8.  Consider the southern decision to secede and the last-minute Crittenden Compromise effort.

 

 

The Southern states decided to secede from the U.S. because their needs weren’t being met by the government.  Slavery was a prime factor in their community’s growth, and current government laws were trying to get rid of the spread of it, and maybe even try to put an end to it.

The Crittenden Compromise was a proposal from John Crittenden to help the situation with the U.S. secession crisis.  It addressed all the issues that concerned the South that made them want to secede in the first place.  The plan soon failed when Abraham Lincoln decided to reject the compromise. If Abraham had thought it over and would have passed the compromise, the Civil War may have never come to part.

 

 

sorrrrryyy it's really shorrrtttt

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crittenden_Compromise

4.  Examine the 1860 election and its consequences. Emphasize the Democratic split, the sectional character of the voting, and the Deep South’s clear determination to secede as soon as Lincoln won, even before he took office.

 

 

The 1860 election was a presidential election were the political system split four ways setting the stage for the American Civil War.  The political party system split into the Constitutional Union Party, 2 different Democratic Parties, and Republic Party.  The Constitutional Union Party was made up of the conservative Whigs and the former Know-Nothings who wanted to avoid the slavery issue.  They nominated John C. Bell of Tennessee for president and Edward Everett for vice president The 2 that were elected to run for president were Stephen A. Douglas and Joseph Lane. For Vice presidents Herschel Vespasian Johnson and John Cabell Breckinridge were nominated. The Republican Party nominated William H. Seward of New York, Abraham Lincoln of Illinois, Salmon P. Chase of Ohio, and Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania. The Consequences of the 1860 election was that South Carolina’s secession from the United States even though it was waiting for an excuse to secede.  The secession of South Carolina basically stated they were precipitating the American Civil War.

Tom wrote:

---

The Civil War could have been prevented if the seven states hadn’t seceded in 1861. 

---

 BUt was the secession of the seven states inevitable?

5.  Use Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and the southern reaction to it, to demonstrate the growing division of outlook between the sections. Compare and contrast the criticisms and their effects of Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin and Helper's The Impending Crisis of the South.

 

The issue of slavery began to grow and grow and grow.  As the United States gained more territory due to the Mexican War, more Americans began to rally about whether or not slavery should be expanded into these new territories. The north disagreed with the expansion of slavery or slavery itself (though they didn’t oppose racism).  The south believed there was nothing wrong with the expansion of slavery and that it should be further expanded into the west.  After the Compromise of 1850 some of these issues began to settle a little bit.  But as if Northern and Sothern opinions weren’t divided enough, Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote her famous novel “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”. Opinions would fire up once again and there became an even larger development of division between the sections.

            Mrs. Stowe was a tiny, but extremely educated woman.  She had never witnessed slavery first hand; however she did visit Kentucky a few times to catch sight of it.  “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” is a tear-jerking story about the hardships of slave life and the horrors of slave auctions that still occurred in the south.  In the north Free Soilers and other abolitionists were touched by the story.  It was the most popular book in the 19th century.

            Stowe’s book was banned in the south and they got especially angry when their northern American brethren were reading and believing Stowe’s story of slavery.  The south took a number of actions to protesting against “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.”  Sometimes they resorted to pro-slavery literature.  Two most famous anti-Tom books are “Sword and the Distaff” by William Gilmore Simms and “The Planter’s Northern bride” by Caroline Lee Hentz.  However none of these pro-slavery books were as popular as Harriet Beecher Stowe’s.  They would also have book burnings, and Mrs. Stowe’s famous novel was often the main sacrifice in such parties.  Her book created so much controversy.  When she met President Lincoln in 1862 he said to her, “so you’re the little woman who wrote the book that made this great [Civil] war.”  The book increased anti-slavery passions in the North and infuriated Americans in the south.

_______________________________________

Feel free to rip it apart and ask bunches questions.

Question # 1:  Explain how the events of the late 1850s developed in a chain reaction, with each crisis deepening sectional hatreds, thus paving the way for another critical event.

