Post Info TOPIC: Chapter 18 Computer Lab Assignment
Did political, economic and social changes in the early 19th century in America necessitate civil war?
Yes
No



mre

Date:
Chapter 18 Computer Lab Assignment
Permalink Closed



Assignment: For those of you who want to acquire more knowledge and understanding of this chapter, you can complete the following assignment below:


Step #1: Read the Chapter Themes and Chapter Summary below.


Chapter Themes

Theme: The sectional conflict over the expansion of slavery that erupted after the Mexican War was temporarily quieted by the Compromise of 1850, but Douglas’s Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 exploded it again.


Theme: In the 1850s American expansionism in the West and the Caribbean was extremely controversial because it was tied to the slavery question.


Chapter Summary


The acquisition of territory from Mexico created acute new dilemmas concerning the expansion of slavery, especially for the two major political parties, which had long tried to avoid the issue. The antislavery Free Soil party pushed the issue into the election of 1848. The application of gold-rich California for admission to the Union forced the controversy into the Senate, which engaged in stormy debates over slavery and the Union.


After the timely death of President Taylor, who had blocked a settlement, Congress resolved the crisis by passing the delicate Compromise of 1850. The compromise eased sectional tension for the moment, although the Fugitive Slave Law aroused opposition in the North.


As the Whig party died, the Democratic Pierce administration became the tool of proslavery expansionists. Controversies over Nicaragua, Cuba, and the Gadsden Purchase showed that expansionism was closely linked to the slavery issue.


The desire for a northern railroad route led Stephen Douglas to ram the Kansas-Nebraska Act through Congress in 1854. By repealing the Missouri Compromise and making new territory subject to “popular sovereignty” on slavery, this act aroused the fury of the North, sparked the rise of the Republican party, and set the stage for the Civil War.



Step #2: Choose and answer one of the following assignments.  You may use valid and credible websites for your research.  Extra points will be given for students who use and cite primary source documents.  Write your answer in a post.  Be sure to link the websites you used in your research.


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.


2.  Assess the breakup of the second two-party system in relation to the slavery controversy. Show how the Whig demise and Democratic divisions paved the way for the Republicans.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


Step #3:  Respond (15 points) and reply (15 points) to a student's post.  Add thoughtful questions comments or questions.  Students must cite their sources at the end of their post.  Students must post their replies in 10 point, Verdanna font.  All work must reflect detailed research, a complete answer to the prompt, and a very analytical response to another student's post.  Students will receive 70 points for writing a detailed answer to the topic of their choice and 30 points for a response to another student's post.



__________________
J.Furtado

Date:
Permalink Closed

Extra Credit


 


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 Law was drafted by Senator J.M. Mason and enacted on September 18, 1850. The demand for this law was mostly from the south wanting a more effective Federal legislation. The Fugitive Slave Law held policies such as a fugitive could not testify in their own behalf and penalties were enforced upon the authority who refused to enforce this law or if a fugitive should escape. Due to this law the number of abolitionist increased, new Personal Liberty Laws were enacted and the operations of the Underground Railroad became more competent. In 1859, 9 years after it was enabled Supreme Court of Wisconsin claimed the Fugitive Law Unconstitutional. The Underground Railroad’s purpose was to guide slaves through clandestine routes to bring them as far north as possible. The Southerners believed that it wasn’t fair that they had to pay for the slaves that ran away thus losing a terrible amount of money. They thought that the slaves should be punished like any other person because they broke the law. Because to Plantation owners slaves were property many southern thought that they should be rightfully returned to their owner. Northerners however believing in individual rights said that the Fugitive Slave Act was unruly.



__________________
Tom

Date:
Permalink Closed

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.



__________________
J.Furtado

Date:
Permalink Closed

Mhmm here i go..


