I should note to you that a search on Amazon Kindle produces over two dozen books on Dred-Scott and related issues, some very legalistic, others more intended for normal people.
And at least one does indeed defend Dred-Scott, based on both Constitution and historical context.
But I’m not sure why I should care enough about the subject to wish to relitigate it now, some 158 years later.
I think it should be plenty enough for everyone to “get” that Dred-Scott was a... well a *dredful* decision which shifted power in favor of slavery, thus causing a strong backlash in the North & West which elected Lincoln ‘ s Republicans and so drove Fire Eaters to declare secession, etc.
HandyDandy has blamed Dred-Scott for starting Civil War, and I agree it was certainly *dredful* enough to take much blame for the *dredful* war which followed.
This is called "hand waving." Rather than defend your premise, you try to divert the question to other "authorities" with a wave of your hand.
But I’m not sure why I should care enough about the subject to wish to relitigate it now, some 158 years later.
I suspect your waning interest in discussing it is directly proportional to the waxing doubt in your mind as to whether or not you can support your claim.
I'm guessing you don't want to examine that too closely.
The legal basis of it dates back to British Common Law predating our independence. There were dozens of cases where state courts in slave states declared slaves free in identical cases as Dred Scott. here is the case of Rachel v. Walker