DOCSLIB.ORG

The Debate Over Slavery

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Debate Over Slavery DO NOT EDIT--Changes must be made through “File info” CorrectionKey=TX-A SECTION 1 The Debate over TEKS 1A, 6D, 7B, 7C, 7D, 8B, 17B, Slavery 24A, 26A, 26B What You Will Learn… If YOU were there... Main Ideas You live in a crowded neighborhood in New York City in 1854. 1. The addition of new land in the West renewed disputes Your apartment building is home to a variety of people—long-time over the expansion of slavery. residents, Irish immigrants, free African Americans. One day federal 2. The Compromise of 1850 tried to solve the disputes over marshals knock on your door. They claim that one of your neighbors slavery. is a fugitive slave. The marshals say you must help them find her. If 3. The Fugitive Slave Act caused more controversy. you don’t, you will be fined or even sent to jail. 4. Abolitionists used antislavery literature to promote opposition. What would you tell the federal marshals? The Big Idea Antislavery literature and the BUILDING BACKGROUND Some reform movements of the 1800s annexation of new lands intensi- fied the debate over slavery. drew stubborn and often violent opposition. This was especially true of the abolitionist movement. Pro-slavery supporters fought for laws to protect slavery and extend the slave system. These laws were a threat Key Terms and People to African Americans in the North. popular sovereignty, p. 476 Wilmot Proviso, p. 476 sectionalism, p. 477 Free-Soil Party, p. 477 New Land Renews Slavery Disputes secede, p. 478 The United States added more than 500,000 square miles of land as Compromise of 1850, p. 479 a result of winning the Mexican-American War in 1848. The addi- Fugitive Slave Act, p. 479 Anthony Burns, p. 480 tional land caused bitter debate about slavery. The Missouri Com- Uncle Tom’s Cabin, p. 481 promise of 1820 had divided the Louisiana Purchase into either Harriet Beecher Stowe, p. 481 free or slave regions. It prohibited slavery north of latitude 36°30' but let Missouri become a slave state. In the 1840s President James K. Polk wanted to extend the 36°30' line to the West coast, dividing the Mexican Cession into two parts—one free and one enslaved. Use the graphic organizer online Some leaders, including Senator Lewis Cass of Michigan, encour- to take notes on the sequence of aged popular sovereignty, the idea that political power belongs to events in the debate over slavery the people, who should decide on banning or allowing slavery. and the effects of each. Regional Differences about Slavery Some northerners wanted to outlaw slavery in all parts of the Mexi- can Cession. During the war, Representative David Wilmot offered the Wilmot Proviso , a document stating that “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of [the] territory.” 476 CHAPTER 15 DO NOT EDIT--Changes must be made through “File info” CorrectionKey=TX-A Free States Upsetting the Balance Connecticut Illinois Indiana Iowa Maine The admission of Massachusetts California could upset Michigan the balance of power Northern free states New Hampshire New Jersey in the Senate. 30 senators New York Ohio Pennsylvania California + 2 senators Rhode Island Vermont Wisconsin Southern slave states 30 senators Slave States Alabama Arkansas Delaware Florida Georgia GEOGRAPHY Kentucky SKILLS INTERPRETING MAPS Louisiana Region How could the admission of California as a slave state Maryland or a free state upset the balance between North and South? Mississippi Missouri North Carolina South Carolina The northern-controlled House passed the Tennessee The California Question Texas document, but in the Senate, the South had The California gold rush caused such rapid Virginia more power. The Wilmot Proviso did not population growth that California applied to pass. Before this time, politicians had usually join the Union as a state instead of as a terri- supported the ideas of their political parties. tory. But would California enter the Union as State boundaries appear dashed due to printer problems. California as a Free State However, the Wilmot Proviso spurred a debate a free state or a slave state? ah06se-c14map003a that showed growing sectionalism, or favoring Middle School – American History Most Californians opposedMapQuest.com/HRW slavery, which the interests of one section or region over the had been illegal when the state wasF2 - part11/02/04 of interests of the entire country. Approved 12/01/04 Mexico. Also, many forty-niners had come To attract voters, the Democrats and the from free states. But if California became a Whigs did not take a clear position on slav- free state, the balance between free and slave ery in the presidential campaign of 1848. In states would change, favoring the free states. THE IMPACT response, antislavery northerners formed a In the South, an imbalance was unaccept- TODAY new party, the Free-Soil Party, which sup- able. “We are about permanently to destroy Small parties ported the Wilmot Proviso. They worried the balance of power between the sections,” are today called that slave labor would mean fewer jobs for said Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi. He “third parties.” white workers. Party members chose former They often and many other southerners did not want receive support president Martin Van Buren as their can- California to enter the Union as a free state. from voters who didate. The new party won 10 percent of disagree with the the popular vote, drawing away votes from READING CHECK Drawing Inferences policies of the two major parties Democrat Lewis Cass. Whig candidate Zach- Why did sectionalism in the United States increase on a specific ary Taylor won a narrow victory. in the late 1840s? issue. A DIVIDED NATION 477 DO NOT EDIT--Changes must be made through “File info” CorrectionKey=TX-A Compromise of 1850 1. California would enter the Union as a free state. Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky had helped 2. The rest of the Mexican Cession would to settle the Missouri crisis of 1819–20 and be federal land. In this territory, popular the nullification crisis of 1832–33 by propos- sovereignty would decide on slavery. ing compromises. He now had another plan 3. Texas would give up land east of the to help the nation maintain peace. His ideas upper Rio Grande. In return, the gov- were designed to give both sides things that ernment would pay Texas’s debts from they wanted: when it was an independent republic. 4. The slave trade—but not slavery— Primary Source would end in the nation’s capital. SPEECH 5. A more effective fugitive slave law The Seventh of March Speech would be passed. On March 7, 1850, Daniel Webster spoke on the floor of the Clay’s plan drew attack, especially regard- Senate in favor of the Compromise of 1850. ing California. Senator William Seward of I hear with distress and anguish the word New York defended antislavery views and “secession.” Secession! Peaceable secession! Sir, Webster is wanted California admitted “directly, with- upset by talk of your eyes and mine are never destined to see the out conditions, without qualifications, and miracle. The dismemberment [taking apart] of secession. without compromise.” However, Senator this vast country without convulsion! The break- John C. Calhoun of South Carolina argued ing up of the fountains of the great deep with- out ruffing the surface! Who is so foolish, I beg Webster is say- that letting California enter as a free state ing that just as every body’s pardon, as to expect to see any such would destroy the nation’s balance. He it is impossible thing? . There can be no such thing as peaceable to move water warned people of issues that would later secession. in the ocean start the Civil War. Calhoun asked that the without making —quoted in Daniel Webster: The Completest Man, slave states be allowed to secede —formally edited by Kenneth Shewmaker waves, it is impossible for withdraw—from the Union. states to peace- ANALYSIS fully secede. SKILL ANALYZING PRIMARY SOURCES Why did Webster support the Compromise of 1850? Henry Clay introduced the Compromise of 1850 on the Senate floor. Daniel Webster spoke eloquently in support of the compromise. 478 DO NOT EDIT--Changes must be made through “File info” CorrectionKey=TX-A In contrast, Senator Daniel Webster of Fugitive Slave Act Massachusetts favored Clay’s plan: The newly passed Fugitive Slave Act made it “I wish to speak today, not as a Massachusetts a crime to help runaway slaves and allowed man, nor as a Northern man, but as an Ameri- officials to arrest those slaves in free areas. can . I speak today for the preservation of the Slaveholders were permitted to take sus- Union. Hear me for my cause. ” pected fugitives to U.S. commissioners, who —Daniel Webster, quoted in Battle Cry of Freedom by James M. McPherson decided their fate. Webster criticized northern abolitionists and Details of the Fugitive Slave Act southerners who talked of secession. Slaveholders could use testimony from A compromise was enacted that year and white witnesses, but enslaved African Amer- seemed to settle most disputes between free icans accused of being fugitives could not and slave states. It achieved the majority of testify. Nor could people who hid or helped Clay’s proposals. With the Compromise of a runaway slave—they faced six months in 1850, California was able to enter the Union jail and a $1,000 fine. Commissioners who as a free state. The rest of the Mexican Ces- rejected a slaveholder’s claim earned $5 sion was divided into two territories—Utah while those who returned suspected fugi- and New Mexico—where the question of tives to slaveholders earned $10.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Missouri Compromise (1820) • Compromise Sponsored by Henry Clay
    Congressional Compromises and the Road to War The Great Triumvirate Henry Clay Daniel Webster John C. Calhoun representing the representing representing West the North the South John C. Calhoun •From South Carolina •Called “Cast-Iron Man” for his stubbornness and determination. •Owned slaves •Believed states were sovereign and could nullify or reject federal laws they believed were unconstitutional. Daniel Webster •From Massachusetts •Called “The Great Orator” •Did not own slaves Henry Clay •From Kentucky •Called “The Great Compromiser” •Owned slaves •Calmed sectional conflict through balanced legislation and compromises. Missouri Compromise (1820) • Compromise sponsored by Henry Clay. It allowed Missouri to enter the Union as a Slave State and Maine to enter as a Free State. The southern border of Missouri would determine if a territory could allow slavery or not. • Slavery was allowed in some new states while other states allowed freedom for African Americans. • Balanced political power between slave states and free states. Nullification Crisis (1832-1833) • South Carolina, led by Senator John C. Calhoun declared a high federal tariff to be null and avoid within its borders. • John C. Calhoun and others believed in Nullification, the idea that state governments have the right to reject federal laws they see as Unconstitutional. • The state of South Carolina threatened to secede or break off from the United States if the federal government, under President Andrew Jackson, tried to enforce the tariff in South Carolina. Andrew Jackson on Nullification “The laws of the United States, its Constitution…are the supreme law of the land.” “Look, for a moment, to the consequence.
