You are one the first to make the same points I do...
Dred Scott with a activist Supreme Court decision
And the South was antistates rights in that they wanted the federal enforcing runaway slave laws free states
It was *NOT* an activist decision. It interpreted the law just as it existed and just as the Founders had written it. It would have been an activist decision if they had freed Scott.
And the South was antistates rights in that they wanted the federal enforcing runaway slave laws free states
This is also wrong. The South wanted the constitutional law enforced regarding fugitive slaves. This was a "right" that all states had given up when they ratified the US Constitution. It was therefore no longer a "state's rights" issue, because all states had signed away that particular right.