yes because they would need to get released or submit into slavery. it would be the judges choice weither to send you to slavery or let you go..
The Supreme Court decision in Dred Scot was that slaves were property and had no rights. This meant they couldn't sue in court.
It originated the concept that former slaves, or descendants of slaves, could never be citizens and therefore couldn't bring cases before the court.
One of the findings of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision was that slaves were considered property, not citizens.
I am not sure I understand your question, but there was no court for slaves.
no because they could go anywhere in Canada and they would be free
The court stated that Scott was property therefore his owner could move him to any location and he was still property. The fact that the court found slaves as property was a decision that changed the status of slaves. They were no longer human, but the same as a table or horse.
The Dred Scott v. Sandford case in 1857 ruled that slaves were property, not citizens, and therefore could not bring a case to court. The decision further deepened the divide between the North and South on the issue of slavery.
You could go to the court
Via the underground railroad
In 1857, the Dred Scott vs Sanford case came before the US Supreme Court. Part of the decision in that case was that Blacks were not citizens and therefore could not bring a lawsuit to any court.
The Supreme Court ruling that stated slaves were property was Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). The Court held that African Americans, whether free or enslaved, were not U.S. citizens and therefore could not bring a case to federal court. This decision also declared that Congress did not have the power to prohibit slavery in U.S. territories.
No. Strict laws limited the rights of enslaved people in most northern colonies. Slaves could not travel or go onto a ship without written permission.