Question

In the scott v sandford case sandford argued that

Answer 1

In Dred Scott v. Sandford (argued 1856 -- decided 1857), the Supreme Court ruled that 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.

Answer 2

Answer:

A person's property cannot be taken away without due process

Explanation:

Dred Scott was a slave of John Emerson, who moved to Wisconsin, territory in which slavery was banned, Dred Scott married and worked, and when Emerson died, he left Scott to his wife's Eliza Sandford.

Dred Scott tried to buy his freedom, and when she refused he took the case to a state court, who ruled in his favor, but Sandford then gave the authority to her brother to deal with Scott. Sandford's brother, appealed this decision to the Missouri Supreme Court, arguing that slaves were considered property and property cannot be taken away without due process.

The Missouri Supreme court ruled in favor of Sandford, and declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional.