After the Dred Scott decision, the states pretty much lost control over any decision over slavery inside their borders. Scott said among other things,
1. The Northwest Ordnance was unconstitutional (complete historical nonsense)
2. that individual state's personal liberty laws were trumped by the Constitution's provision requiring return of runaways (probably constitutionally correct, but something you think "States Rights" fundamentalists would have a problem with.)
3. That blacks (free or slave) were not people as defined in the Constitution and had no rights in any court in the land (Federal or State).
The "intent" in Scott was to protect slavery in any federal territory. But reading Scott, there is nothing that would have prevented a slave owner from taking his slaves into a free state and setting up shop there.
As Lincoln said in the House Divided speech, we were destined to become all one thing, or all to other.
And Given that the Northwest Ordinance was the creation of the Founding generation, I'd take their opinion of matters a lot more seriously than that of Roger Taney and the Democratic hotheads of secession.
True. Slavery was based on the absolute right to property guaranteed to the People by the Constitution. Where the People went, so did their rights.
Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.
James Madison's Essay on Property (1792)
-----
Scott said among other things, 1. The Northwest Ordnance was unconstitutional (complete historical nonsense)
Was it? Really? Could you please quote the Article and section of the Constitution that gives the federal government authority over the issue of slavery?
-----
2. that individual state's personal liberty laws were trumped by the Constitution's provision requiring return of runaways
Also true. One cannot have the legal ability to have property returned unless one had a right to that property to begin with.
(You DO realize the sign of an educated mind is the ability to understand a concept like slavery without actually agreeing with the owning of slaves, don't you?)
-----
3. That blacks (free or slave) were not people as defined in the Constitution and had no rights in any court in the land (Federal or State).
Also true. The Founders created our country with a social fabric much like that of the ancient Romans. There were 'civil' persons, or citizens of the several states, denizens, or people from other counties who had come here to live (i.e. today's 'illegals') and then slaves.
Before the 14th Amendment, it was the STATES who decided whether of not a denizen deserved to become a civil citizen.
-----
But reading Scott, there is nothing that would have prevented a slave owner from taking his slaves into a free state and setting up shop there.
Also true for reasons already expressed in #2
-----
As Lincoln said in the House Divided speech, we were destined to become all one thing, or all to other.
Since the combined tax rate (consisting of federal taxes, state taxes, local taxes, vehicle taxes, property taxes, etc., etc., etc.) is over 50%, I'd say we wound up with 'the other'.
Congratulations.