 

            The 1850s was a very controversial decade in the history of the U.S.  First of all there were many improvements in the economy.  During this time the North’s industry grew.  As the industry grew so did the cotton production.  With the expansion of the cotton production, also grew the demand for more slaves in the South.  This caused sectionalism between the North and the South to become greater.  During this time California was admitted as a free state to the United States.  This was also very controversial during this time.  The South continually became angered because there was slowly being more of a balance with the idea of slavery because now there weren’t that many more slave states than free states anymore.  Harriet Beecher Stowe, during this time, wrote “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” which was her way of letting people know first hand about how bad slavery really was.  Another occurrence during this time was the passing of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854.  This act itself caused many things in society.  Sectionalism just got worse with this act and it even brought about the “bleeding Kansas”.  The Whig Party collapsed during this time as a result of this act.  The Dred Scott case was very important during this decade.  The result of this was that Scott could not sue for his freedom and it was decided that constitution and citizenship couldn’t be applied to blacks.  The election of 1858, between Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln, was one that was very important.  Lincoln was able to put out his ideas on possibly the abolition of slavery in the U.S.  Even though he was not successful in winning the election for Senate, many people became more aware of what was going on and he was given the respect and prominence for what he argued about.  Another occurrence of the 1850s was John Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry.  It was all a way for the slaves to get back at the slave holders.  The point of the whole thing was quickly defeated because he was very quickly caught, tried, and hanged because of it. It helped absolutely nothing and in no way helped weaken the slavery in the South.  Another thing that took place during this decade was the election of 1860.  All these made this decade a very important one in the history of the U.S.  They all, I think, helped to shape the U.S. into what it is today.

J.Furtado wrote:

---

Tom wrote:

---

The Civil War could have been prevented if the seven states hadn’t seceded in 1861. 

---

 BUt was the secession of the seven states inevitable?

---

And wasn't just the act of seceding an act of war?

8. consider the southern decision to secede at the last minute and the Crittenden compromise effort

In Charleston in December 1860 a south Carolina convention decided unanimously to be the first state to secede from the union. They decided to, with the other 10 states, meet in Montgomery, Alabama to form a constitution implementing The Confederation States of America. During the initial point of the confedeation Buchanan was actually still President even though president Lincoln was already elected, he was incapable of seating until march the next year. Buchanan generally did nothing to unite the south back in the union for a number of reasons, his sit and wait policy would then be followed by Lincoln for reason the same and some of his own.

Nothing was being done to reunite the two sects of the nation because their was nothing in the constitution directly against secession, we couldn’t afford to supply forces needed to push them back in, and it wasn’t in the complete interest of the people to handle the matter in any way besides reconciliation. Besides as Lincoln said if the north tried to force the south back into the union they would probably be viewed as aggressors and lost the vital border state support that gave the north an advantage throughout the war. During the time a certain James Henry Crittenden, influenced by the position f a once great compromiser Henry Clay, also from Kentucky came up with a resolution to appease the south. His proposals known as the Cittenden compromise established a strict enforcement of the Missouri compromise and allowed slavery only be under the understood barrier only all slave owners would be protected under these laws. It also stated that slaver would be agreed upon in the permitted area and that even new states under the line would follow under the same rules, presumedly Cuba. The compromise was clearly a clean attempt to resolve the slavery issue but under the dictation of Abe it was modestly turned down. Lincoln was against any possible extension of slavery even though the results would be temporary. I think this was a smart move because if you look in the past all the compromises done to slavery that were assumed to show temporary expansion ended up becoming more prosperous and eventually did resort to the exact opposite of the hoped decompostition of slave holding.

1. Explain how the events of the late 1850s developed in a chain reaction, with each crisis deepening sectional hatreds, thus paving the way for another critical event.

