This is the story of Dred Scott as told by the United States Supreme Court. It is virtually a paragraph by paragraph translation of the Supreme Court decision in the case formally entitled Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393. If you don't believe me, good. Look for yourself. You can call up the case and compare them side by side, paragraph by paragraph. Then you can see for yourself. Is this is what the United States Supreme Court really said?

At one point in time there were people in Africa who owned their life. As is the history of this planet, might makes right. A group of people went in and waged war on these people individually and in small groups. Well, individuals and villages are easy to conquer. Usually, the stronger force wins. We learned that before we took on the King of England. You know, United We Stand.

It's the story of planet Earth. The biggest bully makes the rules. If I can kick your butt, I can steal your stuff. It is the reason that governments are created in the first place. If I pay the king and kiss his butt, when the invaders come he will protect me. The problem has always been; now who is going to protect me from the king?

People went over to Africa and stole the property of the Africans. They stole their life, their liberty, their property and pretty much ended their pursuit of happiness. It's easy to conqueror a kingdom of one. Isn't that what being shanghaied means? A superior force attacks an individual and declares him a slave.

It is the story of Man. If you can't protect your stuff, you don't have any stuff. Slavery has been going on for all of recorded history. Someone couldn't protect his stuff and a larger force came in and took it. It's mine only as long as I can kick every body's butt that says differently. This is why we band together in the first place.

Evidently the people in Africa didn't learn these lessons. They were even capturing each other. Go figure. But, then again, it seems to be easy to screw someone else over if you believe yourself to be immune.

Well, two of these conquered people had a child who grew up in Slavery. His name was Dred Scott.

In 1834 Dred Scott was the slave of a surgeon in the Army of the United States. The Surgeon took the slave from the State of Missouri to the military post at Rock Island, in the State of Illinois, and held him there as a slave until the month of April or May, 1836.

Then the Surgeon moved to the military post at Fort Snelling, situated on the west bank of the Mississippi river, in the Territory known as Upper Louisiana, acquired by the United States from France, and situated north of the latitude of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north, and north of the State of Missouri. The Surgeon held Dred Scott in slavery at Fort Snelling.

When the Army surgeon got to Fort Snelling in 1836, he met a Major in the Army of the United States. The Major had arrived at Fort Snelling one year earlier and had brought his slave Harriet with him.

Well, One thing led to another and the Army surgeon bought the Army Major's slave Harriet and in 1836 Dred and Harriet married at Fort Snelling with the consent of the Surgeon who claimed to be their master and owner.

Harriet had a daughter named Elisa. She was born on the steamboat Gipsey, north of the north line of the State of Missouri, and on the Mississippi River.

In 1838 the Army Surgeon moves again. He went back to the State of Missouri. Harriet has another daughter named Lizzie in the State of Missouri, at the military post called Jefferson Barracks.

Evidently the surgeon was a pretty good person to have as a master and owner. He did buy Harriet and let them marry. They now had two children. The master's heard was growing. Living wasn't too bad. They even probably had status as the Surgeon's slaves.

Then things turned bad for Dred and his family. The Surgeon sold Dred, Harriet, Elisa and Lizzie to Sandford as slaves. Well, life doesn't seem to be as good with Sandford. Being a slave to the surgeon wasn't bad. This Sandford guy is a whole different thing. He's beating me, my wife and my two little girls.

His new owner, this Sandford guy, is saying what's the problem. I didn't do anything wrong. These are Negro slaves. I own them. They are the lawful property of king Sandford. Sure I laid hands on them. But, I did it gently and it was only to restrain them. I have a right to do that to my slaves. All four of them are my slaves. What's the problem?

The problem was that there was no problem. Sandford was right. Dred Scott, his wife Harriet and their two children Elisa and Lizzie were the legal property of king Sandford. Surely he could beat them. Kings have been mistreating slaves and subjects for as long as there have been kings.

Evidently Missouri law was changing on slaves. There were obviously limits on how badly you could treat your slaves. Sandford made a point of saying that he had beaten them gently, really just enough to restrain them. For him to have been so specific I suspect that there was a rule that he knew very well. You can slap and beat your slaves, just don't do it too hard. For instance it might have been illegal to use a cat of nine tails on your slave as the English did seamen on the king's ships.

Well, here was poor Dred Scott. This new owner keeps beating him, his wife Harriet and their two little girls, Elisa and Lizzie. He needs a way out of this.

He realizes that the Surgeon had taken him to Rock Island, in the State of Illinois.

He realizes that the Surgeon had taken him to the military post at Fort Snelling, situated on the west bank of the Mississippi river, in the Territory known as Upper Louisiana, acquired by the United States from France, and situated north of the latitude of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north, and north of the State of Missouri.

Well, Illinois was a free State. You can't own slaves in Illinois. I became a free man in Illinois.

Then I went to the territories above that line in the Louisiana Purchase land and slavery is forbidden there too. I was freed again.

Then I came back to Missouri. But I came back a free man.

Sure, I came back with my wife and children as the slaves of the Surgeon. Sure the Surgeon sold me and my family to Sandford. But, that doesn't count. I was freed in Illinois and my wife and I were freed in the Territories. My family and I have been free all of this time and we just didn't realize it. We came back to Missouri as free people.

Since I am a free man my wife and children are free too, Sandford can't beat us any more. Were leaving.

Here is the short answer.

The Supreme Court told Dred Scott. When you were in the territories above that line that congress drew and said no slavery above this line. Well, they had no power to do that. Sorry, that doesn't count. Sure, the Federal government has the right to make rules in the territories, but don't forget that that property belongs to all the kings in all the States. All of those Kings, not only do they own the land, but they created the Federal government. The kings are above the federal government. The hired help, property managers of the Kings, can't tell Kings that they will loose their property if they bring it on to their own land. The federal government is only the caretaker of these lands rightly owned by these kings in common. If they want to bring their slaves onto their land it is their right. Slavery may not be a good idea, but it has been going on for a long time and, like it or not, it is the law of the land. Until that law is changed, that's the law of the land.

