2001 Dred Scott documents go on the web
      Efforts to preserve the court records of Dred Scott's unsuccessful challenge of Missouri slavery law, which helped push the nation toward civil war, move to the Internet. The Missouri State Archives worked with St. Louis Circuit Court and Washington University to put 170 pages of the original Scott documents on a Web site at http://www.library.wustl.edu/vlib/dredscott inaugurated on this Martin Luther King Day. Preservation efforts are vital because some records in the Scott case have been lost, and many court records from the same period are crumbling into dust.
      In 1857, the US Supreme Court struck down a ban on slavery in the territories and denied Scott his freedom.
     On 6 Apris 1846 slave Dred Scott had filed a declaration according to which, two days earlier, his owner had "beat, bruised, and ill-treated him" and imprisoned him for twelve hours. Scott adds that he claims to be a free man by virtue of his past residence in free territories.
     Scott's beginnings were quite humble. Born somewhere in Virginia around 1800, he was taken by his owner, Peter Blow, to Alabama and then, in 1830, to St. Louis, Missouri. Two years later Peter Blow died; Scott was subsequently bought by army surgeon Dr. John Emerson, who later took Scott to Fort Armstrong in the free state of Illinois. In the spring of 1836, after a stay of two and a half years, Emerson moved to Fort Snelling in the Wisconsin Territory (closed to slavery by the Missouri Compromise of 1820), taking Scott along. While there, Scott met and married Harriet Robinson, a slave owned by a local justice of the peace. Ownership of Harriet was transferred to Emerson.
      Scott's extended stay in Illinois, a free state, gave him the legal standing to make a claim for freedom, as did his extended stay in Wisconsin, where slavery was also prohibited. But Scott never made the claim while living in the free lands — perhaps because he was unaware of his rights at the time, or perhaps because he was content with his master.
      After two years, the army transferred Emerson to the south: first to St Louis, then to Fort Jessup in Louisiana. A little over a year later, a recently-married Emerson summoned his slave couple. Instead of staying in the free territory of Wisconsin, or going to the free state of Illinois, the two travelled over 1600 km, apparently unaccompanied, down the Mississippi River to meet their master.
      Only after Emerson's death in 1843, after Emerson's widow hired Scott out to an army captain, did Scott seek freedom for himself and his wife. First he offered to buy his freedom from Mrs. Emerson — then living in St. Louis — for $300. The offer was refused. Scott then sought freedom through the courts, starting the legal process with the declaration he made on April 6, 1846. He had strong legal backing for his claim to freedom; the Supreme Court of Missouri had freed many slaves who had traveled with their masters in free states. In the Missouri Supreme Court's 1836 Rachel v. Walker ruling, it decided that Rachel, a slave taken to Fort Snelling and to Prairie du Chien in Illinois, was free.
      Despite these precedents, Scott lost the first Scott v. Emerson trial, in June 1847, on a technicality — he couldn't prove that he and Harriet were owned by Emerson's widow. The following year the Missouri Supreme Court decided that the case should be retried. In an 1850 retrial, the St Louis circuit court ruled that Scott and his family were free.
      By the early 1850's, however, sectional conflict had arisen again and uglier than ever, and most Missourians did not encourage the freeing of slaves. Even judicially Scott was at a disadvantage; the United States Supreme Court's Strader v. Graham decision (1851) set some precedents that were unfavorable to Scott, and two of the three justices who made the final decision in Scott's appearance before the Missouri Supreme Court were proslavery. As would be expected, they ruled against Scott in 1852, with the third judge dissenting.
     Scott and his lawyers then took his case out of the state judicial system and into the federal judicial system by bringing it to the US Circuit Court for the District of Missouri. In 1854, the Circuit Court upheld the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court.
      There was now only one other place to go. Scott appealed his case to the United States Supreme Court. The nine justices of the Supreme Court of 1856 certainly had biases regarding slavery. Seven had been appointed by pro-slavery presidents from the South, and of these, five were from slave-holding families. Still, if the case had gone directly from the state supreme court to the federal supreme court, the federal court probably would have upheld the state's ruling, citing a previously established decision that gave states the authority to determine the status of its inhabitants.
      But, in his attempt to bring his case to the federal courts, Scott had claimed that he and the case's defendant (Mrs. Emerson's brother, John Sanford, who lived in New York) were citizens from different states. The main issues for the Supreme Court, therefore, were whether it had jurisdiction to try the case and whether Scott was indeed a citizen.
      The Dred Scott v. Sandford decision of the US Supreme court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney — a staunch supporter of slavery — wrote the "majority opinion" for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.
      This decision concerned whether African-Americans could be considered United States citizens and capable of bringing suit in federal courts. The Court relied upon historic discrimination which denied African-Americans the rights of citizens. The Court's most conclusive example (their terms) was New Hampshire's 1815 laws which denied militia participation to African-Americans: "Nothing could more strongly mark the entire repudiation of the African race." (P. 415) Among the resulting parade of horribles should African-Americans be considered citizens, the Court enumerated the rights of citizens and included the right to arms: "It would give to persons of the negro race, ... the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went." (P. 417) Asserting the federal government had no power to enact Territorial laws which would infringe property rights (slaves as property), the court listed rights individuals possess upon entering a Territory destined to become a state and again mentioned the right to arms: "... no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances." "Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.... The powers over person and property of which we speak are not only not granted to Congress, but are in express terms denied, and they are forbidden to exercise them." (Pp. 450-51) In this respect the Dred Scott decision is similar to its contemporary, Cooper and Warsham v. Savannah, 4 Ga. 68, 72 (1848). It is likewise similar to other Supreme Court decisions which list individual rights and include the right to arms. (Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275, 281-282 (1897); United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 US 259, 265 (1990)) Other points of interest could be the Court's profession of duty to interpret the Constitution "according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted." (p. 405); quoting "an American patriot" for the point that "European sovereigns give lands to their colonists, but reserve power to control their property and liberty" whereas the "American government sells lands belonging to the people of the several states ... to their citizens, who are already in possession of personal and political rights, which the Government did not give, and cannot take away." (P. 513)(Campbell concurring). For further information on Dred Scott, visit Sonja's Dred Scott page (includes a photo of Mr. Scott) and Lisa Cozzens' Dred Scott: Introduction.]
      While the decision was well-received by slaveholders in the South, many northerners were outraged. The decision greatly influenced the nomination of Abraham Lincoln to the Republican Party and his subsequent election, which in turn led to the South's secession from the Union.
      Peter Blow's sons, childhood friends of Scott, had helped pay Scott's legal fees through the years. After the Supreme Court's decision, the former master's sons purchased Scott and his wife and set them free. Dred Scott died nine months later.