    [Show full text]
  • Compromise of 1850 Earlier You Read About the Missouri Compromise and the Wilmot Proviso
    Compromise of 1850 Earlier you read about the Missouri Compromise and the Wilmot Proviso. Keep them in mind as you read here What is a compromise? A compromise is a resolution of a problem in which each side gives up demands or makes concession. Earlier you read about the Missouri Compromise. What conflict did it resolve? It kept the number of slave and free states equal by admitting Maine as free and Missouri as slave and it provided for a policy with respect to slavery in the Louisiana Territory. Other than in Missouri, the Compromise prohibited slavery north of 36°30' N latitude in the land acquired in the Louisiana Purchase. Look at the 1850 map. Notice how the "Missouri Compromise Line" ends at the border to Mexican Territory. In 1850 the United States controls the 36°30' N latitude to the Pacific Ocean. Will the United States allow slavery in its new territory? Slavery's Expansion Look again at this map and watch for the 36°30' N latitude Missouri Compromise line as well as the proportion of free and slave states up to the Civil War, which begins in 1861. WSBCTC 1 This map was created by User: Kenmayer and is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license (CC-BY 3.0) [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Slave_Free_1789-1861.gif]. Here's a chart that compares the Missouri Compromise with the Compromise of 1850. WSBCTC 2 Wilmot Proviso During the Mexican-American War in 1846, David Wilmot, a Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania, proposed in an amendment to a military appropriations bill that slavery be banned in all the territories acquired from Mexico.
    [Show full text]
  • No Open Book!
    Test on Tuesday 12/10 Study, study, study What did Nat Turner do? • Leader of a Slave Rebellion in VA • Caused changes in treatment of slaves in some states What was the result (or significance) of Nat Turner’s rebellion • Placing stricter slave “codes” or laws on slaves To balance the slave and free states and create a rule of entrance for new states of the Louisiana Territory. (1820) • The Missouri Compromise What two states entered in the agreement from #3 (and which way? Free/slave) • Missouri- Slave • Maine- Free (kept the balance to 12 each) What was it called when the Tariffs were opposed by the South and they wrote about how it was unconstitutional? • Nullification Crisis What is the name of the paper that stated that the federal government was unconstitutional in their actions of this “Tariff of abominations”? • Doctrine of Nullification How was South Carolina involved in the Nullification Crisis? • It was the state had issue with the actions of the Government in the Nullification Crisis (Calhoun was from here) What did John C. Calhoun have to do with the Nullification Crisis? • He wrote the Doctrine of Nullification What is Loyalty to the interests of one's own region or section of the country, rather than to the country as a whole? • Sectionalism In what ways were the North and South different in the period of 1800-1860? • North had: No slavery, industry, urbanization, and small farms. • South had; plantation slavery, agricultural base, and poor subsistence farmers. Webster Ashburton was a treaty that settled the dispute of what territory? • The shared Oregon territory between Britain and the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Causes of the Civil War
    THE CAUSES OF THE CIVIL WAR: A NEWSPAPER ANALYSIS by DIANNE M. BRAGG WM. DAVID SLOAN, COMMITTEE CHAIR GEORGE RABLE MEG LAMME KARLA K. GOWER CHRIS ROBERTS A DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the College of Communication and Information Sciences in the Graduate School of The University of Alabama TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA 2013 Copyright Dianne Marie Bragg 2013 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ABSTRACT This dissertation examines antebellum newspaper content in an attempt to add to the historical understanding of the causes of the Civil War. Numerous historians have studied the Civil War and its causes, but this study will use only newspapers to examine what they can show about the causes that eventually led the country to war. Newspapers have long chronicled events in American history, and they offer valuable information about the issues and concerns of their communities. This study begins with an overview of the newspaper coverage of the tariff and territorial issues that began to divide the country in the early decades of the 1800s. The study then moves from the Wilmot Proviso in 1846 to Lincoln’s election in 1860, a period in which sectionalism and disunion increasingly appeared on newspaper pages and the lines of disagreement between the North and the South hardened. The primary sources used in this study were a diverse sampling of articles from newspapers around the country and includes representation from both southern and northern newspapers. Studying these antebellum newspapers offers insight into the political, social, and economic concerns of the day, which can give an indication of how the sectional differences in these areas became so divisive.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilmot Proviso
