During the Dred Scott case the Supreme Court ruled that whether African Americans were enslaved or free could not be considered American citizens and thus could not bring a case in court to sue for their freedom in federal court. Therefore, slaves had no right to sue for free and and did not posses citizens' rights.
The Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford ruled that blacks could not be U.S. citizens and therefore had no right to sue for freedom, and it also declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permitting the expansion of slavery in all U.S. territories.
In the landmark case of Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court made several key rulings with long-lasting implications. First and foremost, it was declared that slaves had no right to sue for freedom, as blacks (whether free or slave) were not considered U.S. citizens. Consequently, Scott and others of African descent lacked the standing to bring a case in federal court. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Congress could not bar slavery in territories, effectively rendering the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional and indicating that the federal government had no authority to limit the spread of slavery. This decision was met with joy in the South, as it protected slave owners' rights and seemed to make slavery a national institution. However, the decision also enormously contributed to sectional tensions, with the North perceiving it as a significant blow to anti-slavery efforts and certainly not feeling vindicated about its views on slavery.
The Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford stated that slaves had no right to sue for freedom and were not considered citizens, validating Southern views while angering the North. Therefore, options A, B, and C are true, while option D is false.
;