 


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 was designed by Democratic Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois creating new open settlement territories of Kansas and Nebraska.  This Act enforced the idea of popular sovereignty.  Popular sovereignty allowed the settlers themselves to decide whether or not to allow slavery.  Re-opening the divisive issue of slavery expansion and bringing the United States closer to a civil war the Kansas-Nebraska Act repealed the Missouri Compromise.  Because of Douglas’s plans to make a transcontinental railroad to the Pacific Coast controversy of slavery increased.  The location of the railroad was very important.  Northern congressman supported the northern route while Southern congressman supported the southern route.  



__________________
Jillian

Date:
Permalink Closed

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!



__________________
kp

Date:
Permalink Closed

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 expansion of slavery after the Mexican-American War and attempt of Henry Clay to control and abolish slavery in the states through the Compromise of 1850, helped lead to sectional conflict. The question of whether states should be admitted as slave or free states into the constitution and the argument from Southerners that they should be allowed to own property, including slaves under the Constitution, also led


 


......not done yet!



__________________
mre

Date:
Permalink Closed

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?

__________________
mre

Date:
Permalink Closed

Jillian wrote:



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


 NOT FINISHED YETTTTTTTTTTTTT!




Jill, remember to phrase your answer in essay form, okey dokey?

__________________
mre

Date:
Permalink Closed

End of class on Tuesday 12/12/06

__________________
CRYSTAL

Date:
Permalink Closed

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.




__________________
CRYSTAL

Date:
Permalink Closed

sources:


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


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



sorry, i forgot.


 



__________________
Tom

Date:
Permalink Closed

Im working on it Mr. E dont worry

__________________
C. Santos

Date:
Permalink Closed

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.



__________________
kp

Date:
Permalink Closed

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 expansion of slavery after the Mexican-American War and attempt of Henry Clay to control and abolish slavery in the states through the Compromise of 1850, helped lead to sectional conflict. The question of whether states should be admitted as slave or free states into the constitution and the argument from Southerners that they should be allowed to own property, including slaves under the Constitution, also led to sectional differences. The Fugitive Slave Law stated that any runaway slaves should be captured and returned to their masters. Citizens were encouraged to help bounty hunters capture slaves who would later be turned in for bounty. Any citizens found providing shelter or food to runaway slaves, or any persons keeping information on the where-abouts of runaway slaves would be fined and put in jail. Anti-slavery leaders such as Arthur Tappan and Frederick Douglas fought against this law, pushing the issue into further debate. When these slaves did escape however they followed the Underground Railroad. This was a system to help slaves flee the South, they were aided and hid in the homes of people who would provide them with shelter, food, and money. Harriet Tubman was considered a conductor in this system, she led more than 300 slaves to freedom, secretly helping them to safety through more than 14 Northern states. The Underground Railroad was not only successful in freeing many slaves, but Congress felt that it mocked the Fugitive Slave Law.



__________________
Julia Greene

Date:
Permalink Closed

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

__________________
Julia

Date:
Permalink Closed

ps, i got my sources from wikipedia.org

__________________
Julia

Date:
Permalink Closed

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?



__________________
C.Santos

Date:
Permalink Closed

Julia basically its talking about how Douglass would act if he was a typical Northern Democrat. The typical Northern Democrats of course were involved on the slavery issue but also wanted to think about American growth and advancements on things like transporation and communications. Hope that helps a little bit. Good start btw.

__________________
kathryn

Date:
Permalink Closed

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.


 



__________________
Alex Z.

Date:
Permalink Closed

kp 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 expansion of slavery after the Mexican-American War and attempt of Henry Clay to control and abolish slavery in the states through the Compromise of 1850, helped lead to sectional conflict. The question of whether states should be admitted as slave or free states into the constitution and the argument from Southerners that they should be allowed to own property, including slaves under the Constitution, also led to sectional differences. The Fugitive Slave Law stated that any runaway slaves should be captured and returned to their masters. Citizens were encouraged to help bounty hunters capture slaves who would later be turned in for bounty. Any citizens found providing shelter or food to runaway slaves, or any persons keeping information on the where-abouts of runaway slaves would be fined and put in jail. Anti-slavery leaders such as Arthur Tappan and Frederick Douglas fought against this law, pushing the issue into further debate. When these slaves did escape however they followed the Underground Railroad. This was a system to help slaves flee the South, they were aided and hid in the homes of people who would provide them with shelter, food, and money. Harriet Tubman was considered a conductor in this system, she led more than 300 slaves to freedom, secretly helping them to safety through more than 14 Northern states. The Underground Railroad was not only successful in freeing many slaves, but Congress felt that it mocked the Fugitive Slave Law.






