The are at least two different questions.

1. Did the Bill of Rights apply to slaves? - No, and never did. "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" definitely does not apply to slave, who by definition does not have liberty.

2. did slaves and free blacks have rights? According to Supreme Court Dred Scott decision of 1857, blacks (slave and free) did not have any rights, so Bill of Rights did not apply to them.

Prior to this decision, free blacks practically could have some rights on some states. However, no matter how extensive these rights where, even in the free states, Bill of Rights did not apply to free blacks - exactly because federal protection was not extended to free blacks, and they were on the mercy of states.

This situation actually was the result of irreconcilable contradiction between two fundamental documents of the country:

Declaration of Independence lists liberty as one of the unalienable rights of all men;

Constitution allows states to deny the right of liberty to some people, designating them as property (slavery).

Declaration of Independence was indispensable as justification of creating the country, and could not be changed retroactively. This left only two possibilities to resolve contradiction:

To amend the Constitution in order to eliminate slavery.

To amend definition of the man in order to exclude those type of persons who could be enslaved.

Supreme court (justice Taney) tried to use the later solution, but it did not work. As LIncoln pointed out, it opened the door for further exclusions, like catholics, or any ethnic minorities. Instead of crushing republicans, it helped them despite the party platform openly ignored Dred Scott decision.

Eventually, it led to Civil war and to resolving contradiction by 13th amendment to Constitution.

UPDATE: What is interesting, 13th amendment did not make Bill of rights applicable to blacks, because Dred Scott decision was in effect. Only 14th amendment overruled Dred Scott decision

No.
The Bill of rights did not apply to free African American men in 1850, much less slaves. The rights of free blacks were not guaranteed by the constitution after the Compromise of 1850 which allowed Freemen to be sent south into slavery simply by swearing out an affidavit they were ones property. This effectively meant that any free black man could become a slave at any point with minimal effort from a single white person.

Slaves absolutely had no access to the protections of the laws as white people did. They could not go to court, make contracts, or own property. They could be whipped, imprisoned without trial, branded, and hanged legally.

Don't take my words for it. Hear Roger B. Taney the 5th chief justice of the supreme courts words:

"Blacks had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

Taney isn't saying slaves have no rights, he's discussing all black men.

The compromise of 1850 along with the Dread Scott Supreme Court decision meant draconian change and helped radicalize the north in opposition mostly to the South; but also to what the South depended on which was slavery.

The bill of rights(1791) didn't apply to slaves. But parts of the United States Constitution(1787) did. Specifically the Slave Clause, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3.

US Constitution: Slave Clause, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3

No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 was an Act of the United States Congress to give effect to the Fugitive Slave Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution makes reference to the fact that it represented only "free persons." (See for instance Article 1, Section 2.) This meant that the Bill of Rights did not fully apply to slaves. This idea is further elaborated on in Federalist Paper No. 54, in which slaves were considered a hybrid of persons and property. This was the idea of the Three-Fifths Compromise, under which a slave was considered "three-fifths" of a person.

In theory, it meant that free Blacks did have these rights. In actual practice, free blacks were often conflated with slaves because of their skin color, "accidentally on purpose." Further court cases in the 19th century "clarified" matters by limiting the rights of even free blacks, particularly in the 1850s. It took the 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments, plus the civil rights legislation of the 1960s to finally put an end to this.

Its very good question, since Americans in the 1850's were asking the exact some question as well! As it turns out, there was a Supreme Court ruling on the issue in 1857: The Dred Scott case. The answer was "No". Not even free blacks were allowed protection under the Constitution.

The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen?

...

It is very clear, therefore, that no State can, by any act or law of its own, passed since the adoption of the constitution, introduce a new member into the political community created by the constitution of the United States. It cannot make him a member of this community by making him a member of its own. And for the same reason it cannot introduce any person, or description of persons, who were not intended to be embraced in this new political family, which the constitution brought into existence, but were intended to be excluded from it.