Question

dred scott v. sandford by chief justice taney mr. chief justice taney delivered the opinion of the court. there are two leading questions presented by the record. 1) had the circuit court of the united states jurisdiction to hear and determine the case between these parties? 2) if it had jurisdiction, is the judgment it has given erroneous or not? the plaintiff in error, who was also the plaintiff in the court below, was, with his wife and children, held as slaves by the defendant, in the state of missouri; and he brought this action in the circuit court of the united states for that district, to assert the title of himself and his family to freedom. the defendant pleaded in abatement to the jurisdiction of the court, which statement best describes an effective counterclaim to the claim in this passage? because dred scott was the child of enslaved people, he is considered to be of a different class than citizens, according to the constitution. because dred scott lives in a free state, he is considered to be a citizen with all the rights granted by the constitution.

Explanation:

An effective counterclaim directly challenges the core claim of the original passage, which centers on whether Dred Scott is a citizen with standing to sue in federal court. The first option aligns with the court's likely position that Scott, as an enslaved person's child, is not a full citizen. The second option directly counters this by asserting Scott's citizenship and rights due to residence in a free state, which is a direct opposition to the claim that he lacks standing.

Answer:

Because Dred Scott lives in a free state, he is considered to be a citizen with all rights granted by the Constitution.