Hey Kirsten, nice job! I like how you discussed the Underground Railroad and the northerners involved.  but...
 - What role did (common) southerners typically play in the Fugitive Slave Law?
and:
 - What did Southern politicians think of the Fugitive Slave Law and the U.R. in regards to sectionalism? (were they preparing for a fight?)





__________________
kathryn

Date:
Permalink Closed

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



__________________
Alex Z.

Date:
Permalink Closed


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



__________________
brittney

Date:
Permalink Closed

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.

__________________
Butchie

Date:
Permalink Closed

2.  Assess the breakup of the second two-party system in relation to the slavery controversy. Show how the Whig demise and Democratic divisions paved the way for the Republicans.


 


The Whig party was created by those who opposed Andrew Jackson in about 1832.  It started to die out in about 1852.  They split over the Compromise of 1850 by pro-slavery and anti-slavery.  In the election of 1852, the Whigs candidate, Winfield Scott, lost to the Democrats Franklin Pierce.  When they lost the election, the Whig representative from Ohio said, “We are slayed. The party is dead--dead--dead!”  Then when the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Whigs split even more because the Southern Whigs supported the Act while the Northern Whigs didn’t supported it.  Most of the Northern Whigs left the party and joined the new Republican party.  The other northern Whigs left for the Know-Nothing party attracted by its nativist crusades.  The Southern Whigs just disappeared in the South and gave way to the new Republicans.  


 


While the Whigs were splitting up, the Democrats were going strong until the issue of slavery arose in Kansas.  Most of the Northern Democrats went with the Republicans because they were against slavery while the Southern Democrats stayed with them.  Once the Confederacy was formed though, the Southern Democrats split up because there were no political parties allowed in the Confederacy.  The Northern Democrats leader Stephen Douglass died in 1860 and then whatever was left of the Northern Democrats then died off.   



__________________
Tom

Date:
Permalink Closed

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.

__________________
j.furtado

Date:
Permalink Closed

Julia wrote:



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?




 Well Julia ... The railroad  held a major controversy of which side it was going to be located.  If if went north then the northern states would benefit greatly and if it went south the southern slave states would benefit.  If the Railroad was located in the North, Northerners would gain most of transportation means. Therefore slavery would not be able to expand do to the northern states harsh opinion of slavery.

__________________
CRYSTAL

Date:
Permalink Closed

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


-_-



__________________
melissa gomes

Date:
Permalink Closed

2.      Assess the breakup of the second two-party system in relation to the slavery controversy. Show how the Whig demise and Democratic divisions paved the way for the Republicans.


            The second two-party system developed gradually as Republicans began quarreling over several issues. Followers of Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams, who asserted that the federal government should actively promote economic development, became known as National Republicans. Their opponents, who eventually united behind the presidential candidacy of Andrew Jackson, by 1828, were known as the Democratic Party. During Jackson's presidency his controversial policies and personality prevented any reconciliation with the National Republicans. By the middle of Jackson's second term, his opponents began to call themselves the Whig party. Leaders of the party included Daniel Webster and Henry Clay.


            In 1854 the party system dominated by Whigs and Democrats collapsed due to the controversy sparked by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which made it possible to establish slavery in western territories, where it had previously been banned. This act convinced many Democrats and Whigs in that region to abandon their parties. Many of these voters initially joined the Know-Nothing party, an anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant organization whose antislavery reputation in the North helped it attract more than 1 million members.


