The Path to the Civil War The Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the Compromise of 1850
Download 34.17 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- The Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the Compromise of 1850
- 1. What was the name of the compromise that dealt with slavery that was written into the Constitution 2. What did the compromise do
- 6. According to the text, what happened to runaway slaves The Compromise of 1850 and the Fugitive Slave Act
- 7. Why does it make sense that Henry Clay was determined to find a solution to the fight over free and slave states
- 8. Why was admitting California as a free state a problem
- 9. In the compromise, how was the issue of slavery solved in the territories of New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah
- 12. What did the Fugitive Slave Act require officers of the law to do 13. What does the poster below warn the colored people of Boston about
- 14. Why do you think many slaves fled to Canada after the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act
- 15. Why does it make sense that the Underground Railorad became more active after the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act
- 16. What did the Compromise of 1850 accomplish 17. What issue would divide the country for the next decade
The Path to the Civil War
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the Compromise of 1850 Answer the questions in each section using the information provided in this handout. Slavery had come to America in 1619. It existed through the American Revolution, even after Thomas Jefferson penned his famous lines in the Declaration of Independence, "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Obviously, slaves were not part of this equation. When it came time to write the Constitution, the word "slavery" was never used. Instead, the framers chose to use the term "other people." As an example: These other people were counted as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of representation in Congress according to the 3/5 Compromise. This compromise kept slavery in the United States intact. The founders also decided not to do anything about the issue of slavery for twenty years. Someone else would have to deal with it. In 1820 with the admission of Missouri to the Union, the issue of slavery came up again. There was already a great deal of tension between the North and the South. The South was highly agricultural. It wanted to keep slavery as a way of life on their plantations. The North, which was far more industrial, saw this "peculiar institution" as unnecessary and increasingly morally wrong. One way the government tried to limit the tension was by keeping the number of slave and free states equal. So, in 1820, when Missouri met the requirements for statehood and applied for admission to the Union as a slave state, there was a problem. The balance of free and slave states would be destroyed. The Missouri Compromise seemed to solve the problem by admitting Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state, keeping the number of free and slave states equal. It also divided the rest of the Louisiana Purchase into slave and free territory. 1. What was the name of the compromise that dealt with slavery that was written into the Constitution? 2. What did the compromise do? 3. How did the Missouri Compromise solve the problem of the balance of free and slave states? Excerpt from the Missouri Compromise, 1820 SEC. 8. And be it further enacted. That in all that territory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, not included within the limits of the state, contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted, shall be, and is hereby, forever prohibited: Provided always, That any person escaping from slavery...may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed back to the person (slave owner)... 6. According to the text, what happened to runaway slaves? The Compromise of 1850 and the Fugitive Slave Act Henry Clay, U.S. senator from Kentucky, was determined to find a solution. In 1820 he had resolved a fiery debate over the spread of slavery with his Missouri Compromise. Now, thirty years later, the matter surfaced again within the walls of the Capitol. But this time the stakes were higher -- nothing less than keeping the Union together. 7. Why does it make sense that Henry Clay was determined to find a solution to the fight over free and slave states? There were several points at issue: * The United States had recently acquired a vast territory -- the result of its war with Mexico. Many wondered should the territory allow slavery, or should it be declared free. Maybe the inhabitants should be allowed to choose for themselves. Of particular interest was California. * California was a territory that had grown tremendously with the gold rush of 1849, had recently petitioned Congress to enter the Union as a free state. Can they enter as a free state? Ever since the Missouri Compromise, the balance between slave states and free states had been maintained; any proposal that threatened this balance of free and slave states would almost certainly not win approval. 