[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "What is your legal argument here? "

First of all we need to point to the glaringly obvious fact that in order to defend Deep South secessions, you must also defend slavery.
That is not a position any reasonable person wants to take.

Second, since in 1787 some states had already begun to outlaw slavery, it's impossible that our Founders intended to make unlawful abolition within states.
Any suggestion they did, or that the US Constitution can be so interpreted is pure malicious mendacity.

And yet that's just what Tanney said in Dred-Scott.

[DiogenesLamp]

First of all we need to point to the glaringly obvious fact that in order to defend Deep South secessions, you must also defend slavery.

One need not defend slavery at all. One only need point out that it was the then existing legal paradigm. In this respect one is arguing law, not defending slavery.

It may be a law with which I disagree, but I can still comprehend it to be the law. Can not you?

I notice you dodged the question. I take this to mean that you cannot answer it in a manner that preserves your argument.

If you disagree, how about you answer? What is your legal argument here?