When the US Constitution defined any person born in the United States a citizen, the Chief justice authored an opinion that blacks, free or slave, could never be citizens. How could he do that without denying that blacks were persons?
Taney was a man who was very fastidious about which Article the emergency powers fell in his Meryman circuit ruling in 1861. You would think he would have been just as fastidious in his Dred Scott ruling three years earlier. I can only assume that he did not see blacks as persons, a very common belief at the time. Unless of course, he was only carrying water for the slaveocracy as many at that time suggested about him.
It depends on what the meaning of "person" is. I deliberately put that in the form of the notorius Clintonism (of which you recently spuriously accused me) but it isn't one. The word "person" has several senses and saying (rightly or wrongly) that someone is not a person is not necessariily the same thing as saying they are not a human.