The events of the 1850s all contributed to sectional hatreds, increasing as the decade progressed. Beginning with the Compromise of 1850, which tried to preserve the Union, the nation’s sectional difference began to glow even brighter. The compromise admitted California as a free state, abolished the slave trade in the District of Columbia, called for the fate of New Mexico and Utah to be decided by popular sovereignty, had the United States pay Texas $10 million for the land it just acquired from them, and made a more forceful fugitive-slave law. These terms seemed to suit northerners in some areas, and southerners in others. However, the compromise just pushed the slavery issue aside for another ten years and the north and south were still stubborn on changing their views of slavery and were persistent on their view being the right one. Since the slavery issue was not dealt with in Compromise of 1850, it led to other events dealing with slavery. Harriet Beecher Stowe’s ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’ was published in 1852. Appalled by the Fugitive Slave Law (which was in the Compromise of 1850), Stowe wanted to bring to the North’s attention the evils of slavery. In her novel, Stowe showed how horrible slavery was, like how families would be split up and auctioned off. ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’ created much controversy over the north and south because it kept them divided over the issue of slavery. Southerners were angry that slavery was portrayed the way it was, and Northerners were upset to read some of the things slaves had to go through. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 called for these territories to be dealt with by popular sovereignty. When Southerners agreed to the Compromise of 1850, they thought that Kansas would become a slave state. However, Northern “Nebrascals” were trying to make both Kansas and Nebraska free states. Proslavery “border ruffians” from Missouri entered Kansas when it was time for members of the first territorial legislature to be elected in 1855. Theses “border ruffians” succeed. The sectional issue of territorial controls increased with this event. The free-soilers disagreed with how Kansas was established a slave state. In 1856, John Brown led some of his followers to Pottawatomie Creek. Upon arrival, they “hacked to pieces” five men, who were apparently proslaveryites. This brought shame to the free-sail cause and angered those in support of slavery. Known as “Bleeding Kansas,” this civil war lasted in Kansas until the start of the Civil War throughout the United States in 1861. It destroyed property, limited agriculture, and killed many people. The Supreme Court handed down the Dred Scott decision on March 6, 1857. Dred Scott had been living in free territory for five years, and sued for his freedom (since he had been living so long on free soil). The Supreme Court, by Chief Justice Taney, of Maryland, ruled that slaves could not be citizens of the United States, therefore Dred Scott could not sue in federal courts. The Court also ruled that the Fifth Amendment forbade Congress to deprive people of their property without due process of law. Another ruling of the Supreme Court was that the Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional, that Congress didn’t have the power to ban slavery from the territories. Southerners were happy with the decision of the Supreme Court, however, those against the expansion of slavery were angered by this ruling. Republicans grew defiant of the decision which upset Southerners who began to question how long they be connected to a section that did not honor the Supreme Court. The Panic of 1857 followed the anger of the Dred Scott decision. It was began when the currency of the United States was inflated by California gold. Too much grain was grown, but it didn’t have anywhere to export it to. The failing of five thousand businesses were caused by the panic in one year. The North was affected more by this, the South, however, was able to endure the panic with its cotton prices. The Panic of 1857 called for a higher tariff rate. It was lowered to about twenty percent. Northern manufacturers said that the low tariff was the cause of their financial trouble. Southerners enjoyed the low tariff, however. The Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 was another cause that deepened sectional hatreds. Lincoln asked Douglas, “Suppose the people of a territory should vote slavery down? The Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision had decreed that they could not. Who would prevail, the Court or the people?” Douglas’ response became known as the ‘Freeport Doctrine.’ Douglas said that the people would prevail. He said that, “No matter how the Supreme Court ruled, slavery would stay down if the people voted it down.” Those that agreed with the Supreme Court’s decision would favor this response, while those that disliked its decision in the Dred Scott case would be against Douglas’ response, creating more tension throughout the United States. In 1859, John Brown raided Harpers Ferry and killed seven innocent people. Brown had intended to invade the South, have slaves revolt against their masters, and free the South of slaves. A lot of slaves didn’t know of Brown’s plan, and didn’t revolt. John Brown was captured and convicted of murder and treason. He was then sentenced to death. Northerners considered Brown a martyr of abolitionism, and were angry over his death. The South regarded Brown as a murderer and an “apostle of treason.” The Harpers Ferry event provoked arguments of how extreme one could go without being considered doing an evil as well. John Brown was supposedly against slavery, yet he killed as much people as he wanted to that were in support of slavery. He considered slavery an evil, yet he killed people. Southerners could then question whether his actions were truly that of a martyr, like Northerners claimed. This is how the events of the 1850s developed in a chain reaction, which deepened sectional hatred.

 

Yikes, I wrote a lot! Hopefully I did it right.

steven wrote:

---

8. consider the southern decision to secede at the last minute and the Crittenden compromise effort

In Charleston in December 1860 a south Carolina convention decided unanimously to be the first state to secede from the union. They decided to, with the other 10 states, meet in Montgomery, Alabama to form a constitution implementing The Confederation States of America. During the initial point of the confedeation Buchanan was actually still President even though president Lincoln was already elected, he was incapable of seating until march the next year. Buchanan generally did nothing to unite the south back in the union for a number of reasons, his sit and wait policy would then be followed by Lincoln for reason the same and some of his own.

