UNDER CONSTRUCTION: DON’T READ IT YET; I’M PUBLISHING IT SO WORDPRESS DOESN’T DISAPPEAR IT, AS IT SOMETIMES DOES WITH UNPUBLISHED DRAFTS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE; I’LL HAVE THIS FOR YOU, PROBABLY, BY TOMORROW.
By Sasha Alex Lessin, Ph.D. (Anthropology, UCLA)
TRUMPERS TOUT THE SUPREMES’ DRED SCOTT DECISION TO DENY BLACKS CITIZENSHIP
From Dred Scott to Trump: the 169-year struggle over birthright citizenship in the U.S.
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP in the US came about as a way of granting citizenship after the American Civil War to the large population of formerly enslaved Black people. The law intended for Black Americans created hundreds of thousands of new US citizens born to immigrant parents every year.
On the first day of Donald Trump’s second presidential term, he signed an executive order about the old American rule that anyone born here is a citizen.
Since most Black people who voted in America voted for Democrats against Trump MAGA Republicans, and because he and Miller (Trump’s advisor and author of Project 20250), who are White Supremacists, wanted Blacks excluded from voting.
Trump’s order stated that the rule that a person’s birth on American soil secures their citizenship as citizens of the United States comes from the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, should to the children of people in the United States illegally, temporarily, or who were descendants of slaves. Trump lawyers agrued that Blacks were considered property–not people so their descendants did not qualify as American citizens by birth; their parents were property, not people–sounds stupid, but that’s their argument.
Within a few weeks, multiple federal judges blocked that order—the resolution was temporary. The ultimate outcome, likely decided by the Supreme Court, whose majority owes its lifelong tenure to Trump, will probably support Trump, to whom they owe their lifelong tenure on the Court.
Birthright citizenship in the US came about as a way of granting citizenship after the American Civil War to the large population of formerly enslaved Black people. The law intended for Black Americans who created hundreds of thousands of new US citizens born to immigrant parents every year.
Within a few weeks, multiple federal judges blocked that order—but the resolution was temporary, and the ultimate outcome, likely decided by the Supreme Court, whose majority is beholden to and obedient to Trump, will probably support Trump, to whom they owe their lifelong tenure on the Court.
Birthright citizenship in the US came about as a way of granting citizenship after the American Civil War to the large population of formerly enslaved Black people. The law intended for Black Americans created hundreds of thousands of new US citizens born to immigrant parents every year.
Cooperative consciousness considerers argued that all people born in a country can contribute to its culture, regardless of their ancestors’ culture.
Domination devotees declared: Officials authorize who can belong and who cannot.
These competing approaches shaped American citizenship since the country’s founding.
Enslaved Africans and their descendants challenged the authority of officials, slaveholders, courts, and lawmakers to treat them as property rather than people.
After the Civil War, Congress established birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment to protect ex-slaves, their descendants, and also the American-born children of immigrants.
In 2025, President Donald Trump challenged that understanding.
He ordered federal agencies to deny birthright citizenship to certain children born in the United States to parents who were unlawfully or temporarily present.
On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court rejected that interpretation in Trump v. Barbara.
To understand what was at stake, we must return to the original struggle over who counted as an American.
1787–1857: AMERICA INHERITED CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH—BUT DENIED EQUAL MEMBERSHIP
When delegates drafted the United States Constitution in 1787, they did not establish a comprehensive definition of citizenship at birth.
American law inherited an important principle from English common law: jus soli, the right of the soil.
Under this principle, a person born within a sovereign’s territory ordinarily acquired membership in that political community.
Another principle, jus sanguinis, the right of blood, derived citizenship from one’s parents.
Both ideas influenced the development of nationality laws.
But the United States also maintained slavery. Enslaved people were compelled to work, could be sold, and were denied fundamental freedoms. Slaveholders asserted legal authority over their labor, movement, families, and lives.
Free Black Americans challenged discriminatory laws, petitioned governments, founded institutions, and claimed citizenship. Some voted in states that recognized their political rights.
Thus, citizenship was never simply a settled inheritance from England. People fought over whether birth, ancestry, race, freedom, or political power determined membership.
