what was president buchanan's view on the dred scott case?

Question

didn't people in the north think he was personally responsible for the outcome?

Answer 1

Buchanan was a doughface - a northerner who sympathized with the South. Buchanan (from Pennsylvania) secretly pressured the Supreme Court justice Robert Grier (also from PA) to rule in favor of the South and try to make national policy in addition to a constitutional statement, and publicly backed their decision. Many Republicans were infuriated since the case technically made their antislavery position unconstitutional, and William Seward and others accused the Court and Buchanan of being part of a "slaveocracy" or "slave power conspiracy". So people did not feel he was solely responsible, but he did get some of the blame, and he was reviled by Republicans.

Answer 2

The preceding answer has given a nice overview. As he indicates, Buchanan was even involved in pressuring a Northern justice to join the decision.

One other interesting point related to this. in his inaugural address Buchanan, rather disingenuously, presented himself as not knowing what the Court's decision (released just two days later) would be, expressed willingness to accept whatever they decided, and urged others to do the same

Here's the relevant clip:

"A difference of opinion has arisen in regard to the point of time when the people of a Territory shall decide this question for themselves.

"This is, happily, a matter of but little practical importance. Besides, it is a judicial question, which legitimately belongs to the Supreme Court of the United States, before whom it is now pending, and will, it is understood, be speedily and finally settled. To their decision, in common with all good citizens, I shall cheerfully submit, whatever this may be. . . ."
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres30.html

Note that none of this shows that Buchanan agreed 100% with the decision or Taney's reasoning. Rather he supported the OUTCOME, which he believed would stifle Northern abolitionist "agitation" on the question.

As his remarks above indicate, his concern was over the question of WHO could decide the slavery question in the territories and WHEN. Buchanan's position was the same as that of Southern Democrats -- Congress could not decide the question, only the residents could (this was the "popular sovereignty" position shared by Stephen Douglas), BUT the residents of a territory could not decide that question UNTIL they submitted a constitution while applying for statehood (which Douglas, and many Northern Democrats did not agree with and later split with President Buchanan over).

The Dred Scott Decision was not simply (perhaps not even first of all) about that question, but Buchanan supported the ruling(and lobbied for it) BECAUSE he thought it would resolve this issue, mollifying the South AND preventing further 'agitation' by abolitionists. . . and in so doing would preserve the UNION.

None of this was based on agreement with slavery per se (Buchanan, in fact, did not like slavery, and expressed thanks that his state of Pennsylvania had abolished). Rather, it stemmed from his understanding of the rights of slave owners under the Constitution (and of each state to decide this issue for itself) AND, more basically, his understanding of how the nation (esp the North) needed to act to preserve the Union.