Final Thoughts On Slaughterhouse (citizen of the several States defined)
Dan Goodman
February 20, 2009
The Supreme Court decided in the Slaughterhouse Cases that because of the Fourteenth Amendment there were now two separate and distinct citizens under the Constitution of the United States; a citizen of the United States, under the Fourteenth Amendment; and a citizen of the several States, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1. (Note 1) The last was later reaffirmed in Cole v. Cunningham:
In addition, in the Civil Rights Cases, decided after the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Supreme court states the following on the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment:
The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment made a mistake in the Fourteenth Amendment which forced the Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases to decide the way they did. In my work, "Diversity of Citizenship: Who is a Citizen of a State" (Readings 1) at footnote 2 and 3, I write:
State citizenship has nothing to do with privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States. This is shown in my work, "State Citizenship does not relate to Privileges and Immunities of citizens of the several States" by showing that this conclusion is based on a mistake in the Syllabus to the Slaughterhouse Cases. (Readings 2)
The author has prepared, in the format of a definition, information on a citizen of the several states, which the reader can read at a glance.
If the reader wishes to learn more about this type of citizen and citizenship, he or she can read my works on this website.
citizen of the several states (noun)
a. One of two citizens under the Constitution of the United States. The other is a citizen of the United States. (Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, at page 74 and page 75).
http://supreme.justia.com/us/83/36/case.html#74.
b. A citizen of the several states is designated in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States. (Cole v. Cunningham: 133 U.S 107, at pages 113 - 114).
http://supreme.justia.com/us/133/107/case.html#113.
c. Privileges and immunities of a citizen of the several states are provided for in Corfield v. Coryell, decided by Mr. Justice Washington in the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania in 1823. (Hodges v. United States: 203 U.S. 1, at page 15)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/203/1/case.html#15.
d. Privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States are distinct from privileges and immunities of a citizen of the several States. For those relating to a citizen of the United States, see Duncan v. State of Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, at page 382.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/152/377/case.html#382.
e. "The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states." Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., at page 591.
(Usage)
I am a citizen of the several States, domiciled in the State of California.
I am a citizen of the several States and not a citizen of the United States.
Notes
(1) "We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this Amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section (first section, second clause), which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens of the several states. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs, rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same." Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, page 74.
And, "In the Constitution of the United States, which superseded the Articles of Confederation, the corresponding provision is found in section two of the fourth article, in the following words: ´The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens OF (emphasis mine) the several States.´ " Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, page 75. (Note 2)
(2) "A provision corresponding to this [Justice Miller (Slaughterhouse Cases)] found in the Constitution of the United States in section 2 of the fourth article, wherein it is provided that ´the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens OF the several States.´ What those privileges were is not defined in the Constitution, but the justice said there could be but little question that the purpose of both those provisions was the same, and that the privileges and immunities intended were the same in each. He then referred to the case of Corfield v. Coryell, decided by Mr. Justice Washington in the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania in 1823, 4 Washington C.C. 371, where the question of the meaning of this clause in the Constitution was raised. Answering the question what were the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States, Mr. Justice Washington said in that case:
´We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are in their nature fundamental; which belong of right to the citizens of all free governments, and which have at all times been enjoyed by citizens of the several States which compose this Union from the time of their becoming free, independent and sovereign. What these fundamental principles are it would be more tedious than difficult to enumerate. They may, however, be all comprehended under the following general heads: Protection by the government; . . . The enjoyment of life and liberty with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject, nevertheless, to such restraints as the government may prescribe for the general good of the whole.´ " Maxwell v. Dow: 176 U.S. 581, at 588-589 (1900).
(3) "In speaking of the meaning of the phrase ´privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states,´ under section 2d, article fourth, of the Constitution, it was said by the present Chief Justice, in Cole v. Cunningham, 133 U. S. 107, 33 L. ed. 538, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 269, that the intention was ´to confer on the citizens of the several states a general citizenship, and to communicate all the privileges and immunities which the citizens of the same state would be entitled to under the like circumstances, and this includes the right to institute actions.´ " Maxwell v. Dow: 176 U.S. 581, at 592.
