thus, a black slave, set free after the adoption of the Constitution of the United States of America, cannot, UNFORTUNATELY, be a citizen of a State, as well as a citizen of the United States because, although a free person, he or she is not a citizen required by Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution. In addition, a black slave made a citizen of a State, by a State, after the adoption of the Constitution could not be a citizen of a State under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 because such a person; that is, the black slave, had to be a citizen of a State under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution. From Dred Scott v. Sanford: “It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; BUT NONE OTHER; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else."

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    At the time of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Dred Scott v. Sanford, in the year of 1856, there were black citizens as well as black slaves. Black citizens were descendants of blacks who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Black slaves were descendants of blacks who were slaves at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. There were also free persons of color; that is, black slaves emancipated, before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States of America as well as after the adoption of the Constitution. The case of Dred Scott v. Sanford dealt with free persons of color; that is, with black slaves emancipated, after the adoption of the Constitution of the United States of America. Therefore, the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, had nothing to do with black citizens. Thus, a black slave, set free after the adoption of the Constitution of the United States of America, cannot, UNFORTUNATELY, be a citizen of a State, as well as a citizen of the United States because, although a free person, he or she is not a citizen required by Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution. In addition, a black slave made a citizen of a State, by a State, after the adoption of the Constitution could not be a citizen of a State under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 because such a person; that is, the black slave, had to be a citizen of a State under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution. From Dred Scott v. Sanford: “It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; BUT NONE OTHER; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else."

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    69 views9 pages

    On Dred Scott v. Sanford

    Uploaded by

    Dan Goodman
    At the time of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Dred Scott v. Sanford, in the year of 1856, there were black citizens as well as black slaves. Black citizens were descendants of blacks who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Black slaves were descendants of blacks who were slaves at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. There were also free persons of color; that is, black slaves emancipated, before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States of America as well as after the adoption of the Constitution. The case of Dred Scott v. Sanford dealt with free persons of color; that is, with black slaves emancipated, after the adoption of the Constitution of the United States of America. Therefore, the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, had nothing to do with black citizens. Thus, a black slave, set free after the adoption of the Constitution of the United States of America, cannot, UNFORTUNATELY, be a citizen of a State, as well as a citizen of the United States because, although a free person, he or she is not a citizen required by Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution. In addition, a black slave made a citizen of a State, by a State, after the adoption of the Constitution could not be a citizen of a State under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 because such a person; that is, the black slave, had to be a citizen of a State under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution. From Dred Scott v. Sanford: “It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; BUT NONE OTHER; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else."

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 9

    OnDredScottv.

    Sanford
    2011DanGoodman Itsaddensmethatslaveryexistedinthiscountry.Nobody,blackorotherwise, shouldbeaslaveintheUnitedStates,letaloneintheworld. AtthetimeofthedecisionoftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesinDredScott v.Sanford,intheyearof1856,therewereblackcitizensaswellasblackslaves. [Footnote1]Blackcitizensweredescendantsofblackswhowerecitizensatthe timeoftheadoptionoftheConstitution.Blackslavesweredescendantsofblacks whowereslavesatthetimeoftheadoptionoftheConstitution. Muchconfusionexistsonthis.However,thiscanbeclearedupbythefollowing. TheActforthegradualabolitionofslavery,passedthefirstdayofMarch,1780,1 SmithsLawsofPennsylvania492,statesatsectionfour: Itisprovidedthateverynegroormulattochild,bornwithinthisstateafterthe passingofthisact(whowouldincasethisacthadnotbeenmade,havebeenaservant foryears,orlife,oraslave[Footnote2])shallbebyvirtueofthisacttheservant ofsuchperson.... Atsectionthirteen,itreads: [T]hatnocovenantofpersonalservitudeorapprenticeshipwhatsoevershallbe validorbindingonanegroormulattoforalongertimethansevenyears,unless suchservantorapprenticewereatthecommencementofsuchservitudeor apprenticeship,undertheageoftwentyoneyears,inwhichcasesuchnegroor mulattomaybeholdenasaservantorapprentice,respectively,accordingtothe covenant,asthecaseshallbe,untilheshallattaintheageoftwentyeightyears,but nolonger.[Footnote3] ThisactofPennsylvaniachangedthestatusofnegrosandmulattoswhowere slavestothatofservants.Inaddition,asservants,theycouldbeaservantnolonger thansevenyears,sincethepassageoftheact;thatbeingMarch1,1780.Theonly exceptionwasifonewasundertheageoftwentyone,atthepassageoftheact. Then,asaservant,anegroormulattocouldbesuchuntilheorshereachedtheage oftwentyeight. 1

    TheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesofAmericawasnotcompleteduntil September17,1787.Therefore,onMarch1,1787,theArticlesofConfederation applied.ArticleIVoftheArticlesofConfederationprovided: [T]heFREEINHABITANTSofeachofthesestates,shallbeentitledtoall privilegesandimmunitiesofFREECITIZENSintheseveralStates.[Footnote4]


    http://www.barefootsworld.net/aoc1777.html

    Thus,anegroormulatto,onMarch1,1787,becameafreeperson,andassuch, underthisprovisionoftheArticlesofConfederation,wasentitledtoallthe privilegesandimmunitiesoffreecitizensintheseveralStates,ifaresidentin Pennsylvania. TheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesofAmericawasratifiedonJune21,1788, withtheninthstateofNewHampshireapprovingit.[Footnote5] UpuntilJune20,1788,then,anegroormulattowhoreachedtheageoftwenty eight,becameafreeperson,andentitledtoprivilegesandimmunitiesoffree citizensintheseveralStates,ifaresidentinPennsylvania,underArticleIVofthe ArticlesofConfederation. OnJune21,1788,andthereafter,however,anegroormulattowhoreachedthe ageoftwentyeight,becameafreeperson,butbeingnotacitizen,thougharesident ofPennsylvania,wasnotentitledtoalltheprivilegesandimmunitiesofcitizensin theseveralStates.ArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitutionoftheUnited StatesofAmerica,provides: [T]heCITIZENSofeachStateshallbeentitledtoalltheprivilegesand immunitiesofcitizensintheseveralStates.
    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

    FreeInhabitantsinArticleIVoftheArticlesofConfederationwaschangedto CitizensinArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitution.Thiswasdoneto confertheruleofnaturalizationtoCongress. SobasedonArticleIVoftheArticlesofConfederationandArticleIV,Section2, Clause1oftheConstitution,therewerenegrosandmulattoswhowerecitizensand therewerenegrosandmulattoswhowerefreepersons(ofcolor)butnotcitizens. Thattherewereblackcitizens,aftertheadoptionoftheConstitution,isshownin 2

    thefollowing: ...[N]omasterorcaptainofanyshiporvessel,oranyotherperson,shall importorbring,orcausetobeimportedorbrought,anynegro,mulatto,orother personofcolour,notbeinganative,acitizen,orregisteredseamanoftheUnited States...intoanyportorplaceoftheUnitedStates,whichportorplaceshallbe situatedinanystatewhichbylawhasprohibitedorshallprohibittheadmissionor importationofsuchnegro,mulatto,orotherpersonofcolour.Section1ofAnAct toPreventtheImportationofCertainPersonsintoCertainStates,Where,bythe LawsThereof,TheirAdmissionisProhibited;Approved,February28,1803.


    http://abolition.nypl.org/content/docs/text/Act_of_1803.pdf (mayhavetorefreshthislink)

    ...Thatthosepeopleofcolor,whoarecitizensofanystateoftheUnion, havearighttocomehereandclaimalltheprivilegesofcitizenshipunderthat clauseoftheconstitutionwhichgivestothecitizensofeachstateallthe privilegesandimmunitiesofcitizensintheseveralstates.Thattocausea warranttoissueforsuretyofgoodbehaviororofthepeace,withoutanallegationof somecrimeactuallycommitted,oroftheapprehensionofsomecrime,supportedby oath,oraffirmation,wouldbecontrarytotheconstitutionoftheUnitedStates,and thereforethechartermustnotbeconstruedsoastogivethatpower.Costinv. Washingtion:6Fed.Cas.(No.3266)612,at613;2Cranch,C.C.254(1821).


    http://books.google.com/books?id=pwA7AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA613#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Thus,accordingtoDredScottv.Sanford: Itistrue,everyperson,andeveryclassanddescriptionofpersons,whowereat thetimeoftheadoptionoftheConstitutionrecognisedascitizensintheseveral States,becamealsocitizensofthisnewpoliticalbody;butnoneother;itwasformed bythem,andforthemandtheirposterity,butfornooneelse.Andthepersonal rightsandprivilegesguarantiedtocitizensofthisnewsovereigntywereintendedto embracethoseonlywhowerethenmembersoftheseveralStatecommunities,or whoshouldafterwardsbybirthrightorotherwisebecomemembers,accordingto theprovisionsoftheConstitutionandtheprinciplesonwhichitwasfounded.It wastheunionofthosewhowereatthattimemembersofdistinctandseparate politicalcommunitiesintoonepoliticalfamily,whosepower,forcertainspecified purposes,wastoextendoverthewholeterritoryoftheUnitedStates.Anditgaveto 3

    eachcitizenrightsandprivilegesoutsideofhisStatewhichhedidnotbefore possess,andplacedhimineveryotherStateuponaperfectequalitywithitsown citizensastorightsofpersonandrightsofproperty;itmadehimacitizenofthe UnitedStates.DredScottv.Sanford:60U.S.(Howard19)393,at406thru407 (1856).[Footnote6]


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

    ThecaseofDredScottv.Sanforddealtwithfreepersonsofcolor;thatis,with blackslavesemancipated,aftertheadoptionoftheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates ofAmerica: 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? 4

    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

    Therefore,thecaseofDredScottv.Sanford,hadnothingtodowithblackcitizens. NordidthecaseapplytoancestorswhowerenegroesoftheAfricanrace,and importedintothecountryoftheUnitedStates,andsoldandheldasservants. [Footnote2] Thus,ablackslave,setfreeaftertheadoptionoftheConstitutionoftheUnited StatesofAmerica,cannot,UNFORTUNATELY,beacitizenofaState,aswellasa citizenoftheUnitedStatesbecause,althoughafreeperson,heorsheisnotacitizen requiredbyArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitution. Inaddition,ablackslavemadeacitizenofaState,byaState,aftertheadoptionof theConstitutioncouldnotbeacitizenofaStateunderArticleIV,Section2,Clause1 becausesuchaperson;thatis,theblackslave,hadtobeacitizenofaStateunder ArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitution: Itistrue,everyperson,andeveryclassanddescriptionofpersons,whowereat thetimeoftheadoptionoftheConstitutionrecognisedascitizensintheseveral States,becamealsocitizensofthisnewpoliticalbody;butnoneother;itwasformed bythem,andforthemandtheirposterity,butfornooneelse.Andthepersonal rightsandprivilegesguarantiedtocitizensofthisnewsovereigntywereintendedto embracethoseonlywhowerethenmembersoftheseveralStatecommunities,or whoshouldafterwardsbybirthrightorotherwisebecomemembers,accordingto theprovisionsoftheConstitutionandtheprinciplesonwhichitwasfounded.It wastheunionofthosewhowereatthattimemembersofdistinctandseparate politicalcommunitiesintoonepoliticalfamily,whosepower,forcertainspecified purposes,wastoextendoverthewholeterritoryoftheUnitedStates.Anditgaveto eachcitizenrightsandprivilegesoutsideofhisStatewhichhedidnotbefore possess,andplacedhimineveryotherStateuponaperfectequalitywithitsown citizensastorightsofpersonandrightsofproperty;itmadehimacitizenofthe UnitedStates.DredScottv.Sanford:60U.S.(Howard19)393,at406thru407 (1856).
    http://books.google.com/books?id=CQ3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA403#v=onepage&q&f=false

    TheanswerofcourseistomodifyArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitution sothatthosebornaftertheadoptionoftheConstitutioncanbecomecitizensofa State,aswellascitizensoftheUnitedStates.[Footnote8] ________________________ Footnotes: 1.Therewerealsofreepersonsofcolor;thatis,blackslavesemancipated,before theadoptionoftheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesofAmericaaswellasafterthe adoptionoftheConstitution. 2.ServantsaswellasslavesarerecognizedintheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates ofAmericaatArticleI,Section2,Clause3,whichprovides: RepresentativesanddirectTaxesshallbeapportionedamongtheseveralStates whichmaybeincludedwithinthisUnion,accordingtotheirrespectiveNumbers, whichshallbedeterminedbyaddingtothewholeNumberoffreePersons, includingthoseboundtoServiceforaTermofYears,andexcludingIndiansnot taxed,threefifthsofallotherPersons.
    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