            The creation of a new Republican party was the most important result of the Kansas controversy. Organized in some places as early as July 1854, the party promised not only to prevent the admission of new slave states to the Union, but also to diminish slaveholders influence in the federal government.



__________________
Tanya

Date:
Permalink Closed

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.

__________________
s.bailey

Date:
Permalink Closed


  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.

 From the Mexican War, America aquired what is modern day New Meixco, Arizona, California, and parts of Utah and Nevada.Some of the problems that arose were whether slavery would be allowed in these territories, the balance of free and slave states, and the large influx of people into the regions which created lawlessness. The solution for the lawlessness in California due to the gold rush was for California to pass by the territorial state, and become a state. One attempt to solve the slavery issue was the Wilmot Provsio. It stated that slavery would not be allowed in any territory aquired from mexico. This obviously did not work, and the Compromise of 1850 was created. The compromise said that popular soverignty would decide the slavery issue in the new territories, which also helped with the issue of the balance between free and slave states. It also outlawed the salve trade in D.C. Also it enacted the fugitive slave act. it said that all runaway slaves must be returned no matter what state they were in. it also took away thier rights to testify on thier own behalf and have a court trial.



__________________
Kelsey Smith

Date:
Permalink Closed

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.



__________________
s.bailey

Date:
Permalink Closed

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.




 What about harriet tubman?

__________________
sarah

Date:
Permalink Closed

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.


 



__________________
Jillian

Date:
Permalink Closed

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

Along with the the Compromise of 1850, there was much drama that came along with all of the political leaders involved with the debates. Each leader helped the passage or creation of this compromise. Once Henry Clay heard that there may be a possibility of disintergration of the union, he came back form retirement from the senate immidiately. Daniel Webster played a key role in greatly increasing the chances of the propositions made in the compromise by making several famous speeches. William Seward can be held accountable for voicing his opinion in congress that California and New Mexico should be admitted as free states. Amoung many other things, Stephen Douglas was a main supporter of the compromise and greatly helped and increased it's chances of being passed. He organized a lot of support for this bill. All of these political leaders have one main thing in common; they all had a major impact on the passage and fate of the Compromise of 1850.


__________________
Kristen

Date:
Permalink Closed


  1. 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.      



__________________
steven

Date:
Permalink Closed

Stephen A. Douglass was a northern democrat that believed slavery not to be of major importance to the nation. He, basically like most northern democrats, believed that slavery should exist if the people in the territory desired it to be. Being the creator of the Kansas Nebraska Act he obviously didn’t care much to what the Supreme Court had to say about the constitutionality of “popular sovereignty”.  This ultimately led to the end of his political campaign as he advocated the people’s say over the judgment of the court in the Dred Scott Decision which the southern Democrats were so strongly attached to. Its part of the reason the Republican Party steals the seat away from him.


 


Douglass thought slavery shouldn’t interfere with other important issues brought to the nation such as production of railroads which he invested in himself. Some people say that he believed in these things because he was angling himself for the presidency of 1856, his followers defend by saying he had done things the way someone else would’ve in due time. Supposedly, the south had some inputs on how the Missouri Compromise was an ill-omened which had wrongfully took it’s place in our constitution for over thirty years. Regardless his impulsive implementation of this bill caused a lot more problems than he thought of. He overlooked just how much the issue of slavery did affect others in the states.


 



__________________
L. Gonzalez

Date:
Permalink Closed

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.  



__________________
Jillian

Date:
Permalink Closed

Butchie wrote:



  Once the Confederacy was formed though, the Southern Democrats split up because there were no political parties allowed in the Confederacy.  The Northern Democrats leader Stephen Douglass died in 1860 and then whatever was left of the Northern Democrats then died off.   





thats very interesting butchie, i never knwo that there were no political parties allowed in the confederacy.


also, did the northern democrats die off when Stephen Douglas died off? did this happen because there was no longer a sufficient leader to organize the party or did people just simply lose interest? what happened with that situation?