(4) Civil Rights Cases: 109 U.S. 3, 30-31 (1883): (after Slaughterhouse Cases)
"The only other case, prior to the adoption of the recent amendments, to which reference will be made, is that of Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 399. That case was instituted in a circuit court of the United States by Dred Scott, claiming to be a citizen of Missouri, the defendant being a citizen of another State. Its object was to assert the title of himself and family to freedom. The defendant pleaded in abatement that Scott -- being of African descent, whose ancestors, of pure African blood, were brought into this country and sold as slaves -- was not a citizen. The only matter in issue, said the court, was whether the descendants of slaves thus imported [page 31] and sold, when they should be emancipated, or who were born of parents who had become free before their birth, are citizens of a State in the sense in which the word ´citizen´ is used in the Constitution of the United States.
In determining that question, the court instituted an inquiry as to who were citizens of the several States at the adoption of the Constitution and who at that time were recognized as the people whose rights and liberties had been violated by the British government. The result was a declaration by this court, speaking by Chief Justice Taney, that the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, showed ´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 instrument.´ " (dissenting opinion of Justice Harlan)
(5) Minor v. Happersett: 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1874): (after Slaughterhouse Cases)
"To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the [14th] amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership. Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by 'the people of the United States,' and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain, and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth, and that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of 'the United States of America,' entered in to a firm league of friendship with each other for their common defence, the security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever.
Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen - a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were."
Readings
(1) Dan Goodman, "Diversity of Citizenship: Who is a Citizen of a State"; January 6, 2009; American Chronicle at http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/87013.
(2) Dan Goodman, "State Citizenship does not relate to Privileges and Immunities of citizens of the several States"; January 29, 2009; American Chronicle at http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/89262.
"The intention of section 2, Article IV (of the Constitution), was to confer on the citizens of the several states a general citizenship." Cole v. Cunningham: 133 U.S. 107, 113-114 (1890). (Note 3)
In addition, in the Civil Rights Cases, decided after the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Supreme court states the following on the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment:
"The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment (which is the one relied on), after declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, and of the several states, is prohibitory in its character, and prohibitory upon the States. It declares that:
´No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.´ " Civil Rights Cases: 109 U.S. 3, 10-11 (1883).
The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment made a mistake in the Fourteenth Amendment which forced the Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases to decide the way they did. In my work, "Diversity of Citizenship: Who is a Citizen of a State" (Readings 1) at footnote 2 and 3, I write:
"Footnote 2. Unfortunately, for the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment it did not do so. The authors were aware of the Dred Scott case. Senator Johnson was counsel for the defense in the Dred Scott case. The Dred Scott court held that a Negro of slave descent, was not considered a citizen of the several States when the Constitution WAS ADOPTED. (Note 4) And since he was not considered a citizen of the several States he was also not considered a citizen of the United States. (Note 5) The Fourteenth Amendment makes no reference in section 1, clause 1 to 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States' AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION. [Footnote 3] Because of this oversight by the authors of this amendment, when the Fourteenth Amendment came to the Supreme Court, in the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Court had to construe it in a different manner to avoid conflict with its holding in the Dred Scott case.
Footnote 3. At Article II, Section 5, Clause 1, it states:
'No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION, shall be eligible to the Office of President.' "
State citizenship has nothing to do with privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States. This is shown in my work, "State Citizenship does not relate to Privileges and Immunities of citizens of the several States" by showing that this conclusion is based on a mistake in the Syllabus to the Slaughterhouse Cases. (Readings 2)
---------------------------
The author has prepared, in the format of a definition, information on a citizen of the several states, which the reader can read at a glance.
If the reader wishes to learn more about this type of citizen and citizenship, he or she can read my works on this website.
citizen of the several states (noun)
a. One of two citizens under the Constitution of the United States. The other is a citizen of the United States. (Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, at page 74 and page 75).
http://supreme.justia.com/us/83/36/case.html#74.
b. A citizen of the several states is designated in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States. (Cole v. Cunningham: 133 U.S 107, at pages 113 - 114).
http://supreme.justia.com/us/133/107/case.html#113.
c. Privileges and immunities of a citizen of the several states are provided for in Corfield v. Coryell, decided by Mr. Justice Washington in the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania in 1823. (Hodges v. United States: 203 U.S. 1, at page 15)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/203/1/case.html#15.
d. Privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States are distinct from privileges and immunities of a citizen of the several States. For those relating to a citizen of the United States, see Duncan v. State of Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, at page 382.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/152/377/case.html#382.
e. "The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states." Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., at page 591.
