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.
I does look like Dred Scott became a resident of Illinois, having lived there almost three years before eventually moving back to Missouri. That might not be the game changer, but I think due process is (as I said, I think this Dred Scott case is fascinating).
Until the Reconstruction Amendments, slavery was a states’ issue, not a constitutional or federal issue. So what’s left IMO, is whether Dred Scott’s owner was allowed due process in the depriving of his property (Scott). It certainly appears that there was due process because the Missouri Supreme Court reviewed the case.
Although I think there were grounds to call the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, Illinois was a free state regardless of the Missouri Compromise so I see the Missouri Compromise as irrelevant in this case. The federal courts should not have taken the case as there was no federal question unless there was diversity (don’t know). But even if there was diversity, I don’t see what authority or constitutional basis Taney had to reverse the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling.
So I guess I’ve changed my mind back to saying Dred Scott was wrongly decided because of due process. Because Dred Scott’s case was properly heard in the Missouri Supreme Court, Dred Scott was wrongly decided by SCOTUS and Taney because there was no constitutional ground to reverse the Missouri Supreme Court.
That being the case, the South DID have a constitutional grievance against the North. However, I don’t think a single legal grievance constitutes justification for secession (there were 27 specific legal grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence).