Question

Read the passage from the opinion of the court in Dred

Scott v. Sandford, written by Justice Taney.
The question before us is, whether the class of
persons described in the plea in abatement compose a
portion of this people, and are constituent members of
this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they
are not included, and were not intended to be
included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution,
and can therefore claim none of the rights and
privileges which that instrument provides for and
secures to citizens of the United States. On the
contrary, they were at that time considered as a
subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been
subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether
emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their
authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as
those who held the power and the Government might
choose to grant them.
Which statement best serves as a counterclaim to the
claim in this passage?
O Taney fails to provide any actual evidence for his
statements that Black people were universally
considered inferior.
O Taney cannot use states' rights to claim that the
plaintiff is not a citizen, because citizenship is
federal.
O Taney's argument that emancipated people were still
controlled by White people is false because they
were free.
O Taney's argument that Blacks were not citizens is
false because their ancestors were forced to come
here.

Answer 1

In the opinion of the court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, Justice Taney argues that Black people are not citizens and therefore cannot claim rights and privileges under the Constitution. A counterclaim to this argument could be that Taney fails to provide any actual evidence for his statement about the inferiority of Black people.

Step-by-step explanation:

The subject of this question is the opinion of the court in Dred Scott v. Sandford written by Justice Taney.

In this passage, Justice Taney argues that the class of persons described in the plea in abatement are not considered citizens under the Constitution and therefore cannot claim the rights and privileges provided by the Constitution. He further argues that at that time, these persons were considered subordinate and inferior, and even if emancipated, they remained subject to their authority.

A counterclaim to Taney's argument could be that his statement about Black people being universally considered inferior lacks actual evidence.

Learn more about Dred Scott v. Sandford