------------
(Usage)
I am a citizen of the several States, domiciled in the State of California.
I am a citizen of the several States and not a citizen of the United States.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Notes
(1) "We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this Amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section (first section, second clause), which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens of the several states. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs, rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same." Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, page 74.
And, "In the Constitution of the United States, which superseded the Articles of Confederation, the corresponding provision is found in section two of the fourth article, in the following words: ´The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens OF (emphasis mine) the several States.´ " Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, page 75. (Note 2)
(2) "A provision corresponding to this [Justice Miller (Slaughterhouse Cases)] found in the Constitution of the United States in section 2 of the fourth article, wherein it is provided that ´the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens OF the several States.´ What those privileges were is not defined in the Constitution, but the justice said there could be but little question that the purpose of both those provisions was the same, and that the privileges and immunities intended were the same in each. He then referred to the case of Corfield v. Coryell, decided by Mr. Justice Washington in the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania in 1823, 4 Washington C.C. 371, where the question of the meaning of this clause in the Constitution was raised. Answering the question what were the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States, Mr. Justice Washington said in that case:
´We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are in their nature fundamental; which belong of right to the citizens of all free governments, and which have at all times been enjoyed by citizens of the several States which compose this Union from the time of their becoming free, independent and sovereign. What these fundamental principles are it would be more tedious than difficult to enumerate. They may, however, be all comprehended under the following general heads: Protection by the government; . . . The enjoyment of life and liberty with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject, nevertheless, to such restraints as the government may prescribe for the general good of the whole.´ " Maxwell v. Dow: 176 U.S. 581, at 588-589 (1900).
(3) "In speaking of the meaning of the phrase ´privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states,´ under section 2d, article fourth, of the Constitution, it was said by the present Chief Justice, in Cole v. Cunningham, 133 U. S. 107, 33 L. ed. 538, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 269, that the intention was ´to confer on the citizens of the several states a general citizenship, and to communicate all the privileges and immunities which the citizens of the same state would be entitled to under the like circumstances, and this includes the right to institute actions.´ " Maxwell v. Dow: 176 U.S. 581, at 592.
(4) Civil Rights Cases: 109 U.S. 3, 30-31 (1883): (after Slaughterhouse Cases)
"The only other case, prior to the adoption of the recent amendments, to which reference will be made, is that of Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 399. That case was instituted in a circuit court of the United States by Dred Scott, claiming to be a citizen of Missouri, the defendant being a citizen of another State. Its object was to assert the title of himself and family to freedom. The defendant pleaded in abatement that Scott -- being of African descent, whose ancestors, of pure African blood, were brought into this country and sold as slaves -- was not a citizen. The only matter in issue, said the court, was whether the descendants of slaves thus imported [page 31] and sold, when they should be emancipated, or who were born of parents who had become free before their birth, are citizens of a State in the sense in which the word ´citizen´ is used in the Constitution of the United States.
In determining that question, the court instituted an inquiry as to who were citizens of the several States at the adoption of the Constitution and who at that time were recognized as the people whose rights and liberties had been violated by the British government. The result was a declaration by this court, speaking by Chief Justice Taney, that the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, showed ´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 instrument.´ " (dissenting opinion of Justice Harlan)
(5) Minor v. Happersett: 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1874): (after Slaughterhouse Cases)
"To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the [14th] amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership. Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by 'the people of the United States,' and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain, and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth, and that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of 'the United States of America,' entered in to a firm league of friendship with each other for their common defence, the security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever.
Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen - a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were."
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Readings
(1) Dan Goodman, "Diversity of Citizenship: Who is a Citizen of a State"; January 6, 2009; American Chronicle at http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/87013.
(2) Dan Goodman, "State Citizenship does not relate to Privileges and Immunities of citizens of the several States"; January 29, 2009; American Chronicle at http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/89262.
©2009 Dan Goodman
Print
Email
