Question

Which statement does not summarize the U.S. Supreme Court case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857?

Congress could clarify who were citizens in the U.S. but could not ban slavery in territories because it was a state's right.

Regardless if a man was free or a slave prior to the Civil War, he was not considered a U.S. citizen and therefore lacked any rights.

Since slaves were not citizens but instead were the "property" of the slave owners, Congress was rendered helpless in seizing their property.

If an enslaved man was once living in a pro-slavery state then moved to a free territory, he would be able to gain his freedom and obtain rights based on the Fifth Amendment.

Answer 1

The fourth statement is incorrect.

Dred Scott held the opposite: the Court ruled that Black people (free or enslaved) were not U.S. citizens and could not sue in federal court, that Congress could not ban slavery in the territories (striking down the Missouri Compromise), and that slaves were treated as property protected by the Fifth Amendment. It did not say an enslaved person who lived in a free territory would gain freedom and Fifth Amendment rights.