This new citizenship was designed to provide “protection” for a class of persons that had been previously vulnerable to attack subsequent to their emancipation from indentured servitude. As such, the federal government created for the emancipated slaves a “citizenship” they could present in court in lieu of being a Citizen of the state in which they inhabited. This is a direct consequence of the ignorance of many of our ancestors who held onto foolish notions of “classes” of people within a free society. The issue was raised prior to the Civil War in the landmark case Dred Scott v. Sanford. Scott was a slave by birth who found himself in Illinois and then Wisconsin territory for nearly ten years before the death of his owner, originally from Missouri. Scott brought his suit in court for freedom under the theory that his residence in free United States territory as well as the free state of Illinois made him a free man. Chief Justice Taney held, for the majority, that not only was Scott a slave but that he had no standing to sue as he was not a citizen of the United States.

What is most fascinating is the argument written by Justice Curtis in the dissenting opinion. He espoused and broke down a theory grounded in international law, a concept long held as in itinere and suggested this principle applied in the Scott case by virtue of his master’s choice to remain domiciled in the Wisconsin territory. Curtis suggested that the masters decision to take up residence there, and permit Scott to marry in that territory (at Fort Snelling) laid down sufficient grounds for the argument that Scott was not only a resident of Wisconsin at the time, but that his being allowed to marry was akin to being vested a property right. Curtis cited previous decisions that showed a bequest of property from master to slave evidenced intent to grant his freedom since only a freeman could take and hold such a bequest (Legrand v. Darnell, 2 Pet. R., 664). It was of course not sufficiently convincing to sway seven of the nine justices on the court. But the maxim of law laid down in the dissent sheds light to what the fourteenth amendment actually performed in law a decade later:

http://www.commonlawvenue.net

http://www.freedomlifenow.com
http://www.worldreports.org

http://www.globalresearch.ca

That’s all well and good for you to sing the praises of “your” political structure and your glee over the fact that an immorally and unjustly “enslaved” Afrikan could address his grievance to the Supreme, court, as you indicated previously, whether his grievance was redressed, and justice aerved is not relevant in your mind, however the fact remains, (ACSR’s) are still not free, we are not Citizens, and the fact that 600,000 chose to fight and die, has nothing to do with the fact that “LIBERTY” IS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE, until we have the right to choose all this so called progress you spout about is meaningless.

Government that governs without the “true consent” not imposed nationality and forced assimalation of the people is TRYANNY.

As is the case of enslaved African people, and their descendents, prisoners of war, Afrikan Captive Survivor Refugess, in the land of the “free”…..No choice, no freedom!

Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators. — Hitler

“TO INHERIT THE GOV. IS TO INHERIT THE PEOPLE, LIKE FLOCKS & HEARDS”

“All” hereditary government is in its nature tyranny. An
heritable crown, or an heritable throne, or by what other
fanciful name such things may be called, have no other
significant explanation than that mankind are heritable
property. To inherit a government, is to inherit the people,
as if they were flocks and herds.”

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tyranny

http://www.directblackaction.com
http://www.gemworld.com/USAvsUS.htm

“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
– William Casey, CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans.”
President Bill Clinton, U.S.A. Today, 11 March 1993

The strength and genius of the individual person are, in line with the absurd nature of democracy, being set aside in favour of majority rule, which amounts to nothing more than weakness and stupidity. And rather than recognize and affirm the necessity of struggle, people are preaching theories of pacifism, reconciliation among nations and eternal peace. — Hitler

Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators. — Hitler

“Should not the African be grateful? At some point in time the children of African slaves will be accepted to full citizenship or like the Confederate families, we will continue working on it.”

Grateful?

what Hubris, no I think the decendents of enslaved African people, (ACSR’s) African Captive Survivor Refugees, now being held as prisoners of war in the Federal Corporation of the United States of America, should be “FREE”, not grateful. Your message proves the point,

What right do you have to expect us to live in hope of being accepted by those who have benifited directly and indirectly of the crimes against the humanity of our Ancestors, for hundreds of years ,and those crimes continue to this day. And what if we do not accept you? Do we not have the right to reject your maybe one day offer?

Perhaps you should ask yourself, if you are faced with the present circumstances of tryanny by your own government, because you accept tryanny upon others?

Universal law, never sleeps

“I tremble for my country when I reflect, God is just, and his justice will not sleep forever”

Thomas Jefferson

who fathered 5 children by his teenage slave girl Sally Hemmings, while he lectured about freedom and equality.