A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a “citizen” within the
meaning of the Constitution of the United States. When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its “people or citizens.” Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being “citizens” within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit. –Dred Scott v. Sandford, Supreme Court of the United States The Supreme Court concluded that, because African Africans were not citizens when the Constitution was adopted, they could not be considered citizens in this case. What type of fallacy does this piece of evidence represent? ad populum genetic fallacy begging the claim hasty generalization
It is a straw-man argument because of the stated perception that the United States holds for those brought here to be sold and are not considered "citizens." A straw-man argument is someone attacking a thought that a person does not hold i.e. the person attacking is the U.S. even though they shouldn't be the ones to clarify that if they are brought here unwillingly. I believe.
<>"When rates are expressed as a quantity of 1, such as 2 feet per second or 5 miles per hour, they are called unit rates. If you have a multiple-unit rate such as 120 students for every 3 buses, and want to find the single-unit rate, write a ratio equal to the multiple-unit rate with 1 as the second term."<>
