Question

In the Scott v. Sandford case, Sandford argued that

Answer 1

A person’s property can’t be taken away without due process.

Step-by-step explanation:

Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sandford (1857) was a legal case in which the Supreme Court, following Sandford´s claim, ordered that Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in a state where slavery was forbidden, had no right to freedom. It was also stated that African Americans could never become citizens and that the Missouri Compromise (1820) was unconstitutional.

This ruling worsened the sectional dispute, in a path to civil war.

Answer 2

Answer: Americans of African descent, whether free or slave, were not American citizens and could not sue in federal court. The Court also ruled that Congress lacked power to ban slavery in the U.S. territories.

Step-by-step explanation:

he wanted slaves, even if they were Americans. To not have the same rights that the whits had, they could not, sue, they lacked power, they only counted at 3/4 of a person, and must have papers to work and be on the streets. they got paid significantly less then white people.