[Answer] What did the Supreme Court rule in Dred Scott v. Sandford? a Slaves who were taken to free states would be considered free. b Slaves who were taken to free territories would be considered free. c Blacks did not have citizenship and therefore lacked legal standing. d The Missouri Compromise was still legally binding. e State bans on slavery did not violate the property rights of masters.

Answer: c

Most relevant text from all around the web:

What did the Supreme Court rule in Dred Scott v. Sandford? a Slaves who were taken to free states would be considered free. b Slaves who were taken to free territories would be considered free. c Blacks did not have citizenship and therefore lacked legal standing. d The Missouri Compromise was still legally binding. e State bans on slavery did not violate the property rights of masters. Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) often referred to as the Dred Scott decision was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for black people regardless of whether they were enslaved or free and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them. The decision was made in the case of Dred Scott an enslaved black man whose owners had taken him from Missouri which was a slave-holding state into Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory which were free areas where slavery was illegal. When his owners later brought him back to Missouri Scott sued in court for his freedom and claimed that because he had been tak… The decision was made in the case of Dred Scott an enslaved black man whose owners had taken him from Missouri which was a slave-holding state into Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory which were free areas where slavery was illegal. When his owners later brought him back to Missouri Scott sued in court for his freedom and claimed that because he had been taken into "free" U.S. territory he had automatically been freed and was legally no longer a slave. Scott sued first in Missouri state court which ruled that he was still a slave under its law. He then sued in US federal court which ruled against him by deciding that it had to apply Missouri law to the case. He then appealed to the US Supreme Court. In March 1857 the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision against Dred Scott. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Roger Taney the Court ruled that black people "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." Taney supported his ruling with an extended survey of American state and local laws from the time of the Constitution's drafting in 1787 that purported to show that a "perpetual and impassable barrier was intended to be erected between the white race and the one which they had reduced to slavery." Because the Court ruled that Scott was not an American citizen he was also not a citizen of any state and accordingly could never establish the " diversity of citizenship " that Article III of the US Constitution requires for a US federal court to be able to exercise jurisdiction over a case. After ruling on those issues surrounding Scott Taney continued further … Read more on Wikipedia Supreme Court rules in Dred Scott case - HISTORY Dred Scott decision | law case | Britannica.com ...

Disclaimer: 

Our tool is still learning and trying its best to find the correct answer to your question. Now its your turn, "The more we share The more we have". Comment any other details to improve the description, we will update answer while you visit us next time...Kindly check our comments section, Sometimes our tool may wrong but not our users.

Are We Wrong To Think We're Right? Then Give Right Answer Below As Comment