To what extent would you say that the Supreme Court was simply being honest about the nature of slavery in the Dred Scott decision, in effect saying ” you want a slave society? This is what a slave society looks like” ?

To no extent whatsoever.

Dred Scott was a pretty naked attempt to settle the “slavery question” in favor of the pro-slavery party by making as broad a decision as possible (i.e, not just ruling against Scott but going further to invalidate the Missouri Compromise and indeed any restrictions on slavery), even though that decision went plainly against evidence from the time of the ratification of the Constitution and before (namely, that there were black voters and thus citizens at the time of the Constitutional Conventions, and the Northwest Ordinance, which had barred slavery in the territories north of the Ohio, which predated the Constitution) as we can see from the two dissenting opinions. 

Indeed, the lack of honesty in Taney’s findings played a significant role in opening up the Supreme Court to backlash, and indeed resulted in the “slavery question” being more un-settled than before.