[Jim W N]

whether extended residence on free soil liberated a slave

My understanding is Missouri was a slave state, where Scott lived. His owner took him on brief visits to Illinois, a non-slave state. From what I can tell, there was no "extended residence" in Illinois or a territory, so I'm not sure this passage applies to this case.

Despite Taney's somewhat convoluted reasoning, I don't see how the slave-owner's property, Scott, could be taken from him justifiably by operation of law because of Scott's brief presence in Illinois.

[Homer_J_Simpson]

From what I can tell, there was no "extended residence" in Illinois or a territory, so I'm not sure this passage applies to this case.

Dr. Emerson resided at Fort Armstrong, Illinois from some time in 1834 until some time in 1836 when he was transferred to Fort Snelling in Minnesota Territory.

"Thus Dred Scott, who had been held as a slave in a free state for more than two years, was now taken into an area where slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise." (Fehrenbacher)

Two years should be long enough to establish legal residence.

[BroJoeK]

Jim 0216: "My understanding is Missouri was a slave state, where Scott lived.
His owner took him on brief visits to Illinois, a non-slave state.
From what I can tell, there was no "extended residence" in Illinois or a territory, so I'm not sure this passage applies to this case."

The approximate timeline is as follows:

1. 1830 -- Dred Scott is sold to U.S. Army Surgeon Dr. John Emerson in St. Louis, Missouri, a slave state.
   Emmerson then takes Scott to his new assignment at Fort Armstrong, Illinois.

2. 1836 -- Emmerson is transferred to Fort Snelling in Wisconsin territory, taking Scott with him.
   Scott remains in Wisconsin until 1838 when he joins Emmerson, now assigned to Louisiana.

3. 1840 -- Scott moves with Mrs. Emmerson to St. Louis, Missouri, where he remained and filed his suit in 1846.

So it appears that Scott lived in Illinois for six years, then Wisconsin territory for another two years before returning to slave-states Louisiana and Missouri.

It also appears that both Louisiana and Missouri recognized that permanent residence in free states made a slave by law free.

[DiogenesLamp]

Despite Taney's somewhat convoluted reasoning, I don't see how the slave-owner's property, Scott, could be taken from him justifiably by operation of law because of Scott's brief presence in Illinois.

Likewise with an extended presence. Article IV says nothing about duration of presence in a "free state."

If the slaveowner has a right to go to a different state, and if he has a right to take his "property" with him, than like it or not, the state is obligated to abide by the requirements specified in the Federal Charter.

They don't get to modify it with conditions.