[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.

[Jim W N]

Art IV talks about an escaped slave which isn’t relevant to Dred Scott. I changed my mind about Dred Scott because I can’t get around the fact that slavery was a states’ issue until the Reformation Amendments and there was due process in the Missouri Supreme Court to deprive the owner of his slave. So IMO Derd Scott was wrongly decided.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "If the slaveowner has a right to go to a different state, and if he has a right to take his "property" with him..."

But no slaveholder had such rights before Dred Scott.
Like President Washington, they were allowed to keep slaves in free-states temporarily, but not for any extended time.

[HandyDandy]

Wrong.