WHEREAS, The Supreme Court of the United States has solemnly declared its opinion that the congressional enactment known as the civil rights law, of February 27, 1875, is not in accordance with the United States Constitution, and consequently inoperative as a measure for the protection of the negro in his manhood rights; and whereas, the customs and traditions of many of the States in the Union are inimical to the negro as a man and as a citizen, he finds neither in the common law nor in the sentiments of his white fellow citizens, [See Introduction To Moorish Treaties 1662-1856] that full protection which he has earned by his loyalty and devotion to the nation in its hour of extreme peril; Page 44 THE RESOLUTIONS. See Henry McNeal Turner, 1834-1915. The Barbarous Decision of the United States Supreme Court Declaring the Civil Rights Act Unconstitutional and Disrobing the Colored Race of All Civil Protection.
A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a “citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States. 5. When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its “people or citizens.” Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being “citizens” within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States. They had 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 so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, [See Introduction To Moorish Treaties 1662-1856] and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.
He was bought 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. [See Introduction to Moorish Race and Nationality.]”And in no nation was this opinion more firmly fixed or more [p408] uniformly acted upon than by the English Government and English people. They not only seized them on the [West] coast of Africa and sold them or held them in slavery for their own use, but they took them as ordinary articles of merchandise to every country where they could make a profit on them, and were far more extensively engaged in this commerce than any other nation in the world. The opinion thus entertained and acted upon in England was naturally impressed upon the colonies they founded on this side of the Atlantic.
“And, accordingly, a negro of the African race was regarded by them as an article of property, and held, and bought and sold as such, in every one of the thirteen colonies which united in the Declaration of Independence and afterwards formed the Constitution of the United States. The slaves were more or less numerous in the different colonies as slave labor (Study the History of the U.S. Department of Labor) was found more or less profitable. But no one seems to have doubted the correctness of the prevailing opinion of the time. The legislation of the different colonies furnishes positive and indisputable proof of this fact. Taney left out the legal understanding as to Moors demonstrating a legal distinction because he was well aware of the treaties between Great Britian and Morocco, that Moors were in the United States and that the Constitution to which he himself as a White man was bound to respect has a Supremacey Clause making treaties the Supreme Law of the United States i.e. Federal law. [See Introduction To Moorish Treaties 1662-1856] Click here to read Scott v. Sandford
Abraham Lincoln Represented a Moorish plaintiff from Portugal in William Dungey (plaintiff) v. Joseph Spencer (defendant). The newspapers referred to William as “Black Bill”. Lincoln Successfully argued: “My client is not a Negro, though it is a crime to be a Negro–no crime to be born with a black skin. But my client is not a Negro. His skin may not be as white as ours, but I say he is not a Negro, though he may be a Moore.”
“Mr. Lincoln,” interrupted Judge Davis, scarcely able to restrain a smile, “you mean a Moor, not Moore.” “Well, your Honor, Moor, not C.H. Moore,” replied Mr. Lincoln, with a sweep of his long arm toward the table where Moore and I sat. “I say my client may be a Moor, but he is not a Negro.” On October 18, 1855, the jury returned a verdict of guilty and granted Dungey $600 in damages plus court costs of $137.50. Lincoln charged a $25 fee, which Lawrence Weldon considered minimal. See Introduction to Moorish Nationality and Status.
The Negro in the New World By Sir Harry Hamilton Johnston states: “When the Portuguese discovers, urged on by Prince Henry of Portugal, had rounded Cape Bojador, and after reaching Rio d’Ouro in 1435……” In his Footnotes it says “This is the reason why blackamoor in English, Morioan in Dutch, Morian in German, Moro in Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian and Moriaud in French were early names for Negroes. “Negro”, a Spanish word, did not come into common use in England till the nineteenth century.” Here the author clearly acknowledges that Moors were given the name Negroes during the era beginning the Atlantic Slave Trade.
The right to a nationality is of paramount importance to the realization of other fundamental human rights. Possession of a nationality carries with it the diplomatic protection of the country of nationality and is also often a legal or practical requirement for the exercise of fundamental rights. Consequently, the right to a nationality has been described as the “right to have rights.” See Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101–02 (1958). Individuals who lack a nationality or an effective citizenship are therefore among the world’s most vulnerable to human rights violations.