8. Why was admitting California as a free state a problem? *There was a dispute over land: Texas claimed that its territory extended all the way to Santa Fe. *Finally, there was Washington, D.C. Not only did the nation's capital allow slavery, it was home to the largest slave market in North America. On January 29, 1850, the 70-year-old Clay presented a compromise. For eight months members of Congress, led by Clay, Daniel Webster, Senator from Massachusetts, and John C. Calhoun, senator from South Carolina, debated the compromise. With the help of Stephen Douglas, a young Democrat from Illinois, a series of bills that would make up the compromise were ushered through Congress. According to the compromise, Texas would relinquish the land in dispute but, in compensation, be given 10 million dollars -- money it would use to pay off its debt to Mexico. Also, the territories of New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah would be organized without mention of slavery. (The decision would be made by the people who lived in the territory later, when they applied for statehood.) Regarding Washington, the slave trade would be abolished in the District of Columbia, although slavery would still be permitted. Finally, California would be admitted as a free state. To pacify slave-state politicians, who would have objected to the imbalance created by adding another free state, the Fugitive Slave Act was passed. 9. In the compromise, how was the issue of slavery solved in the territories of New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah? 10. What happened to the issue of slavery in the District of Columbia.? 11. Why does it make sense that the Fugative Slave Act was passed? The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 made any Federal marshal or other officers of the law responsible for arresting in runaway slaves. Those who did not arrest an alleged runaway slave were liable to a fine of $1,000. Law-enforcement officials everywhere now had a duty to arrest anyone suspected of being a runaway slave on no more evidence than a slave owner’s sworn testimony that they owned the runaway. The suspected slave could not ask for a jury trial or testify on his or her own behalf. In addition, any person aiding a runaway slave by providing food or shelter was subject to six months' imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. Officers who captured a fugitive slave were entitled to a bonus for their work. Since any suspected slave was not eligible for a trial this led to many free blacks being sent into slavery as they had no rights in court and could not defend themselves against accusations. 12. What did the Fugitive Slave Act require officers of the law to do? 13. What does the poster below warn the colored people of Boston about? 
For slaves attempting to build lives in the North, the new law was disaster. Many left their homes and fled to Canada. During the next ten years, an estimated 20,000 blacks moved to Canada. For Harriet Jacobs, a fugitive living in New York, passage of the law was "the beginning of a reign of terror to the colored population." She stayed put, even after learning that slave catchers were hired to track her down. Anthony Burns, a fugitive living in Boston, was one of many who were captured and returned to slavery. Free blacks, too, were captured and sent to the South. With no legal right to plead their cases, they were completely defenseless. 14. Why do you think many slaves fled to Canada after the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act? Passage of the Fugitive Slave Act made abolitionists all the more resolved to put an end to slavery. The Underground Railroad became more active, reaching its peak between 1850 and 1860. The act also brought the subject of slavery before the nation. Many who had previously been ambivalent about slavery now took a definitive stance against the institution. 15. Why does it make sense that the Underground Railorad became more active after the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act? The Compromise of 1850 accomplished what it set out to do -- it kept the nation united -- but the solution was only temporary. Over the following decade the country's citizens became further divided over the issue of slavery. The rift would continue to grow until the nation itself divided. 16. What did the Compromise of 1850 accomplish? 17. What issue would divide the country for the next decade? 18. What do you think would be the result of the divisions between free and slave states? 