The Supreme Court told Dred Scott. You know that time you spent in Illinois. Well the sovereign nation of Illinois says that slavery is Illegal. The Sovereign nation of Missouri says that slavery is legal and you are a slave. You should have done this in Illinois when you had the chance.. These are sovereign nations just like England, France and Spain. We can't tell England, France and Spain how to run their country. We can't tell Illinois and Missouri how to run their countries either. We can only step in when the federal contract has been breached. The Sovereign Nation of Missouri says that that Dred Scott and his family are slaves. In some other Sovereign nations on the face of the earth, say Illinois, you would be free. But, you aren't in any of those places. The Scott family is in Missouri and they are slaves in Missouri.

If he had known just a little more law. Dred Scott might have been free. If he had left his owner in Illinois before he met his wife. Or, possibly, if he had run away in the territories and then run to a State where slavery was illegal. They could have been free people. So much for ignorance being bliss. In this case ignorance is slavery.

According to the United States Supreme Court if congress did not have the power to declare slavery illegal in the territories then, technically, they would be run away slaves. If they had fled to a State where they could be free the question probably would never have reached the United States Supreme Court and the question of whether the Federal government had the power to free slaves in the territories would have never been answered until someone else complained. A law is presumed to be legal until it is challenged. The United States Supreme Court will let a blatantly unconstitutional law stand until someone complains to them. No matter who gets hurt before that time.

Let me explain. The United States Supreme Court has taken the position that they will settle specific disputes brought before them. They will not cry foul. They will only agree or disagree if someone else cries foul.

Let's look at that. Dred Scott has claimed that he was free in the territories above the magic line. The United States Supreme Court said that the Congress did not have the power to make such a law. Congress didn't have that power, so the law is no good.

Shouldn't people know that a law is no good when it is passed. The United States Supreme Court knew when the law was passed that what Congress did was not legal.

Lets look at another side of this. If a slave runs away believing that he is free in the territories and he gets caught must he wait until then to find out that he should have never believed Congress when they told him he was free. He might not have run if he knew that Congress was just cruelly wrong when they told him he was free. He should have known law better. He would have known that Congress was wrong. What if he had been shot escaping? He was escaping because Congress had told him he was free.

For the United States Supreme Court to know that an action of Congress or a State is an illegal use of power and hence unconstitutional and still keep quiet makes them, legally, an accessory after the fact to an illegal act.

The long answer is even more interesting. We're not up to the overthrow of the United States yet. The United States Supreme Court is going to explain to you how the country works. The United States Supreme Court is going to tell you the importance of what you had. When we get into the next case, the United States Supreme Court is going to tell you what you lost and how you lost it. The third case I will translate for you will prove that the first two translations were accurate. You are going to find out that you have more in common with Dred Scott than you know. You will understand better when the United States Supreme Court tells you why your rights are no longer there.

Every man a King. At one time it used to be true. Huey Long was just making fun of us because he knew We, the People, had been dethroned and he was now the King of the sovereign nation called the State of Louisiana. All of the lawyers must have had a good laugh at our expense with that one.

Here is the Story of Dred Scott as told by CJ Taney when he wrote the Opinion of the United States Supreme Court. Go and see if I'm bulling you. This is almost a paragraph by paragraph translation of what Justice Taney wrote as the opinion of the Court. Don't believe me. Go and see for yourself.

TANEY, C.J., Opinion of the Court

Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.

Look we've argued this once, we delayed, we argued again and now we are going to decide.

Dred Scott, his wife and children came to court to "assert the title of himself and his family to freedom."

Look at the way that's worded. He came to assert or to state as true; declare; maintain. that he had title to freedom. Everything is about ownership, even freedom.

Do you remember I showed you in the Declaration of Independence that you could trace your title to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness among other rights all the way back to the Creator who created you. The State did not create you. You created the States. You are a king by divine right. Why? Because we declared it to be so in our Declaration of Independence and we'll kick any body's butt who says differently.

Now here is the United States Supreme Court telling you that I haven't been bulling you. Dred Scott came to the United States Supreme Court to "assert the title of himself and his family to freedom." He was going to make the claim that he was a King with clear title to his body and the body of his wife and children. Sandford is claiming that he is the rightful owner of these people and can treat his subjects any way he wants. Kings all over the world have been doing this since the dawn of Kings.

Now, here comes Dred Scott and his family claiming that his ancestors were free in Africa, born of pure blood Africans. His ancestors were conquered and sold into slavery. His owner and master moved to Illinois and Dred became free again, because the kings of Illinois said so. His owner and master moved to the Territories and the Kings agents, the federal government, said he was free there too. His owner and master took him back to Missouri, he must still be free. He is trying to prove title to his freedom. The Declaration of Independence claims that We, the People, Kings all, rule by Divine Right just like other kings. We kings can prove title to our freedom and property rights clear back to the Almighty Creator who created us. How can we claim that? We did it the same way that any nation does. We claimed it. We just said so. And we will fight anyone that says differently. If you don't like it we will have to go to war. Isn't that what we said to the King of England. We just stole your land if you don't like it try and force us. We also said that every man is a king and all sworn allies. Attack one king and you attack all kings. We just said so. That's what the Declaration of Independence is. We just declared this to be so. Want to make something of it? You will see that everything about law is basically property rights and the ability to defend them. Dred Scott is trying to prove ownership of his freedom. He is trying to prove ownership of his body.

Well, the Court said that there are basically two questions – did the court have the right to sit in judgment over this dispute? And, -- did they rule correctly or not.

The rules say that for a federal court to have the right to settle a dispute, to give the federal court jurisdiction, the Kings must be kings in different States.

Scott claimed that he is a Citizen of Missouri, and Sandford a citizen of New York. But, Sandford cried foul. He said Scott lied. Scott is a slave and not a Citizen of the State of Missouri.

Well, Scott admitted that he lied. He wasn't a Citizen of Missouri. He was a full blooded African whose ancestors were conquered and brought here as slaves.

The Circuit Court decided to hear the case, everybody agreed and a trial was held.

The Circuit Court decided that King Sandford was right, the Scott family were the subjects of King Sandford and, just like Kings everywhere, he could treat his subjects badly if he wanted to.

Dred Scott then came to the United States Supreme Court crying foul.

The Supreme Court said that we have a problem with this whole setup. When we look at the record of what happened we find that Sandford cried foul when Dred Scott brought him into court. He claimed that Scott had no right to bring him into court in the first place. We agree with Sandford. There should never have been a trial. The Circuit court had no right to find Sandford guilty or innocent. The Circuit Court had no right to be sticking its nose into King Sandford's business.

Some people objected saying that all parties had agreed to have the dispute settled there. If they all agreed. That gives them the right (the Jurisdiction) to decide. This would be a valid argument in most courts, but the federal courts are different from other courts. You have to remember, that we are a limited jurisdiction government. That means that we had to come up with different rules from other courts.

In most courts we presume that the court has the right to hear cases. If somebody thinks that the court doesn't have the right to hear the case, he must object and tell the court specifically why he believes that the court has no right to hear the case.

In most courts, if you don't object before the trial, you can't object latter at the appeal. But those are different courts. The problem here comes in because we started a totally different kind of government. So, there are completely different rules. The Federal Government is not like most governments. It just doesn't have the power that most governments do. Sure, when the Federal Government speaks it speaks for all of us. And, in that regard it will be treated as a sovereign nation. We'll kick anyone's butt who doesn't believe it. But remember, it is only the front. The spokes person for our united Countries we call States. The real power in the United States is just where it says. it's in the States, United.

The Federal government has been severely limited in it's power. We limited the federal government so much that we even made a list of the powers it had. No one, in the federal government can lawfully exercise any authority beyond these listed powers. No one. Not the President or the Congress or even the courts has any power except for the things the Kings listed in the constitution.

Remember us? We're the hired help. You did what anyone would do hiring servants. You gave us a list of things we were supposed to do and told us not to do anything else. It's spelled out in the Constitution. Therefore, the federal courts can't even hear cases that are not on the short list of things we can do listed in the constitution.

This is why when you go into a federal court you have to show that your case falls under our short list of things we are allowed to do. Otherwise, we are not allowed to do anything. Even if your right and you win, if you didn't show us that we had the right to stick our noses in, the jurisdiction, we'll throw the case out on appeal.

One of the rules states that we have the right to rule in disputes between kings of different States. If you come into federal court as citizens of different States under this rule, than you must prove that you are Citizens of different States. If you don't we can't even listen to you. We can't care who agreed to let that court rule. The Kings, our employers, said you have to be a Kings of different States to have your dispute settled here. If you aren't Kings of different States than you wasted everybody's time.

Of course, if everyone had claimed to be a King and it didn't show up anywhere on the record that someone was not a King, than we must assume that everyone was a King. But here, Sandford flat out said that Scott was lying about being a King and Dred Scott admitted that he was lying.

Well, if Scott is not a Citizen of the State of Missouri, then the parties are not citizens of different States. The rules state that United States courts can only hear disputes between parties of different States. Sandford is a Citizen of the State of New York, but Scott is not a Citizen of any State. The rules say that if a king from one Sovereign Nation State has a dispute with a King from another State those disputes are settled here. Only kings of different States are allowed to appear here. Who ever heard of such a thing. A commoner trying to appear in a king's court to challenge a king.

In the opinion of the United States Supreme Court, Dred Scott was not a King. He did not have the right to go into a Circuit Court, a king's court, in an action against a king. The law was clear. The circuit court can only settle disputes between kings to prevent wars between kings. The circuit court has no right to rule over a king. A commoner can not use the courts to gain power over a king. He is, after all, a king and owner in common of the government and the courts. Kings Courts, Kings rules. We're just the hired help, the referees.

Some people objected saying that all parties had agreed to have the dispute settled there. If they all agreed then that gives them the right (the Jurisdiction) to decide.

But, this is not a State court or a common law court. This is a federal court. We don't have the power like the court of a king. Things are different here. The kings restricted the power of the federal government. Here you have to prove that you have a right to be here otherwise we, by law, will have to ignore you. And, as the highest federal court, if one of the lower courts breaks the rules and hears a case that it had no business sticking its nose into, then, as good managers of the Kings, we have to tell everyone that the ruling of that court was no good. We are only here to settle disputes brought by kings. That's the only power the kings gave us.

The question is simply can a slave be a king with all of the rights of a king. One of those rights of kingship is the right to come into this court to have disputes settled. The kings created this court for kings.

Remember, we are talking about African slaves. Even if they were freed or the children of freed slaves, they were still Africans. Surely the kings of the States didn't mean that they should be kings too. If I take the rope off the ox, that doesn't make him a King. It's just an ox running loose.

This isn't like the Indians. Sure the Indians didn't mix in too much with the white man or take part in the government. Sure, they were uncivilized too, but they were a free and independent people associated together in nations or tribes and governed by their own laws.

They claimed to own the land that they were on. Just like we did with England. And, they were willing to fight about it too. In fact, in the opinion of the court we never took any of their land until the tribe or nation consented to give it to us. Just like England finally consented to give us the land.

