Prolongation of Slavery: A ruling in favor of Dred Scott would have affirmed the legality of slavery and strengthened the institution. It would have set a precedent that upheld the rights of slave owners to claim their "property," even in free territories. This decision would have made it more challenging for abolitionists and anti-slavery activists to argue against the practice legally.
Increased Tensions: The pro-slavery ruling would have further escalated tensions between the North and the South. Abolitionists and Northern states would have felt outrage and seen it as a gross injustice, reinforcing their determination to end slavery. On the other hand, Southern states would have been emboldened by the decision and may have become even more resistant to any attempts to limit or abolish slavery.
Heightened Sectionalism: The division between the North and the South would have deepened due to the Supreme Court's ruling. The North would have felt betrayed by the federal government and the judicial system, leading to increased sectionalism and a stronger push for states' rights. This could have potentially fueled the growing resentment and agitation for secession among Southern states.
Civil War Catalyst: The ruling in favor of Dred Scott could have accelerated the outbreak of the Civil War. The decision would have further intensified the political and social divisions over slavery, making it even more difficult to find a compromise between Northern and Southern interests. The increased tensions and growing animosity between the two regions could have brought the nation closer to armed conflict.
Legal Challenges and Resistance: Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, anti-slavery activists and individuals like Harriet Beecher Stowe, whose novel "Uncle Tom's Cabin" played a significant role in shaping public opinion, likely would have continued to fight against slavery through various legal challenges, civil disobedience, and political activism.
International Implications: The ruling in favor of Dred Scott would have had international repercussions, potentially damaging the United States' reputation abroad and making it more challenging to convince European nations to support the abolitionist cause or take a strong stance against slavery.
In conclusion, a Supreme Court ruling in favor of Dred Scott would have had far-reaching consequences. It would have prolonged slavery, heightened tensions between the North and the South, fueled sectionalism, and possibly accelerated the outbreak of the Civil War. Despite legal setbacks, the anti-slavery movement would likely have persisted in its efforts to challenge and ultimately abolish slavery in the United States.