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

The passage discusses the question of whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of the people and are constituent members of this sovereignty. Taney argues that they are not and were not intended to be included under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and therefore cannot claim the rights and privileges of citizens.

Step-by-step explanation:

The subject of this question is History. The question is discussing a passage from the opinion of the court in the landmark Supreme Court case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, written by Justice Taney. The passage discusses the question of whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of the people and are constituent members of this sovereignty. Taney argues that they are not and were not intended to be included under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and therefore cannot claim the rights and privileges of citizens.

A counterclaim to Taney's argument could be that his statements that Black people were universally considered inferior lack actual evidence. Another counterclaim could be that Taney cannot use states' rights to claim that the plaintiff is not a citizen because citizenship is a federal matter. Lastly, another counterclaim could be that Taney's argument that emancipated people were still controlled by White people is false because emancipated people were free and therefore not subject to the authority of others.

Learn more about Dred Scott v. Sandford