This is the most confusing questionhaha
Answer:
B...? It could be A but my bet is on B.
Explanation:
Answer:
D. But see below. It could also be B.
Explanation:
The question is much more complicated than you might first think. The first knotty problem has to do with the term in abatement. This term actually means the right to sue in any court in the United States. Taney is arguing that African Americans do not have that right.
Then comes the argument "Why not?" The reason he cannot sue is because he is not a citizen and that's where the rest of the argument comes in. I think strange as it may seem, Taney uses the fact that they are not citizens to deny them the rights of citizenship.
He states plainly enough that those writing the constitution never intended African Americans to be citizens. They were conquered by a more powerful race. The fact of the matter, what happened in Pennsylvania when the constitution was written was much, much more complicated. The North wanted them to be included in the Constitution, the South would never permit it. The writing of the constitution is much more complicated than the simple assertion of what the Founding Fathers intended.
This case is considered by many to be one of the darkest stains on the Supreme Court baring no other case. Come to think of it, I suppose B and D are both correct. I think you are intended to choose D, but my own opinion is that it is B.
You never knew what it is to be a slave; to be entirely unprotected by law or custom; to have the laws reduce you to the condition of a chattel, entirely subject to the will of another" is the sentence in this excerpt from Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl that demonstrate how Harriet Ann Jacobs uses a narrative structure and <span>conversational tone to directly appeal to her readers’ sympathy. The correct option is option "C".</span>
a picture of the answers would help
