Again, you merely confirm to me your inability to grasp the point. What does the constitution say?
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 don't think this applies to Dred Scott? If you think that, I don't see the point of discussing it with you.
If you are a conservative and believe in a strict construction of the Constitution, you have to agree the Taney's decision was awful.
Tanney's decision may have been morally offensive, but it is correct law for that time period. The Literal words of the US Constitution require that a "person held to labor in one state" cannot use the laws of another state to free himself.
It doesn't get much clearer. It's morally ugly, but it is crystal clear.
But, as ditto said, Tanney's decision went far beyond what the Constitution recognized & authorized.
In effect, Tanney made slavery lawful in every state & territory, regardless of states' rights or Congress' authority over territories, and Tanney outlawed citizenship for African-Americans, regardless of their status, free or slave.
No Founder intended such laws, and everyone north of the Mason-Dixon line understood that, as well as many in the South.