Other unaccompanied immigrant children are imprisoned like criminals and can only cry.

Greenspan: to prevent inflation, more immigration is needed. Otherwise interest rates will rise.

Human Rights Watch            Amnesty International  

Siskind's Immigration Bulletin   Siskind Immigration Law Index  

Showing the Clinton and Lewinsky testimonies to be mutually exclusive Rep. George Gekas then says Clinton violated federal laws, "obliterating the rights of Paula Jones" to a fair trial in her civil rights case against the president. The Pennsylvania Republican's statement opens the second phase of the House managers' opening presentation, focusing on the law as it applies to perjury and obstruction of justice (the first group concentrated on the facts of the case). Gekas tells senators Clinton's perjury began in December 1997 when attorneys for Jones requested a list of women (other than his wife) who had worked as government employees under Governor or President Clinton and allegedly had sexual activity with him. "None," Clinton answered. That was a lie, says Gekas, because Clinton knew the most common definition of sex was being used. Gekas points out the president's answers to questions in the Jones case preceded his January 1998 deposition when the definition of sex was more carefully outlined.
      In the most emotional presentation yet, Gekas speaks without relying on his prepared text, his voice rising, and his arms swinging wildly as he sought to make his case. "It was an attempt, a bold attempt, one that succeeded in some respects to obstruct the justice sought by a fellow American citizen. That is heavy. That is soul-searching in its quality. That goes beyond those who would say, 'He committed perjury about sex so what,'" says Gekas.

Reps. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) and Chris Cannon (R-Utah) also make presentations on the law of perjury and obstruction of justice. OK, so maybe he's not the brightest bulb in the House The final speaker, Rep. Bob Barr (R-Georgia), agrees with McCollum saying, "The president's position is simply not credible. It defies the evidence. It defies any reasonable interpretation of the evidence. It defies common sense. And it defies the law." Barr, like those before him, goes through conversations between the president and Lewinsky, dissecting testimony, and drawing conclusions. Barr and Gekas acknowledge the repetition in their statements, but tell senators it is necessary to have a complete record.
      One of Clinton's staunchest critics Shaking up the proceedings briefly, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) raises an objection during Barr's presentation. Addressing Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who is presiding over the case, Harkin says he objects to senators being referred to as jurors. Harkin quotes the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the 26 rules of the Senate governing impeachments, to make his point that the Senate is designated to hear impeachment cases as something other than a jury. Rehnquist agrees with the objection and directs the House managers not to refer to senators as jurors.

(2) House managers will wrap up their presentation Jan. 16. When the trial resumes at 10 a.m. ET, Reps. Charles Canady (R-Florida), Steve Buyer (R-Indiana) and Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) will speak on constitutional law as it applies to the impeachment case against Clinton. Lawyers for the president will present their defense case the following week. An ultraliberal dinosaur gets his 15 seconds of fame (3) The first family's lawyers have questioned Linda Tripp under oath for the first time since the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, taking a lengthy deposition for a lawsuit filed against the Hillary Rodham Clinton by a conservative group. Two sources familiar with the White House legal strategy say that Tripp is questioned by attorneys at Williams and Connolly, one of the private law firms handling legal matters for President Bill Clinton and the first lady. Tripp is a witness in a case filed by Judicial Watch, a conservative group that has pressed a number of ethics and other claims against the Clinton Administration. The sources decline to get into details of the Tripp deposition, but they say the Williams and Connolly attorneys did spend considerable time exploring Tripp's political motivations, and tried to build a record of sworn testimony that, in the words of one, "shows she has a problem with the truth." (4) First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton appears moved to tears by her husband's off-the-cuff tribute for her perseverance through difficult times. "I love her for it," President Clinton says. The Clintons headline the annual Democratic National Committee gala fund-raising dinner late tonight. Seemingly tired after a quick shuttle to and from New York for an economic speech, the president spoke wistfully — and at length — about his administration's accomplishments over six years. "Of course, I don't even know how to talk about what I believe Hillary has meant to the success of our endeavors," Clinton says. He ticks off a list of what she had done, where she had traveled "and just a thousand other things." "And she has done it under circumstances I think are probably more difficult than anyone who has ever done it before," the president said. Mrs. Clinton wipes her eyes. "I love her for it, but our country should love her for it as well."