This supreme court ruling stated slaves did not have a right to sue since they were not citizens, but merely property.

"Dred Scott Decision," which was very controversial.

Explanation:

DRED SCOTT DECISION where the Supreme Court ruling stated slaves did not have a right to sue since they were not citizens, but merely property.

These were their arguments.

Dred Scott:

When a person enters a free State or territory, the free status overrides the previous condition of servitude. Since slavery was forbidden in the free States and territories by

federal and State laws, Dred Scott became free when he entered Illinois and Wisconsin.

Sandford:

To deprive a person of property (in this case, Dred Scott) without due process or just compensation violated the 5th Amendment, which states that “No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Dred Scott was still a slave and no master's property rights could be limited or taken away by a State or federal law.

native americans suffered high rates of poverty and unemployment.

during the late 1960s and early 1970sthe need for political militancy grew among the native americans. throughout the 1960s, they had been the nation's poorest minority group, the most deprived group, according to practically every socioeconomic measure. in 1970, the indian unemployment rate was 10 times the national average, and 40 percent of the native american people were below the poverty line.

the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.