__________________
mrj

Date:
Permalink Closed

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) 



__________________
sarah

Date:
Permalink Closed

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





What were the terms of the Wilmot Provisio that made it so obvious that Norhterners opposed slavery's expansion?


otherwise its very well-written. Just a little fuzzy without the terms in there.



 



__________________
Tom

Date:
Permalink Closed

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.

__________________
Julia

Date:
Permalink Closed

Thanks Jess, you cleared it up for me

__________________
CRYSTAL

Date:
Permalink Closed

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? 




__________________
Tom

Date:
Permalink Closed

s.bailey wrote:


 

 What about harriet tubman?



for my last post.

__________________
tayna

Date:
Permalink Closed

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.



__________________
mrj

Date:
Permalink Closed

Jillian wrote:



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

Along with the the Compromise of 1850, there was much drama that came along with all of the political leaders involved with the debates. Each leader helped the passage or creation of this compromise. Once Henry Clay heard that there may be a possibility of disintergration of the union, he came back form retirement from the senate immidiately. Daniel Webster played a key role in greatly increasing the chances of the propositions made in the compromise by making several famous speeches. William Seward can be held accountable for voicing his opinion in congress that California and New Mexico should be admitted as free states. Amoung many other things, Stephen Douglas was a main supporter of the compromise and greatly helped and increased it's chances of being passed. He organized a lot of support for this bill. All of these political leaders have one main thing in common; they all had a major impact on the passage and fate of the Compromise of 1850.




 


 


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.



__________________
Makeda

Date:
Permalink Closed

                                                               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.



__________________
Alex Z.

Date:
Permalink Closed

sarah wrote:



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





What were the terms of the Wilmot Provisio that made it so obvious that Norhterners opposed slavery's expansion?


otherwise its very well-written. Just a little fuzzy without the terms in there.



 






thanks, Sarah! yeah, I totally forgot to insert that info...
alright:

The Wilmont Proviso stated that slavery could not be expanded into any and all territory seized out of the hands of the Mexicans. That created a massive ammount of "forbidden land," which was the largest reason why the Wilmont Proviso never got passed.
...is that enough?

Also, let it be noted that the new Fugitave Slave Law proposed in the Compromise of 1850 greatly angered northerners. (wasn't really a part of my question)



__________________
Jillian

Date:
Permalink Closed

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.



__________________
Kelsey Rae Lewin

Date:
Permalink Closed

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


 


                    The Mexican War, although resulting in a large area of land gained by the United States from Mexico (Texas, New Mexico, and California), it also triggered a continuous controversial debate on the expansion of slavery.  Many northerners opposed the idea, while the southerners who profited from it the most, supported the expansion of slavery as beneficial to their economic growth and success.  However, which states would be declared Free states, and which states would be considered slave states, and importantly, how would the states be represented?  The North, having a larger population than the south, (because a majority of the south’s property was obtained by plantations rather than just people) would make for an unequal voice in the government.  In order, to even out the states’ representation in Congress, distinguish territorial boundaries, and determine free and slaves


states in the US, the Compromise of 1850 was proposed and established by Henry Clay.


              


            The Compromise tried to resolve these issues by declaring California as an excepted free state, deciding New Mexico and Utah would be popular sovereignty, claiming that Texas's border would go down to the Rio Grande, but would have to pay Mexico 10 million dollars, putting an end to Slave auctioning in Washington D.C., and enforcing a stricter fugitive slave law.  It would also increase pay if an officer caught an escaped slave, and an officer would be paid even more money if he caught a free African American.  The debate of the expansion of slavery between the North and South and sectional differences in values causing for adjustment called for a document to secure some kind of unity and order to the states and their representation.  The Compromise of 1850, accommodating both opposing views as best as possible, although temporarily worked, was indeed to some extent an effective attempt to resolve the conflicts created by the acquisitions of the Mexican War.


 


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


-kels



__________________
1 2  >  Last»  | Page of 2  sorted by
 
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard