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? The court thinks the alfirmative of these propositions cannot be maintained. And if it cannot, the plaintiff in error What claim does Justice Taney make in this passage? that Sanford has the right to enslave Scott that Scott has the right to be emancipated that Scott is not a citizen of Missouri that Sanford cannot sue because he notacitizen

## Step 1<br />The problem involves understanding the passage from the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, written by Justice Taney. The passage discusses the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution in relation to the rights of African Americans, specifically Dred Scott, who was a slave.<br /><br />## Step 2<br />Justice Taney's opinion in this case is that the Constitution does not consider African Americans, whether they were in the country at the time or imported later, as citizens. This means that they do not have the full rights of citizenship in every state.<br /><br />## Step 3<br />The question asks us to identify the claim Justice Taney makes in this passage. The options provided are:<br />- that Sanford has the right to enslave Scott<br />- that Scott has the right to be emancipated<br />- that Scott is not a citizen of Missouri<br />- that Sanford cannot sue because he is not a citizen<br /><br />## Step 4<br />By analyzing the passage, we can see that Justice Taney is not discussing the right of Sanford to enslave Scott, nor is he discussing Scott's right to be emancipated. He is also not discussing Sanford's right to sue because he is not a citizen.<br /><br />## Step 5<br />The correct interpretation of Justice Taney's claim is that Scott is not a citizen of Missouri. This is because he is arguing that the Constitution does not consider African Americans as citizens, and therefore, Scott, being an African American, is not a citizen of Missouri.