And he also said this in 1862."All from other lands, who by the terms of your laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman [sic] can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians."
Your other crap, including your tag line, have nothing to do with the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. Still not one word by Bingham abouit the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. This pile of crap is under the heading of EMANCIPATION IN THE DISTRICT. In 1862, the Radical Republican Bingham claimed that the slaves who were born in the United States were natural born citizens of the United States. He also claimed to follow the words of Chancellor Kent. It is easy to see what you and Bingham have in common.
[1637]
EMANCIPATION IN THE DISTRICT
[1638]
[Mr. BINGHAM]: ...
Gentlemen are aware of that fact, and the question today before this House is, whether the Representative of the people, under their oaths and in compliance with the clear reqirement of the Federal Constitution, here within the limits of the
[1639]
District of Columbia, will faithfully execute their great trust, and declare by law that hereafter, in all the coming future, no American citizen nor human being shall, within the limits of this District, " be deprived of life or liberty or property without due process of law." That, sir, is the question, the great question of this day and hour.
I have said that these persons who are the subject-matter of this legislation were natural-born citizens of the Republic. Shall we hesitate, can we hesitate, within the admitted limits of our power, to do justice to our own citizens by the enactment of this law? I regret, although I do not propose to make any change in the text of the bill, that it was so carefully worded as to say that, "all persons held to service or labor within the District of Columbia by reason of African descent." I would have preferred if the bill had declared that "all American citizens held to service or labor within the District of Columbia by reason of African descent are hereby discharged and forever freed from such servitude."
We are not to be cheated by the tests of citizenship that are sometimes set up touching the elective franchise and eligibility to office. It is too late in the day for any American statesman. to undertake to demonstrate that none are citizens of the United States save those entitled to the elective franchise or to the exercise of the functions of office. I stand here. to assert the proposition that, by thedecision of every State and Federal court in the country, more than one half the white population of the United States who are excluded from the exercise of the elective franchise, and from all civil offices, arc citizens of the United States. I undertake to say, by the decision of your Federal tribunals, that womenthat all the women of this Republic born upon the soil—are citizens of the United States, though neither entitled to vote nor to hold civil office. All the native-born women and children of the land, though not entitled to vote nor eligible to civil office arc citizens of the United States within the judiciary act of 1789, and within the Constitution of the United States, and as such entitled to sue and be sued in your Federal courts, and to plead and be pleaded therein.
The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon property, without due process of law. The words "natural born citizen of the United States" occur in it, and the other provision also occurs in it that "Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization." To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth—natural-born citizens. There is no such word as white in your Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not depend upon complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens. Gentlemen can find no exception to this statement I touching natural-born citizens except what is said I in the Constitution in relation to Indians. The reason why that exception was made in the Constitution is apparent to everybody. The several I Indian tribes were recognized nt the organization of this Government as independent sovereignties. They were treated with as such; and they have been dealt with by the Government ever since as separate sovereignties. Therefore, they were excluded from the general rule.
I adopt the words of that man whose clear intellect, through a long and laborious life, contributed much that will endure to the jurisprudence of his country—like the lamented Chancellor Kent, of New York—who declared that every person of African descent, born in this land, is a citizen of the United States, and although born in a condition of slavery under the laws if any State in whichhe might be held in service or labor, still he was a citizen of the United States under disabilities.
The Federal government either regulates or confers under any circumstances the enjoyment of the elective franchise among the States, and therefore the question so flippantly asked, when we propose the liberation of slaves, are ou going to give them the right to vote, may as well be omitted here. We have just nothing to do in our legislation with that question; we have-no power whatever over it. The right to vote does not involve the right to citizenship. Neither are the rights of men or citizens to protection under the law dependent upon the right of suffrage in them. Are not children natural-born citizens of the United States? Are not they entitled to protection as citizens everywhere in all the States of the Union? Does not the Constitution provide that the citizens of each State, being ipso facto citizens of the United States, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and does not that apply to the minor citizens of the United States as well as to the major citizens of the United States? It is not the privilege to vote that is thus guarantied to all citizens of the United States. The Constitution does not read, as I have heard it quoted upon this floor, that the citizens of each State should be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States. No, sir, the word used in the Constitution in this clause is not of; but in, the several States. "All privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States in the several States," is what is guarantied by the Constitution. There is an ellipsis in the Constitution, as gentlemen doubtless know, which must be supplied to express clearly its meaning. The great privilege and immunity of an American citizen to be respected everywhere in this land, and especially in this District, is that they shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Mr. WICKLIFFE. But what civil political right does the State of Ohio give to the black man? Does it allow him to vote? Does it allow him to intermarry with the whites?
Mr. BINGHAM. The gentleman would get a full and satisfactory answer to his question if he would read the statutes of Ohio.
Mr. WICKLIFFE. I have read them.
[...]
