Read the passage from the opinion of the court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, written by Justice Taney. It will be observed, that the plea applies to that class of persons only whose ancestors were negroes of the African race, and imported into this country, and sold and held as slaves. The only matter in issue before the court, therefore, is, whether the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born of parents who had become free before their birth, are citizens of a State, in the sense in which the word "citizen” is used in the Constitution of the United States. . . . . . . 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. Which statement best describes an effective counterclaim to the claim in this passage? Because Dred Scott's parents were born outside the United States, he is not considered to be a citizen with all the rights granted by the Constitution. Because Dred Scott was the child of enslaved people, he is considered to be of a different class than citizens, according to the Constitution. Because Dred Scott and his family were born in the United States, they are citizens with all the rights granted by the Constitution. Because Dred Scott lives in a free state, he is considered to be a citizen with all the rights granted by the Constitution.