Question

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 as a part of the people or citizens. consequently, the special rights and immunities guaranteed 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 americans 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

Explanation:

A genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is based on the origin (genetic) of a thing, rather than its current properties or merits. In the Dred Scott case, the Supreme Court concluded African Americans couldn't be citizens because they weren't citizens when the Constitution was adopted (focusing on origin/history of their citizenship status, not current legal standing or other relevant factors). Ad populum is about appealing to popularity, begging the claim is circular reasoning, and hasty generalization is drawing a conclusion from insufficient evidence—none of these fit as well as genetic fallacy here.

Answer:

genetic fallacy