[donmeaker]

The constition refers to the slaves as "all other persons" so, by the terms of the Dred Scott decision, they were citizens. I disagree with the Dred Scott decision, just as my ancestors disagreed with it then.

My people were part of the Underground Railroad, moving people to Canada, where they could be free, and get Canadian papers which permitted them to return to the northern states at least, as free men. We had at least one go to Kansas during the unpleasantness there, to vote to make Kansas a free state. I pass over the war years. Their deeds are available on the internet.

[nolu chan]

[donmeaker] The constition refers to the slaves as "all other persons" so, by the terms of the Dred Scott decision, they were citizens. I disagree with the Dred Scott decision, just as my ancestors disagreed with it then.

DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)

The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.

As I am sure you are aware, the Supreme Court explicitly said the opposite of what you try to assert. All are free to disagree with the decision but at the time it was, in fact, the applicable law.

In like manner one is free to disagree today with the decision in Roe v. Wade, but that make not one scintilla of difference. If one is asked if abortion is legal in the U.S. today, whether one agrees with Roe or not, the only honest answer is, "Yes."