Brandi wrote:

---

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.

---

Very nice, Brandi!

alright:
"The south began to hear that Northerners were moving into Kansas.  A ballot was taken and the proslavery people won the election."
...How did the South pull off such a victory?
-and-
"The violence that was taking place was just a small glimpse of what would take place during the Civil War."
...In what ways did the Bleeding Kansas conflict mirror the Civil War (not just violence-wise)?

Alex Z. wrote:

---

CRYSTAL wrote:

---

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

 

---

John Brown, eh?
It says the "focus might be on" etc. etc., but for you, Crystal, I'll talk.

John Brown was a radical man that was immensely firm in his beliefs against slavery. He more or less personifies the extreme emotion of that time period regarding Kansas and the Civil War to come.
...anthing else?

---

I know i know, just felt like you should have included him in your writing since it said so.
no, nothing else. that would be all, sir.
in the words of matthew perry (latin not history) EXCELLAHNTAY

If Abraham Lincoln would have signed the Crittenden Compromise, do you think that we might still slavery today, due to the fact that the Crittenden Compromise was guarenteeing slavery in the south?

If Abraham Lincoln would have signed the Crittenden Compromise, do you think that we might still slavery today, due to the fact that the Crittenden Compromise was guarenteeing slavery in the south?

Jill-

do you think that any of John Brown's actions regarding Bleeding Kansas or Harpers Ferry could be considered justifiable? If so, how and why?  Or do you think his motives were poor and actions were immoral and corrupt.

-kels

ps. nice job =]

Julia Greene wrote:

---

  If Abraham had thought it over and would have passed the compromise, the Civil War may have never come to part.

 

 

If Abraham Lincoln would have signed the Crittenden Compromise, do you think that we might still slavery today, due to the fact that the Crittenden Compromise was guarenteeing slavery in the south?

 

Julia Greene wrote:

---

 If Abraham had thought it over and would have passed the compromise, the Civil War may have never come to part.

 

 

 

If Abraham Lincoln would have signed the Crittenden Compromise, do you think that we might still slavery today, due to the fact that the Crittenden Compromise was guarenteeing slavery in the south?

mrj wrote:

---

10.  Did lame duck President Buchanan or President-elect Lincoln have any responsibility to act once South Carolina announced its secession after the election? What options did each have in dealing with the crisis? What results seemed likely from each option?

            President James Buchanan is often criticized for not doing anything about the south’s secession from the union when President Lincoln was elected President. When President Lincoln was inaugurated he at first did not make a move to bring the Confederate States of America (CSA) back to the United States of America. Presidents, Lincoln and Davis were under great pressure to take action and it took them a month or two for anything to be done. Lincoln had the duty to enforce federal authority and prove that the Union was indivisible. This is something that James Buchanan did not do. It is probably unlikely that President Buchanan would have done much to bring the CSA back to the Union because for a little less than a century the Southern States remained united politically and economically they just had not been formally organized. Although Buchanan may not have really effected the succession all that much it was his duty to do something as a president the enforce federal authority and try and prove that the country was indivisible.

---

Why didnt James Buchanan try to keep the Union in tact?  How come he left the responsibility to the new President?

Brittney wrote:

---

Julia Greene wrote:

---

  If Abraham had thought it over and would have passed the compromise, the Civil War may have never come to part.

 

 Good point.... lol you got me

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

In the era of states being slave or free, Kansas would remain to be the battle ground for debate. The Kansas Nebraska act of 1854 led the question of slavery up to popular sovereignty, however Nebraska was so far north and Kansas was located right near the slave state Missouri. Kansas soon flooded with people looking to sway the vote in their favor. Because there was different oppositional political groups like the pro-slavers, free-stators and abolitionist’s violence was bound to occur.  Until Kansas was to enter the union as a free state in 1861, this time of outbreak would be known as bleeding Kansas.

             John Brown unlike the northerners who sought peaceful resistance, brown sought to take violent action. John brown first attention during the time that the question of slavey was at its peak. Destruction and murder was common during this time. Stories of rage and violence fluctuated throughout Kansas. One story that left a lasting impression was that of John Brown. In May 1856 at Pottawatomie Creek where John Brown and his sons killed five pro slavery advocates.

Harpers Ferry was originally a plan to set up base in the Blue Ridge Mountains where they would assist run a way slaves and attack s pro slavery people.   When Brown was ready to follow through with his attack, one of his followers threatened to blackmail him and so he went into hiding. A year later he was more than eager to get his pan underway, he gathered a army on a farm in Maryland. On october16 Brown gathered 21 men, 5 which were black, 16 which were white, two of the whites being his sons. Brown and his followers went on to capture federal armory and arsernal and then weapons from the government.  With 8 already (including his son) dead Brown and his people were captured, tried quickly and were sentenced to death.  John Brown was in fact a crucial character in the historical Harpers Ferry and bleeding Kansas.  

7.  Trace the rise of Lincoln through the events of the decade, from the Kansas-Nebraska Act to the Lincoln-Douglas debates to the 1860 election.

          Abraham Lincoln went from being an unknown lawyer from Illinois to a very well known politician.  He became known for his stance on the Kansas-Nebraska Act and his famous debates with Stephen Douglas, who was considered on of the greatest speakers of his time. 

          Lincoln was opposed to the Kansas-Nebraska Act which had been proposed by Stephen Douglas. He felt that the act itself made America look like a “hypocrite” to the rest of the world.  In an 1854 speech, in which he spoke out against the Kansas Nebraska Act, he stated, “I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world—enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites—causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, […] criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.” This view made him popular among free-soil supporters.

          In 1858 he ran for Senate against Stephen Douglas and lost.  However, he challenged Douglas to a series of debates which became known as the Lincoln-Douglas debates.  These debates were famous throughout the country because people were shocked that Lincoln, who was not known for his skills in public speaking and debates, would challenge Douglas, who was considered one of the greatest debaters of his time.  They were even more shocked, though when Lincoln actually did well in the debates, challenging Stephen Douglas to defend his beloved popular sovereignty against the Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case.  Lincoln asked Douglas if a territory would still be allowed to decide for itself whether they would allow slavery, even after the Supreme Court has ruled that Africans would never be anything other than property even if they were in a free territory.  Douglas defended his position on popular sovereignty despite the Supreme Court ruling, saying that if the people of the territory want slavery it is their decision.

          When Lincoln was nominated as the presidential candidate for the Republican Party in 1860, many thought that he did not have much of a chance of winning.  He however became very popular in the newly acquired states because he was from the west and since he had little political experience he had not yet acquired many enemies.  His views on slavery became popular with some voters as well, who felt that that he was much more moderate than his opponents.  Due to his opinions on slavery however, many Southern states despised him as a politician and he was not even put on nine Southern ballots.  Although he got only two Southern counties out of 996, he won the presidency and became the first Republican president of the United States.

Sources:

Textbook

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

http://www.teacheroz.com/Civil_War_Causes.htm

Julia Greene wrote:

---

Brittney wrote:

---

Julia Greene wrote:

---

  If Abraham had thought it over and would have passed the compromise, the Civil War may have never come to part.

 

 Good point.... lol you got me

---