“Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.[3][4]”
Can you see it now?
From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford“Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.[3][4]”
I presented the complete, official Mandate issued by the Scott Court. You respond with anonymous garbage from Wikipedia. You should read the actual court opinions; you might learn something. But that would take effort on your part. You prefer something akin to the 1619 Project.
Nine seperate opinions were filed in Scott. Which five justices do you claim "held that the US Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them?"
The Wikipedia article gives scant mention of the actual opinions. Footnotes 3 and 4 do not reference any actual (or even imaginary) court opinion. The Wikipedia article does include a footnote 36 that references, as an authority,
Don E. Fehrenbacher (1978/2001), The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics, reprint, New York: Oxford, Part 3, "Consequences and Echoes", Chapter 18, "The Judges Judged", p. 441; unpublished opinion, transcript in Carl B. Swisher Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.
In Fehrenbacher's book at 324 he includes a "Box Score" of the opinions of the nine justices.
For the most part, however, historians have been unwilling to accept Taney’s opinion as a definitive statement of what the Court decided. Instead, they have examined all of the opinions and endeavored, in effect, to count the ‘votes’ of the justices on each of the major issues. This calculation of box scores began with contemporary critics of the decision and has continued over since, with a variety of results that is in itself indicative of the difficulties involved. The most common summing-up appears to be as presented in the box score that follows.BOX SCORE
1. Four justices held that the plea in abatement was properly before the Court (Taney, Wayne, Daniel, and Curtis).
2. Three justices held that a Negro could not be a citizen of the United States (Taney, Wayne, and Daniel).
3. Six justices held that the Missouri Compromise restriction was invalid (Taney, Wayne, Grier, Daniel, Campbell, and Catron).
4. Seven justices held that the laws of Missouri determined Scott’s status as a slave after his return to that state from Illinois (Taney, Wayne, Nelson, Grier, Daniel, Campbell, and Catron).
5. Seven justices held that Scott was still a slave, though there were differences on what the final judgment of the Court should be (same as in number 4).
From these tabulations it has been easy enough to infer that “there was no judicial decision on the question of Negro citizenship.” For Taney’s pronouncement on this issue appears to have been extrajudicial (because only a minority of justices thought that it was before the Court), and, in any case, only two other justices explicitly endorsed his ruling.
Only three justices held that a Negro could not be a citizen of the United States. The Court did NOT make any such holding.
Also in his book, at page 446-47, Fehrenbacher exposes the slanderous misrepresentations of what Taney wrote, which appear to be carried over to the present day.
Taney then devoted most of his paper to demonstrating that the racial attitudes of colonial America reflected those of the mother country. Pointing to the notorious Asiento and related agreements whereby three British monarchs participated personally in the slave trade with Spanish colonies from 1713 to 1750, he concluded:“It is impossible to read these treaties, and not feel convinced that . . . the English government and people acknowledged no rights in the negro race which they were bound to respect. . . . The British law regarded them as absolute property, to be traded in like any other merchandise.Thus Taney was plainly determined to defend the most controversial passage of his Dred Scott opinion as a statement of unpleasant but verifiable historical fact. It will be remembered that in the aftermath of the decision he had been quoted in some antislavery newspa pers as having said, “Negroes have no rights which a white man i« bound to respect.” This misrepresentation was promptly exposed the Democratic press and has been, as we have already noted, i source of scholarly sympathy for Taney ever since. For instance George T. Curtis, counsel for Dred Scott, declared in his Constitu tional History of the United States:
The calumniators of the chief-justice entirely ignored the fact that he spoke of a past state of opinion and feeling, and imputed to him as his personal opinion the atrocious sentiment that a negro has no right which a white man is bound to respect. The slander had its effect, and it is probable that there are multitudes at this day who believe it.
Taney, it has been pointed out over and over again, was not in this passage making a ruling about Negro rights in 1857; he was not expressing his own personal view; but instead he was talking about the racial attitudes of the founding fathers and their generation, which presumably no longer prevailed. His language was “simply that of historical narration.