Question

read the passage from the opinion of the court in dred scott v. sandford, written by justice taney. the question then arises, whether the provisions of the constitution, in relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the citizen of a state should be entitled, embraced the negro african race, at that time in this country, or who might afterwards be imported, who had then or should afterwards be made free in any state, and to put it in the power of a single state to make him a citizen of the united states, and endue him with the full rights of citizenship in every other state without their consent? does the constitution of the united states act upon him whenever he shall be made free under the laws of a state, and raised there to the rank of a citizen, and immediately clothe him with all the privileges of a citizen in every other state, and in its own courts? which statement could best be used as an effective counterclaim to this claim? states should decide who is free and who is not. a person who is free in one state cannot be a citizen. taney cannot deny scott citizenship because it is a federal right. other states should have a say over one state’s decision.

Explanation:

The passage from the Dred Scott v. Sandford opinion asks if a state can make an enslaved person free and grant them US citizenship, and if the Constitution forces other states to recognize that citizenship. An effective counterclaim would directly push back against the core idea that one state's citizenship ruling binds others. The option stating a free person in one state cannot be a citizen aligns with this, as it rejects the idea that a state's freedom grant translates to national citizenship, countering the premise of the passage's questions.

Answer:

A person who is free in one state cannot be a citizen.