Answer:
Because Dred Scott and his family were born in the United States, they are citizens with all the rights granted by the Constitution.
Explanation:
According to a different source, this is the passage that the question refers to:
<em>"It will be observed, that the plea applies to that class of persons only whose ancestors were negroes of the African race, and imported into this country, and sold and held as slaves. The only matter in issue before the court, therefore, is, whether the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born of parents who had become free before their birth, are citizens of a State, in the sense in which the word "citizen” is used in the Constitution of the United States. . . . . . . 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."</em>
In this passage, the opinion of the author is that Dred Scott cannot be considered an American citizen because he is the descendant of slaves. The author argues that slaves were not considered as "citizens" when the Constitution was written, and therefore, their children cannot be citizens either. However, a counterclaim to this statement would be the argument that Dred Scott and his family should be considered citizens because they were born in the United States, and therefore, deserve all the rights that citizenship grants them.
