Shareware Overload Trio 2/Shareware Overload Trio Volume 2 (Chestnut CD-ROM).ISO/dir33/1761_r.zip/CHAPTER.7

Text File | 1993-03-21 | 25KB | 417 lines

                           Citizenship

Derived from race and birth

     "State Citizenship is a vested substantial property right, and
the State has no power to divest or impair these rights."  Favot v.
Kingsbury, (1929) 98 Cal. App. 284, 276 P. 1083.

     "For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest.
Citizens by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has
a right to concentrate your affections. The name of AMERICAN, which
belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the
just pride of patriotism, more than any appellation derived from
local discriminations. With slight shades of difference you have
the same religion, manners, habits, and political principle. You
have, in a common cause, fought, and triumphed together; the
independence and liberty you possess, are the work of joint
councils, and joint efforts--of common dangers, sufferings and
success."  George Washington, "Farewell Address", delivered
September 17, 1796. (Emphasis added.)

     "A Citizen of one state is a citizen of every state in the
Union."  Butler v. Farnsworth, Fed.Cas.No. 2,240 (U.S. 3d Cir., 4
Wash.C.C. 101).

     "Admission on an equal footing with the original States, in
all respects whatever, involves equality of constitutional right
and power, which cannot afterwards be controlled, and it also
involves as Citizens of the United States of those whom Congress
makes members of the political community, and who are recognized as
such in the formation of the new State with the consent of
Congress."  Boyd v. Thayer (1891), 143 U.S. 143.

     "All white persons or persons of European descent who were
born in any of the colonies, or resided or had been adopted there,
before 1776, and had adhered to the cause of Independence up to
July 4, 1776, were by the Declaration [of Independence] invested
with privileges of citizenship."  U. S. v. Ritchie, 58 U. S. (17
How.) 525, 539; Ingles v. Sailor's Snug Harbor, 28 U. S. (3 Pet.)
99; Boyd v. Nebraska, 36 L.Ed. 103, 110.  (Emphasis and insertions
added.)

     "In general, 'Free White Persons,' includes members of the
white or Caucasian race, as distinct from the black, red, yellow,
and brown races."  U. S. v. Balsara (1910), 180 F. 694, 695; In re
Najour (1909), 174 F. 735; In re Ellis (1910), 179 F. 1002, 1003;
In re Alverto (1912), 198 F. 688; In re Akhay Kumur Mozumdar
(1913), 207 F. 115. (Emphasis added.)

     "The privileges and immunities secured to citizens of each
State by the first clause of the second section of the fourth
article of the Constitution are only those which belong to [free
white de jure State] Citizenship."  Conner v. Elliott, 59 U. S. (18
How.) 591. (Insertion added.)

     "It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were
citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted.
And in order to do this, we must recur to the governments and
institutions of the thirteen colonies, when they separated from
Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places
in the family of independent nations. We must inquire who, at that
time, were recognized as the people or citizens of a state, whose
rights and liberties had been outraged by the English government;
and who declared their independence and assumed the powers of
government to defend their rights by force of arms.
     "In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of
the times, and the language used in the Declaration of
Independence, show that neither the class of persons who had been
imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become
free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor
intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable
instrument."  Dred Scott v. Sanford, supra, p. 407.

