CRYSTAL 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

---

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? 

---

Well Crys, I think Texas went to the South because it was closest to king cotton, and California to the north to keep things even. The territories' being left to popular soveriegnty was WHAT the Compromise WAS. hahaha...

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 Gadsden Purchase is a region of today’s southern Arizona and New Mexico that the U.S. purchased from Mexico in 1853.  The Cuban affair was when the U.S. wanted to buy Cuba from Spain.  The Ostend Manifesto was written to get Cuba and have it benefit the country.  The north felt that the south just wanted to expand slavery with the purchase, and Cuba ended up not being bought. 

 

....Not finished yet....

The "filibustering" efforts to acquire Cuba and Central America tied into the southern dream of expanding slavery. He set out on his first filibustering expedition during his efforts of the conquest of Mexican territories of Baja California and Sonora. Walker’s men tried to find American and European mercenaries who would fight for the conquest of four other Central American nations. People were concerned with acquiring more slave land, so if they couldn’t have it in America they decided to try to get it elsewhere. And at that time the major route between New York City and San Francisco ran through southern Nicaragua. A path through Lake Nicaragua was being considered as the possible place of a canal through Central America. People who supported Walker hoped he would stabilize Nicaragua and facilitate the construction of an east-west railroad linking the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Walker even set himself up as President of Nicaragua and set his campaign as a fight to spread the institution of slavery. Walker revoked Nicaragua’s emancipation edict of 1824 which had made slavery illegal. He convinced many northerners of the benefits of creating a slave-holding empire in Latin America.

The Ostend Manifesto was a secret document that talked about a plan to acquire Cuba from Spain. The document said that "Cuba is as necessary to the North American republic as any of its present members, and that it belongs naturally to that great family of states of which the Union is the Providential Nursery". Three US diplomats had made up a plan to buy Cuba for $130 million for the US. This manifesto made northerners angry because it was a southern attempt to expand slavery. Cuba and Central America were trying to be brought into the conflict of slavery and were trying to be acquired in order to meet the wants of the southerners of the US.

Oh ya, and my question was #7 by the way, just in case anyone decides to comment on it.

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.

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

The Compromise of 1850 brought about debates in the Senate
that caused more drama over which acts and laws should be used to make up the
entire compromise. The North and South were both angry over the parts of the compromise that favored the opposing side. The most important figures in these debates were Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, William Seward, and Stephen A. Douglas. Webster, Clay, and Douglas were its biggest supporters and ensured its passage.
Daniel Webster supported the Compromise of 1850 and in order to show his
support for the compromise he gave his famous Seventh of March speech in 1850. Due to Webster's support of the compromise, many Northerners felt betrayed and were shocked that he was willing to allow the Southerners to get what they had wanted, the passage of the Fugitive Slave Law.
Henry Clay made a speech in 1849 that explained the need for a compromise between the North and the South, his ideas, however, were ignored. Although, he later claimed to have created the entire compromise as to prevent the Union from splitting over the sectional disputes over slavery.
William Seward was completely opposed to slavery and fought against its
extension. He was an opponent of the Compromise of 1850 because he wanted the Wilmot Proviso to be applied to the new territories, so that there would be no slavery in the territories at all. He also did not want common citizens to be responsible for the capturing of runaway slaves, as the Fugitive Slave Act had made them. Seward felt that the nation should adhere to a “higher power,” which would decide over the disputes rather than using these compromises. He ignored the fact that if the North and South did not come to an agreement which both sides could tolerate for some time, that the entire Union would end up in a civil war.
Stephen Douglas was considered the most responsible in the passing of the
Compromise of 1850, more responsible than Henry Clay, actually. He advocated popular sovereignty in the new territories, which the United States had recently acquired.

Sources:
Textbook
World Book Encyclopedia
http://www.bartleby.com/268/9/4.html
http://blueandgraytrail.com/event/Compromise_of_1850
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Webster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Clay
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Compromise%20of%201850
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1850

Brandi wrote:

---

Kelsey Smith 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.

