What did the Dred Scott decision hold about enslaved people?

• A. Enslaved people were property and not entitled to constitutional protections
• B. Enslaved people are citizens
• C. Slavery prohibited in territories
• D. The President could suspend habeas corpus

Answer: (A)

The key point this question tests is how the Dred Scott decision treated enslaved people under the law. The court held that enslaved people, and their descendants, were property rather than persons with constitutional rights. Because they were considered property, they could not be citizens and had no standing to sue in federal courts, nor were they entitled to the constitutional protections afforded free people. The ruling also asserted that Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in new territories, effectively allowing slavery to expand into those areas.

So, the answer that enslaved people were property and not entitled to constitutional protections best captures what the decision concluded. The other ideas—that enslaved people were citizens, that slavery was prohibited in territories by the decision, or that the President could suspend habeas corpus—do not align with what the court actually held.