Moroccan-U.S treay of Peace and Friendship 1786


The 1866 Civil Rights Act, 14 Stat. 27  dealt with the citizenship of Blacks or with persons of African descent in this country, after the Civil War (among other things) prior to the 14th amendment [adopted on July 9, 1868 two years after the Civil Rights act] as one of the Reconstruction Amendments;  putting everyone regardless of race or previous conditions of servitude (namely the so-called Negro and or Blacks)  on equal footing with “Whites.” And as will be demonstrated, the same language in that instrument was incorporated into the later 14th amendment.


The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was the first federal statute to provide broad protection in the field of civil rights. Its purpose was to give to the newly emancipated Negro equality with whites before the law. This purpose was fully explained by Senator Lyman Trumbull [R., Ill.], Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in his address on January 29, 1866, introducing the proposed legislation. According to him, the purpose of the bill was to carry into effect the Thirteenth Amendment by destroying the discriminaiton against the Negro that existed in teh laws of the southern states. In this way, the new statute would (as Trumbull had expressed it a month earlier in a speech not reprinted here) “provide for the real freedom of their former slaves.”


“Two important changes were made in section 1 of the 1866 bill during the congressional debates. The first was the addition of a citizenship clause, making persons born in the country United States citizens. Its purpose was to remove the doubts about the Negro’s citizenship status that persisted because of the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857).” [1]

According to Wikipedia,

“Formally titled An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their vindication, the Act declared that people born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are entitled to be citizens, without regard to race, color, or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude. A similar provision was written a few months later in the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Regarding citizenship by birth in the U.S.: “…all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”  [2]

Notice that two things in particular stand out in the above passage. For one, the 1866 Civil Rights Act contained provisions in it that was adopted by the makers of the 14th amendment. And two, it mentions persons who are “not subject to any foreign power are entitled to be citizens.”  Basically, it is the same language as the 14th amendment. This by itself says a lot. One thing it makes clear, is that you cannot be a subject of a Foreign Power and be a citizen of the U.S. which is what We, here at Al Murakush Society have been telling Moors from other groups constantly. In other words if your nationality is U.S.A then you are a U.S citizen; thus a subject of the United States. It clearly says on the back of the M.S.T.A. membership-nationality card “I AM A CITIZEN OF THE U.S.A.   This is why We recommend, and teach our members that expatriation and allegiance to a Moorish Nation or State, i.e. the  Moorish Empire  is what’s required in order to enjoy Moorish Treaty Rights to the max.  But that doesn’t mean that you cannot be prosecuted  for crimes committed in the U.S. Neither should a Muslim desire to break the laws of even foreign lands

Another thing it shows is that even if you were born in the U.S. you can be subject to a foreign power. So everyone talking about having to leave the country because they expatriated and acquired another nationality , need to study the  above sections of the 1866 Act (among other things) , because if you can be born here and be a subject to a foreign power than you can certainly be a resident on this land and have foreign or resident alien status as will be covered. The 1790 Sundry Free Moors Act demonstrates this if one reads it; you shall notice the statement about those Moors being residents of South Carolina. Remember that the makers of the 14th amendment adopted the same language or used the same provision for that particular instrument which came later on. And although the first part of the 14th amendment deals with persons born in the U.S., and naturalized citizens who aren’t subject to any foreign power, in the second part it speaks of “any person” within the jurisdiction of the U.S. being  entitled to due process of law, and equal protection of the laws. The same language is found in the U.S. Codes below. Within the 1866 act it also says,

that any citizen has the same right as a white citizen to make and enforce contracts, sue and be sued, give evidence in court, and inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property. Persons who denied these rights to former slaves were guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction faced a fine not exceeding $1,000, or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both.”

The same source continues with,

“Parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 are still in effect in the 21st century, according to the United States Code. All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other. This section of the United States Code is based on section one of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.


