Analyzing a Seminal US Document Answers

14 verified answers1 views
21
Free Preview

Read the passage from the opinion of the court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, written by Justice Taney.Upon the whole, therefore, it is the judgment of this court, that it appears by the record before us that the plaintiff in error is not a citizen of Missouri, in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution; and that the Circuit Court of the United States, for that reason, had no jurisdiction in the case, and could give no judgment in it. Its judgment for the defendant must, consequently, be reversed, and a mandate issued, directing the suit to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

A
As a citizen of Missouri, Sanford can pursue a case against Scott.
B
The Missouri circuit court does not have jurisdiction in the case against Sanford.
C
Scott should pursue his case against Sanford in a state other than Missouri.
D
Scott is a citizen of the United States, but not of the state of Missouri.
23

Read the passage from the opinion of the court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, written by Justice Taney.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. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.

A
Taney fails to provide any actual evidence for his statements that Black people were universally considered inferior.
B
Taney cannot use states’ rights to claim that the plaintiff is not a citizen, because citizenship is federal.
C
Taney’s argument that emancipated people were still controlled by White people is false because they were free.
D
Taney’s argument that Blacks were not citizens is false because their ancestors were forced to come here.

Did you find these answers helpful?