In the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which statement is true about its holdings?

• A. Slaves are citizens with voting rights.
• B. Slaves are property and not citizens, and Congress had no right to ban slavery in the territories.
• C. The federal government could ban slavery in the territories.
• D. The decision granted citizenship to freed slaves.

Answer: (B)

The key idea here is how the Court viewed who counts as a citizen and how slavery could be treated in new territories. In Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Court said that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be citizens and therefore had no right to sue in federal courts. It went further to say that enslaved people were property, and that the Constitution protected property rights. Because of that property protection, Congress did not have the authority to prohibit slavery in any territory—the federal government could not ban slavery in new lands.

So the statement that slaves are property and not citizens, and that Congress had no right to ban slavery in the territories, matches the Court’s holdings exactly. It reflects both the denial of citizenship for enslaved people and the assertion that Congress couldn’t regulate slavery in the territories—both central, interlocking parts of the decision. The other ideas—slaves as voting citizens, the federal government banning slavery in territories, or granting citizenship to freed slaves—do not align with what the Court decided in this case.