Nothing was being done to reunite the two sects of the nation because their was nothing in the constitution directly against secession, we couldn’t afford to supply forces needed to push them back in, and it wasn’t in the complete interest of the people to handle the matter in any way besides reconciliation. Besides as Lincoln said if the north tried to force the south back into the union they would probably be viewed as aggressors and lost the vital border state support that gave the north an advantage throughout the war. During the time a certain James Henry Crittenden, influenced by the position f a once great compromiser Henry Clay, also from Kentucky came up with a resolution to appease the south. His proposals known as the Cittenden compromise established a strict enforcement of the Missouri compromise and allowed slavery only be under the understood barrier only all slave owners would be protected under these laws. It also stated that slaver would be agreed upon in the permitted area and that even new states under the line would follow under the same rules, presumedly Cuba. The compromise was clearly a clean attempt to resolve the slavery issue but under the dictation of Abe it was modestly turned down. Lincoln was against any possible extension of slavery even though the results would be temporary. I think this was a smart move because if you look in the past all the compromises done to slavery that were assumed to show temporary expansion ended up becoming more prosperous and eventually did resort to the exact opposite of the hoped decompostition of slave holding.

---

yeah, so you did a way better job than i did steven. what was the key trigger-point for the confederate states to be formed?

Thank you answering my question Kathryn.  I also agree with your opinion.  THis book excited many people to fight back or against the government and slavery.

Curt Wrote:

I choose not to rip it up or shred it to pieces. U pretty much answered the question well. U explained the books effects and gave the evidence very well.

---

Thanks, Curt!  You did pretty awesome with your question that was based on John Brown.  You answered it completely, thus, I have no questions based on your facts and information.  But i have an opinionative question for you...  Do you think people, like Emerson, should have made such a hero out of James Brown in the North?  And if Brown succeeded with Harpers Ferry, what might the outcome be (in your opinion)?  I'm not exactly an expert on this guy, but I do know that he killed mad people in kansas and tried to make a huge slave rebellion, although, he failed miserably. lol

Brittney

 

8.        Consider the southern decision to secede and the last-minute Crittenden Compromise effort.

 

The southern decided to secede from the American government who was not agreeing to their want of slavery. In their efforts to keep slavery intact they proposed compromises such as the Crittenden Compromise. The Crittenden Compromise was a proposal written by Kentucky Senator John J. Crittenden to help resolve the U.S. secession crisis of 1860-1861 by addressing the concerns in the south that helped lead to the secession. It was made up of a preamble, six proposed constitution amendments, and four proposed congressional resolutions. This proposal contained many unpopular features to the north. It consisted of the south being guaranteed permanent existence of slavery in slave states, it dealt with the southern demands to the fugitive slaves and slavery in the District of Columbia, it addressed the reestablishment of the Missouri Compromise line and that slavery would be prohibited north of the 36’30` parallel and guaranteed south of that line.  This compromise was very widely perceived and well known and liked in the south, but it was seen as unacceptable to the Republicans who believed that slavery should not be allowed to expand. Abraham Lincoln immediately rejected this proposal which the south reacted harshly to this, and it helped in paving the way to the American Civil War. This Compromise was also rejected by both the House of Representatives and the senate in 1861.

8. Consider the southern decision to secede and the last-minute Crittenden Compromise effort.

 

There are a number of reasons why the south seceded. The first 7 states seceded directly after the election of Abraham Lincoln because he would stop the expansion of slavery. The threat to slavery and its expansion was the major reason for secession. They also seceded due to new, high import taxes, which were referred to as the tariff of abominations. These economic reasons had a huge hand in the war. Also, social differences created huge gaps between the north and south, to the point where the south felt they were being outnumbered and overpowered. The federal government became unfair, and was not able to care for  southern states, being as it was so far away and could not understand the problems of the south.

The Crittenden Compromise was a failed effort to resolve the southern secession. It added amendments to the constitution which stated the following:

1. Slavery would be prohibited in all territory of the United States "now held, or hereafter acquired," north of latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes. In territory south of this line, slavery was "hereby recognized" and could not be interfered with by Congress. Furthermore, property in slaves was to be "protected by all the departments of the territorial government during its continuance." States would be admitted to the Union from any territory with or without slavery as their constitutions provided.


2. Congress was forbidden to abolish slavery in places under its jurisdiction within a slave state such as a military post.


3. Congress could not abolish slavery in the District of Columbia so long as it existed in the adjoining states of Virginia and Maryland and without the consent of the District's inhabitants. Compensation would be given to owners who refused consent to abolition.