     "We give both of these laws in the words used by the
respective legislative bodies, because the language in which they
are framed, as well as the provisions contained in them, show, too
plainly to be misunderstood, the degraded condition of this unhappy
race. They were still in force when the revolution began, and are
a faithful index to the state of feeling towards the class of
persons of whom they speak, and of the position they occupied
throughout the thirteen colonies, in the eyes and thoughts of the
men who framed the Declaration of Independence and established the
state constitutions and governments. They show that a perpetual and
impassable barrier was intended to be erected between the white
race and the one which they had reduced to slavery and governed as
subjects with absolute and despotic power, and which they then
looked upon as so far below them in the scale of created beings,
that intermarriages between white persons and Negroes or mulattoes
were regarded as unnatural and immoral, and punished as crimes, not
only to the parties but to the person who joined them in marriage.
And no distinction in this respect was made between the free Negro
or mulatto and the slave, but this stigma, of the deepest
degradation, was fixed upon the whole race.
     "We refer to these historical facts for the purpose of showing
the fixed opinions concerning that race, upon which the statesmen
of that day spoke and acted. It is necessary to do this in order to
determine whether the general terms used in the Constitution of the
United States, as to the rights of man and the rights of the
people, (were) intended to include them, or to give to them or
their posterity the benefit of any of its provisions. The language
of the Declaration of Independence is equally conclusive:
     "It begins by declaring that, "When in the Course of human
events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the
political bands which have connected them with another, and to
assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station
to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them, a decent
respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should
declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
"It then proceeds to say: "We hold these truths to be self-evident:
that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life,
Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed."
     "The general words quoted above would seem to embrace the
whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument
at this day would be so understood. But 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
the declaration; for if the language, as understood in that day,
would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed
the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and
flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted; and
instead of the sympathy of mankind, to which they so confidently
appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke
and reprobation.
     "Yet the men who framed this declaration were great men--high
in literary acquirements--high in their sense of honor, and
incapable of asserting principles inconsistent with those on which
they were acting. They perfectly understood the meaning of the
language they used, and how it would be understood by others; and
they knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be
supposed to embrace the Negro race which, by common consent, had
been excluded from civilized governments and the family of nations,
and doomed to slavery. They spoke and acted according to the then
established doctrines and principles, and in the ordinary language
of the day, and no one misunderstood them. The unhappy black race
were separated from the white by indelible marks, and laws long
before established, and were never thought of or spoken of except
as property, and when the claims of the owner or the profit of a
trader were supposed to need protection.
     "This state of public opinion had undergone no change when the
Constitution was adopted, as is equally evident from its provisions
and language."  Dred Scott v. Sanford, ibid., pp. 409, 410.

     "To all this mass of proof we have still to add that Congress
has repeatedly legislated upon the same construction of the
Constitution that we have given. Three laws, two of which were
passed almost immediately after the government went into operation,
will be abundantly sufficient to show this. The two first are
particularly of notice, because many of the men who assisted in
framing the Constitution, and took no active part in procuring its
adoption, were then in the halls of legislation, and certainly
understood what they meant when they used the words "people of the
United States" and "citizen" in that well considered instrument.
     "The first of these acts is the naturalization law, which was
passed at the second session of the first Congress, March 26, 1790,
and confines the right of becoming citizens "to aliens being free
white persons."
     ". . . But the language of the law above quoted shows that
citizenship at that time was perfectly understood to be confined to
the white race; and they alone constituted the sovereignty in the
government. . . Another of the early laws of which we have spoken
is the first militia law, which was passed in 1792, at the first
session of the second Congress. The language of this law is equally
plain and significant with the one just mentioned. It directs that
every "free able-bodied white male citizen" shall be enrolled in
the militia. . .
     "The third act to which we have alluded is even still more
decisive; it was passed as late as 1813. . . and it provides
"(t)hat from and after the termination of the war in which the
United States are now engaged with Great Britain, it shall not be
lawful to employ, on board of any public or private vessels of the
United States, any person or persons except citizens of the United
States, or persons of color, natives of the United States."
"Here the line of distinction is drawn in express words. Persons of
color, in the judgment of Congress, were not included in the word
"citizens", and they are described as another and different class
of persons, and authorized to be employed, if born in the United
States."  Dred Scott v. Sanford, supra, pp. 419-421.

     "Are free negroes or free colored persons citizens within the
meaning of this [Comity] clause?  We think not.  In recurring to
the past history of the constitution, and prior to its formation,
to that of the confederation, it will be found that nothing beyond
a kind of quasi-citizenship has ever been recognized in the case of
colored persons. . . .If citizens in a full and constitutional
sense, why were they not permitted to participate in its formation?
They certainly were not.  The constitution was the work of the
white race, the government for which it provides and of which it is
the fundamental law, is in their hands and under their control; and
it could not have been intended to place a different race of people
in all things upon terms of equality with themselves.  Indeed, if
such had been the desire, its utter impracticability is too evident
to admit of doubt.  The two races differing as they do in
complexion, habits, conformation, and intellectual endowments,
could not nor ever will live together upon terms of social or
political equality.  A higher than human power has so ordered it,
and a greater than human agency must change the decree.  Those who
framed the Constitution were aware of this, and hence their
intention to exclude them as citizens within the meaning of the
clause to which we referred."  Pendleton v. State, 6 Ark. 509.
(Emphasis added.)

     "There are, nevertheless, inequalities of great moment in the
mind of a legislator, because they have a natural and inevitable
influence in society.  Let us enumerate some of them:  1. There is
an inequality of wealth. . . 2. BIRTH.  Let no man be surprised
that this species of inequality is introduced here.  Let the page
in history be quoted where any nation, ancient or modern, civilized
or savage, is mentioned, among whom no difference was made between
the citizens on account of extraction.  The truth is that more
influence is allowed to this advantage in free republics than in
despotic governments, or than would be allowed to it in simple
monarchies, if severe laws had not been made from age to age to
secure it."  John Adams, A Defense of the American Constitutions,
1787, from The Political Writings of John Adams, published by
Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1954, p. 134.  (Emphasis added.)

