My ancestors were certainly not responsible. They were in Denmark in 1861, and didn't arrive in the US until after 1900. I don't have a dog in this fight, and that's why I can be objective.
But the Democrat Party that controlled the south in the 1850s is the time is the same Democrat Party that imposed Dred Scott onto the nation at that time.
You keep saying "impose" as if the Supreme court doesn't have the legal authority to impose what they interpret to be the law.
Are you trying to deny the authority of the Supreme court to rule on matters of law? Isn't that seditious? Verging on secession I think. :)
Woodpusher did an excellent Job of explaining exactly what the Dred Scott ruling was. I wish I could find it so you could read it.
I just recall it wasn't what everyone thinks it was.
That's my take. Most people today overlook the fact that the Dred Scott decision had the blurb that blacks could never ever be American citizens. Most people today just look at the argument of if a slave becomes free if he and his master travel to an abolition state for a while then travel back to a slave state.
But to the abolitionists in the 1850's the Dred Scott decision was as much of a national blow against abolition as the Roe v Wade decision was a national blow against pro-lifers. Remember how the pro-lifers went from trying to win the argument at the state level to having to win it at the federal level (now with it being back at the states due to the Dobbs decision)? That's pretty much how the abolitionists saw the Dred Scott decision, except they didn't wait 50 years for a new SCOTUS decision to overturn it.