Probably so

Posted on: October 22, 2019 at 13:49:40 CT

Scott's argument was essentially equitable estoppel. That is, fairness prevents a slave-owner from transporting/relocating to a free state, while clinging to the laws of the jurisdiction that he emanated from to maintain his property rights.

Slave owners viewed that as an affront. Because a slave could essentially escape, transport himself or herself there, and claim sanctuary.

I'd argue that there's a factual distinction where the slave-owner transports the property (rather than escape/theft/or other means). And, it could turn on whether the slave owner intended to relocate and become a citizen of the new jurisdiction. If so, he's voluntarily submitted himself to that new state's rules, and should forfeit his ability to disavow the rules that he didn't happen to like.

For the reasons that Blue mentioned, I also don't agree with their conclusion that a negro could not be a citizen if once enslaved or the descendant of a slave. It would certainly be within the purview of a slave owner to free their slaves, so that doesn't seem to wash.

Edited by Mormad at 13:50:35 on 10/22/19