     "These sources of inequality, which are common to every people
and can never be altered by any because they are founded in the
constitution of nature--this natural aristocracy among mankind has
been dilated on because it is a fact essential to be considered in
the institution of government.  It forms a body of men which
contains the greatest collections of virtues and abilities in a
free government, is the brightest ornament and glory of the nation,
and may always be made the greatest blessing of society if it be
judiciously managed in the constitution.  But if this be not done,
it is always the most dangerous; nay, it may be added, it never
fails to be the destruction of the commonwealth [sovereignty]."
John Adams, A Defense of the American Constitutions, from The
Political Writings of John Adams, published by Bobbs-Merrill Co.,
1954, p. 139. (Emphasis and Insertion added.)

     "Blacks, whether born free or in bondage, if born under the
jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States, are natives, and
not aliens. They are what the common law terms natural born
subjects. . . . The better opinion, I should think, was that
Negroes or other slaves, born within and under the allegiance of
the United States, are natural born subjects, but not citizens.
Citizens, under our Constitution and laws, mean free inhabitants,
born within the United States or naturalized under the laws of
Congress. . .  "  James Kent, Commentaries on American Law, 7th
ed., Volume II, pp. 275-278. (Italics added.)

     "But birth will not confer these advantages upon a Negro or an
Indian. If so, a man may acquire, by the accident of birth, what
the government itself has no right to grant. No Negro, or
descendant of Negroes, is a citizen of the Union, or any of the
States. They are mere "sojourners in the land", inmates, allowed
usually by tacit consent, sometimes by legislative enactment,
certain specific rights. Their status and that of the citizen is
not the same. Vattel, Book 1, para. 213. But the clause of the
Constitution in question applies to citizens, not to sojourners or
inmates."  State v. Clairborne, 1 Meig's Rep. 331, 335.

     "It results, then, that the plaintiff cannot have been a
citizen, either of Pennsylvania or of Virginia, unless she belonged
to a class of society upon which, by the institutions of the
states, was conferred a right to enjoy all the privileges and
immunities appertaining to the state. That this was the case there
is no evidence in the record to show, and the presumption is
against it. Free Negroes and mulattoes are, almost everywhere,
considered and treated as a degraded race of people; insomuch so,
that, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, they
cannot become citizens of the United States."  Amy v. Smith, 1
Litt. Ky. R. 334.

     "Again, according to a well established principle of the
common law, now in force, none but citizens can hold our lands."
Amy v. Smith, supra, p. 339.

     "The American colonies brought with them the common, and not
the civil law; and each state, at the revolution, adopted either
more or less of it, and not one of them exploded the principle that
the place of birth conferred citizenship."  Ibid., pp. 337, 338.

     "Hence I conclude that every white person at least, born
within the United States, whether male or female, is, by birth, a
citizen within the meaning of our Constitution, and as such has
rights secured by it. . ."  Ibid., p. 341.

