There was no Civil War. Lincoln invaded the South. Loss of Southern money going up North was the reason. Dred scott had nothing to do with it.
Consider all the reasons that have been submitted as to why the Civil War occurred (oh, and for the record, I don't think it was the Union who fired the first shot at Fort Sumter).
If you take away slavery, then all those other reasons would not be sufficient for the Civil War to have occurred.
Take all other reasons EXCEPT slavery? You still have the Civil War.
That's how strong feelings were over the issue, as indicated in the letters and writings of the time in the North and South.
A positive decision -- a JUST decision in Dred Scott would have ended it. Instead the Courts abandoned Justice for teh pursuit of a vain, yet perfectly processed, legalism of a ruling.
John Brown took over the arsenal at Harper's Ferry in mid-October 1859. Lincoln wasn't elected until November 1860. On April 12th 1861 Confederate General Beauregard ordered the cannons of the newly formed Confederate States to fire on Fort Sumter. That began the "War between the States" -- which ended four years later.
The Civil War, however continued. Perhaps this is the ending of it, with the election of the fraud usurper Obama, the long-term harm of the Dred Scoot ruling is buried and dead.
The Civil War was a war for state’s rights. Guess what - the states lost. Now we are trying to get them back. Too many years of complacency have lead here.
The South started the war, and and the South takes full responsibility for everything resulting from its own actions.
Hey, you're the one who brought it into an Obama's citizenship thread, not me.