Discover the answers to your questions at Westonci.ca, where experts share their knowledge and insights with you. Get immediate and reliable solutions to your questions from a knowledgeable community of professionals on our platform. Connect with a community of professionals ready to provide precise solutions to your questions quickly and accurately.

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."

What is Taney's claim in this passage?

A. That Black people were covered by the Constitution's definition of citizen.
B. That emancipated Black people had rights guaranteed by the government.
C. That Black people were not part of the group considered citizens by the Constitution.
D. That Black people would have to get the government's permission to be citizens.


Sagot :

Final answer:

Chief Justice Taney argued that Black people were not part of the citizen group defined by the Constitution in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case.


Explanation:

Chief Justice Taney's claim in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case was that Black people were not considered part of the group of citizens defined by the Constitution. Taney argued that slaves, whether free or enslaved, were not and could not become U.S. citizens, thus denying them any citizenship rights and protections.


Learn more about Dred Scott v. Sandford