Taney dismisses Dred Scott vs Sandford?

In 1857, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney declared that Dred Scott, a former slave whose state of servitude was in question, was still a slave, and had no ability to sue his former master. Instead of dismissing the case, as would be logical, he used it to declare the Missouri compromise as illegal, causing national uproar.

What could be the ramifications had he simply dismissed the case without denouncing the Missouri Compromise? If the American Civil War occurs as scheduled, are there any affects? Does it happen it all (It looks like there would be some sort of secession)?
 
As I understand it Dredd Scott was just one of a number of bust ups that built up over time to explode in Lincoln's face. Taking out the Missouri Compromise bit is going to help but it isn't going to alter the fundamentals that public and political opinion in the North was moving towards forcing abolition on the South and Southern public and political opinion was getting ever more blinkered in favour.
 
In 1857, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney declared that Dred Scott, a former slave whose state of servitude was in question, was still a slave, and had no ability to sue his former master. Instead of dismissing the case, as would be logical, he used it to declare the Missouri compromise as illegal, causing national uproar.

What could be the ramifications had he simply dismissed the case without denouncing the Missouri Compromise? If the American Civil War occurs as scheduled, are there any affects? Does it happen it all (It looks like there would be some sort of secession)?

Dred Scott was one important link in the chain that convinced many northerners that an aggressive slave power wouldn't rest until it had shoved slavery down northern throats.

Also, it created a huge problem for northern democrats, especially Douglas. Douglas' popular sovereignty program for the territories was a way of papering over the differences between southern and northern democrats on slavery. But the OTL Dred Scott decision nixed popular sovereignty. Douglas either had to embrace it, losing northern democrats, or do what he did OTL, saying that northern settlers could still de facto abolish slavery by refusing to put any protections in law to return slaves to their masters, thus losing southern democrats.

So I think this POD has at least some chance of having Douglas elected in 1860 instead of Lincoln, and therefore even putting off the Civil War for a bit--or, if the Civil War does happen, perhaps fewer states join the Confederacy.
 
Top