So you agree then with the Dred Scott decision?
I think it is legally valid while morally repugnant, which is the exact same circumstance as slavery was at that time.
The Central claim of Dred Scott, that the Declaration was never intended to comprehend rights for slaves, is demonstrably correct, and ample evidence is available to prove this claim beyond the requirements of even the most stringent, but intellectually honest critics.
Now where Tanney goes too far is by claiming it was never intended to comprehend the rights of "Blacks". This is demonstrably incorrect, because Black Freemen exercised the same rights as Whites prior to the Declaration of Independence, up to and including owning slaves.
I say again, according to the laws of that time period, the Dred Scott decision was legally correct while remaining morally repugnant.