    Wilmot Proviso The Wilmot Proviso was introduced on August 8, 1846, in the United States House of Representatives as a rider on a $2 million appropriations bill intended for the final negotiations to resolve the Mexican-American War. The intent of the proviso, submitted by Democratic Congressman David Wilmot, was to prevent the introduction of slavery in any territory acquired from Mexico. The proviso did not pass in this session or in any other session when it was reintroduced over the course of the next several years, but many consider it as the one of first events on the long slide to secession and Civil War which would accelerate through the 1850s. Background Pennsylvania politician David Wilmot After an earlier attempt to acquire Texas by treaty had failed (lithograph by M.H. Traubel). Source: Library to receive the necessary two-thirds approval of the Senate, of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division the United States annexed the Republic of Texas by a joint (Digital ID cph.3c32936). resolution that required simply a majority vote in each house of Congress. President John Tyler signed the bill on March 1, 1845 in the waning days of his presidency. As many expected, the annexation led to war with Mexico. When the war began to wind down, the political focus shifted to what territory, would be acquired from Mexico. Key to this was the determination of the future status of slavery in any new territory. Both major political parties of the time had labored long to keep divisive slavery issues out of national politics. However, the victory of James Polk (Democratic Party) over Henry Clay (Southern Whig) in the 1844 presidential election had caught the Whigs by surprise.
    [Show full text]
  • Congress Debates the Fate of the Nation: Analyzing the Wilmot Proviso & President Polk's 1848
    Congress Debates the Fate of the Nation: Analyzing The Wilmot Proviso & President Polk’s 1848 Map Worksheet 2: Answer Key (Individual answers might vary) 1. What did the Wilmot Proviso say about slavery in the newly acquired Western territories? There could be no slavery or involuntary servitude in any territory gained by treaty from Mexico. 2. List three ways in which the Wilmot Proviso would have spurred unity and three ways it would have spurred division in America. Ways of Spurring Union Ways of Spurring Division Ended dispute over the Western Driven a “wedge” between territory acquired from Mexico Northern and Southern members of the Whig and Democratic Parties Removed the issue of the extension of Elevated slavery to a national slavery from politics political issue Preserved the parties as national Strengthened the Free Soil party in institutions the North 3. Write a hypothesis about whether the Wilmot Proviso would have primarily united or divided the nation and why. By elevating slavery to a national issue, and drawing a line between Northern and Southern members of both political parties, the Wilmot Proviso primarily divided the nation. Center for Legislative Archives National Archives and Records Administration www.archives.gov/legislative Congress Debates the Fate of the Nation: Analyzing The Wilmot Proviso & President Polk’s 1848 Map Worksheet 3: Answer Key Directions: Outline and label the following areas on this map: a. the Free States in 1848, b. the Slave States in 1848, c. the Northwest Territory, d. Indian Territory, e. the 36°30’ line of latitude, f. the Oregon Territory, g.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of 1824 – 1850 Era Jacksonian Democracy (1828-1836
    Summary of 1824 – 1850 Era Jacksonian Democracy (1828-1836) 1824 – the “corrupt bargain” election (JQ Adams & Clay “rob” Jackson ???) Jackson represents the “common man”. Jackson increases the suffrage, so the “common man” can vote = Jacksonian Democracy. De Tocqueville, “Democracy in America”. Jackson uses the veto and establishes Presidential authority over Congress. Jackson also thumbs his nose at the Judiciary – he defies the Supreme Court by Indian Removal Act, 1830 (Cherokees – Worcester .v. Georgia), Trail of Tears results. Jackson fights a running battle with Henry Clay and his American System. Whigs (Clay & Webster) .v. Democrats (Jackson & Van Buren) – 2 party system becomes established. Jackson stands for “small govt”, but NOT for nullification (remember, Jackson is President, and nullification or secession reduces the power of the feds. John C. Calhoun is big in this period, as South-North disputes blow up over slavery, tariffs, BUS, federally funded internal improvements. Remember the Tariff of Abominations (1828 – is slavery the real issue ?), Calhoun’s “concurrent majority” idea, SC nullifies the tariff, Jackson responds with the Force Bill (1833), SC backs down. Civil War is averted, for a while, but would it have been better to have sorted the issue out in 1833 ? Webster – Hayne Debate, 1830 (Senate, Webster makes stirring speech about the union being “one and inseperable” – again, it’s the nullification / secession issue). Jackson fights Nicholas Biddle to destroy the BUS. Jackson declares the US “neutral”, but assists Texas break free from Mexico (1836) Slavery Issue Getting very big. Colonization to Liberia, 1817 Missouri Compromise (yes, 1820, earlier, but still …) Abolitionists getting hot under the collar (Wm Lloyd Garrison, 1831, The Liberator) States rights = right to have slaves Therefore the whole nullification / secession thing is really about slavery.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wilmot Proviso the Wilmot Proviso Was a Rider (Or Provision) Attached to an Appropriations Bill During the Mexican War
    The Wilmot Proviso The Wilmot Proviso was a rider (or provision) attached to an appropriations bill during the Mexican War. It stated that slavery would be banned in any territory won from Mexico as a result of the war. While it was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives (where northern states had an advantage due to population), it failed to be considered by the U.S. Senate (where slave and free states were evenly divided). Though never enacted, the Wilmot Proviso signaled significant challenges regarding what to do with the extension of slavery into the territories. The controversy over slavery’s extension polarized public opinion and resulted in dramatically increased sectional tension during the 1850s. The Wilmot Proviso was introduced by David Wilmot from Pennsylvania and mirrored the wording of the Northwest Ordinance on slavery. The proviso stated “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory” that might be gained from Mexico as a result of the Mexican-American War. The issue of the extension of slavery was not new. As northern states abolished the institution of slavery, they pushed to keep the practice from extending into new territory. The push for abolition began before the ratification of the Constitution with the enactment of the Northwest Ordinance which outlawed slavery in the Northwest Territory. The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 brought a large amount of new land into the U.S. that, over time, would qualify for territorial status and eventually statehood. The proviso stated “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory” that might be gained from Mexico as a result of the Mexican-American War.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Did Florida Secede from the Union? Alexander J
    )ORULGD6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\/LEUDULHV 2019 Why Did Florida Secede from the Union? Alexander J. Bowen Follow this and additional works at DigiNole: FSU's Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES WHY DID FLORIDA SECEDE FROM THE UNION? By ALEXANDER J. BOWEN A Thesis submitted to the Department of History in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with Honors in the Major Degree Awarded: Spring, 2019 Introduction On January 11th, 1861, Governor Madison S. Perry met with the state’s secession commissioners on the east portico of the state capitol building to witness and confer Florida’s official Ordinance of Secession that had been passed the previous day in the Convention of the People of Florida. This public ceremony officially began the process of separating Florida from the federal union of the United States and established the state as an independent republic. In the coming weeks, what was the secession convention would transform into the Constitutional Convention of 1861 to establish a reformed government in Florida similar to the U.S. Constitution. The following month, delegates would be sent to the Montgomery Congress to commit Florida to a union between the Southern slaveholding states and draft a constitution for the Confederate States of America. Through the course of these events, the delegates of the state convention married Florida to the rest of the South and to a bloody war with a massive loss of life, defeat at the hands of the very government they sought to separate from, and a Reconstruction government protecting the rights of newly emancipated slaves.
