In short, if You seek to make JUNETEENTH [June 19th.] A National Holiday for the Asiatics so-called (African-American) — then You should consider first give-up the Fourth Of July as your National Holiday. Why? Because the Fourth of July is celebrated as the “Day Of Independence” [JULY 4th, 1776] in which, a manifesto of the representatives of the 13 American colonies (All Europeans) asserted their independence and explained the reasons for their break with Britain. Not for the African American. Remember, the Asiatics (so-called African Negro) was in perpetual slavery! And when their U. S. constitution was written, the African Negro was Not included. (See the Dred Scott Case of 1857). . . Why? Because the Asiatic (so-called Negro, Black, Colored, or African American) was NEVER intended or included in the making of America as a Citizen.
The Dred Scott case, was a suit brought by Scott, a slave from Missouri, on the grounds that temporary residence in a territory in which slavery was banned under the MISSOURI COMPROMISE had made him free. The majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1857, read by Chief Justice Tandy, held that Scott, as an African Negro, could Never be a citizen of any state, and therefore could not sue his owner in federal court. Tandy should have ended his opinion here but, instead plunged on to declare that even if Scott could sue, his sojourn in free territory did not make him free because Congress’ ban on slavery in the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional; furthermore, Tandy went on to ask the question and define it, in the same opinion, asking simply: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, becoming a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guaranteed by that instrument to the citizens? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the case specified in the Constitution.
It will be observed, that the plea applies to the class of persons only whose ancestors were (Negroes) of the African race and imported into this country, and sold and held as slaves. The only matter in issue bed the court, therefore, is whether the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born of parents who became free before their birth, are citizen is used in the Constitution of the United States. And this being the only matter in dispute on the pleadings, the court must be understood as speaking in this opinion of that class only, that is, of those persons who are the descendants of Africans who were imported into this country, and sold as slaves.
. . .Chief Justice Tandy, went on to state in the Scott case, that: The words”people of the United States” and “citizens” are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the “sovereign people,” and every citizen is one of these people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. 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 “citizen” 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. On the other contrary, they were at the time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subject to the dominant race, and whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them. . . .
. . .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 people 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.
They has for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and sofar inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.
He was brought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics; which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute, and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.
By: Richard Bey