The Indians had their own government. Nations sought their alliances in war. We made treaties with them. We've always treated them as just visiting foreigners. But they may, without doubt, like the subjects of any other foreign Government, be naturalized by the authority of Congress, and become citizens of a State, and of the United States, and if an individual should leave his nation or tribe and take up his abode among the white population, he would be entitled to all the rights and privileges which would belong to an emigrant from any other foreign people. He could be made a king.

But remember, were talking about Africans, not Indians.

"The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the "sovereign people," and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty.

Let me repeat that. They are what we familiarly call the "sovereign people," and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty.

A Sovereign is a king, isn't it. Go look it up if you want. I'll bet you thought I was pulling your chain on the nation of Kings thing. That's what they said. The United States is the front for the collection of Sovereign Nation States inhabited by Kings. Sovereign Kings, We, the Sovereign People.

That was the genius of the system that our founding fathers created. A nation of kings on equal footing with any other king in the world. All created equal. These kings had sworn allegiance to all of the other kings in their nation State and had elected public servants to manage the property which they all owned in common and to referee disputes between kings. Each nation State on equal footing with all of the nation States in the world. Not only had these kings sworn allegiance to the kings of their nation State, but all of these nation States had sworn allegiance to all of the other kings in their nation States.

A nation of Kings. Ruling, by divine right, over their kingdom, with property rights that can be traced back to the Almighty Creator. What chance does a king of such a small kingdom have against the other kings of the world and their army? None. So we did what any king in that position would do. We made a treaty with all of the other kings. The Treaty said that we will come to the aid of any king in trouble. Attack one King and you attack all of us Kings. Not only every king in our country, the nation State, but every king in every nation State. Every man is a king in his own body. Every man is the army of his kingdom. Every king has sworn allegiance to the Kings of his Nation State. To send his army to the aid of every king in his nation State, or the kings of any Nation State, if necessary. The treaty said that these kings will do what kings must. They must hire representatives to manage the property of the Kings. They must set up courts so that any one king can protect his property rights from any other king be it the King next door or the King across the ocean. From our court system, we are not one King fighting, we are a nation of Kings fighting, or nations of Kings fighting. Mess with me and you mess with all of us Kings. The court system is where we light the signal fire to call for the aid of our allies, the other Kings. We call together 12 unbiased Kings. They decide how the dispute shall be settled.

If you claim is against a king in your own Nation State you go to the State Court where the dispute is settled by rules of the kings of that Nation State with a referee that knows the rules of that country.

If your claim is against a King of another Nation State, you go to a Federal Court where disputes between Kings of different, but United, Countries are settled.

If your claim is against your nation State, then you are claiming that all of the kings of your Nation State have attacked you. There is only one court for such a dispute the United States Supreme Court. Our treaty gave it power over the Nation States to prevent a collection of kings from banding together and overthrowing the other kings in the Nation State. No one can tell a sovereign nation what to do without its consent. Just as no one can tell a Sovereign King what to do with out his consent. The Constitution of the United States was the mutual defense treaty that protects the property rights of each king. All Kings and, therefore, all representatives of kings are bound by this treaty. The Civil War was a war enforcing the breach of the Treaty. You can't just walk out of the Union. You signed a contract. I have a property right in your common land too. I can move there and be king there too. Besides that, if there is just one King down there that doesn't want to back out, I am sworn to defend his rights too. If you want out, do it by the rules.

That's what else they said. That we form the sovereignty and hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. We are the kings. We hold the power. We conduct the government. We set up a federal government to give kings a place to fight fairly without war. To always have the right to challenge an encroachment on our rights as king of our domain. With this battleground of courts you always had the option of having you claims put before 12 unbiased kings and a professional referee, the judge. No more does might makes right. 12 kings will hear and decide the dispute. Their decision is backed by the mutual defense treaty of all Kings powerful and weak alike.

Sounds like the government you learned about. But doesn't look like the government you see does it. I'm showing you what's right so I can show you what went wrong. Back to the translation. The court continued.

Remember, were talking about Africans not Indians. Africans were always considered inferior. Even when we let them go we still kept the law over them. Freed or not they were still subject to the authority of the King's property managers. They only had such rights and privileges that those that held the power in government chose to give them.

It's not the courts job to say if this is a good idea or not. That's for the kings to decide. They made the mutual assistance pact known as the Constitution. Our job is only to see if everyone is playing by the rules as written. You know, professional referee.

Now when we talk about this we are not talking about within a State. A State can make anybody it wants a citizen and they will be treated as a citizen in that State. But they are not Citizens of the United States. They can't go into another State and claim to be Citizens there. Only a Citizen of the Untied States can do that.

Congress has the exclusive right to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. A policy that all of the States must agree on. All States must agree on who is to become a Citizen of the United States and how, with the rights of King in every State.

We don't care what the kings decide within the borders of any of the nation States as to who else is a Citizen. But it's only good within your borders.

Make who you want king in your nation State but only the federal government can declare who can be made a king in all of the nation States. That's what we agreed.

We don't care if you make elephants citizens of your State. That doesn't make them Citizens in all of the States. Only a Citizen of the United States is a Citizen in any State that he is in. We gave that power to the federal government because we all have to agree.

You can give a person all the rights you want inside your State, but that doesn't give them rights in all of the States.

Let me give you a direct quote that will become important later.

"No State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can, by naturalizing an alien, invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal Government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the Constitution and laws of the State attached to that character."

Let me repeat that last part. "He would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and the laws of the States attached to that character. Later on we will be talking about the character of a guy named Hans. We won't be talking about whether Hans was a good man or not. We will be talking about the rights that attached to that character.

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. It is our opinion, backed by history and the language used in the Declaration of Independence that slaves and their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were not considered to be people. Hence, We, the People didn't apply to them.

It's hard to believe now, but Africans have, for centuries, been regarded as subhuman. But this was universal, at the time, not only here, but in every European Nation.

The white race always considered them as inferior and no one thought it odd that we could reduce them to slavery for their own good. Surely, when we said all men are Kings, we didn't mean them too.

We broke off from England. England was the biggest trafficker in African Slaves. They would go capture them and not only bring them home for slaves but sold them in the colonies. Every colony had them. No one thought anything of it at the time.

They were slaves before we started the Country. No one would have even imagined that, at the time, they they were meant to be kings too. Sure we might free them, but kings? Get a grip.

The legislation of the different colonies furnishes positive and indisputable proof of this fact. Even the Declaration of Independence is equally conclusive. The general words if used today would mean the whole human family, but, at the time it was written, it is too clear for dispute that the African race was not to be included. Everyone knew they were property.

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.

Even the Constitution has provisions for the importation of slaves until 1808 and the return of runaway slaves. Only Blacks were slaves, it's always been that way. We couldn't mean them when we made Kings. Slaves can't be Kings.

Just look at how they were treated in the States. Even when freed they were still subject to strict police regulations. There is no doubt. Slaves can't be kings.

In Connecticut -- there was a provision by which any negro, Indian, or mulatto servant who was found wandering out of the town or place to which he belonged without a written pass such as is therein described was made liable to be seized by anyone, and taken before the next authority to be examined and delivered up to his master -- who was required to pay the charge which had accrued thereby. And a subsequent section of the same law provides that if any free negro shall travel without such pass, and shall be stopped, seized, or taken up, he shall pay all charges arising thereby. And this law was in full operation when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, and was not repealed till 1797. So that, up to that time, free Negroes and mulattoes were associated with servants and slaves in the police regulations established by the laws of the State.

It cannot be believed that the large slave holding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police [p*417] regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety.

It would give to persons of the Negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.

It is impossible, it would seem, to believe that the great men of the slave holding States, who took so large a share in framing the Constitution of the United States and exercised so much influence in procuring its adoption, could have been so forgetful or regardless of their own safety and the safety of those who trusted and confided in them.

What danger we would unleash if we had all of those Africans running around wherever and whenever they wanted and able to carry a gun wherever they went.

Even the Articles of Confederation adopted before the Constitution shows slaves were not intended to be Citizens. Freed or not.

One of the first acts of Congress on naturalization even stipulated free white persons. It wasn't only blacks then. We were upset at the Indians too. Not only were they uncivilized, but they had helped the British in the revolutionary war. No one thought of making them Citizens.

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.

Look how they separated citizen and persons of color, natives of the United States.

The federal government has no power other than to treat them as property and to protect the property rights of the King. That's the rules you gave us.

It's up to the States to deal with this race, whether emancipated or not, as each State may think justice, humanity, and the interests and safety of society, require. The States evidently intended to reserve this power exclusively to themselves.

Surely, no one thinks that we should interpret the Constitution to mean something that wasn't intended. We're just here to interpret the contract to mean what it says. If you want it to say something else, then change it. Follow the provisions agreed upon and change it. If we can change it at whim, then it is not a contract. Besides, we're only the hired help. We have no power to change the rules our kings gave us.

"And, upon a full and careful consideration of the subject, [p*427] the court is of opinion, that, upon the facts stated in the plea in abatement, Dred Scott was not a citizen of Missouri within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and not entitled as such to sue in its courts, and consequently that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction of the case." Any judgments of the Circuit court are bull. The circuit court had no business sticking their nose into the business of their King and master.

If Dred Scott is a slave than he is can't sue like he was a Citizen.

We said this too many times to be disputed, that a court can give no judgment for either party where it has no jurisdiction and the case should have been thrown out immediately. Federal Courts can only hear cases of Kings brought against Kings of different Nation States. It does not have the power, the jurisdiction, to hear this case.

Sticking our nose into any King's business when we don't have the right is as grave an error as a Court can commit. We find this the most in cases that are heard in the wrong type of court. We throw those out too. The rules the Kings gave us are specific. We're just the hired help bound to follow the rules of our masters.

Just so no one misunderstands, we are going to see if Dred Scott is really entitled to his freedom.

This brings up two points. First, was the Scott family free in Missouri because they stayed in the territories above that line that Congress invented? Secondly, was Dred Scott himself free because he once lived in Illinois?

The act of Congress upon which Dred relies declares that slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, shall be forever prohibited in all that part of the territory ceded by France, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, and not included within the limits of Missouri.

The first thing we must answer is whether Congress was authorized to pass this law under any of the powers granted to it by the Constitution; for if the authority is not given by that instrument, it is the duty of this court to declare it void and inoperative, and incapable of conferring freedom upon anyone who is held as a slave under the laws of any one of the States.

The counsel for Dred Scott has laid much stress upon that article in the Constitution which confers on Congress the power "to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States,"

But, he botched the case. That doesn't apply here. The territory or other property they are talking about is the property we stole from England. Excuse me. The property given to us by England in the Treaty that ended the Revolutionary war. It has nothing to do with land we acquired after we became independent. Now we are going to prove what an incompetent boob Scott's counsel was. We are going to prove He argued the wrong point.

A brief summary of the history of the times, as well as the careful and measured terms in which the article is framed will show that we're right.

From the time that the Revolutionary War started the States were arguing about what would happen to the large unsettled tracks of land some of the States would own if they won the war.

Nobody knew just how much land that would be. They wouldn't know until there was a Treaty with England just how big the United States would be.

Well, Maryland raised a fuss. It had no unsettled land. Maryland said that since we all fought for this land and we all have to pay the debt for this war, we should take all of the unsettled land and put it in the common pot.

Everyone agreed and a resolution was passed that every State that owned unsettled land when we convinced England to give us the land by treaty would give or cede this land to the common good and they should pledge this land now so that we can borrow against it. When the war is over we can sell the land to pay for the war.

