Answer:
When you dont know a definition
Explanation:
School
It's to separate 2 independent clauses.
The argument is that the original US Constitution did not intend for African slaves to be “citizens” of the United States. It is historically false since as dissenter justices Curtis and McLean stated, five of the original 13 states had a sizable minority of free black men who were citizens that could also vote in federal and state elections. Now that being established, the correct answer should be “hasty generalization” since the argument pretends that all citizens, at the time of the ratification of the constitution were white and that only these "all white" citizens were able to vote which is historically false. It could not be a genetic fallacy since the historical precedent invalidates the claim that the intended meaning of the word “citizens” only applied to white Americans. It could not be an <em>ad populum</em> fallacy since not all Americans agreed with such contention, and finally, it could not be a case of begging the claim since they do provide a finding that in their view supports their erroneous conclusion, so it is not circular logic.
