6.  Discuss the Fugitive Slave Law and the Underground Railroad as running sores in the sectional conflict. The life of Harriet Tubman might provide a focus.

The Fugitive Slave Bill of 1850 subjected any official of federal marshal to a $1000 fine if they did not arrest anyone suspected of being a runaway slave.  They did not need any more evidence than a claimant sworn testimony of ownership.  The runaway slave could not testify for themselves and any body who aided the escape of a runway slave was to be punished by 6 months imprisonment and a fine of $1000.

5.  Consider the characters and drama of the Senate debates over the Compromise of 1850, especially the roles of Webster, Clay, Seward, and Douglas.

 

Henry Clay - came back from retirement from the senate after hearing that there was a possibility of disintergration of the union.

Daniel Webster - greatly increased the chances of propostitions made about the compromise of 1850

William H. Seward - voiced his opinion in congress that california and new mexico should be admitted as free states.

Stephen Douglas -

 

 

NOT FINISHED YETTTTTTTTTTTTT!

Tom wrote:

---

6.  Discuss the Fugitive Slave Law and the Underground Railroad as running sores in the sectional conflict. The life of Harriet Tubman might provide a focus.

The Fugitive Slave Bill of 1850 subjected any official of federal marshal to a $1000 fine if they did not arrest anyone suspected of being a runaway slave.  They did not need any more evidence than a claimant sworn testimony of ownership.  The runaway slave could not testify for themselves and any body who aided the escape of a runway slave was to be punished by 6 months imprisonment and a fine of $1000.

---

Tom, you need to expand your research.  Think of the causes, the events and the effects of each.  Describe biographically those involved.  Think of and answer questions about each: was the underground railroad effective?  how was the fugitive slave act enforced?  did the fugitive slave act deter runaways?  I know I didn't give you much time to work on this in class, but please continue your answer, ok?

End of class on Tuesday 12/12/06

sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas-Nebraska_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Douglas

sorry, i forgot.

 

1. Discuss the conflicts created by the Mexican War acquisitions and explain how the Compromise of 1850 tried to resolve them. The focus might be on the extreme delicacy of the sectional adjustment.

 

 

         After the Mexican War there were a number of problems facing the nation. The new land acquired through the war was to be split up into territories. During the end of the war there was a gold rush in California. This lead too many people heading west to the newly acquired territories. Eventually with the increase in population in these areas they wished to apply for statehood. Many people believe in the first place that the reason for war was too actually obtain more land for the expansion of slavery while others seen it as a way for the rich people to make more money. The Southerners on the other hand had seen the Mexican War as something good because it was getting more land for the country which could be allowed as a slave state. These lands were enriched with natural resources and seemed like a gold mine for the wealthy. With two states applying for statehood they needed a resolution to the problem. The Compromise of 1850 tried to resolve this by making Texas a slave state and California a free state. Also the compromise established a border for the Texas territory to end the feud over New Mexico for the land. This was made to balance the number of members in Congress and also even the number of slave and free states in the country. In conclusion the conflicts of the Mexican War were met by the Compromise of 1850 through the idea of stability.

Question Numero 8.

 
Stephen Douglas wanted a railroad extending from Chicago to the west to reach California , but the southern states wanted the transcontinental railroad to start in New Orleans .  Stephen made a compromise with the southern senators and said that in exchange for the railroad going through Chicago , he would introduce the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
Douglas supported the Kansas-Nebraska Act because of the idea of popular sovereignty.  His famous slogan was “Let the people rule”.  In the case of popular sovereignty it was suppose to do just that.  It let the people decided if they wanted the territories to be free or slave states. He also thought this act would get rid of the slavery issue in politics and wished to do so because it was tearing the nation apart.
I think that Douglas set this plan up because he knew what it would bring about. He knew that the plan would fail, because of the dispute of slavery from North-South. He saw the North becoming infuriated and Democracy rising. This is later seen because he's one of the two candidates in the election of 1860.
 