4. Congress could not prohibit or interfere with the interstate slave trade.


5. Congress would provide full compensation to owners of rescued fugitive slaves. Congress was empowered to sue the county in which obstruction to the fugitive slave laws took place to recover payment; the county, in turn, could sue "the wrong doers or rescuers" who prevented the return of the fugitive.


6. No future amendment of the Constitution could change these amendments or authorize or empower Congress to interfere with slavery within any slave state.

It also protected the fugitive slave laws. It said the fugitive slave laws were constitutional and must be followed. Also, any states which had laws against the fugitive slave laws must repeal them.

2. Analyze the Kansas conflict as a small-scale rehearsal for the Civil War. The focus might be on the way sectional violence fed on itself, producing extremist figures like Brown and the “border ruffians.”

 

Bleeding Kansas a series of brutal events which involved Free-Staters (settlers in the Kansas territory), for anti-slavery and pro-slavery people known as the “border ruffians” in the Kansas-Nebraska Territory and western frontier towns of Missouri. Their goal was to influence whether or not Kansas would enter the United States as a free or slave state. In 1855, when the first territorial legislature was elected, Border Ruffians crossed the border, swaying the vote in favor of slavery. The proslavery territorial legislature assembled, and began passing laws to institutionalize slavery in the Kansas Territory. That same year, a group of Free-Staters met and were determined to reject these new laws supporting slavery. John Brown came to Kansas Territory to fight slavery. By November 1855, the Wakarusa War between these two sides had begun. On May of 1856, a group of Border Ruffians entered Kansas and burned the Free State Hotel, destroyed two printing presses, and raided homes and stores. The incident with Preston Brooks’ attack on Charles Sumner influenced John Brown to lead a group of men from Kansas Territory on an attack at a proslavery settlement at Pottawatomie Creek. The group dragged five pro-slavery men from their homes and hacked them to death. These actions were regarded as the first shots of the Civil War. Days later, John Brown took Henry C. Pate and 22 other proslavery soldiers prisoner at the Battle of Black Jack. In August, thousands of proslavery Southerners formed into armies and marched into Kansas. Brown and his followers engaged 300 proslavery soldiers in the Battle of Osawatomie. Violence proceeded for another two months until Brown left Kansas territory and a new governor took place and managed to make peace between both sides.

 

The Kansas conflict was a small-scale rehearsal for the Civil War because the north and south had achieved an even greater amount of tension. The conflict between the leaders from opposing sides, such as Preston Brooks and Charles Sumner affected the way leaders from the territories handled the issue between the free-staters and border ruffians, in which it increased violence. Bleeding Kansas had foreshadowed future events of the Civil War, especially the attack of John Brown on pro-slavery men at Pottawatomie Creek.

 

 

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

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2952.html

 

 

 

#10

When it comes to the secession of South Carolina after the election, President Buchanan held responsibility to act once they proposed this idea. Even though he did not win the election, he was still president and therefore should have done something. One thing he could have done was stop the secession of South Carolina by force.  However, if he did this though he could have started the civil war early. Also if he did this the north would have been the ones to start the civil war and those middle states that sided with them could have sided with the south. He could have also come up with some sort of Compromise that was reasonable and fair to make South Carolina want to stay. As for President- elect Lincoln, while he was waiting to be inaugurated he could have made preparations to seriously fix the southern crisis immediately once he got into office. Another thing Lincoln could have done was allow slavery in other territories to ease the southerners’ worries about an in balance in the Senate. Although, this would have angered many northerners and maybe cause them to secede. Lincoln could have also, instead of just outright rejecting it, tried to revise the Crittenden compromise. Since southerners supported this compromise all he had to do was come up with changes that would please the north, such as guaranteeing the states that were already free in the south permanent freedom. This would ease northern worries that the entire area would be turned to slavery if the Crittenden compromise were to be approved. Lincoln could have also, instead of permanently guaranteeing southern slave states to practice slavery, allow federal protection as long as he was president. This would somewhat stifle southern hatred and doubts of Lincoln, making them want to stay, and also make more southerners support him. This benefited non-southerners because more southern support meant a better chance for Lincoln to stay in office longer, and he represented many different  beliefs of non-southerners. 

3. Use the Lincoln-Douglas debates to explain the rise of Lincoln and the Republican party, and the issues in the northern debate about how to deal with slavery. Focus on Lincoln’s rise to national prominence in relation to the slavery issue.

