Question

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

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.

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.

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

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

Answer 1

The incorrect statement is the second one:

"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."

Why: In Dred Scott (1857) the Court held the opposite — living in a free territory did not make an enslaved person free, and the decision also ruled that African Americans were not U.S. citizens for purposes of suing in federal court and that Congress lacked authority to prohibit slavery in the territories (striking down the Missouri Compromise as violating slaveowners' Fifth Amendment property rights).