Free Black community organizers proclaimed, We were born here. We work here, raise families here, and contribute to our communities. Don’t use our ancestry as an excuse to deny us membership in the country we helped build.”
Dixicrats, indoctrinated in the Anunnaki Domination Deal, declared, Political membership belongs to those our laws recognize. Birth alone cannot make us share authority with everyone living in America. For people of this ilk, citizenship is a privilege the powerful grant, not protection from them.
1857: THE DRED SCOTT DECISION DENIED BLACK AMERICANS NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP
Dred Scott was an enslaved man who had lived with his enslaver in Illinois and Wisconsin Territory, where slavery was prohibited.
He and his wife, Harriet Robinson Scott, pursued freedom suits in Missouri.
They argued that their residence in free jurisdictions entitled them to freedom.
Their litigation eventually reached the United States Supreme Court.
On March 6, 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the Court’s majority opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford.
The Court denied Scott’s claim to federal citizenship and declared that people of African descent whose ancestors had been enslaved were excluded from the national political community contemplated by the Constitution.
The decision also held that Congress lacked authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories, invalidating the Missouri Compromise’s territorial restriction.
The ruling threatened the citizenship claims of free Black Americans as well as the freedom claims of enslaved people.
Taney’s opinion treated racial ancestry as a basis for denying national citizenship.
Yet Black Americans had already organized against slavery, demanded recognition, and challenged the proposition that the country belonged exclusively to whites.
The Dred Scott decision intensified the sectional conflict that would culminate in the Civil War. It deepened the dispute over slavery’s expansion and the authority of the federal government.
Harriet Scott testified, We lived where slavery was prohibited. The law must recognize our freedom?”
But Judge Taney ruled,“The Constitution does not give the federal government authority to make your claim superior to the property rights recognized by slaveholding states.”
Enraged abolitionists said, The Court classifies people as property, then uses their classification to deny them people’s rights. That’s just power, not justice
1857–1865: ABOLITIONISTS RESISTED SLAVERY; JOHN BROWN ATTACKED HARPER’S FERRY
The Dred Scott decision confirmed abolitionists’ fears that slaveholding interests dominated national institutions.
The violent Abolitionist John Brown, who had killed proslavery settlers at Pottawatomie Creek in 1856, asked Frederick Douglass to join him.
Brown planned to seize the federal armory at Harpers Ferry. Douglas declined, but on October 16, 1859, Brown and his followers, both Black and White, attacked Harpers Ferry, Virginia, now West Virginia.
Brown hoped to seize weapons and encourage an uprising among enslaved people.
Instead, federal forces commanded by Robert E. Lee captured him after a violent confrontation.
Brown was tried in Charles Town, Virginia, convicted of treason against Virginia, murder, and inciting enslaved people to rebel.
He was executed on December 2, 1859.
Brown’s raid failed militarily but intensified national debate.
Many white Southerners feared further uprisings.
Abolitionists disagreed over Brown’s methods, while some regarded his willingness to die opposing slavery as a moral challenge to the nation.
Abraham Lincoln opposed Brown’s violence but also opposed the expansion of slavery.
He rejected the notion that the raid represented the Republican Party’s program.
Virginia slaveowners, addicted to the Anunnaki-derived domination consciousness, celebrated, saying, Brown has attacked our state, threatened our property, encouraged rebellion, and deserved to die.”
Partnership partisans, though ignorant of the Anunnaki origin of their attitudes in the teaching of the Great Anunnaki Goddess Ninmah, countered: “The deeper question is why human freedom has been classified as a threat to property.”
861–1870: THE CIVIL WAR DESTROYED SLAVERY; RECONSTRUCTION ESTABLISHED CITIZENSHIP
When Southern states seceded in 1860–1861, the central dispute concerned slavery and its future.
The Civil War began in April 1861. President Abraham Lincoln initially emphasized preserving the Union.
Emancipation, however, became an increasingly central Union war policy.
Freed slaves escaped plantations, assisted Union forces, and served in the military.
The Emancipation Proclamation took effect on January 1, 1863, declaring enslaved people in designated areas in rebellion against the United States free.