            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.

---

I liked how your explained what each of the topics were, such as the Fugitive Slave Law and the Underground Railroad.  But like Mr e mentioned, how big of a role do you think Harriet Tubman played in the sectional conflict that was going on during that time period?  I know this has nothing to do with your question, but later when Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin, do you think that it raised the sectional problems more because the southerners knew that slavery was wrong and they were trying to deny it, or that they were just trying to protect something that kept their lives at a big convenience?  You don't have to answer that question, I just tried to make something up so I'd sound at least a little smart.

---

I believe Harriet Tubman played the same role as every other person who helped in the freeing of slaves. Harriet Tubman however just got a name for what she was doing, there were others who also fought for their freedom and took actions that might not have made it into our history books. she put her life on the line as well as many others.

As far as Uncle Tom's Cabin being published and possibly raising sectional tension, of course I believe it did. I belive that once the book was published it opened the eyes of the slave owners. The book had valid points and sturred up conversation among the states without a doubt. I can take a valid guess and say that most denied it due to the fact that after the book was published there were still people in the south who were fighting for slavery to continue, seeing no wrong with their actions. Others who paided no mind to the book wouldnt have changed their views on slavery and continued to look at it as a convience.

sorry if that doesnt make sense im half alseep and just got out of work. and if it doesnt make sense ill gladly explain what i was trying to get at to you in person in class tomarrow.

Kathryn -

do you agree with the Compromise of 1850 as a wise, effective solution to the conflicts created by the Mexican War?  Do you think it did improve the conditions of territorial and slave boundaries?  Do you agree that representation between the north and south was in need of amendment due to fairness and equality in Congress?

 

-kels

 

ps. veryyyy gooood answer =]

C. Santos 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.

 

 

         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.

---

When the Compromise of 1850 was made didn't it make New Mexico and Utah states that was going to use popular soverignity? ( I can't spell that word)  So how did it balance out the number of representatives in Congress for slave and free? 

Well Butchie at first the Idea was to keep balance and then they decide to allow the people decide whether they wanted their territory to allow or prohibit slavery. So the goverment was putting the power to choose wheter slave/or free in the hands of the people. They hoped that by the people would eventually even out the number themselves.

Amanda 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. The Compromise of 1850 brought about debates in the Senate that caused more drama over which acts and laws should be used to make up the entire compromise. The North and South were both angry over the parts of the compromise that favored the opposing side. The most important figures in these debates were Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, William Seward, and Stephen A. Douglas. Webster, Clay, and Douglas were its biggest supporters and ensured its passage. Daniel Webster supported the Compromise of 1850 and in order to show his support for the compromise he gave his famous Seventh of March speech in 1850. Due to Webster's support of the compromise, many Northerners felt betrayed and were shocked that he was willing to allow the Southerners to get what they had wanted, the passage of the Fugitive Slave Law. Henry Clay made a speech in 1849 that explained the need for a compromise between the North and the South, his ideas, however, were ignored. Although, he later claimed to have created the entire compromise as to prevent the Union from splitting over the sectional disputes over slavery. William Seward was completely opposed to slavery and fought against its extension. He was an opponent of the Compromise of 1850 because he wanted the Wilmot Proviso to be applied to the new territories, so that there would be no slavery in the territories at all. He also did not want common citizens to be responsible for the capturing of runaway slaves, as the Fugitive Slave Act had made them. Seward felt that the nation should adhere to a “higher power,” which would decide over the disputes rather than using these compromises. He ignored the fact that if the North and South did not come to an agreement which both sides could tolerate for some time, that the entire Union would end up in a civil war. Stephen Douglas was considered the most responsible in the passing of the Compromise of 1850, more responsible than Henry Clay, actually. He advocated popular sovereignty in the new territories, which the United States had recently acquired. Sources: Textbook World Book Encyclopedia http://www.bartleby.com/268/9/4.html http://blueandgraytrail.com/event/Compromise_of_1850 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Webster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Clay http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Compromise%20of%201850 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1850

---

Who do you feel played the most important role?