Uhhh. Mr. E. This is the best I could do because this question was pretty hard for me to understand. Could you help me out a little and I'll try to add more. Thannkkks

J.Furtado wrote:

---

 Because of Douglas’s plans to make a transcontinental railroad to the Pacific Coast controversy of slavery increased.  

 

How did the railroad itself make the controversy of slavery increase?

1. Discuss the conflicts created by the Mexican War acquisitions and explain how the Compromise of 1850 tried to resolve them. The focus might be on the extreme delicacy of the sectional adjustment.

One of the most greatest achievements resulting from the Mexican War is the large amount of land gained by the United States, such as Texas, New Mexico, and California.  This huge land gain supported Manifest Destiny and gave people more opportunities for aquiring their own lands or even digging for gold in the Californian streams (etc).  However, even before this wonderful, resourceful territory was even mentioned to the United States...before Manifest Destiny... there had been a stirring issue on whether or not slavery should be expanded.  Most northerns opposed slavery or expansion of it.  The south, who was making most of the profit off of slave labor (the north did also, but not as greatly), believed that slavery should be allowed in the United States and continue to expand.  But there was also an issue of representation of the states.  For example, northern states might have more representation than the southern states in government... therefore southern states would not have an equal voice in congress.  So the problem was solved by making sure that representation in government was 50-50 (north vs south).

However, when this new territory was obtained it raised a very important question.  Which states should be slave states and which states should be free states?  There was much controversy over the topic and people from different regions with opposing opinions began to uproar, especially after California was claimed a "free" state after skipping much of the annexation process as a state.

This confusion needed to end.  So Henry Clay, practically on his death bed, wrote up his final compromise.  It is known as the Compromise of 1850 and temporarily solved some of the issues dealing with the expansion of slavery. Some of its resolutions are:

• California would be excepted as a free state
  
• New Mexico and Utah would be popular sovereignty
  
• Texas's border would go down to the Rio Grande, but would have to pay Mexico 10 million dollars
  
• Slave auctioning would end in Washington D.C.
  
• But a fugitive slave law would be much more strict.
  
  
  
  • Pay would increase if an officer caught an escaped slave
    
  • Officer would be payed even more money if he caught a free african american

Clays compromise may have settled the controversy temporarily (minus anger developed over the Fugitive Slave Law).  However only 10 years later America would face its most bloodiest wars in American History:  The Civil War.

________________

DANG i wrote a lot!!  that would stink if i posted it in the wrong forum again.  we are doing ch18 forum right?  Juuusssttt kidding.

 

Crystal Wrote:

4. Examine the Kansas-Nebraska Act and explain why it aroused such wrath in the North. Particular attention might be paid to the railroad-promoting Douglas, with his theory of “popular sovereignty,” and to the rise of the “free soil” ideology in the North.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act, proposed by Stephen Douglas, created the territories of Kansas and Nebraska. The act stated that settlers could decide whether slavery was allowed. Stephen Douglas was a devoted supporter of the railroad, and wanted to have a transcontinental railroad that stretched from Chicago to California, however, southerners wanted a railroad that extended from New Orleans to southern California. Douglas decided to compromise with southern senators and in exchange for having the railroad in Chicago to California, he would establish the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854. Popular Sovereignty would decide whether slavery was allowed in the territories, in which the people would decide for themselves. Northerners that opposed it believed it was an acknowledgement to the Slave Power of the South. The bill caused hostility because it allowed slavery north of the line agreed upon in the Missouri Compromise, which is why it was repealed. In return, these northerners established an opposing party, the Republicans

_______________________________________________________

Hey Crystal!!! I heard we have to ask people some questions!!  And because your name is so beautiful, it completely caught my eye.  So i decided... "I'll ask Crystal a question!!"

ANYWAYS>> my question to you is:  Do you think popular sovereignty was a good idea?  Wouldnt the missouri compromise outlaw that popular sovereignty? Also... I'm just wondering....... how did "free soil" ideology have to do with this whole Kansas-Nebraska act?  I know that they were a party created in NYC against the expansion of slavery... but how were these two things connected?

well i'm in for the night.  i have to finish up this english project and study for history quiz. i gotta ...

peaceeee

4. Examine the Kansas-Nebraska Act and explain why it aroused such wrath in the north. Particular attention might be paid to the railroad-promoting Douglas, with his theory of "popular sovereignty," and to the rise of the "free soil" ideology in the north.
 
At this time there was tens of millions of acres of excellent farm land available, and was in the want for settlement. Stephen A. Douglas made a great push for railroads to be built he had wanted the railroad to go from Chicago to the west and eventually reach California. The southerners had seen it differently they wanted a transcontinental railroad which expanded from New Orleans to Southern California. So in order to achieve what he wanted Douglas made a compromise in exchange for the railroad going threw Chicago. He would introduce the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The Kansas-Nebraska act was created in 1854 was the territories of Kansas and Nebraska and it then opened new lands for settlement. In order to make this compromise more promising he made these territories go by "popular sovereignty," which meant that the residents of the area would decide whether the state became and slave state or not. Douglas’s bill caused a problem because it allowed slavery north of the line agreed upon in the Missouri Compromise, which was what prohibited slavery in any new states to be created north of latitude 36'30. This act divided the Kansas territory (south of 40th parallel) and Nebraska (north of 40th parallel). This became a problem to the north because this line where it was separated was now allowed to have slavery. The Missouri Compromise was then effectively repealed in order for the Kansas-Nebraska act to take place. This became such a problem in the north because they felt that they were being over powered in the sense of slavery, and it was not fair to be moving slavery up north, when they had compromised with having it in the south. The Free Soil party was then crated. Even though it was short lived party in the United States it was still and effective one at the least. It became active in 1848 and 1852 presidential elections and it was effective in some state elections. Their main purpose was to oppose the expansion of slavery in the territories. At one point they proposed a law requiring all territory taken from Mexico in the Mexican-American war to be free from slavery. This party was more successful than most.

The Fugitive Slave Act allowed slaves in free states to be recaptured and brought back to the plantation they came from.  The Underground Railroad was a system of escaping slaves to the north by a network of safe house (stations), and trails that led slaves north.  Harriet Tubman was a conductor on the Underground Railroad and made 19 trips back and forth from the south to Canada.  If the slaves escaped to Canada they couldnt be caught and recaptured back to the south.

kathryn wrote:

---

Crystal Wrote:

4. Examine the Kansas-Nebraska Act and explain why it aroused such wrath in the North. Particular attention might be paid to the railroad-promoting Douglas, with his theory of “popular sovereignty,” and to the rise of the “free soil” ideology in the North.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act, proposed by Stephen Douglas, created the territories of Kansas and Nebraska. The act stated that settlers could decide whether slavery was allowed. Stephen Douglas was a devoted supporter of the railroad, and wanted to have a transcontinental railroad that stretched from Chicago to California, however, southerners wanted a railroad that extended from New Orleans to southern California. Douglas decided to compromise with southern senators and in exchange for having the railroad in Chicago to California, he would establish the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854. Popular Sovereignty would decide whether slavery was allowed in the territories, in which the people would decide for themselves. Northerners that opposed it believed it was an acknowledgement to the Slave Power of the South. The bill caused hostility because it allowed slavery north of the line agreed upon in the Missouri Compromise, which is why it was repealed. In return, these northerners established an opposing party, the Republicans

_______________________________________________________

Hey Crystal!!! I heard we have to ask people some questions!!  And because your name is so beautiful, it completely caught my eye.  So i decided... "I'll ask Crystal a question!!"

ANYWAYS>> my question to you is:  Do you think popular sovereignty was a good idea?  Wouldnt the missouri compromise outlaw that popular sovereignty? Also... I'm just wondering....... how did "free soil" ideology have to do with this whole Kansas-Nebraska act?  I know that they were a party created in NYC against the expansion of slavery... but how were these two things connected?

well i'm in for the night.  i have to finish up this english project and study for history quiz. i gotta ...

peaceeee

---

hey KTY MOTTA
i like spelling your name that way, talk about pretty names anyway, in response to your 75 part question (actually, 3):

• i think popular sovereinty was effective because people liked the idea of being able to decide whether or not there's slavery in the new territories, though reaching the decision caused quite a stir, not to mention bleeding kansas.
  
• The missouri compromise did outlaw the kansas-nebraska act. Therefore, the missouri compromise was repealed.
  
• The Free-soil ideology was related to the kansas-nebraska act because they believed that all of the land derived from mexican territory from the mexican-american war should have been free from slavery.

now back to work, peace out kty

-_-

3. Show the connection between the proslavery expansionist schemes, particularly the Cuban affair and the Gadsden Purchase, and the sectional controversy. Emphasize southern hopes and northern fears of potential slavery expansion to the Caribbean or Central America.

 

The connection between the proslavery expansionist schemes and the sectional controversy can be showed through the Cuban affair and the Gadsden Purchase.  President Polk wanted to acquire Cuba so America could expand it’s territory.  He offered Spain $100 million for Cuba, but they refused the offer.  Cuba already had a large population of black slaves.  It could also possibly be turned into several states.  Acquiring the Cuban territory would restore the political balance in the Senate.  Many attempts to get Cuba from Spain had been made, but none were successful.  Following the incident in 1854 (Spanish officials in Cuba seizing an American steamer, ‘Black Warrior) came the meeting of three envoys.  From Spain, England, and France, they came up with the Ostend Manifesto.  It urged the administration to offer Spain $120 for Cuba.  This Manifesto never followed through.  Having already been angered by the Fugitive Slave Law, Northerners were strongly against the Ostend Manifesto.  President Pierce abandoned this scheme of trying to acquire Cuba because he realized the controversy it was causing between the North and South.  Northerners would not sit by and watch as more slave territory was gathered for America, especially since it would also even out the Senate.  Having an even number of Northerners and Southerners in the Senate would mean that anything Northerners proposed would most likely be vetoed by Southerners, and vice versa.

 

The Gadsden Purchase was the treaty negotiated by James Gadsden in 1853.  It ceded the Gadsden Purchase area to the United States for $10 million.  The South wanted to build a railroad through southwestern territory to California.  The best railway route ran south of the Mexican border.  The Gadsden Purchase would allow the south to boost their economy, population, and influence, since railroads would be able to be constructed there.  The south’s economy was lower than the north’s which is why they were so keen on acquiring the area.  The North also wanted railroads, and they said that if unorganized territory was the case then Nebraska should be organized.  (Nebraska was full of Indians and Buffalo, and allowing a railroad to pass through it didn’t seem like it would work, being that the area wasn’t organized.) The south didn’t want Nebraska to become an organized territory because they didn’t want to help create new free-soil states.  Organizing the territory would also penalize them because it  would allow northern railroads to be built in that territory, which would allow the north to still be ahead of the south economy-wise.  The Gadsden Purchase created more tension between the north and south.  Arguments arose on where railroads should be allowed, and what conditions they should be allowed under (like the organization of land and having less mountain ranges.)

 

Southern hopes of potential slavery expansion to the Caribbean or Central America were to increase their economy.  They also hoped to gain more voice in the Senate since they could possibly get several more slave states, if they gained Cuba from Spain.  Northern fears of potential slavery expansion were that their steady dominance over the South would decrease.  They also feared that their power in the Senate would fall, since Southerners would gain more say.

 

 

 

Sources:

 

http://www.answers.com/topic/sectionalism
 
and my handy dandy history book
 
Hopefully I answered this right.

6. Discuss the Fugitive Slave Law and the Underground Railroad as running sores in the sectional conflict. The life of Harriet Tubman might provide a focus.

            In the 1800’s there was a never ending conflict with sectional tension between the north and the south concerning slavery. The Fugitive Slave Law and the Underground Railroad played a big role in the development and the constant tension that had arose. The Fugitive Slave Law forced people to capture fugitive slaves and return them; the Underground Railroad was a way to sneak slaves out of slavery and into Canada where they could be free.

            The Fugitive Slave Act came into effect threw the Compromise of 1850 which is a set of laws and acts. The Fugitive Slave Act states that you are to return of any runaway slaves, regardless of location within the Union where they were at the time of being discovered or captured. This act helped assist the South due to the fact that they had just lost their slave trade they had to develop a tighter fist on their slaves.

            The Underground Railroad consisted of secret routes in which “agents” would use to help in the transport of “cargo”. Agents were people who helped assist in the freeing of slaves, and cargo was the slaves that were being freed. Harriet Tubman a name that most people knew as “Black Moses” she was an escaped slave herself who helped in the freeing of slaves threw the railroad. She made 19 trips into the south to gather slaves who were willing to take the dangerous trip out of the south and into the north.

            These two issues created sectional conflict with means of disagreement. The north didn’t approve the Fugitive Slave Act because it forced Americans to capture and return slaves regardless of how they felt about the situation. The Underground Railroad was a way for the north to go against the act and help the slaves out to get out of the United States. These two issues played big roles in the time period and helped resort in the Civil War.

7.  Examine the various “filibustering” efforts in connection with the issues of Cuba and Central America, and relate them to the southern dream of expanding slavery by acquiring new territory to the South

 

Southern dreams of “manifest destiny” were the basis of the “filibuster” efforts to take Cuba by force. The American government had offered Spain $100 million for the island of Cuba, a few miles from the coast of Florida. Spain refused to sell the islands to America. President Peirce was now at a point where he could provoke a war with Spain, and take Cuba by conquest. When Spanish officials seized an American ship, The Black Warrior, Pierce felt it was a needed course of action. The secretary of state instructed representatives in Spain, England and France to meet and prepare a document recommending the acquisition of Cuba. These representatives met in Ostend, Belgium to write up the documents. It became known as the Ostend Manifesto.

            The document was supposed to remain top-secret. The Manifesto detailed the plan for acquiring Cuba. It urged the American administration to offer Spain $120 million for Cuba. It also stated that if Spain refused to sell, and if ownership of the island continued to endanger American interests in the Southern islands, then the island could be forcefully taken from Spain. The secrets of the document quickly got out. When the news reached Northern news, many abolition-minded Northerners were outraged at the idea of extending the institution of slavery to the islands if it was acquired. The abolitionists were already outraged by the Fugitive Slave Laws, and refused to support the acquiring of Cuba. They felt it would be another gain for the benefit of slavery.

 

Sources:

Text book

 

just so you know...

our book is almost completely useless on this topic. Because first off, the word "filibustering" is not in the index? 2nd: there are apparently two definitions of the word. Because in the book, it referres to armed gangs of Southerners going into Cuba to try and take it by force, but then I went onto Wikepedia and it gave me the definition that filibustering is actually the prolonging of like, speaches in the Senate so that it takes forever to pass a bill or get anything done.

So. :] Mr. E...I say we kill this question and come up with a new one for Ch. 18. Cause it kindof makes life miserable.

 

8. Focus on Douglas as a “typical"  northern Democrat-one who did not really like slavery but thought it a secondary issue that should not disrupt important matters like railroads. 

 

Steven Douglas always insisted that the people locally could and should make the decisions about slavery, rather then the national government.  He was also an avid promoter of westward expansion and devised the land grant system that enabled the funding of the Illinois Central railroad.  His slogan was “Let the people rule”. Douglas is most famous for proposing the Kansas Nebraska Act.   He was interested in having a railroad extend from his home city of Chicago to the West and maybe even eventually reaching California.  But the southerners wanted a transcontinental railroad that would start in New Orleans and extend to southern Carolina.  So he made a compromise and instead of having the railroad running through Chicago he would introduce the Kansas Nebraska Act.  The two territories, Kansas and Nebraska, would decide through popular sovereignty on whether it would be a slave state or not.  Douglas believed in the ability of individuals to regulate their own affairs. 

The Freeport Doctrine was expressed by Douglas at the second of the Lincoln-Douglas debate.  Douglas was forced by Lincoln to try and choose between the principle of popular sovereignty proposed by the Kansas Nebraska Act and the Supreme Court case of Dred Scott.  Douglas, instead of making a direct chose, stated that despite the court’s ruling, slavery could be prevented from any territory by the refusal of the people living in that territory to pass laws favorable to slavery.  And if people supported slavery, legislation would provide for its continued existence.  Douglas was trying to find a compromise between anti-slavery and pro-slavery positions.  By answering questions on slavery he was able to hold his Illinois followers and to secure reelection to the senate but it also killed his chance of Southern support for the presidency of 1860.      

Question # 4: Examine the Kansas-Nebraska Act and explain why it aroused such wrath in the North.  Particular attention might be paid to the railroad-promoting Douglas, with his theory of “popular sovereignty”, and to the rise of the “free soil” ideology in the North.

 

When Stephen E. Douglas proposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 the major effect that came with it was the repeal of the Missouri Compromise of 1820.  Under the Missouri Compromise, lands of the Louisiana Purchase would be free of slavery.  This favored the North greatly in the abolition of slavery.  When it was repealed in 1854 because of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, many Northerners and abolitionists of that time were greatly angered by it.   Under the Kansas-Nebraska Act sectionalism would again be major issues because now Kansas and Nebraska were divided based on what states were slave states and which were free states. Also, under this act popular sovereignty became a very famous action taken by the government.  This was an idea that gave certain states the power to decide whether to be free or slave.  Even though that was a bad effect of this act, one good thing that came from this was that the Republican Party emerged as another very famous political party.  Another bad effect that came from this act was the “Bleeding Kansas”.  This was a term that was used to describe the very violent uprisings that were coming up during the 1850s due to the constant hostilities between the pro-slavery forces and the anti-slavery forces during this time.  This mini civil war took place in Kansas in 1854.  This little uprising had occurred because the Southerners wanted Kansas to be a slave state while the Northerners were willing to go through any measures to keep it a free state.  Another effect of this was that the Kansas-Nebraska Act ended any hope of the Free-Soil’s Party also during this time.  Many people who would follow the Free-Soil Party would leave that party and follow the Republican Party.  Another party that was greatly affected because of the Kansas-Nebraska Act was the Whig Party. As a result of this act, the party slowly died out in the South and began to gradually weaken in the North.  The Democratic Party also began to lose its influence in the North and decided to become the proslavery party of the South.  The North just wanted to keep Kansas as a free state and with the idea of popular sovereignty, that goal seemed much too difficult.  

In the 1850s, William Walker attempted a filibustering campaign with a strategy involving his leading a private mercenary army. In 1853, he unsuccessfully attempted to stage an insurrection in the Mexican states of Sonora and Baja California. Later, when a path through Lake Nicaragua was being considered as the possible site of a canal through Central America, he was hired as a mercenary by one of the factions in a civil war in Nicaragua. In 1856 he declared himself commander of the country's army and soon after President of the Republic. After attempting to take control of the rest of Central America and receiving no support from the U.S. government, he was defeated and eventually executed by the local authorities he tried to overthrow.

“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_%28military%29”

 

 

            Aside from the unofficial efforts of the U.S. to acquire land in South and Central America, they also tried to acquire Cuba from Spain. At first they offered to pay a great deal of money but they threatened Spain by saying that if they don’t take the offer their just going to do it. Cuba could have been split up into several different territories further balancing out the free and slave states.

            Filibustering was related to the southern dream of expanding slavery by acquiring new territory to the South. When the U.S. expanded the land acquired was usually fought over by the south and the north. If there was an odd number of states there would be an imbalance in the government. Whenever new land was taken by the U.S. an additional area had to be taken to keep the balance. Cuba especially was a desired piece of land because many people had invested in the land before the U.S. owned it (which they never did) 

Tom wrote:

---

The Fugitive Slave Act allowed slaves in free states to be recaptured and brought back to the plantation they came from.  The Underground Railroad was a system of escaping slaves to the north by a network of safe house (stations), and trails that led slaves north.  Harriet Tubman was a conductor on the Underground Railroad and made 19 trips back and forth from the south to Canada.  If the slaves escaped to Canada they couldnt be caught and recaptured back to the south.

---

 I hadnt finished my topic yesterday so Harriet Tubman is in today's.

Alex Z. wrote:

---

1. Discuss the conflicts created by the Mexican War acquisitions and explain how the Compromise of 1850 tried to resolve them. The focus might be on the extreme delicacy of the sectional adjustment.

---

As a result of the war, the United States gained hundreds of thousands of square miles of land from Mexico. All of this new land re-ignited debate over the expansion of slavery between the North and the South. Northerners claimed that the war had been fought out of greed under Polk and others who supported expansion of “king cotton” (especially Illinois senator Abraham Lincoln), which also reminded Americans of a ready-to-be-annexed California where slavery‘s expansion became an issue yet again. The Wilmont Proviso, though never made official, showed how strongly northern abolitionists disapproved of slavery’s expansion.

The Compromise of 1850 tried to appease both sides by giving California to the North (no slavery allowed) and Texas to the South (slavery allowed, though its borders was lessened and monetarily compensated for). The other land obtained by Mexico, split into the Utah and New Mexico Territories were to be chosen by popular sovereignty. The compromise was an attempt to give to both sides a little and let the democratic people of America chose the rest for themselves.

http://www.lnstar.com/mall/texasinfo/mexicow.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_War

---

Salve Alex Zee

why do you think the compromise had california go to the north and texas to the south, while the other territories gained from the mexican-american war were left to be decided by popular sovereignty? 

Response to Alex Z.'s post:

So Alex, do you think the Compromise of 1850 really appeased both the north and south? (I know it's like the essay question, but I'm curious on your opinion) Also, do you think that the war with Mexico helped promote the Civil War, or do you think it would have happened even without the Mexican War and the Compromise of 1850?  I always enjoy Alex's input on issues.

                                                               Question #2

In 1852 The Democrats choose Franklin Pierce for their presidential candidate. He was a pro southern northerner who barely had enemies because he was not well- known. This was really beneficial to the Democrats because it made it easier for them to all agree on the Compromise of 1850.

            The Whigs chose Winfield Scott whose self-centered attitude repelled many voters. The Whigs did not support the Compromise of 1850 as much as the Democrats did. Antislavery Whigs supported Scott as their candidate but did not like his platform, a reason being it had the Fugitive Slave Law. Southern Whigs liked the platform but doubted Scott’s loyalty to the Compromise, especially the Fugitive Slave Law. Thus the party, not being able to come to an agreement, split.

The Democrat party was divided by the Kansas-Nebraska act. This act Split the Nebraska territory into two parts and these two parts would decide on the issue of slavery through popular sovereignty. It was assumed that Kansas would be slave and Nebraska would be free. This act wrecked the compromise of 1850 and repealed the Missouri compromise which many northerners felt strongly about. Southerners were extremely pleased but northerners were angry. As a result, northerners decided not to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law. The Democrats were so divided on this issue that they would not be able to elect a president into the white house for the next twenty- eight years.

The Republican Party started in the mid-west. This party was against slavery and its benefits. It was made up of Whigs, Democrats, Free-Soilers, Know-Nothings, and others who opposed the Kansa-Nebraska act. Since it consisted of many different people that used to be in other parties it represented many different views, which made this party very strong. The fall of the Whigs and the breaking up of the Democrats left an open space just waiting for a new party to fill which was also another reason why the Republican Party was so influential.

mrj wrote:

---

 What about the people against the compromise of 1850? Where there any particular people that made an effort to get rid of it.

What did Henry Clay do besides come out of retirement? How else did he push to have the Compromise passed by the Senate?

 

p.s. i dont dislike you.

---

I never really found any information about the people who were against it. I do not believe that anyone was really against it because the whole idea of it was to COMPROMISE things for both sections of the country.

Henry Clay cmae out of retirement to assist the cause of the compromise. He did not want to sit back and watch the country crumble without at least trying to help and put his input in. He found these events very alarming.

 

ps. thanks for not hating me.