19. Look at Compromise of 1850 map. What were the territories open to slavery? 20. What do you think might happen in the territories that were open to slavery? Bleeding Kansas The Compromise of 1850 brought relative calm to the nation. Though most blacks and abolitionists strongly opposed the Compromise, the majority of Americans embraced it, believing that it offered a final, workable solution to the slavery question. Most importantly, it saved the Union from the terrible split that many had feared. People were all too ready to leave the slavery controversy behind them and move on. But the feeling of relief that spread throughout the country would prove to be the calm before the storm. On December 14, 1853, Augustus C. Dodge of Iowa introduced a bill in the Senate. The bill proposed organizing the Nebraska territory, which also included an area that would become the state of Kansas. His bill was referred to the Committee of the Territories, which was chaired by Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois. Douglas had entered politics early and had advanced quickly; at 21 he was Illinois state's attorney, and by age 35 he was a U.S. Senator. He strongly endorsed the idea of popular sovereignty, which allowed the settlers in a territory to decide for themselves whether or not to have slavery. Douglas was also a fervent advocate of Manifest Destiny, the idea that the United States had the God-given right and obligation to take over as much land as possible and to spread its "civilizing" influence. And he was not alone. A Philadelphia newspaper expounded Manifest Destiny when it proclaimed the United States to be a nation rightfully bound on the "East by sunrise, West by sunset, North by the Arctic Expedition, and South as far as we darn please." To fulfill its Manifest Destiny, especially following the discovery of gold in California, America was making plans to build a transcontinental railroad from east to west. The big question was where to locate the eastern terminal -- to the north, in Chicago, or to the south, in St. Louis. Douglas was firmly committed to ensuring that the terminal would be in Chicago, but he knew that it could not be unless the Nebraska territory was organized. Organization of Nebraska would require the removal of the territory's Native Americans, for Douglas regarded the Indians as savages, and saw their reservations as "barriers of barbarism." In his view, Manifest Destiny required the removal of those who stood in the way of American, Christian progress, and the Native American presence was a minor obstacle to his plans. But there was another, larger problem. In order to get the votes he needed, Douglas had to please Southerners. He therefore bowed to Southern wishes and proposed a bill for organizing Nebraska-Kansas which stated that the slavery question would be decided by popular sovereignty. He assumed that settlers there would never choose slavery, but did not anticipate the vehemence of the Northern response. This bill, if made into law, would repeal the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which said that slavery could not extend above the 36' 30" line. It would open the North to slavery. Northerners were outraged; Southerners were overjoyed. Douglas was stubborn. Ignoring the anger of his own party, he got President Pierce's approval and pushed his bill through both houses of Congress. The bill became law on May 30, 1854. Nebraska was so far north that its future as a free state was never in question. But Kansas was next to the slave state of Missouri. In an era that would come to be known as "Bleeding Kansas," the territory would become a battleground over the slavery question. The reaction from the North was immediate. Eli Thayer organized the New England Emigrant Aid Company, which sent settlers to Kansas to secure it as a free territory. By the summer of 1855, approximately 1,200 New Englanders had made the journey to the new territory, armed to fight for freedom. The abolitionist minister Henry Ward Beecher furnished settlers with Sharps rifles, which came to be known as "Beecher's Bibles." Rumors had spread through the South that 20,000 Northerners were descending on Kansas, and in November 1854, thousands of armed Southerners, mostly from Missouri, poured over the line to vote for a proslavery congressional delegate. Only half the ballots were cast by registered voters, and at one location, only 20 of over 600 voters were legal residents. The proslavery forces won the election. On March 30, 1855, another election was held to choose members of the territorial legislature. The Missourians, or "Border Ruffians," as they were called, again poured over the line. This time, they swelled the numbers from 2,905 registered voters to 6,307 actual ballots cast. Only 791 voted against slavery. The new state legislature enacted what Northerners called the "Bogus Laws," which incorporated the Missouri slave code. These laws levelled severe penalties against anyone who spoke or wrote against slaveholding; those who assisted fugitives would be put to death or sentenced to ten years hard labor. (Statutes of Kansas) The Northerners were outraged, and set up their own Free State legislature at Topeka. Now there were two governments established in Kansas, each outlawing the other. President Pierce only recognized the proslavery legislature. Most settlers who had come to Kansas