Read the passage from the opinion of the court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, written by Justice Taney. The question then arises, wh
ether the provisions of the Constitution, in relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the citizen of a State should be entitled, embraced the negro African race, at that time in this country, or who might afterwards be imported, who had then or should afterwards be made free in any State; and to put it in the power of a single State to make him a citizen of the United States, and endue him with the full rights of citizenship in every other State without their consent? Does the Constitution of the United States act upon him whenever he shall be made free under the laws of a State, and raised there to the rank of a citizen, and immediately clothe him with all the privileges of a citizen in every other State, and in its own courts? Which statement could best be used as an effective counterclaim to this claim? States should decide who is free and who is not. A person who is free in one state cannot be a citizen. Taney cannot deny Scott citizenship because it is a federal right. Other states should have a say over one state's decision.
Taney cannot deny Scott citizenship because it is a federal right.
Before the civil war, only white men with property could vote, and only white people could be United States citizens. African Americans that were born in the United States territory are all citizens, by the The 14th Amendment (1868). So a perfect counterclaim to the claim in the excerpt would be the chosen one because his citizenship is a Federal right by The 14th Amendment.
Rainsford believes Zaroff will never stop hunting him. -is the reason justifying Rainsford’s actions that is best supported by Rainsford’s statement, "I am still a beast at bay.”
