No. As I've said several times on these threads, That part he got wrong. Free Blacks had rights back then, and were regarded as citizens.
But as for his ruling on the legal disposition of Dred Scott, it looks to be consistent with the laws of that Era.
No it was not in anyway consistent with the laws of that era. I posted eariler the example of of Rachel v. Walker and that was just one of dozens of cases where slave state courts found in favor of freedom for the slave in cases identical to Scott.
Taney ignored standing president and then went totally rouge in overturning the Northwest Ordinance as well as the Missouri compromise. More than anyone else, Roger Taney made the Civil War invetiable.