The issue was not before the court - the legal status of such would have been for a state to decide - it being unenumerated in the federal Constitution.
As property, a man, is a special class. The lifetime term of slavery was a perverted creation from the start.
I agree, as did Chief Justice Taney. Morally he thought it reprehensible, but he had to decide based on the legal merits of the case, not be a judicial activist, or advocate a 'living' Constitution.
When a man moves to Virginia from Pennsylvania is his automobile then exempt from porperty tax, since he bought it in Pennsylvania where the condition of ownership known at purchase is that there is no property tax on automobiles? What would Taney rule? Do you think he'd allow the State of Virginia to make a non-reimbursed claim against property?
A person moving to another state is subject to the laws of that state. The justices held that Scott was not a citizen, and could not sue in federal court. That left the Missouri Supreme Court decision standing.
>
> The justices held that Scott was not a citizen, and could
> not sue in federal court. That left the Missouri Supreme
> Court decision standing.
>
which I understood to be a large part of the author's point. throw a case out on a jurisdictional issue and you never have to rule on the facts. poor d.scott for not understanding the law and making a case while living in illinois or wisconsin. feds couldn't touch it once he got back to missouri. poor t.schiavo, congress wrote a law giving feds jurisdiction based on the constitution and the 14th amendment but birch says sorry you can't do that. end result being that the state's decision is left standing w/o looking at the facts of the case.