    [Show full text]
  • Causes of the Civil
    Social Studies Name: _________________________ Directions: Complete the following questions using the website listed below. http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/triggerevents.html 1. According to the website, what was the Civil War a culmination of? 2. Briefly explain the Missouri Compromise and how it led to the Civil War. 3. Who was Nat Turner? 4. Explain Nat Turner’s Rebellion. 5. How do you think Nat Turner’s Rebellion led to the Civil War? © Copyright History Matters 2015. 6. What was the Wilmot Proviso? Explain. 7. What was the result of the Wilmot Proviso and how did it lead to the Civil War? 8. According to the website, what senators were involved in the creation of the Compromise of 1850? 9. Explain the Compromise of 1850. 10. How did the Compromise of 1850 lead to the Civil War? 11. Who wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin? 12. What was Uncle Tom’s Cabin about? 13. How did Uncle Tom’s Cabin lead to the Civil War? 14. Explain the Kansas-Nebraska Act. What did it do? 15. When was the Kansas-Nebraska Act passed? 16. What was Bleeding Kansas? Explain. © Copyright History Matters 2015. 17. Who was Dred Scott and what did he do? 18. What was the outcome of the Dred Scott Decision? 19. Who was John Brown? 20. Explain John Brown’s Raid. 21. What happened to John Brown? 22. When was Abraham Lincoln elected? 23. What party did Abraham Lincoln run as? 24. What occurred on April 12, 1861 at Fort Sumter? 25. What is the significance of the Battle of Fort Sumter? © Copyright History Matters 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • The "Pennsylvania Origins of Popular Sovereignty
    The "Pennsylvania Origins of Popular Sovereignty HE introduction of the Wilmot Proviso in 1846, perhaps more than any other single action, broke the uneasy sectional Ttruce regarding slavery and began the process of party and sectional realignments which culminated in the Civil War. As the proviso's basic principle of free soil became the dominant issue of the campaign of 1848, national politicians were forced to come to grips with this question in a variety of ways.* Popular Sovereignty, the Democratic Party's solution to these issues in 1848, had its origins as an acceptable political concept in Vice President George M. Dallas' Qreat Speech ... Upon the Reading Topics of the T)ay> which he gave in Pittsburgh on September 18, 1847. Although Congressmen Caleb B. Smith of Indiana and Shelton F. Leake of Virginia had made earlier vague references to the people of a territory governing themselves, Dallas was the first major political figure to call for popular sovereignty.1 He had been a prominent figure in the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania and the nation since Andrew Jackson's first bid for the presidency. He had served as Mayor of Philadelphia (1828-1829), Federal District Attorney (1829-1831), United States Senator (1831-1833), Attorney General of Pennsylvania (1833-1835), Minister to Russia (1837- 1839), and as Vice President under James K. Polk. Clearly his endorsement of popular sovereignty was an important political sign. It appears to be more than coincidental that the Proviso and two of the three leading solutions to the problem of slavery in the territories—extension of the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific Ocean and popular sovereignty—originated within the Keystone State.
    [Show full text]
  • Causes of the Civil War Causes of the Civil War
    Causes of the Civil War Causes of the Civil War • Northwest Ordinance • Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 • Kentucky and Virginia • Compromise of 1850 Resolutions • Uncle Tom's Cabin • Missouri Compromise • Kansas–Nebraska Act • Tariff of 1828 • Bleeding Kansas • Nullification Crisis • Mexican American war • Nat Turner's slave rebellion • Sumner-Brooks affair • The Amistad • Dred Scott v. Sandford • Texas Annexation • Brown's raid on Harper's • Mexican–American War Ferry • Wilmot Proviso • 1860 presidential election • Ostend Manifesto • Secession of Southern States • Manifest Destiny • Star of the West • Underground Railroad • Corwin Amendment • Battle of Fort Sumter Attempted Solutions • Missouri Compromise • Wilmot Proviso • Ostend Manifesto • Compromise of 1850 • Kansas-Nebraska Act • popular sovereignty • Bleeding Kansas • Dred Scott Decision The Decision of Slavery Missouri Compromise Missouri Compromise 1820 • Regulation of slavery in the western territories • Prohibited slavery north of 36 ̊-30’ N parallel, except in Missouri • Sectional balance • Maine is a free state Part of the Texas Annexation Resolution of 1845 On the Compromise “… but this momentous question, like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. it is hushed indeed for the moment. but this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. a geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every
    [Show full text]