The section they are speaking about is in the United States code, 42 USC § 1981 – EQUAL RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW.[3] The main reason why the above section of this Act is of importance or this topic In general, is because it clearly illustrates how Moors were enjoying many of the same rights as Citizens (Free Whites) without being citizens of the said country. If you read the blog on this site entitled, Did treaties between Murakush/Moroccans and Europeans influence how U.S citizenship is determined?, the Sundry Free Moors situation is touched on in detail. But for this blog it will suffice to say that those Moors who submitted the petition in South Carolina even exercised their right to make or enforce contracts. This is evidenced by the fact that they with great industry bought their freedom, and then they immediately began  invoking  treaty rights prior to 1866,  and any related legislation made later on. The DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) 60 U.S. 393 (How.), further substantiates the point that is being illustrated above as far as Moors exercising the same rights as the citizens of the states, in a period when  Negros could not. Chief Justice Taney deals with the so-called Negro’s legal, and or political rights within the borders of the U.S.  in detail below,


  Celebration, passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1866

“In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them. The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal Government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the [60 U.S. 393, 406] rights and immunities which the Constitution and laws of the State attached to that character.

It is very clear, therefore, that no State can, by any act or law of its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution, introduce a new member into the political community created by the Constitution of the United States. It cannot make him a member of this community by making him a member of its own. And for the same reason it cannot introduce any person, or description of persons, who were not intended to be embraced in this new political family, which the Constitution brought into existence, but were intended to be excluded from it.

The question then arises, whether the provisions of the Constitution, in relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the citizen of a State should be entitled, embraced the negro African race, at that time in this country, or who might afterwards be imported, who had then or should afterwards be made free in any State; and to put it in the power of a single State to make him a citizen of the United States, and endue him with the full rights of citizenship in every other State without their consent? Does the Constitution of the United States act upon him whenever he shall be made free under the laws of a State, and raised there to the rank of a citizen, and immediately clothe him with all the privileges of a citizen in every other State, and in its own courts?

The court think the affirmative of these propositions cannot be maintained. And if it cannot, the plaintiff in error could not be a citizen of the State of Missouri, within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and, consequently, was not entitled to sue in its courts.

It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the personal rights and privileges guarantied to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several State communities, or who should afterwards by birthright or otherwise become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded. It was the union of those who were at that time members of distinct and separate political communities into one political family, whose power, for certain specified purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of the United States. And it gave to each citizen rights and privileges outside of his State [60 U.S. 393, 407] which he did not before possess, and placed him in every other State upon a perfect equality with its own citizens as to rights of person and rights of property; it made him a citizen of the United States.

It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted. And in order to do this, we must recur to the Governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies, when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations. We must inquire who, at that time, were recognised as the people or citizens of a State, whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English Government; and who declared their independence, and assumed the powers of Government to defend their rights by force of arms.

In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.

It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken.

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; 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. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.

And in no nation was this opinion more firmly fixed or more [60 U.S. 393, 408] uniformly acted upon than by the English Government and English people. They not only seized them on the 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 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.

It would be tedious, in this opinion, to enumerate the various laws they passed upon this subject. It will be sufficient, as a sample of the legislation which then generally prevailed throughout the British colonies, to give the laws of two of them; one being still a large slaveholding State, and the other the first State in which slavery ceased to exist.”


The Civil Rights Act of 1866 is debated in Congress

What this means is that Moors should only be concerned with the Sundry Free Moors Act of 2012, and nothing else! Definitely not the Dred Scott case, as many have been trying to use it for some reason or another in the courts while trying to defend their rights as Moors. This is a vital error because anyone with common sense knows that Dred Scott was in “Negro” status, therefore using that case serves no purpose for Moors.  It also exemplifies the fact that Moors didn’t need the 14th amendment to get equal protections within the territories of the U.S. since the committee (House of Reps.) in the State of South Carolina was of the same opinion that none of those Black Codes or restrictive  laws enacted for the better governing of the Negro’s, as articulated above by Taney,  applied to them.


