# Dred Scott and movement
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dred-scott-and-movement/215808
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [November 29, 2003, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dred-scott-and-movement/215808 "2003-11-29T00:03:12Z")
**Posts on this page:** 3
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)
#### Post date: [November 29, 2003, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dred-scott-and-movement/215808/1 "2003-11-29T00:03:12Z")
I was reading the Dred Scott opinion by Justice Taney earlier, and something stood out as curious to me.
He states that since Scott was brought back from Illinois, he was subject to the laws of Missouri. Now, part of Taney’s opinion points out that freed slaves living in the face of those still held in bondage would cause unrest and rebellion among slave populations (a dubious assertion at best).
His contention appears to be that had Scott attempted to remain in Illinois, he would then be subject to Illinois law, and thus, freed.
This seems to be _inviting_ slaves who are transported to free states to then refuse to leave, which to me sounds like it would result in at least as much unrest among slave populations in free states as freed blacks living in slave states…
Somebody explain Taney’s reasoning to me.
---
### Author:  [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)
#### Post date: [November 29, 2003, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dred-scott-and-movement/215808/2 "2003-11-29T00:11:59Z")
A link to the opinion itself might be of use -
[INTRODUCTION TO THE COURT OPINION ON THE DREDD SCOTT CASE](http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/21.htm)
This might also be useful
[Landmark cases of the Supreme Court
Dred Scott v. Sandford](http://www.landmarkcases.org/dredscott/home.html)
---
### Author:  [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)
#### Post date: [November 29, 2003, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dred-scott-and-movement/215808/3 "2003-11-29T00:59:40Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by dutchboy208 \*
> **Now, part of Taney’s opinion points out that freed slaves living in the face of those still held in bondage would cause unrest and rebellion among slave populations (a dubious assertion at best).**
Taney’s ruling in the Dred Scott case was so convoluted that it admits of little explication. He lived in Maryland, a border state with a relatively large free black population, and somehow got it into his head that free blacks living in the slave states were a dangerous, destabilizing force.
Even if this were true, of course, it shouldn’t have had any bearing on Scott’s status.
\*\*
> [@](#):
>
> His contention appears to be that had Scott attempted to remain in Illinois, he would then be subject to Illinois law, and thus, freed. This seems to be _inviting_ slaves who are transported to free states to then refuse to leave . . .\*\*
Not many slaves _were_ transported to free states. For those that were, some Northern states had “personal sojourn laws”, which allowed slave owners to bring their slaves into their state for brief periods short of residency. Illinois had such a law in the 1830’s, when Scott lived there, but his owner’s stay of two years was probably tantamount to residency and would probably have resulted in Scott’s freedom if he had fled or brought suit in Illinois.