And how did he ignore the constitution in his decision? Last I checked, it implicitly accepted slavery. It even has a clause in there to protect the institution.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
You may have never noticed it, but that clause is specifically about escaped slaves.
Now i'm all ears for you to explain how "Tanney Ignored the Constitution and History in his Dred Scott decision. "
The Court attempted to effect a political and social solution to issues they have no business being involved in the first place.
And why would the Court have no business in being involved in a legal matter that went through the appellate courts?
In the process, they pervert the Constitution, and in the case of Scott set the table for the Civil War.
Here's another clause in the Constitution that is specifically about slavery.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
I don't think you actually understand the document or history that you are arguing. There is still yet a third clause in the Constitution regarding slavery.
Slavery was completely constitutional prior to 1865. It is an ugly, unpleasant truth, but it is a truth, none the less.
I can't even believe you are serious about defending the Dred Scott decision.
You are arguing from emotion, I am arguing from logic. According to the laws of that time period, the Dred Scott decision was legally correct. It was ugly and immoral, but it met all the requirements of being a correct legal decision under the then existing paradigm of legal slavery.
You and others like you, keep trying to judge the first half of the 19th century by the first half of the 21rst century. You suffer from an inability to grasp the zeitgeist. You can't place your mind back into that era.
You shouldn't fool yourself into believing things that are not true just because you want them to be true.
I understand the constitution perfectly well, but it is obvious that you do not understand the Dred Scott decision. The clause you cite from the constitution pertained to runaway slaves. Dred Scott was not a runaway.
Taney's decision went far beyond the narrow question of weather or not Scott was entitled to his freedom as the Missouri court had decided. It went on to claim that no black person, slave or free, was a citizen, that even free blacks had no rights under the constitution, and in Taney's, words, no rights that any white person need respect, and that Congress, or even the states, did not have the power to restrict slavery.
Now you point out the clause in the Constitution, where Taney found a basis for any of that? He ignored the Constitution which had nothing to restrict the rights of any free person, black or white. He ignored both history, and the law. At the time of the revolution, and the framing of the Constitution, free blacks were voters in 4 of the 13 states, Washington's army at times consisted of up to 30% free blacks. On top of that, Taney voided the North West Ordinance which banned slavery in those territories. That law was passed by the Congress under The Articles, an then passed through the first Congress with a unanimous vote. That first Congress had a number of members who were also framers of the Constitution. And Taney claims their act was unconstitutional?