Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp

Because slaves were property and not legally persons and Indians were born of independent nations and therefore not under the jurisdiction of the US government.

The simpler answer is that the founding fathers did not want slaves and Indians to be citizens.


509 posted on 02/04/2012 8:51:30 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies ]


To: Harlan1196
Because slaves were property and not legally persons and Indians were born of independent nations and therefore not under the jurisdiction of the US government.

Why were the children of German citizens (who were also born of independent nations) not treated exactly like Indians? I would point out that Indians born *IN* American cities were excluded from citizenship, while Germans were not.

I will also point out that many slaves were manumitted and thereafter became citizens who could pass on their citizenship to their children.

The simpler answer is that the founding fathers did not want slaves and Indians to be citizens.

There were plenty of Black citizens during the Revolutionary war era. Crispus Attucks comes to mind.

No, that answer doesn't suffice. Why would Manumitted Slaves be able to obtain and pass on citizenship to their children, when those held in bondage could not?

Even after the slaves were freed, they were still not considered citizens until AFTER the 14th amendment granted them citizenship en masse. Indians were still a No-Go at this time.

There is something more going on here than a mere "born on the soil" requirement.

522 posted on 02/04/2012 9:19:49 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 509 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson