We like to believe that the Supreme Court can decide contentious issues because its better than deciding them by armed violence. Throughout American history, when Americans spoil for a fight, they don’t go to the barricades. They go to court. In fact, we are about to see the advent of a Civil War, so far our one and only, because the justice system failed its chance to prevent it. Maybe it couldn’t have prevented it anyway. But it certainly did fail to stop it.
Northerners were increasingly incensed that slavers could come into their states and seize their "property" despite the fact that slavery was illegal. The Compromise of 1850 was deeply unpopular in the North and was spurring the growth of the Republican Party.
What if the Supreme Court had ruled Dred Scott a free man and citizen? Secession may have come sooner. And that would be a gross violation of henkster's law; expecting a Southern majority to so vote. They should have avoided the question, as they initially appeared to be doing, but that just kicks the can down the road.
And what if Buchanan had supported Kansas statehood as a free state? Another violation of henkster's law.
It will be an interesting four years, but I'm increasing thinking there was no peaceful way to settle this other than the North allowing the South to secede. And even in the midst of our most terrible war there was never majority support for that in the North.