Upon further study of the Act itself one will find that it didn’t provide for social equality for Blacks, which is why many felt that it was ineffective in protecting their rights. Of course we have to consider the fact that it took time for the government to put the proper enforcements in place. The Act simply had nothing to do with social equality or racial integration. Later on down the line, in later Civil Rights Acts, certain penalties for discriminating against people based on their race, class or color, etc… in public places was enforced, as things changed over time.  An interesting case to study on the attitudes of that time, surrounding the issue of certain legislation involving the rights of the so called Negro,( namely the 13th and 14th Amendments)  and social equality is Plessy  versus Ferguson (1896).  [4]

Then the Naturalization act of 1870 was enacted, which dealt with those of African descent and them being naturalized; thus enabling them to become U.S citizens.

“Following the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment (1865), which abolished slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment conferred citizenship on the formerly enslaved. Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1870; while the 1870 Act ushered in a right for blacks to naturalize, overall the Act held only limited promise of equality in the United States; it provided only for the naturalization of whites and persons of “African descent” and continued to exclude Asians and Native Americans from citizenship. Moreover, the law became symbolic for blacks as their claims to legal citizenship were seemingly trumped by social and political subordination and physical backlash.”  [5]


What this basically means is that Moors (subjects of the emperor) were operating as non-citizens, as the treaty has been protected by the Constitution of the United States since the making of the Constitution as mentioned earlier.  This was going on during the whole time the Federal Government was enacting law after law trying to determine whether or not Blacks should be granted U.S citizenship. Even within the colonies or newly formed states. This can be seen in the legislation of the States of VA, S.C, etc… prior to the treaty of 1786. Moors who were in “Peace and Amity” with England, based on earlier treaties between Moors and Europeans via Great Britain were never under slave laws unless UNLAWFULLY.  Acts were passed in the Virginia Colony to exempt Moors and Turks from slavery based on those treaties

This is written in the colonial records of those states.  This destroys the misconception that Moors have to be citizens of the U.S.,  in order for their rights to be protected under the constitution, (as mentioned above)  or that a Moor  has  to be a 14th amendment citizen. But the fact is that the 14th amendment protects “all persons” rights within U.S. territory, irregardless of nationality or national origin. Plus, any treaties the U.S had prior to the making of the Constitution is “Supreme Law of the Land.” See article 6 of the U.S Constitution. Moors have been on this land exercising their god given rights, and treaty rights prior to, and since the making of the Constitution as mentioned earlier.  Basically in modern terms the Moors residing throughout the territorial borders of the United States had resident alien status back then.  We, here at Al Murakush Society, have been informing Moors, that resident alien status is the proper status for Moorish Nationals (meaning subjects of Moorish Nations) to have on this land unless they are Apostates from Islam.  A key fact not taught outside of Murakush is that the July 3rd 1880 convention of Madrid, a treaty in which Moors and Citizens of the United States were parties established that Moorish Subjects [Nationals] lost their Nationality by getting Naturalized by Non Moorish Countries, unless they had permission from their Moorish Government to get Naturalized. The treaty also provided that Residence in Foreign Parts (Nations) does not affect the Nationality of Moorish Subjects [Nationals]. That treaty actually supports the 14th Amendment Naturalization laws See Article XV.  An excerpt from a 1995 Civics book entitled,  We the People, the citizen and the Constitution, by the Center for Civic Education, funded by the U.S Department of Education by act of Congress, Established 1987 under the Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution. It says on page 192,


“Both resident aliens and citizens who live in the United States must obey the laws of the United States. They also receive the protection of those laws. Resident aliens are guaranteed most of the rights possessed by citizens. If they are tried in a court of law, for example, they are guaranteed the same rights to due process that are provided for citizens in the Constitution.


