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

Taney fails to provide evidence for his assertions about Black people being universally considered inferior.

Step-by-step explanation:

In the passage from the opinion of the court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, Justice Taney argues that the class of persons described in the plea in abatement, referring to Black people, were not considered citizens and did not have any rights or privileges under the Constitution. A counterclaim to this claim could be that Taney fails to provide any actual evidence for his statements that Black people were universally considered inferior. Without concrete evidence, his assertion is speculative and lacks credibility.

Learn more about Dred Scott v. Sandford