 

The Lincoln Douglas debates didn’t exactly make Lincoln popular but on the contrary made Douglas unpopular. The south did not believe in Douglas’s popular sovereignty. They still, however, did not agree with Lincoln. Lincoln believed in stopping slavery and the south opposed this. The Lincoln Douglas debates split the votes for the election of 1860. With Lincoln’s gaining popularity in the debates, the Republicans thought he would be the perfect candidate for them in the next election. The south did not vote for Lincoln because of his beliefs in ending slavery, but they did not unite to vote for Douglas. They split their votes between Douglas, Edward Everett, and John C. Bell. The north united them selves in voting for Lincoln. Lincoln won the election of 1860.

 

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1860

L. Gonzalez wrote:

---

  Another occurrence during this time was the passing of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854.  This act itself caused many things in society.  Sectionalism just got worse with this act and it even brought about the “bleeding Kansas”.  

---

What exactly was bleeding Kansas and how did it bring on the Civil War?

Butchie wrote:

---

L. Gonzalez wrote:

---

  Another occurrence during this time was the passing of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854.  This act itself caused many things in society.  Sectionalism just got worse with this act and it even brought about the “bleeding Kansas”.  

---

What exactly was bleeding Kansas and how did it bring on the Civil War?

---

 

Hey Butchie

intruding on your question to miss L.G.,

to know more about Bleeding Kansas, see my post.
though it is quite long. It was a significant event in the pre-civil war era.

 

9.  Assess the textbook authors' assertion that it was fortunate that Republican presidential candidate Fremont did not win in 1856 because the, "North was more willing to let the South depart in peace than in 1860."

 

     Sectional differences divided the North and South from the time the Constitution was signed. As America expanded a third section developed, the West, with their own needs from the federal government. It would take ten years of fear and hatred (1850-1860) for the Southern sectionalism to expand into Southern nationalism. The regional war in the mid-west strengthened the abolitionists who formed the Republican Party. During the Election of 1856, their candidate, John C. Fremont, nearly won the Presidency. The Republicans took an anti-slavery stand. The party's catchy slogan was Free Soil, Free Men and Fremont--and Free Kansas. Their strong stance brought warnings that many southern politicians would secede if Fremont were elected. These threats prompted many former Whigs and others of a conservative mindset to throw their support to Buchanan and the Democrats as the sole alternative to the catastrophe of disunion.  

     In the end, Buchanan won the election because his electoral votes in the South were greater than Fremont's electoral votes in the North. It was obvious that, from now on, it would be sectional loyalties that would determine the fate of the Union. The election in 1856 brought a weak president to leadership in a badly divided nation.   

 

 

 

 Eh, it’s a little short, but so am I so...yeah enjoy.

Sarah Wrote:

Kathryn- that was a really well-written answer. I just had an opinion question for you. 

Do you think that the Civil War would have come around just the same as it did if Stowe's book had never been published, or did the book really play that big of a role to speed up the division that lead to the war?

---

Ooff, thats a good question, Sarah.  My answer would have to be:

I think the civil war would have occured no matter what.  Before "Uncle Tom's Cabin" the slavery issue was huge anyways.  After the Mexican War, new territory annexed into the Union created many opposing opinions on whether or not the land should be "free" or "slave" states.  However, I also agree that the book played a huge role to speed up the division of the Union as well.  When Stowe published her book in 1852, she only increased pro/anti-slavery passions.  Her heartrending story about a slave named Tom showed the harships of slave life.  Therefore, the North loved the political story and the South hated it.  This further divided the regions.  If Stowe's book wasnt published in 1852, maybe the Civil War would never have broken out only several years later.

C. Santos wrote:

---

6.  Focus on John Brown as a crucial character in two of the major events of the decade, bleeding Kansas and Harpers Ferry.

 

         John Brown was a very crucial character in the two major events of the decade. These included Bleeding Kansas and Harpers Ferry. In the Bleeding Kansas event John Brown showed up as just another guy from the North. He was just another abolitionist that came into town to voice his opinion against slavery. The thing was that John Brown had some very different intentions than that of going on blabbing about slavery being bad so he decided to actually take action in the area. John Brown and his sons walked into the houses of these pro-slavery men and slaughtered them with broadswords. This in turn led to mass chaos between the two sides. His actions were crucial for the time because it was the first major radical attack in the territory. This sparked a massive wave of fighting between the two groups and the eventual split of towns (those that are pro-slavery and those that are anti-slavery).

