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?
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
here.
Submit

Answer 1

The passage argues that Black people are not included as citizens in the Constitution, but fails to provide evidence to support this claim.

Step-by-step explanation:

The passage from the opinion of the court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, written by Justice Taney, argues that Black people are not included as citizens in the Constitution and therefore cannot claim the rights and privileges granted to citizens. One counterclaim to this argument is that Taney fails to provide evidence for his statement that Black people were universally considered inferior. Without specific evidence, his statement lacks credibility and validity.

Learn more about Dred Scott v. Sandford