Do you feel as though the Fugitive Slave Act was the most heated topic of the Compromise of 1850?

 

Kelsey Smith wrote:

---

Who do you feel played the most important role?

Do you feel as though the Fugitive Slave Act was the most heated topic of the Compromise of 1850?

 

---

I feel that Stephen Douglas played the most important role in passing the Compromise of 1850.  Although Henry Clay is often credited with the Compromise, he is only given credit because he gave a speech in 1849 proposing some of same aspects that were later in the Compromise of 1850.  His ideas however, were not used, and Stephen Douglas was the one who really was important to the passage of the Compromise.

I do think that the Fugitive Slave Act was the most heated topic of the Compromise of 1850.  The Fugitive Slave was passed in the South's favor and it infuriated the North.  While in the Compromise the North got the ending of the slave trade.  Although this did anger the South, but since they still were able to keep their slaves with a chance of even expanding slavery, they were not as angry about it as the North was with the Compromise of 1850.

 

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

 

 

                Filibustering can be defined as small particular military bodies who take over land territories without government permission.  The Filibusters were compared to the times pirates in the 1790’s. The rebellious acts that the filibusters took can date back t almost immediately after the nation achieved its independence from Great Britain o Americans were not the only country to produce theses freebooters.  Filibustering was all about territorial expansion, like manifest Destiny. Manifest destiny was the spread of democracy and freedom among the lands.

                The U.S was growing rapidly. The Jefferson’s Louisiana purchase from France in 1803 doubled the nation's land size, In 1819, the U.S. took Florida from Spain in a treaty .Later on in 1845, the United States joined with the Republic of Texas, which had recently won its independence from Mexico by filibustering less than a decade earlier, because of the Mexican war North America was added on too by about 500,000 square miles. America was quickly expanding and spreading the mission of making democracy known.

 The United States and Britain had an agreement that Britain wouldn’t add to their colonial holdings in Central America, and too even liberate colonies that they already held in the area. The movement into Central America was The issues of Cuba and Central America expansion by filibustering can be known as expansionist burst for the sake of  expanding democracy.

J.Furtado wrote:

---

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.

 

---

Do you think the fugitive slave act was right considering the laws and cases made around this topic?

Did the ends justify the means when the northern anti-slaverites used the underground reailroad to help the slaves to escape?

How does harriet Tubman play into the whole dilemma, was her possion right? consider her past

 

-try using otuside info and go deeper into the question! good job though i did notice it was just EX-Credit

Jarred wrote:

---

   

p.s. Im not sure I did this right. the definition of filibustering was not very clear and such words should be banned from use in this class!

---

Agreed entirely. Filibustering should be !!! Srry Mr. E. the word is just very weird and i was do a question with a word like this id probably be like . Lol btw Jared good job on the work even thoguh i still cant say the word .

tayna wrote:

---

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.

---

Haha! Thanks Tanya
No, I think the Compromise of 1850 failed to sufficiently appease both the North and the South. Things had already gone too far... arguable, but that's my oppy.
The Mexican War, eh? I definately think that it made the slavery issue (expansion-wise) more noticable, thus promoting the inevitable occurance of a grand conflict.

sorry it took me so long to find this question!

OH yeah! My question was for Brittney!  Sorry about that!

steven wrote:

"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."

Steven, considering the importance of railroads for instance, do you agree with Douglass's idea that slavery shouldn't interfere with those primary issues, or in other words do you also view slavery as a second hand issue in the 1850s?  Or do you think that he WAS actually overlooking the affects slavery had on other states as if they were less important or of impact?  What's your view on the Missouri Compromise and its effects or purpose?  Now, consider yourself a citizen of the US in the 1850s, do you think your views then would be different than your views now, taking into consideration the way of life for families of certain class, religious, culture and ethnicity and what we know now of morality and equality?

 

ps. did you choose this question because you and Douglass have the same first name ;] .