"This work is a history of slavery, capitalism, and the law that not only reframes how we understand the commodification of enslaved people, but also makes a significant methodological and moral argument for how historians should seek to make sense of the lived experiences of enslaved people in the antebellum United States"--

Before the Civil War, colonization schemes and black laws threatened to deport former slaves born in the United States. Birthright Citizens recovers the story of how African American activists remade national belonging through battles in legislatures, conventions, and courthouses. They faced formidable opposition, most notoriously from the US Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott. Still, Martha S. Jones explains, no single case defined their status. Former slaves studied law, secured allies, and conducted themselves like citizens, establishing their status through local, everyday claims. All along they argued that birth guaranteed their rights. With fresh archival sources and an ambitious reframing of constitutional law-making before the Civil War, Jones shows how the Fourteenth Amendment constitutionalized the birthright principle, and black Americans' aspirations were realized. Birthright Citizens tells how African American activists radically transformed the terms of citizenship for all Americans.

The decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, that all African Americans (free and enslaved) were unable to become American citizens and therefore lacked standing to sue in federal court, and that Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in the territories, was truly monumental in its impact on the nation and immediately generated widespread public debate. When congressional inaction postponed for a year the market availability of copies of the decision, it was Benjamin Howard's New York, Appleton imprint of the case that the public read and which scholars relied upon as a basis for the earliest and most forceful legal commentary and analysis. From a transmission history and a cultural reception perspective, the importance of this cannot be understated. Howard's imprint provided the textual ammunition for both sides of a debate which further divided the nation as it marched toward civil war. There currently exists no other single source of Howard's reproduction of the Dred Scott opinion with the published contemporary commentary contained in this volume. Also, there is a dearth of detailed bibliographic analysis regarding the production and transmission of the decision itself. The introductory bibliographic essay, "The Publication and Transmission History of Dred Scott v. Sandford" addresses many previously unrecorded bibliographic aspects of the decision.--Publisher