from the North and the South only wanted to homestead in peace. They were not interested in the conflict over slavery, but they found themselves in the midst of a battleground. Violence erupted throughout the territory. Southerners were driven by the rhetoric of leaders such as David Atchison, a Missouri senator. Atchison proclaimed the Northerners to be "negro thieves" and "abolitionist tyrants." He encouraged Missourians to defend their institution "with the bayonet and withblood" and, if necessary, "to kill every God-damned abolitionist in the district." The northerners, however, were not all abolitionists as Atchison claimed. In fact, abolitionists were in the minority. Most of the Free State settlers were part of a movement called Free Soil, which demanded free territory for free white people. They hated slavery, but not out of concern for the slaves themselves. They hated it because plantations took over the land and prevented white working people from having their own homesteads. They hated it because it brought large numbers of black people wherever it went. The Free Staters voted 1,287 to 453 to outlaw black people, slave or free, from Kansas. Their territory would be white. As the two factions struggled for control of the territory, tensions increased. In 1856 the proslavery territorial capital was moved to Lecompton, a town only 12 miles from Lawrence, a Free State stronghold. In April of that year a three-man congressional investigating committee arrived in Lecompton to look into the Kansas troubles. The majority report of the committee found the elections to be fraudulent, and said that the free state government represented the will of the majority. The federal government refused to follow its recommendations, however, and continued to recognized the proslavery legislature as the legitimate government of Kansas. There had been several attacks during this time, primarily of proslavery against Free State men. People were tarred and feathered, kidnapped, killed. But now the violence escalated. On May 21, 1856, a group of proslavery men entered Lawrence, where they burned the Free State Hotel, destroyed two printing presses, and ransacked homes and stores. In retaliation, the fiery abolitionist John Brown led a group of men on an attack at Pottawatomie Creek. The group, which included four of Brown's sons, dragged five proslavery men from their homes and hacked them to death. The violence had now escalated, and the confrontations continued. John Brown reappeared in Osawatomie to join the fighting there. Violence also erupted in Congress itself. The abolitionist senator Charles Sumner delivered a fiery speech called "The Crime Against Kansas," in which he accused proslavery senators, particularly Atchison and Andrew Butler of South Carolina, of [cavorting with the] "harlot, Slavery." In retaliation, Butler's nephew, Congressman Preston Brooks, attacked Sumner at his Senate desk and beat him senseless with a cane. In September of 1856, a new territorial governor, John W. Geary, arrived in Kansas and began to restore order. The last major outbreak of violence was the Marais des Cynges massacre, in which Border Ruffians killed five Free State men. In all, approximately 55 people died in "Bleeding Kansas." Several attempts were made to draft a constitution which Kansas could use to apply for statehood. Some versions were proslavery, others free state. Finally, a fourth convention met at Wyandotte in July 1859, and adopted a free state constitution. Kansas applied for admittance to the Union. However, the proslavery forces in the Senate strongly opposed its free state status, and stalled its admission. Only in 1861, after the Confederate states seceded, did the constitution gain approval and Kansas become a state. What did the Compromise of 1850 say about slavery in Kansas? Why did Stephen Douglass need to appease the south?
What happened in the election on the issue of slavery? What did Missourians do in Lawrence, Kansas?
How did John Brown and other abolitionists respond? How many attempts did Kansas make at a constitution? Why? Why do many historians call this the “Civil War before the Civil War”? Dred Scott Case In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permiting slavery in all of the country's territories. The case before the court was that of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom. Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression -- wrote in the Court's majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The framers of the Constitution, he wrote, believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it." Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ." Abolitionists were incensed. Although disappointed, Frederick Douglass, found a bright side to the decision and announced, "my hopes were never brighter than now." For Douglass, the decision would bring slavery to the attention of the nation and was a step toward slavery's ultimate destruction. Who was Dred Scott? Who did he sue? Why did he sue? Who was the Supreme Court Justice?
What side did he support in the issue of slavery? What was the ruling in the case? How did this lead us closer to the Civil War? Directory: cmss files -> attachmentlibrary -> KWalsh KWalsh -> Lusitania's journey to a devastating end. By John M. Taylor attachmentlibrary -> 54th Street Grill & Bar Download 34.17 Kb. Share with your friends:
|