Attorney-General of the United States, one William Wurtz, in an
opinion dated November 7, 1821:
               I presume that the description, "citizen of the
          United States", used in the Constitution, has the same
          meaning that it has in the several acts of Congress
          passed under the authority of the Constitution; otherwise
          there will arise a vagueness and uncertainty in our laws
          which will make their execution, if not impracticable, at
          least extremely difficult and dangerous.
               Looking to the Constitution as the standard of
          meaning, it seems very manifest that no person is
          included in the description of "citizen of the United
          States" who has not the full rights of a citizen in the
          state of his residence. Among other proofs of this, it
          will be sufficient to advert to the constitutional
          provision that "the citizens of each state shall be
          entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens
          in the several states".
               Now, if a person born and residing in Virginia but
          possessing none of the high characteristic privileges of
          a citizen of the state is nevertheless a citizen of
          Virginia in the sense of the Constitution, then, on his
          removal into another state, he acquires all the
          immunities and privileges of a citizen of that other
          state, although he possessed none of them in the state of
          his nativity; a consequence which certainly could not
          have been in the contemplation of the Convention.
          Again: the only qualification required by the
          Constitution to render a person eligible as President,
          Senator, or Representative of the United States is that
          he shall be a "citizen of the United States" of a given
          age and residence. Free Negroes and mulattoes can satisfy
          the requisites of age and residence as well as the white
          man; and if nativity, residence, and allegiance combined
          (without the rights and privileges of a white man) are
          sufficient to make him a "citizen of the United States"
          in the same sense of the Constitution, then free Negroes
          and mulattoes are eligible to those high offices, and may
          command the purse and the sword of the nation.
               For these and other reasons, which might easily be
          multiplied, I am of the opinion that the Constitution, by
          the description of "citizens of the United States",
          intended those only who enjoyed the full and equal
          privileges of white citizens in the state of their
          residence. If this be correct, and if I am right also in
          the other position--that we must affix the same sense to
          this description when found in an act of Congress, as it
          manifestly has in the Constitution--then free people of
          color in Virginia are not citizens of the United States
          in the sense of our shipping laws, or any other laws,
          passed under the authority of the Federal Constitution;
          for such people have very few of the privileges of the
          citizens of Virginia.
               1. They can vote at no election, although they
               might be freeholders.
               2. They are incapable of any office of trust or
               profit, civil or military.
               3. They are not competent witnesses against a white
               man in any case, civil or criminal.
               4. They are not enrolled in the militia, are
               incapable of bearing arms, and are forbidden even
               to have in their possession military weapons, under
               the penalties of forfeiture and whipping.
               5. They are subject to severe corporal punishment
               for raising their hand against a white man, except
               in defense of a wanton assault.
               6. They are incapable of contracting marriage with
               a white woman, and the attempt is severely
               punished.
               These are some of the incapacities which
          distinguished them from the white citizens of Virginia;
          but they are, I think, amply sufficient to show that such
          persons could not have been intended to be embraced by
          the description "citizens of the United States" in the
          sense of the Constitution and acts of Congress.
               The allegiance which the free man of color owes to
          the State of Virginia is no evidence of citizenship; for
          he owes it not in consequence of any oath of allegiance.
          He is not required or permitted to take any such oath;
          the allegiance which he owes is that which a sojourning
          stranger owes--the mere consequence and return for the
          protection which he receives from the laws. . . .
          Opinions of the Attorneys General, Volume 1, pp. 506-508.
          (Emphasis added.)

     "But as the laws of the United States do not now authorize any
but a white person to become a citizen, it marks the national
sentiment upon the subject and creates a presumption that no state
had made persons of color citizens. . . .And as it respects
Virginia, we know that free people of color have never been
considered, or treated, either in the practice of the country or by
the laws of the state, as possessing the rights and privileges of
citizens."  Amy v. Smith, supra, p. 334.  (Emphasis added.)

     "Prior to the adoption of the Constitution of the United
States, each state had a right to make citizens of any persons they
pleased; but as the Federal Constitution does not authorize any but
white persons to become citizens of the United States, it furnishes
a presumption that none other were then citizens of any state;
which presumption will stand until repealed by positive testimony."
id.  (Emphasis added.)

     "That all men are born to equal rights is true. Every being
has a right to his own, as clear, as moral, as sacred as any other
being has. . . . But to teach that all men are born with equal
powers and faculties, to equal property and advantages through
life, is as gross a fraud, as glaring an imposition on the
credulity of the people as ever was practiced by monks, by Druids,
by Brahmins, by priests of the immortal Lama, or the self-styled
philosophers of the late French Revolution. For Honor's sake, . .
. , for truth and virtue's sake, let American philosophers and
politicians despise it."  John Adams, in a letter to a Mr. John
Taylor, April 15, 1814 from The Political Writings of John Adams,
published by Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1954, p. 201.  (Emphasis added.)

U. S. Senator Robert H. Toombs of Georgia in Boston in 1856, as to
the inevitable consequences of trespassing on the preamble and
altering the posterity of "free white":
               "Therefore, so far from being a necessary and proper
          means of executing a granted powers, it is an arbitrary
          and despotic usurpation against the letter, the spirit,
          and the declared purposes of the Constitution; for its
          exercise neither "promote(s) the general welfare", nor
          "secure(s) the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to
          our posterity", but, on the contrary, puts in jeopardy
          all these inestimable blessings. It loosens the bonds of
          Union, seeks to establish injustice, disturbs the
          domestic tranquility, weakens the common defense, and
          endangers the general welfare by sowing hatreds and
          discords among our people, and puts in eminent peril the
          liberties of the white race, by whom and for whom the
          Constitution was made. . .  "
          Stephens, A Constitutional View of the Late War between
          the States, National Publ., Vol. I, p. 632.