Congress pledged that if this land was ceded (given) to the United States it would be disposed of for the common benefit and be settled and formed into new Republican States with the same rights as the other States. New States full of Kings sworn to defend and protect all other Kings in the Union.

When the war ended we knew how much land every State had. Virginia had a huge piece of land as did some other States. They could sell this land and pay their portion of the War debt with no problem.

The States with no unsettled land would have to tax themselves to death for a long time to pay their share of the war debt.

It almost broke up the country. Finally Virginia ceded a huge piece of land to the United States for the common good. They didn't do it because they didn't want the land. They didn't do it because they couldn't govern the land as well as the new Federal Government. They gave up the land because it was the right thing to do.

After that other States started to follow the good example of Virginia. Every State with unsettled land ceded it to the United States for the common good. Every State gave up their unsettled land except North Carolina and Georgia.

The main reason that the States gave up their unsettled land was for its money value. This put an end to the fight over who was entitled to the proceeds of this land should it be sold. All States fought for it. All States should benefit from it. Besides, if we make more States out of it, there will be more Kings and their army of one. More armies, better defense.

Remember how we got the land. We declared that we owned it and would fight anybody that said differently. England's King sent his army to fight. Our Kings sent their armies to fight. Our armies beat their army. They gave us the land.

There is safety in numbers. More Kings, More Armies. And, unlike the peasants and paid armies who are no better off if they win. Our soldiers are all kings fighting for their right to be King in their own Kingdom. That's why we fight harder, it's good to be the King.

Well, if they ceded the land, they gave it away completely, the powers of sovereignty and the eminent domain were ceded with the land. It had to be this way. How else could you sell it or pledge it as collateral for a debt unless you owned it completely.

Now, remember, there was no Government of the United States yet. What was then called the United States was 13 Sovereign, independent, Nation States, 13 countries. They had joined under the Articles of Confederation for their mutual protection and advantage.

This is like the Allies joining together to fight Hitler. They are still independent nations joined together for their mutual protection and advantage.

The Congress of the United States was no more than a collection of ambassadors authorized to represent separate nations in matters in which they had a common concern.

The Articles of Confederation didn't give them the power to accept the land from the States. But, now they were Sovereign Nations. They could do what they wanted for their common good. They all agreed. We had just proved that we will fight anyone who says we can't.

They had complete control over the land. Except for a few restrictions that Virginia put on the land. This collection of Nation States owned the land. They could agree do what they wanted with the land. Make any kind of government in the land. Their land, their rules.

Even though the Articles of Confederation didn't specifically give them the power, everybody had agreed and the ordinance of 1787 was adopted. It detailed the laws to be observed in the Territory.

This is the way it was when the Constitution of the United States was formed. Thirteen Sovereign, Independent Nation States, countries, owned a huge piece of what was once Virginia as common property and, by agreement had set up laws to get it ready to become another State just like they had agreed.

But, the Confederation of States was about to be dissolved.

They were going to create a common government to manage their common property and common concerns and become One people. To do this the States would have to give up some of their Sovereignty and agree to play by common rules. This would mean that the Confederation of States that held the land would no longer exist. Therefore the rules they made in the ordinance would no longer exist either.

They gave this new central government to power to control this common property. It wasn't only the land. There were military guns, ammunition, ships, forts.

This was the purpose of the clause in the Constitution which says "to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States." They were only talking about the common property at the formation of the government. They were not talking about any property that the federal Government should get from somewhere else on its own.

This is no more than a chain of title for the common property from the old agreement of the States to the new government. If the government builds a ship, after it is created no one would feel the need to give it the right to make needful rules. Your property, your rules. It's curious, we just stole the land by war, and we're still worried about a clear title.

Needful rules. This is not the language you use to create a government. When they gave the federal Government the power to legislate over the territory now known as Washington, D.C. they said that "Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States."

The right to make rules in the territory comes from the right to acquire it. My territory, my rules.

It's obvious that the federal government has the right to acquire property. It has the right to hold property until it is fit to be a State. If it has the right to hold property, where could it get it if it can't acquire property. If it can acquire property, it can make rules. My property, my rules.

Scott's council also mentioned a case in Florida, and botched that one too. He evidently didn't read the case carefully because he got it all wrong. He claims that his argument is new, but it's not. It's been wrong for 30 years. In fact the case he mentioned doesn't even have anything to do with the power of Congress over rights of person or rights of property, it deals with setting up courts.

There they decided that inside of States, courts had to be in accordance with the Constitution, but in the territories, Congress could pretty much do what it wanted. Those were legislative courts, not constitutional Courts.

Congress is not bound by the constitution in these courts. Judges are not even required to be of good behavior. They can do pretty much whatever they want.

Scott's counsel, boob that he is, is arguing the wrong issues.

The question of what courts congress can set up to administer laws it is authorized to pass is very different from the question of what laws is Congress authorized to pass.

The question is not could congress create the court. The question is was Congress authorized to create this law. They are very different questions.

That boob that was Scott's council claims that Congress can make any rules it wants in the territories. This is not the case. The Federal government is no more than the caretaker of the common property of the Kings. The rules of what it can and can't do have been carefully laid out and they have been severely limited.

The real question is does Congress have the right to prohibit a citizen of the United States from taking any property which he lawfully held into a Territory of the United States?

This brings us to examine by what provision of the Constitution the present Federal Government, under its delegated and restricted powers, is authorized to acquire territory outside of the original limits of the United States, and what powers it may exercise therein over the person or property of a citizen of the United States while it remains a Territory and until it shall be admitted as one of the States of the Union.

We have to look at just what powers does the federal government have between the time it acquires property as a territory and the time it is admitted as a nation State.

There is no power given to the federal government to maintain colonies forever, nor is there any power given to enlarge its territorial limits without adding a State.