There are two important rights, however, that citizens have and aliens do not: the rights to vote and to hold public office. Possessing these rights, many people have argued, is what distinguishes the citizen from the noncitizen. Some people also argue that in possessing these important rights, citizens also have special responsibilities toward their country that noncitizens do not.”[6]

For the purpose of making a point, and to give a brief breakdown of what Civil rights are as opposed to political rights, We will reference the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy because it should enhance Moors understanding in regards to what the Moors of today priorities should be in regards to these matters. It further solidifies the fact that Blacks have been fighting for what Moors already had in the first place decades if not centuries prior. .


“Until the middle of the 20th century, civil rights were usually distinguished from ‘political rights’. The former included the rights to own property, make and enforce contracts, receive due process of law, and worship one’s religion. Civil rights also covered freedom of speech and the press (Amar 1998: 216-17). But they did not include the right to hold public office, vote, or to testify in court. The latter were political rights, reserved to adult males.” [7]




“It is also necessary to give special attention to the most-favored- nation clauses of the United States Treaty of 1836. There were two grants of most-favored-nation treatment.

Article 14 provides:

“The commerce with the United States shall be on the same

Footing as is the commerce with Spain, or as that with the most

Favored nation for the time being; and their citizens shall be respected and esteemed, and have full liberty to pass and repass Our

Country and seaports whenever they please, without interruption.”

Article 24 deals with the contingencies of war, but it contains a

Final sentence:

“…. and it is further declared, that whatever indulgence, in

trade or otherwise, shall be granted to any of the Christian Powers,

the citizens of the United States shall be equally entitled to them.”

These articles entitle the United States to invoke the provisions

Of other treaties relating to the capitulatory regime”,  The ability to invoke provisions of other treaties relating to the Parties [“Any Moors” and “Citizens of the United States”] apply to Moorish Powers as well.


By virtue of the fact that the Sundry petition of 1790 submitted by the Moors said, “but if they should unfortunately be guilty of any crime or misdemeanor against the Laws of the Land, that they may have a just trial by a Lawful Jury…” tells us that they were exercising certain  civil and  political rights afforded only to the Whites, based on the treaty. For clarification, you cannot have a “just trial” if you cannot testify in court. The sixth amendment says,

“In all criminal lprosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” 8[8]


So we see clearly what it is. The right to vote or hold public office isn’t in the interest of We, at Al Murakush Society, neither was it in the interest of our Ancestors who dwelled in the land before us. We are only concerned with electing members in our own politic and interfacing with politics nation to nation. Many people are confused and think that Nations and States are the same. The nation must first be established before the state is secured, because nations create states.  For those Moors who choose to remain U.S citizens, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, if they aren’t Muslims.  It just makes sense to know your duties to the Nation you have allegiance to , and try to fulfill them instead of opposing the same laws in which you choose to remain bounded to. This is especially the case among members of the M.S.T. of A, and related groups. Citizens of any nation have obligations to its nation. But if you are a Muslim, then that is another story (not in the sense of breaking the laws of the land)  be cause sharia mandates that Muslims only be citizens of Muslims Nations.  The Quran,[5:57]  says, “O you who believe, do not befriend those among the recipients of previous scripture who mock and ridicule your religion, nor shall you befriend the disbelievers. You shall reverence GOD, if you are really believers. So there is no need to continue to rattle the fence with all the frivolity.

In conclusion, it is also worth mentioning  that it’s clear to see as often argued, particularly by “African-Americans”, that the rights of  Blacks were never respected in this land. One thing is for sure, they respected Moorish treaties, and those treaties made them respect  Islamic rights. So let’s not continue to make this a purely racial situation that we are in, when too many of us don’t study the laws of the land, especially as it pertains to the situation of the Moor. Salaam





[6] .  An excerpt from a 1995 Civics book entitled,  We the People, the citizen and the Constitution, by the Center for Civic Education, funded by the U.S Department of Education by act of Congress, Established 1987 under the Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution. Page 192


Post a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Copyright ©2012 All Rights Reserved.