         John Brown also had a great effect near the end of the decade. John Brown and his sons along with some fellow abolitionists decided to make another radical attack against slavery. He planned to raid this armory in Virginia (Harpers Ferry) and take the guns there. If he accomplished this he would distribute the weapons to a great amount of slaves in the South and start a massive slave riot in the South. He thought this would work because one of the main reasons past slave revolts failed was because of the lack of ammunition and guns. So at night Brown and his band of raiders snuck attacked the man at the fort and got inside, they didn’t get away though. Virginia sent in the Marines and Robert E. Lee in to dispatch the raiders. All were killed except for Brown. He was captured, prosecuted and then executed in public. The South seen his actions as horrible and that they got rid of a menace. The North on the other hand championed his cause and seen him as a hero and a martyr to the abolitionist cause. In conclusion John Brown was a very crucial figure during the decade and was a factor in the issue over slavery.

---

In John brown's case did the ends justify the means? consider other ways John could've gotten his point across.

well written like always i don't really see much to pick at so good job

2)

The Kansas conflict was the north and south contest for Kansas.  Northerners had begun to move into Kansas and southerners were upset, because under the Compromise of 1850 they were certain that Kansas would be slave territory.  Douglas proposed a bill that fulfilled the wishes of the south.  He organized Nebraska-Kansas which stated the slavery issue would be decided by popular sovereignty.  If this bill was made into law it would repeal the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and open up slavery to the north.  The north was extremely upset.  “Bleeding Kansas” would become a place of battle over slavery.  The south began to hear that Northerners were moving into Kansas.  A ballot was taken and the proslavery people won the election.  Another election was held in 1855 to choose members of the territorial legislature.  The “Border Ruffians” won again.  They began to make laws that the north did not agree with.  Violence began to spread out through Kansas and it came to be like a battleground.  There had been a couple attacks, mostly proslavery against the non slavery.  John Brown, an abolitionist, got mad and retaliated.  He led an attack on Pottawatomie Creek and killed five proslavery men.  Charles Sumner, the abolitionist senator blamed proslavery senators in a speech “The Crime Against Kansas.”  The events that took place during the violent acts of Bleeding Kansas are thought to directly tie into the Civil War.  The events that took place during this time caused the north and south to increase the conflict of slavery, making them more angry and leading up to the Civil War.  The Kansas conflict in a way made way for the Civil War.  The violence that was taking place was just a small glimpse of what would take place during the Civil War.

Alex Z. wrote:

---

2.  Analyze the Kansas conflict as a small-scale rehearsal for the Civil War. The focus might be on the way sectional violence fed on itself, producing extremist figures like Brown and the “border ruffians.”

 

---

 

The Kansas conflict in the mid-1850s was indeed a foreshadowing of the dramatic events to come. Conflict arose between abolitionist northerners and pro-slavery southerners. Like the Civil War, northerners went into a place where slavery was expected (Kansas after the Kansas-Nebraska Act) and tried to prevent slavery’s existence. Popular sovereignty, on of Steven Douglas’s favored methods, was why the very presence of physical people in Kansas mattered so much. The struggle that came about involving the border ruffians was over having enough southern votes under the rule of popular sovereignty, where the majority literally decided what would happen regarding the future of slavery in that area. In the Civil War, they were fighting over slavery’s presence in a much larger territory, but the basic concept is not all that different. This leads back to the majority of Americans not supporting slavery due to recent events (e.g. Uncle Tom’s Cabin’s publication, the Fugitive Slave Act, etc.). As for the fighting itself in Bloody Kansas, the emotion ran high, as expressed in Brooks’ attack on Sumner. The intertwining of northerners and southerners in one place fighting in such violent ways led itself to a very bloody struggle, much like the Civil War.

 

…I struggled with this one, any question/recommendations on this?

 

 

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

---

ah, well done mr.z, but where's the connection with john brown? he had contributions too.
just don't forget to include that is my advice.
okay i have to go to work now, i'm going to be late. ha

 

<<that is not PG :D

Brandi wrote:

---

  The Kansas conflict in a way made way for the Civil War.  The violence that was taking place was just a small glimpse of what would take place during the Civil War.

---

nice job brandi. do you think that these events in Kansas were only forshadowing what was soon to come out of the civil war? Could the major political leaders of the time seen what was going on and possibly changed the fate of this war?