Sure, but the key fact which somehow keeps escaping you knuckleheads ("knuckleheads" is statement of fact, not insult!) is that the Founders and their Constitution also allowed abolition, indeed the records make clear they expected eventual abolitions.
So for Taney and now you, generations later, to come along and proclaim: "the Constitution prevented abolition" is total rubbish, Democrat style judicial activism.
Sorry if that offends you precious snowflakes, but truth is not always so gentle.
Your minds are screwed up on this subject, and you need to straighten them out.
We're here to help you with that.
And where in the record might that be? Also, if it's not a law, what difference does it make that individuals had opinions?
The Constitution allowed congress to end the slave trade after 1808. I know of no place in the constitution where it intended to end slavery where it already existed. What I see is a clause that makes it virtually impossible to do so without repealing that clause.
So for Taney and now you, generations later, to come along and proclaim: "the Constitution prevented abolition" is total rubbish, Democrat style judicial activism.
That is the shoe you have on your foot. Interpreting the clear meaning of Article IV Section 2 to allow states laws to interfere with other states slavery laws, is Liberal Judicial activism. Article IV Section 2 specifically says you cannot do that, and somehow you simply ignore what it says.
Oh, and let's not forget the Corwin Amendment, which Lincoln said he supported in his first inaugural address. That would have made Slavery a permanent part of constitutional law.
What a predicament it would have become had the Slave states remained in the Union long enough to pass that amendment, and *then* seceded!
What then would have become of the War Propaganda?