The Thirteenth Amendment, ratified in December 1865, abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime following conviction.
LINCOLN CHOSE DIXICRAT ANDREW JOHNSON AS HIS VEEP; JOHNSON, SUCCEEDING LINCOLN, OBSTRUCTED RECONSTRUCTION
Lincoln accepted Andrew Johnson of Tennessee, a Southern Democrat and former slaveholder, as his vice-presidential running mate in 1864 because Johnson had remained loyal to the Union even after Tennessee seceded in 1861. Lincoln and his Republican allies hoped that placing a Southern Unionist Democrat on their National Union Party ticket would attract War Democrats, reassure loyal Southerners, and strengthen Lincoln’s reelection campaign.
Lincoln appointed Johnson military governor of Tennessee in 1862. Lincoln’s wartime effort to unite Northern Republicans and Southern Unionists unexpectedly placed a defender of white political supremacy in the presidency at the critical moment when emancipation needed to become enforceable civil and political equality.
General Grant, Commander of Union forces in the Civil War, of course, defeated the South, but after Southern sympathizer Booth murdered Lincoln, Lincoln, to show tolerance for Southerners, had chosen the racist Southerner, Andrew Johnson, as his Vice President.
After Lincoln’s assassination in April 1865, President Johnson pursued a Reconstruction policy that restored political authority to many former Confederates while offering little protection to formerly enslaved Black Americans. He granted extensive pardons to former rebels, permitted Southern governments to enact discriminatory Black Codes, opposed Black voting rights, vetoed the Freedmen’s Bureau legislation intended to assist formerly enslaved people, and vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which established federal citizenship protections.
CONGRESS OVERRODE PRESIDENT JOHNSON’S VETO TO ENACT THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
Congressional Republicans overrode his vetoes and advanced the Fourteenth Amendment to constitutionally protect citizenship. Johnson also resisted congressional Reconstruction Acts requiring Southern states to establish new governments and recognize Black men’s political rights.
Johnson’s confrontation with Congress culminated in his 1868 impeachment; the Senate acquitted him by one vote. Thus, Lincoln’s wartime effort to unite Northern Republicans and Southern Unionists unexpectedly placed a defender of white political supremacy in the presidency at the critical moment when emancipation needed to become enforceable civil and political equality.
Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, establishing citizenship for people born in the United States and not subject to a foreign power, with an exclusion concerning certain Native Americans.
President Johnson vetoed the legislation. He objected to its implications for federal authority and questioned citizenship for groups including Chinese immigrants.
Congress overrode his veto.
14th AMENDMENT
Congress then proposed the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, which established a constitutional guarantee of citizenship. Amendment 14 stated, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The amendment did not define citizenship by race or former enslavement.
15th AMENDMENT
The Fifteenth Amendment, ratified in 1870, prohibited federal and state governments from denying voting rights because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Together, the 14th and 15th Amendments transformed American constitutional law.
However, women still lacked a nationwide constitutional guarantee against sex-based voting discrimination.
Many Black citizens still faced intimidation, exclusion, and disenfranchisement.
Black Union Veterans also complained, We helped preserve this nation. Freedom must include our legal recognition, protection, and a voice in government.”
Northern state congressmen warned. If states can deny citizenship to people born under their authority, they can undermine emancipation through new forms of legal exclusion. Former Confederate politicians countered that the federal government should not dictate the composition of state politics.
1868–1898: CHINESE IMMIGRANTS CHALLENGED EXCLUSION; WONG KIM ARK DEFENDED HIS CITIZENSHIP
The Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship language applied beyond the formerly enslaved population whose exclusion had made constitutional reform urgent.
During congressional debates, lawmakers discussed whether American-born children of Chinese immigrants would become citizens.
The 14th Amendment would extend citizenship to children born in the United States to immigrant parents who were subject to American jurisdiction.
Anti-Chinese hostility intensified during the nineteenth century, particularly in California.
In California, Chinese immigrants worked in gold mines, built railroads, operated laundries, and established businesses.
White workers sometimes blamed them for competition over jobs and wages during economic downturns.
Employers exploited divisions between workers. Politicians encouraged racial resentment.
