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 fallacy can you identify and discredit to develop a
counterclaim to this claim?
the idea that citizens have rights and privileges that are
guaranteed in the Constitution
the idea that noncitizens cannot claim certain rights and
privileges in the Constitution
O the idea that the plaintiff considers himself a citizen and
therefore has rights and privileges
the idea that African American people are inferior based
on perceptions from an earlier time