| Venue: | SCOTUS |
| Facts: | Scott, his wife, and children were slaves in MO. The defendant is a NY citizen, and slavery is not allowed north of the Mason-Dixon line. |
| Posture: | Scott sues, asserting diversity jurisdiction. |
| Issue: | Can a negro be considered a citizen for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction? |
| Holding: | No. |
| Rule: | Persons of color were not included in the word citizens. |
| Reasoning: | You'd think that the "all men are created equal" language would apply
to all men, but when we look at the constitution, it's clear that's
not what the framers intended.
It's true that if an Indian left his tribe and joined in with white folks, he'd be a citizen, but even if those folks were uncivilized, at least they were free, and we can take them in as state of pupilage, and treat them as immigrants. Negroes, on the other hand are regarded as "beings of an inferior order." As a result, they're not citizens, and if they're not citizens, they can't sue. QED. So they're not freed by just bringing them across the Mason-Dixon line, and in fact now that we think of it, the act outlawing owning of this kind of property north of that line is unconstitutional. |
| Dicta: | |