Dred Scott v. Sandford

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/60us393
In 1856, Dred Scott v. Sandford:

The Missouri court ruled in this landmark case that negros are not, and cannot be, American Citizens.

“The majority held that “a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves,” whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore did not have standing to sue in federal court.

Because the Court lacked jurisdiction, Taney dismissed the case on procedural grounds.”

“Taney further held that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional and foreclose Congress from freeing slaves within Federal territories. The opinion showed deference to the Missouri courts, which held that moving to a free state did not render Scott emancipated. Finally, Taney ruled that slaves were property under the Fifth Amendment, and that any law
that would deprive a slave owner of that property was unconstitutional.”
[…]

So, too, a person may be entitled to vote by the law of the State, who is not a citizen even of the State itself. And in some of the States of the Union, foreigners not naturalized are allowed to vote. And the State may give the right to free negroes and mulattoes, but that does not make them citizens of the State, and still less of the United States. And the provision in the Constitution giving privileges and immunities in other States does not apply to them.

“American Citizen” is mentioned here, but more importantly Dred Scott was not, and could not be, an American citizen. Reading further in the case clarifies that state citizenship existed during this time, and that citizenship had direct bearing on being a United States Citizen, which at the time the term United States referred to the states collectively (this point clarified later).

The crux of the case, however, is that a negro was not, and could not be, a citizen of a state, much less a citizen of the United States. Obviously this isn’t fair or right, was anything done about it?