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 the se 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 could best be used as an effective counterclaim to this claim?
other states should have a say over one states decision.
a person who is free in one state cannot be a citizen.
states should decide who is free and who is not.

Explanation:

The core claim from the Dred Scott v. Sandford excerpt centers on the court's jurisdiction and the denial of freedom/citizenship to enslaved people. An effective counterclaim would directly challenge the idea that a person free in one state can be denied citizenship or freedom elsewhere. The option "A person who is free in one state cannot be a citizen" is the claim from the original case, so its counter is affirming that a person free in one state should have recognized status. The correct counterclaim directly opposes the court's stance that freedom in one state does not grant citizenship or protected status.

Answer:

A person who is free in one state should be recognized as a citizen.