No power is given to acquire a Territory to be held and governed permanently in that character.

All we mean to say on this point is that, as there is no express regulation in the Constitution defining the power which the General Government may exercise over the person or property of a citizen in a Territory thus acquired, the court must necessarily look to the provisions and principles of the Constitution and its distribution of powers for the rules and principles by which its decision must be governed.

Whatever it acquires, it acquires for the benefit of the people of the several States who created it. It is their trustee acting for them, and charged with the duty of promoting the interests of the whole people of the Union in the exercise of the powers specifically granted.

When we got the land by cession from France, it was wilderness. The Federal government held it until it was fit to be a State.

But, as we have before said, it was acquired by the General Government as the representative and trustee of the people of the United States, and it must therefore be held in that character for their common and equal benefit, for it was the people of the several States, acting through their agent and representative, the Federal Government, who in fact acquired the Territory in question, and the Government holds it for their common use until it shall be associated with the other States as a member of the Union. The land was acquired by the Kings agents for the good of the Kings.

Until then we needed some kind of government to protect the inhabitants in their persons and property. They are the caretakers of the Kings and as such it is their duty to pass such laws and establish such a Government as would enable those by whose authority they acted to reap the advantages anticipated from its acquisition and to gather there a population which would enable it to assume the position to which it was destined among the States of the Union.

The power to acquire necessarily carries with it the power to preserve and apply to the purposes for which it was acquired.

The form of government depended on the discretion of Congress. Some places you had to send in governments. In other cases you could just authorize the governments that were already there.

But remember, Congress has discretion in setting up the government as long as they are acting within the scope of its constitutional authority, and not infringing upon the rights of person or rights of property of the citizen who might go there to reside, or for any other lawful purpose. It was acquired for the Kings, to be managed for the Kings, and it must be held and governed in like manner until it is fitted to be a State.

But the power of Congress over the person or property of a citizen can never be a mere discretionary power under our Constitution and form of Government. The powers of the Government and the rights and privileges of the citizen are regulated and plainly defined by the Constitution itself. And when the Territory becomes a part of the United States, the Federal Government enters into possession in the character impressed upon it by those who created it. It enters upon it with its powers over the citizen strictly defined, and limited by the Constitution, from which it derives its own existence and by virtue of which alone it continues to exist and act as a Government and sovereignty. It has no power of any kind beyond it, and it cannot, when it enters a Territory of the United States, put off its character and assume discretionary or despotic powers which the Constitution has denied to it. It cannot create for itself a new character separated from the citizens of the United States and the duties it owes them under the provisions of the Constitution. The Territory being a part of the United States, the Government and the citizen both enter it under the authority of the Constitution, with their respective rights defined and marked out, and the Federal Government [p*450] can exercise no power over his person or property beyond what that instrument confers, nor lawfully deny any right which it has reserved.

For example, no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.

Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel anyone to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.

These powers, and others in relation to rights of person which it is not necessary here to enumerate, are, in express and positive terms, denied to the General Government, and the rights of private property have been guarded with equal care. Thus, the rights of property are united with the rights of person, and placed on the same ground by the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law. And an act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty or property merely because he came himself or brought his property into a particular Territory of the United States, and who had committed no offense against the laws, could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law.

So, too, it will hardly be contended that Congress could by law quarter a soldier in a house in a Territory without the consent of the owner, in time of peace nor in time of war, but in a manner prescribed by law. Nor could they by law forfeit the property of a citizen in a Territory who was convicted of treason, for a longer period than the life of the person convicted, nor take private property for public use without just compensation.

The powers over person and property of which we speak are not only not granted to Congress, but are in express terms denied, and they are forbidden to exercise them. And this prohibition is not confined to the States, but the words are general, and extend to the whole territory over which the Constitution gives it power to legislate, including those portions of it remaining under Territorial Government, as well as that covered by States. It is a total absence of power everywhere within the dominion of the United States, and places the citizens of a Territory, so far as these rights are [p*451] concerned, on the same footing with citizens of the States, and guards them as firmly and plainly against any inroads which the General Government might attempt under the plea of implied or incidental powers. And if Congress itself cannot do this -- if it is beyond the powers conferred on the Federal Government -- it will be admitted, we presume, that it could not authorize a Territorial Government to exercise them. It could confer no power on any local Government established by its authority to violate the provisions of the Constitution.

It seems, however, to be supposed that there is a difference between property in a slave and other property and that different rules may be applied to it in expounding the Constitution of the United States. And the laws and usages of nations, and the writings of eminent jurists upon the relation of master and slave and their mutual rights and duties, and the powers which Governments may exercise over it have been dwelt upon in the argument.

But, in considering the question before us, it must be borne in mind that there is no law of nations standing between the people of the United States and their Government and interfering with their relation to each other. The powers of the Government and the rights of the citizen under it are positive and practical regulations plainly written down. The people of the United States have delegated to it certain enumerated powers and forbidden it to exercise others. It has no power over the person or property of a citizen but what the citizens of the United States have granted. And no laws or usages of other nations, or reasoning of statesmen or jurists upon the relations of master and slave, can enlarge the powers of the Government or take from the citizens the rights they have reserved. And if the Constitution recognizes the right of property of the master in a slave, and makes no distinction between that description of property and other property owned by a citizen, no tribunal, acting under the authority of the United States, whether it be legislative, executive, or judicial, has a right to draw such a distinction or deny to it the benefit of the provisions and guarantees which have been provided for the protection of private property against the encroachments of the Government.

Now, as we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion upon a different point, the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. The right to traffic in it, like an ordinary article of merchandise and property, was guarantied to the citizens of the United States in every State that might desire it for twenty years. And the Government in express terms is pledged to protect it in all future time if the slave escapes from his owner. This is done in plain words -- too plain to be misunderstood. And no word can be found in the Constitution which gives Congress a greater power over slave property or which entitles property of that kind to less protection that property of any other description. The only power conferred is the power coupled with the duty of guarding and protecting the owner in his rights.