Chinese immigrants faced discriminatory laws, mob violence, and exclusion from political participation.
In 1882, Congress enacted the Chinese Exclusion Act.
The Act restricted Chinese labor immigration.
It reinforced existing prohibitions against Chinese immigrants becoming naturalized American citizens.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THEIR CHILDREN BORN IN THE UNITED STATES?
Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco around 1873 to Chinese immigrant parents who lived and worked in America.
After visiting China, he returned to San Francisco in 1895, where Immigration agents ruled him a non-citizen and told him he lacked citizenship rights in America.
Wong insisted he was already an American citizen because he was born in the United States.
In 1898, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment protected his citizenship. The decision established that an American-born child of Chinese immigrant parents, domiciled in the United States and subject to its laws, was a citizen by birth despite restrictions on the parents’ naturalization.
Anti-Chinese Authoritarian, Anunnaki-imprinted politicians fulminated, Chinese laborers compete with American workers, accept lower wages, and remain loyal to a foreign country. Their children should not automatically become Americans.”
WONG KIM ARK retorted with the partnership preference of Anunnaki Goddess Ninmah, I was born in San Francisco. I’m an American Citizen.
Ark’s attorney argued that the Fourteenth Amendment protects citizenship by birth.
A child’s citizenship does not depend on whether the parents qualify for naturalization.
In 1898, the Supreme Court ruled that the government wrongly denied his citizenship.
The decision established that the American-born child of Chinese immigrant parents domiciled in the United States and subject to its laws was a citizen by birth, despite restrictions on the parents’ naturalization.
Anti-Chinese politicians, echoing the ancient racism and domination ideology of the Anunnaki leadership, fulminated, “Chinese laborers compete with American workers, accept lower wages, and remain loyal to a foreign country. Their children should not automatically become Americans.”
Ark responded with the wisdom of unity, community, and partnership espoused by Cretan Goddess Ninmah, “I was born in San Francisco. America is my country; my parents’ birthplace is irrelevant to my citizenship. His lawyer added, Wong Kim Ark is an American citizen by birth. A child’s citizenship does not depend on whether the parents qualify for naturalization.”
In 1898, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Court said Ark was a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision affirmed the common-law principle of citizenship by birthplace. It demonstrated that racial exclusion in immigration law did not erase the citizenship of a person born in the United States who qualified under the Fourteenth Amendment.
6. 1898–2024: CITIZENSHIP SURVIVED, BUT EQUAL VOTING RIGHTS REQUIRED CONTINUING STRUGGLE
The Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark established powerful protections for citizenship by birth.
Yet citizenship alone did not ensure equal participation in American democracy.
After Reconstruction, Southern governments developed poll taxes, literacy tests, discriminatory registration systems, and other devices to exclude Black citizens from voting.
White supremacist violence reinforced these restrictions.
Black Americans resisted through community organizations, lawsuits, education campaigns, protests, and electoral organizing.
The civil rights movement of the twentieth century helped secure the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The Voting Rights Act addressed discriminatory barriers to political participation. It did not itself establish birthright citizenship.
Meanwhile, immigration and citizenship remained contested political questions.
During the late twentieth century, some lawmakers proposed restricting birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants.
Supporters of restrictions argued that citizenship should not automatically follow from birth when parents lacked permanent legal status.
Opponents argued that the Constitution’s citizenship guarantee protects children independently of their parents’ immigration status.
The underlying disagreement concerned whether national membership should be determined primarily by birthplace or by additional qualifications connected to parental status.
PARTNERSHIP–DOMINATION DIALOGUE
Reconstructed exchange.
PARTNERSHIP — BLACK CIVIL RIGHTS ORGANIZER:
“Citizenship means little politically if officials can prevent citizens from registering and voting.”
DOMINATION — DEFENDER OF RESTRICTIVE VOTING LAWS:
“States must be allowed to establish and enforce qualifications for participation in elections.”
PARTNERSHIP:
“Qualifications become instruments of exclusion when they are deliberately designed or discriminatorily administered to keep particular citizens from the ballot.”
