Seems like you and I have marched over similar ground before. You and I both know the Declaration of Independence embraced human bondage (obliquely - but still unmistakeably).
And the Constitution, without using the words “slave or slavery” provided for the institution in several articles.
Chief Justice Roger Taney, while not a founding father, wrote a 200-page decision in the 7-2 Dred Scott decision in which he and the majority relied heavily on the intent of the founders.
Below are excerpts from the decision courtesy of the Department of History, University of Washington.
“The question then arises, whether the provisions of the Constitution, in relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the citizen of a State should be entitled, embraced the negro African race, at that time in this country, or who might afterwards be imported, who had then or should afterwards be made free in any State; and to put it in the power of a single State to make him a citizen of the United States, and endue him with the full rights of citizenship in every other State without their consent? Does the Constitution of the United States act upon him whenever he shall be made free under the laws of a State, and raised there to the rank of a citizen, and immediately clothe him with all the privileges of a citizen in every other State, and in its own courts?
“In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, 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 memorable instrument.
“It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken….
“We refer to these historical facts for the purpose of showing the fixed opinions concerning that race, upon which the statesmen of that day spoke and acted. It is necessary to do this, in order to determine whether the general terms used in the Constitution of the United States, as to the rights of man and the rights of the people, was intended to include them, or to give to them or their posterity the benefit of any of its provisions.
“The language of the Declaration of Independence is equally conclusive:
“It begins by declaring that, ‘when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.’
“It then proceeds to say: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.’
“The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood. But it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration; for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted; and instead of the sympathy of mankind, to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation.
“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. They spoke and acted according to the then established doctrines and principles, and in the ordinary language of the day, and no one misunderstood them. The unhappy black race were separated from the white by indelible marks, and laws long before established, and were never thought of or spoken of except as property, and when the claims of the owner or the profit of the trader were supposed to need protection.”
This controversial decision inflamed the north but it is hard to see how the court could have ruled otherwise. At that time Supreme Court members did not view themselves as legislators. It would be left for Congress and the states to pass a constitutional amendment. That would happen immediately following the invasion and destruction of the South.
To be more accurate, Taney claimed he based his opinion on that of the Founders. Lincoln and a great many others disputed the point with considerable success, notably in the dissents in the Dred Scott case.
I suggest you read the dissents, which point out the multiple factual and legal inaccuracies in the majority decision.
Dred Scott is probably the worst single decision prior to Roe. It was similarly an attempt to use raw judicial power to impose a “final solution” of a politically explosive question.
Worked even less well than Roe.
I do notice that you’ve attempted to dodge my question. The Founders are not on record stating that the principles of the Declaration of Independence do not apply to Africans.
Similarly, in the Constitution they avoided the use of the term and made it very clear slavery was a state not a national institution.