Taney was a Democrat. He had been against slavery when young, and came to support it as he grew older. The case was promoted by Taney and others. The purpose was to put an end to the "slavery question" once and for all, by having the Supreme Court give a definitive ruling, thus saving the Union.
The effect was the opposite of what was intended.
It shows the problems of many grand conspiracies: It is nearly impossible to determine the long term effects of political actions.
After the fact, people propose theories to shoehorn the observed facts into their ideology.
Why is that? The guy was a political activist out to stir up trouble, and he succeeded. Liberals are still doing this exact sort of thing today.
Woodpusher can give you a great deal of insight into the actual case of Dred Scott. I think he has written excellent commentary on the point, and perhaps he will do so again.
Does it say it was a fake, ginned up drama to create a political win for the Republicans?
No, not for the Republicans. For the abolitionists, who may or may not have been Republicans. Dr. Chaffee was a Know Nothing.
After the fact, people propose theories to shoehorn the observed facts into their ideology.
Is that what Abe Lincoln did?
Etheldred Scott was never the property of John Sanford of New York. He had been the property of Dr. John Emerson until the doctor died. Then he became the property of Irene Emerson, his widow. When Irene remarried to abolitionist Congressman Calvin Chaffee of Massachusetts, the law of femes covert applied. A married woman could not own personal property. In marriage, the property went to the husband. And so, Congressman Chaffee became a slave owner.
John Sanford spent the trial in an insane asylum. He died shortly before the Scotus decision finding it had no jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the case. The Chaffee ownership became public knowledge as it splashed across the newspapers and Chaffee executed a quitclaim deed in favor of Taylor Blow in Missouri. There is a very public record that Chaffee dispossesed himself of Dred Scott.
While the proceedings were ongoing for years, Scott was loaned out by the Sheriff and the earnings were kept in escrow. Those earnings were claimed by Irene Emerson Chaffee, confirmed by another court record.
This embarrassment was brought up to some laughter in the Lincoln-Douglass debates. Sixth Debate, October 13, 1858. By then, even Honest Abe had to concede it was a made up moot case, with no actual case or controversy.
[DOUGLAS - CW 3:260]
I have since asked him who the Democratic owners of Dred Scott were, but he could not tell, and why? Because there were no such Democratic owners in existence. Dred Scott at the time was owned by the Rev. Dr. Chaffee, an Abolition member of Congress, of Springfield, Massachusetts, in right of his wife. He was owned by one of Lincoln's friends, and not by Democrats at all; (immense cheers, "give it to him,'' &c.) his case was conducted in court by Abolition lawyers, so that both the prosecution and the defense were in the hands of the Abolition political friends of Mr. Lincoln. (Renewed cheering.)
[LINCOLN - CW 6:282-283]
I have asked Judge Douglas' attention to certain matters of fact tending to prove the charge of a conspiracy to nationalize slavery, and he says he convinces me that this is all untrue because Buchanan was not in the country at that time, and because the Dred Scott case had not then got into the Supreme Court; and he says that I say the Democratic owners of Dred Scott got up the case. I never did say that. [Applause.] I defy Judge Douglas to show that I ever said so for I never uttered it. [One of Mr. Douglas' reporters gesticulated affirmatively at Mr. Lincoln.] I don't care if your hireling does say I did, I tell you myself that I never said the "Democratic'' owners of Dred Scott got up the case. [Tremendous enthusiasm.] I have never pretended to know whether Dred Scott's owners were Democrats or Abolitionists, or Free Soilers or Border Ruffians. I have said that there is evidence about the case tending to show that it was a made up case, for the purpose of getting that decision. I have said that that evidence was very strong in the fact that when Dred Scott was declared to be a slave, the owner of him made him free, showing that he had had the case tried and the question settled for such use as could be made of that decision; he cared nothing about the property thus declared to be his by that decision. [Enthusiastic applause.] But my time is out and I can say no more.