Trouble is, the Dred Scott ruling was more or less legally correct for the time period in which it was rendered. The Declaration of Independence was not comprehended as applying to slaves when it was created.
Without the south’s insistence on embroiling the north into most unseemly aspects of its Peculiar Institution, it is difficult to envisage a civil war at all.
All of the North were Slave States when the country was founded. As their need for labor lessened, they found they could afford the morality they had previously eschewed. Their morality was funny though. Though they still hated blacks and regarded them as inferior, driving them out of their states whenever they could, they didn't want them forced to work for others.
It makes you wonder if their issue was unfair labor competition rather than concern for the well being of slaves. If you earn your bread by labor, you certainly wouldn't want others doing the same job for no pay. That actually makes more sense.
Monetary policy disguised as a feigned morality. Of course the women folk were motivated by concern, but the movers and shakers that made abolition happened may have had very different reasons.
I find that in many things, when in doubt, look to where the money is being made and lost.
Like Roe v Wade or Obergefell v. Hodges?
Taney ignored the constitution and history in his Dred Scott decision. Like Roe v Wade or our latest Gay marriage decision, The Court attempted to effect a political and social solution to issues they have no business being involved in the first place. In the process, they pervert the Constitution, and in the case of Scott set the table for the Civil War.
I can't even believe you are serious about defending the Dred Scott decision. That is horrendous!