You say "The South had no reason for war because of Dred Scott so your “meant War” had to refer to a knee-jerk northern inspired war." That's just "you saying". The South now owned the peculiar institution. Taney's "subhuman" blacks were theirs forever to perpetuate and expand. They couldn't do that while joined at the hip to the North. Remember, it was the South that de-ratified the US Constitution which they had ratified. While you claim the North violently overthrew it. Your argument only works, and even then weakly, if one believe that the US Constitution was pro-slavery. Here is how Lincoln viewed the US Constitution and Slavery. Unfortunately, your mind is closed:
"I believe the declara[tion] that 'all men are created equal' is the great fundamental principle upon which our free institutions rest; that negro slavery is violative of that principle; but that, by our frame of government, that principle has not been made one of legal obligation; that by our frame of government, the States which have slavery are to retain it, or surrender it at their own pleasure; and that all others---individuals, free-states and national government---are constitutionally bound to leave them alone about it. I believe our government was thus framed because of the necessity springing from the actual presence of slavery, when it was framed. That such necessity does not exist in the teritories[sic], where slavery is not present." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Letter to James N. Brown" (October 18, 1858), p. 327.
Not just me saying it. You said it in your post 415: “Dred Scott, a 7-2 decision, was accepted by the South. No duh.”
There was no reason for the South to leave the union because of Dred Scott. If Dred Scott “meant War” then war would come from other disgruntled latitudes.
It did.
“Your argument only works, and even then weakly, if one believe that the US Constitution was pro-slavery.”
It is. But not until it gets to Article I.