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 "otizens 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 subiunated by the dominant race and
Which statement best serves as a counterclaim to
the claim in this passage?
Taney fails to provide any actual evidence for his
statements that Black people were universally
considered inferior
Taney cannot use states' rights to claim that the
plaintiff is not a citizen, because citizenship is
federal
Taney's argument that emancipated people were
still controlled by White people is false because
they were free
Taney's argument that Blacks were not citizens is
false because their ancestors were forced to come

Answer 1

Justice Taney argues that Black people are not included as citizens in the Constitution, and a counterclaim to this claim is that Taney fails to provide evidence for this statement.

Step-by-step explanation:

The subject of the question is History and the grade level is High School.

In this passage from the opinion of the court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, Justice Taney argues that Black people are not included as citizens in the Constitution and therefore cannot claim the rights and privileges provided to citizens of the United States. A counterclaim to this argument is that Taney fails to provide actual evidence for his statements that Black people were universally considered inferior.

SEO Keywords: Dred Scott v. Sandford, Justice Taney, Constitution, citizens, counterclaim

Learn more about Dred Scott v. Sandford