    3.TheseprovisionsofthisactappearintheALawDictionaryAdaptedtothe ConstitutionandLawsoftheUnitedStatesofAmericaandoftheSeveralStatesof theAmericanUnion,JohnBouvier,SixthEdition,VolumeII,1856,atpages516:


    http://books.google.com/books?id=zmc8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA516#v=onepage&q&f=false

    4.ThereaderwillfindthefollowingusefulinunderstandingArticleIVofthe ArticlesofConfederation: Inhabitantsincludedaliens,foreigners,citizens,andservants(butnotslaves, slaveswereconsideredproperty). Freeinhabitantsincludedaliens,foreignersandcitizens. Citizensincludedcitizensandservants. Freecitizensincludedonlycitizens. 6

    AndthefollowingusefulincomprehendingArticleVI,Section2,Clause1ofthe ConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica,andotherprovisions: Freeinhabitantsincludedaliens,foreigners,citizens,andservants(butnot slaves,slaveswereconsideredproperty). Inhabitantsincludedaliens,foreignersandcitizens. Freecitizensincludedcitizensandservants. Citizensincludedonlycitizens. Note:theseveralStates,undertheArticlesofConfederation,hadthepowerto naturalize.Therefore,withineachState,therewerealiens(living),foreigners (visiting),citizens(nativeandnaturalized)andservants(citizensundercontract). IntheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica(organic),servantsaretreatedas freepersons.[SeeFootnote2]Assuch,thephrasefreeinhabitantsorfree inhabitantdoesnotappear.Rather,theterminhabitantiswritten;atArticleI, Section2,Clause2;ArticleI,Section3,Clause3;andArticleII,Section1,Clause3. And,ofcoursecitizensappearsatArticleIV,Section2,Clause1,ratherthanfree citizens.InhabitantsshouldappearatArticleIV,Section2,Clause1insteadof freeinhabitants,howeverthetermcitizensisusedastheruleofnaturalization wasgiventoCongress.Sinceservantsareconsideredtobefreepersons,andthus byextension,freecitizens,undertheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates,andsince aliensandforeignerscanonlybenaturalized,thisleavescitizens. 5.ThisdayinHistory,June21,1788,leadstory:U.S.Constitutionratified
    http://www.history.com/thisdayinhistory/usconstitutionratified

    6.Itistobenotedthatlaterinthisopinion,theDredScottCourtstatedthe followingregardingnegrosandmulattosbeforetheConstitution: AclausesimilartotheoneintheConstitution,inrelationtotherightsand immunitiesofcitizensofoneStateintheotherStates,wascontainedintheArticles ofConfederation.Butthereisadifferenceoflanguage,whichisworthyofnote.The provisionintheArticlesofConfederationwas,thatthefreeinhabitantsofeachof theStates,paupers,vagabonds,andfugitivesfromjustice,excepted,shouldbe entitledtoalltheprivilegesandimmunitiesoffreecitizensintheseveralStates. 7

    Itwillbeobserved,thatunderthisConfederation,eachStatehadtherightto decideforitself,andinitsowntribunals,whomitwouldacknowledgeasafree inhabitantofanotherState.Thetermfreeinhabitant,inthegeneralityofits terms,wouldcertainlyincludeoneoftheAfricanracewhohadbeen manumitted.Butnoexample,wethink,canbefoundofhisadmissiontoallthe privilegesofcitizenshipinanyStateoftheUnionaftertheseArticleswereformed,and whiletheycontinuedinforce.(*)And,notwithstandingthegeneralityofthewords freeinhabitants,itisveryclearthat,accordingtotheiracceptedmeaninginthat day,theydidnotincludetheAfricanrace,whetherfreeornot.DredScottv. Sanford:60U.S.(Howard19)393,at418(1856).
    http://books.google.com/books?id=CQ3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA418#v=onepage&q&f=false

    (*)SeeTheActforthegradualabolitionofslavery,passedthefirstdayof March,1870,1SmithsLawsofPennsylvania492atthebeginningofthiswork. Negroandmulattoslavesweremadeservants.Thiswasthefirststeptobecominga freecitizen.Thissameprocedurehadbeendoneintheearlyhistoryofthecolonies. [SeeFootnote7] 7.Slavery,however,didnotdevelopatonceinColonialAmerica.Thefirst Negroescameasindenturedservants,andastheirindenturesendedtheywere freed.Notuntilthe1660sdidenslavementbegin.Between1664and1682slave codesinmanycoloniestransformedtheNegroservantintoaslave.Historyofthe LaborMovementintheUnitedStates;FromColonialTimestotheFoundingofthe AmericanFederationofLabor;PhilipS.Foner;(InternationalPublishersCo.,Inc.); 1947,1998edition;Vol.1,page19.
    http://books.google.com/books?id=yVoxQv0KqwYC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA19#v=onepage&q&f =false

    ...However,thefirstblackwomentoarriveinAmericawereindentured servants.Twentyblacks,includingthreeblackwomen,traveledonaDutchshipto Jamestownin1619,ayearbeforetheMayflowervoyage.Prohibitedbylawtosell baptizedblacksintoslavery,thegovernmentboughttheircontractsandsoldthem asindenturedservantstocolonialadministrators.Whentheircontractsexpired,the earlyAfricanarrivalsbecamefarmers,artisans,andlandownerswhovoted,had servants,andevensomeslaves.RegulatingthelivesofWomen,SocialWelfare PolicyfromColonialTimestothePresent;MimiAbramovitz;(SouthEndPress collective);1988,1996revisededition;page48.


    http://books.google.com/books?id=a5I yK2SltIC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA48#v=onepage&q&f=false

    By1619,theBritishcolonyatJamestown,Virginia,hadsurvivedformorethan adecade.Theresidentsofthesettlementhadfoughtwiththelocalnativesand struggledcontinuouslytoekeoutalivingfromtheland.Starvation,disease,and deathwerefrequentvisitors,andthefutureoftheenterprisecontinuedtobein doubt. InAugustofthatyear,aDutchshiparrived.Themasteroftheshipneeded provisionsandofferedtotradehisonlycargo:about20blackAfricans.Manyofthe detailsofthistransactionhavebeenlost,andweprobablywillneverknowexactly howthesepeoplecametobechainedintheholdofaship.Regardless,thisbrief episodewasalandmarkeventintheformationofwhatwouldbecometheUnited States.IncombinationwiththestrainedrelationsbetweentheEnglishsettlersand AmericanIndians,thepresenceofthesefirstfewAfricansraisedanissuethathas neverbeenfullyresolved:Howshoulddifferentgroupsinthissocietyrelatetoeach other? ThecolonistsatJamestownhadnoreadyanswer.In1619,Englandandits coloniesdidnotpracticeslavery,sothesefirstAfricanswereprobablyincorporated incolonialsocietyasindenturedservants,contractlaborerswhoareobligatedto serveamasterforaspecificnumberofyears.Attheendoftheindenture,or contract,theservantbecameafreecitizen.Thecoloniesdependedheavilyon indenturedservantsfromtheBritishIslesforlabor,andthisstatusapparently providedaconvenientwayofdefiningthenewcomersfromAfrica,whowere,after all,treatedascommoditiesandexchangedforfoodandwater. ThepositionofAfricanindenturedservantsinthecoloniesremainedambiguous forseveraldecades.Americanslaveryevolvedgraduallyandinsmallsteps;infact, therewaslittledemandforAfricanlaborduringtheyearsfollowing1619.By1625, therestillwereonly23blacksinVirginia,andthatnumberhadincreasedto perhaps300bymidcentury(Franklin&Moss,1994,p.57).Inthedecadesbefore thedawnofslavery,weknowthatsomeAfricanindenturedservantsdidbecome freecitizens.Somebecamesuccessfulfarmersandlandownersand,liketheirwhite neighbors,purchasedAfricanandwhiteindenturedservantsthemselves(Smedley, 1999).DiversityandSociety:Race,Ethnicity,andGender;JosephF.Healey;(Pine ForgePress);1945,2010;3rdedition;page107.
    http://books.google.com/books?id=XmC3Q5Y8k_gC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA107#v=onepage&q&f =false

    8.Thefollowingshoulddo: AllpersonsborninaState,andsubjecttoitsjurisdiction,aftertheadoptionof thisConstitution,shallbeacitizenofthatState,andshallbeentitledtoallPrivileges andImmunitiesofCitizensintheseveralStates. 9

    You might also like