ILLUSTRATION PROMPT 6
Bright, sunlit 16:9 historical montage. Heading CITIZENSHIP DID NOT AUTOMATICALLY GUARANTEE THE VOTE. Left: Black voters standing peacefully in a 1960s registration line, with a historically appropriate civil rights march behind them. Center: VOTING RIGHTS ACT — 1965 in huge bold print. Right: diverse American citizens voting at modern polling booths. Large contrasting labels: DISCRIMINATORY BARRIERS and ORGANIZED CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION. Pure white background, vivid red, purple, blue, and gold, large black lettering. No dark or gloomy treatment.
7. 2025: TRUMP CHALLENGED BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP; LAWYERS RETURNED TO RECONSTRUCTION HISTORY
On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.
The order directed federal agencies not to recognize birthright citizenship for specified children born in the United States when their mothers were unlawfully present or temporarily lawfully present and their fathers were neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents.
The administration argued that the Fourteenth Amendment’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” did not include the children covered by its order.
Administration lawyers emphasized the amendment’s Reconstruction origins and its purpose of repudiating the Dred Scott decision.
They did not expressly ask the Court to restore Dred Scott or strip citizenship from descendants of enslaved Americans.
Instead, they argued for a narrower interpretation of citizenship for children of certain noncitizen parents.
Opponents argued that the administration’s interpretation conflicted with the Fourteenth Amendment, Wong Kim Ark, federal citizenship law, and longstanding government practice.
Civil rights advocates also compared the administration’s reasoning with earlier attempts to decide which American-born populations should be excluded from national membership.
The relationship to Project 2025 requires care. Project 2025 proposed extensive changes to immigration enforcement and federal administration, while Stephen Miller has been a prominent advocate of restrictive immigration policies. But a claim that Project 2025 specifically sought to revoke the citizenship of descendants of enslaved Americans requires documentary evidence beyond the birthright citizenship order.
PARTNERSHIP–DOMINATION DIALOGUE
Reconstructed exchange, not quotations from Trump or his attorneys.
DOMINATION — ADVOCATE OF TRUMP’S ORDER:
“The Fourteenth Amendment was designed to correct the denial of citizenship to formerly enslaved people. It was not intended to make every child of a temporary visitor or unlawfully present immigrant a citizen.”
PARTNERSHIP — CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ATTORNEY:
“The amendment used general language, not a list of approved ancestries. Its protection cannot be narrowed simply because a child’s parents lack permanent status.”
DOMINATION:
“Jurisdiction must involve more than merely being present within American territory.”
PARTNERSHIP:
“The central legal question is what jurisdiction meant when the amendment was adopted and how the courts have interpreted it since.”
ILLUSTRATION PROMPT 7
Bright, factual 16:9 constitutional debate graphic. Heading 2025: TRUMP CHALLENGED BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP. Left: recognizable, historically accurate portrait of DONALD TRUMP beside a document labeled EXECUTIVE ORDER 14160. Center: giant readable text 14TH AMENDMENT — SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF. Right: constitutional attorneys presenting opposing legal arguments before the Supreme Court. Bottom two clearly labeled panels: ADMINISTRATION: RESTRICTIVE INTERPRETATION and CHALLENGERS: BROAD BIRTHRIGHT PROTECTION. Pure white background, bright blue and red accents, balanced presentation, enormous crisp dark lettering.
8. 2026: THE SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMED BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP
When Vox published its video in March 2025, the final outcome of Trump’s executive order was uncertain.
That uncertainty has since been resolved in the Supreme Court.
On June 30, 2026, the Court decided Trump v. Barbara.
The Court held that children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the Court’s opinion.
The decision examined English common law, the history of Dred Scott, Reconstruction legislation, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Wong Kim Ark.
The Court rejected the administration’s interpretation of the citizenship clause.
The justices did not all agree about the constitutional question. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concluded that federal statute prohibited the order but disagreed with the majority’s constitutional interpretation. Other dissenting justices advanced narrower understandings of birthright citizenship.
The ruling did not eliminate every political disagreement over immigration, citizenship, or voting procedures.
But it established that Trump’s executive order could not deny citizenship to the children it targeted.
From Dred Scott and Harriet Scott’s pursuit of freedom, through Black abolitionists and Reconstruction lawmakers, to Wong Kim Ark’s successful citizenship claim, American history records repeated struggles over who may be recognized as a member of the political community.
