Wrong. The Privileges & Immunities clause of Article IV §2 states, 'Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States'. 'The privileges and immunities, &c., are not enumerated or described; but they are all privileges common in the Union,--which certainly excludes those privileges which belong only to citizens of one or more States, and not to those in every other State.' [Ridgely ,Douglass v. Stephens, 1 Del. Ch. 465 (1821)]
Neither of these alternatives were acceptable to racist members of the Supreme Court such as Roger Taney, the slaveholding Chief Justice who wrote the majority opinion in Dred Scott.
Chief Justice Taney, a devout Roman Catholic, despised slavery. Taney had freed the nine slaves he inherited in 1818-1819, supporting the two eldest with monthly pensions until their deaths.
He did not say that it was his personal opinion that blacks had "no rights which white men were bound to respect." He was stating historical fact, from British history culminating to decades of US naturalization laws recognizing only whites for citizenship.
Here's what his friend said about the Chief Justice: On one occasion, speaking of the colored people, with much emphasis, he said: “Thank God that at least in one place all men are equal, in the church of God. I do not consider it any degradation to kneel side by side with a negro in the house of our Heavenly Father.” On another occasion, speaking of the Dredd Scott decision, he remarked, that “no matter what be his feelings in regard to this question of slavery, his oath bound him to interpret the law under the Constitution.”
J. A. Walter, The Century Magazine, Vol. XXVI, Issue 6, Oct 1883, p. 958
Unfortunately, Taney lacked both the character and the courage to uphold the principle. He chose instead to revise and misrepresent the history of America and the meaning of the Constitution. Justifying the bigotry and racism of the perpetrators of slavery was more important to Taney than allowing the black man to be treated simply as a man. So much for judicial duty.
Wrong again. 7 justices were of the same opinion, and upheld existing laws. Specifically, each congress had limited citizenship to WHITES. And per the correct understanding of the Privileges & Immunities clause, it's evident that the seven justices upheld the Constitution and their judicial duties.
As property, a man, is a special class. The lifetime term of slavery was a perverted creation from the start.
When a man moves to Virginia from Pennsylvania is his automobile then exempt from porperty tax, since he bought it in Pennsylvania where the condition of ownership known at purchase is that there is no property tax on automobiles? What would Taney rule? Do you think he'd allow the State of Virginia to make a non-reimbursed claim against property?