Upon these considerations, it is the opinion of the court that the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void, and that neither Dred Scott himself nor any of his family were made free by being carried into this territory, even if they had been carried there by the owner with the intention of becoming a permanent resident.

We have, so far, examined the case, as it stands under the Constitution of the United States, and the powers thereby delegated to the Federal Government.

But there is another point in the case which depends on State power and State law. And it is contended, on the part of the plaintiff, that he is made free by being taken to Rock Island, in the State of Illinois, independently of his residence in the territory of the United States, and being so made free, he was not again reduced to a state of slavery by being brought back to Missouri.

Our notice of this part of the case will be very brief, for the principle on which it depends was decided in this court, upon much consideration, in the case of Strader et al. v. Graham, reported in 10th Howard 82. In that case, the slaves had been taken from Kentucky to Ohio, with the consent of the owner, and afterwards brought back to Kentucky. And this court held that their status or condition as free or slave depended upon the laws of Kentucky when they were brought back into that State, and not of Ohio, and that this court had no jurisdiction to revise the judgment of a State court upon its own laws. This was the point directly before the court, and the decision that this court had not jurisdiction turned upon it, as will be seen by the report of the case.

So in this case. As Scott was a slave when taken into the State of Illinois by his owner, and was there held as such, and brought back in that character, his status as free or slave depended on the laws of Missouri, and not of Illinois.

It has, however, been urged in the argument that, by the laws of Missouri, he was free on his return, and that this case [p*453] therefore cannot be governed by the case of Strader et al. v. Graham, where it appeared, by the laws of Kentucky, that the plaintiffs continued to be slaves on their return from Ohio. But whatever doubts or opinions may at one time have been entertained upon this subject, we are satisfied, upon a careful examination of all the cases decided in the State courts of Missouri referred to, that it is now firmly settled by the decisions of the highest court in the State that Scott and his family upon their return were not free, but were, by the laws of Missouri, the property of the defendant, and that the Circuit Court of the United States had no jurisdiction when, by the laws of the State, the plaintiff was a slave and not a citizen.

Moreover, the plaintiff, it appears, brought a similar action against the defendant in the State court of Missouri, claiming the freedom of himself and his family upon the same grounds and the same evidence upon which he relies in the case before the court. The case was carried before the Supreme Court of the State, was fully argued there, and that court decided that neither the plaintiff nor his family were entitled to freedom, and were still the slaves of the defendant, and reversed the judgment of the inferior State court, which had given a different decision. If the plaintiff supposed that this judgment of the Supreme Court of the State was erroneous, and that this court had jurisdiction to revise and reverse it, the only mode by which he could legally bring it before this court was by writ of error directed to the Supreme Court of the State, requiring it to transmit the record to this court. If this had been done, it is too plain for argument that the writ must have been dismissed for want of jurisdiction in this court. The case of Strader and others v. Graham is directly in point, and, indeed, independent of any decision, the language of the 25th section of the act of 1789 is too clear and precise to admit of controversy.

But the plaintiff did not pursue the mode prescribed by law for bringing the judgment of a State court before this court for revision, but suffered the case to be remanded to the inferior State court, where it is still continued, and is, by agreement of parties, to await the judgment of this court on the point. All of this appears on the record before us, and by the printed report of the case.

And while the case is yet open and pending in the inferior State court, the plaintiff goes into the Circuit Court of the United States, upon the same case and the same evidence and against the same party, and proceeds to judgment, and then brings here the same case from the Circuit Court, which the law would not have permitted him to bring directly from the [p*454] State court. And if this court takes jurisdiction in this form, the result, so far as the rights of the respective parties are concerned, is in every respect substantially the same as if it had, in open violation of law, entertained jurisdiction over the judgment of the State court upon a writ of error, and revised and reversed its judgment upon the ground that its opinion upon the question of law was erroneous. It would ill become this court to sanction such an attempt to evade the law, or to exercise an appellate power in this circuitous way which it is forbidden to exercise in the direct and regular and invariable forms of judicial proceedings.

Upon the whole, therefore, it is the judgment of this court that it appears by the record before us that the plaintiff in error is not a citizen of Missouri in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution, and that the Circuit Court of the United States, for that reason, had no jurisdiction in the case, and could give no judgment in it. Its judgment for the defendant must, consequently, be reversed, and a mandate issued directing the suit to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

There you have it. The United States Supreme Court told you that Sanford was one of the Sovereign people of We the People fame. He was a King.

The United States Supreme Court told you that Dred Scott was a slave. The property of Sandford. Dred Scott was a subhuman and not one of We, the people.

They also told you that it was a shame that Dred Scott didn't know law. He could have been free as long as he stayed in Illinois. Ignorance is slavery.

The United States Supreme Court told you that our representatives are not our leaders, they are our hired help. As such, they had no authority to free the slaves of their masters, the Sovereign people. They also told you that they knew it was illegal when Congress did it, but they weren't going to say anything about it until someone complained.

Isn't that curious. Isn't it the same as the butler knowing that the maid is stealing money but refuses to say anything until someone notices that the money is missing and specifically asks him?

Next I am going to translate the Slaughterhouse Cases. There the Supreme Court of the United States is going to tell you about the loss of your right to be born a King and the loss of all of your unalienable rights. The loss of the title of yourself and your family to freedom. There the Supreme Court will tell you that we really didn't free the slaves, we just transferred title. Then they are going to tell you that you too are a "freed" slave. All men created equally will now mean that we all are now born as "freed" slaves, not Kings. We are now all subhumans.

As always, please don't believe me. See for yourself. Make sure that I am not lying to you or confused. The truth will withstand scrutiny.