From the perspective of partnership consciousness, the enduring question is whether institutions protect people’s equal standing or allow powerful groups to distribute membership according to ancestry and political preference.
The constitutional history does not resolve every disagreement over immigration policy. It does establish that the rules of citizenship cannot simply be rewritten by presidential decree.
PARTNERSHIP–DOMINATION DIALOGUE
Reconstructed exchange illustrating the legal positions after the decision.
DOMINATION — SUPPORTER OF RESTRICTIVE CITIZENSHIP RULES:
“Congress should reconsider whether children of temporary visitors or undocumented immigrants ought to acquire citizenship automatically.”
PARTNERSHIP — CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR:
“Congress may debate immigration policy, but legislation and executive action remain subject to the Constitution.”
DOMINATION:
“A country has a legitimate interest in defining its membership.”
PARTNERSHIP:
“And a constitutional republic establishes limits on how political authorities may exercise that power.”
ILLUSTRATION PROMPT 8
Bright 16:9 historical-to-modern illustration on a pure white background. Large heading 2026: SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMED BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP. Center: brilliant daylight view of the United States Supreme Court and a document TRUMP v. BARBARA — JUNE 30, 2026. Left: labeled historical portraits of DRED SCOTT, HARRIET SCOTT, and WONG KIM ARK. Right: diverse modern American families with children standing peacefully before the Capitol. Bottom: huge readable text 14TH AMENDMENT — CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH. Rich bright colors, clean white space, dark red, purple, and black typography, no shadows or dark backgrounds.
CONCLUSION: DOMINATION DETERMINES WHO BELONGS; PARTNERSHIP RECOGNIZES PEOPLE’S EQUAL STANDING
The struggle over American citizenship has never concerned legal wording alone.
It has involved enslaved people demanding freedom, free Black Americans claiming political membership, abolitionists confronting slavery, immigrants challenging exclusion, and citizens organizing against discriminatory voting laws.
The history also reveals disagreements among people who opposed slavery and discrimination. John Brown and Frederick Douglass differed over revolutionary violence. Reconstruction lawmakers debated the boundaries of federal authority. Modern constitutional lawyers disagree about the relationship between birthplace, allegiance, and jurisdiction.
Our partnership framework distinguishes cooperation grounded in mutual recognition from systems that distribute rights according to inherited status or concentrated political power.
The Fourteenth Amendment emerged from a devastating war over slavery and the status of human beings.
Its citizenship guarantee was one of the constitutional transformations that followed.
The question for every generation is how faithfully American institutions will apply that guarantee while respecting the equal dignity of the people they govern.
SOURCE VIDEO
Vox. (March 6, 2025). “Why the US Has Birthright Citizenship.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBFX4EuAWHc
This article is an original historical adaptation and expansion of the supplied closed captions, incorporating additional developments through October 2026. The dialogues are reconstructed illustrations of historical and legal disagreements, not transcripts of conversations.
KEYWORDS
Dred Scott, Harriet Scott, Dred Scott v. Sandford, Roger B. Taney, John Brown, Harpers Ferry, Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, Civil War, slavery, abolition, emancipation, Reconstruction, citizenship, birthright citizenship, Fourteenth Amendment, Thirteenth Amendment, Fifteenth Amendment, Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act of 1866, Chinese Exclusion Act, Wong Kim Ark, Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, Project 2025, Trump v. Barbara, Supreme Court 2026, immigration, constitutional rights, racial discrimination, domination consciousness, partnership consciousness, cooperative society, Sasha Alex Lessin, EnkiSpeaks.
HASHTAGS
#DredScott, #HarrietScott, #JohnBrown, #HarpersFerry, #FrederickDouglass, #AbrahamLincoln, #BirthrightCitizenship, #14thAmendment, #CivilRights, #VotingRights, #Reconstruction, #AmericanHistory, #WongKimArk, #Trump, #Project2025, #SupremeCourt, #Constitution, #Citizenship, #PartnershipConsciousness, #DominationConsciousness, #EnkiSpeaks, #SashaAlexLessin
