Pre-14th Amendment, was an ex-slave a citizen

[The Mikado]

Because Dred Scott was brought up the other day, I thought it was worth asking.  Dred Scott was decided on the notion that, not only was Dred Scott still a slave, even if he was no longer a slave he was not a US citizen because he wasn't the child of US citizens.  I know some Northern states gave free blacks voting rights and other rights associated with citizenship, but it seems a hard problem to answer on a conceptual level. 

The 14th was one of the best things that ever happened to this country.  Just trying to get my head around this question demonstrates to me the need to make it absolutely crystal clear.

[Torie]

You answered your own question I think. SCOTUS under Taney held slaves were not citizens, so that was the law of the land. I believe it was the 13th rather than the 14th amendment which granted citizenship. So the Taney era had a short half life.

[Dereich]

Was citizenship even a fully defined concept at the time? If voting rights are the main distinction for citizenship would that make poor whites of the era non-citizens? I know most blacks started with the franchise in the north but gradually lost it and other rights, would that mean they had citizenship, but lost it? I don't think the legislators at the time were giving much thought to the broader implications and questions of what their actions meant, leading to weird dilemmas like this.

[The Mikado]

You answered your own question I think. SCOTUS under Taney held slaves were not citizens, so that was the law of the land. I believe it was the 13th rather than the 14th amendment which granted citizenship. So the Taney era had a short half life.

Pre-Dred Scott there were places in the North and even the South where free blacks had many of the same rights as free whites, but there were also places that barred free blacks from voting and other such marks of citizenship.  It's so ridiculously lacking in consistency.  I guess that's what Taney was trying to do by coming down on the side that even if Dred Scott were no longer a slave (and he was still a slave) he was inherently a noncitizen.

[Torie]

You answered your own question I think. SCOTUS under Taney held slaves were not citizens, so that was the law of the land. I believe it was the 13th rather than the 14th amendment which granted citizenship. So the Taney era had a short half life.

Pre-Dred Scott there were places in the North and even the South where free blacks had many of the same rights as free whites, but there were also places that barred free blacks from voting and other such marks of citizenship.  It's so ridiculously lacking in consistency.  I guess that's what Taney was trying to do by coming down on the side that even if Dred Scott were no longer a slave (and he was still a slave) he was inherently a noncitizen.

Yes, Taney "clarified" the law, and per his ruling, it was unconstitutional for blacks to be voting anywhere, assuming one needed to be a citizen to vote (I guess not for state offices, but certainly for federal ones, you need to be a citizen).