Slavery became a key issue in the arguments of the north and the south. The south was very agricultural while the north was industrial. The south feared the declaration of freedom for the slaves by government leaders in the north. Government officials at the time were not interested in ending Slavery in the slave states, but instead in keeping newly admitted states from becoming slave states. The first official disagreement of this came in 1820.
The indians, slaves, and women were hurt by Jacksonian Democracy. #8 What is the relationship between slavery and westward expansion? The relationship between the two would be direct. Every time Western territories wanted to be states, the discussion of slavery came up. The North wanted the new states to be free, while the South wanted the new states to be slave states.
The Missouri Compromise was definite attempt by the government to shove the issue out of view. By the time the Missouri Compromise was introduced, a few northern states were already in the process of abolishing slavery, as was England. The government was finally recognizing the cruelties of slavery but did not want to anger the southern plantation owners. Thus, they created the Missouri Compromise in order to ease their guilt and face the least contempt. The Missouri Compromise was only able to increase the brewing conflict of slavery between northern states and southern states.
Throughout the years of 1807-1910, there was a lot of tension and confusion within the United States. The major factor that prompted the U.S. expansion was they wanted to expand and make their borders known. An agreement called the Missouri Compromise was passed by Congress in 1820.This compromise admitted the states in pairs, one slaveholding and one free. Then in 1857 the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had no right to prohibit slavery in the territories. With that in affect, territories than got the right of popular sovereignty, which allowed the people to determine if they would permit or prevent slavery within their borders not congress.
Missouri wanted to enter the nation as a slave state which would cause a problem, the North was concerned by the unbalance that it would cause within the Senate. So congressman James Tallmadge "proposed a ban on the importation of slaves into Missouri and the slow freedom of its black residents". As a way to make the North happy, the House of Representatives passed the bill that granted Maine as a free state. In addition, as part of the compromise, slavery would be not allowed slavery in the north of the 36°30 ' parallel line. The issue over the Missouri Compromise caused controversy within Congress.
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was a kind of an agreement between the two sides (the pro and the anti-slavery sections) with the purpose of regulating slavery in the western territories. Excluding Missouri, this settlement banned slavery in the new states of the Arkansas territory. The Missouri Compromise recognized that the Congress had no right to impose over states claiming admission to the union conditions that dit not call to those states already in the union and also established a precedent for the relegation of slavery from public territory obtained after the Constitution. After the admission of Missouri in 1821, there were no states admitted until 1836 when Arkansas became a slave state and followed by Michigan which became a free
One issue they faced concerned how they would count slaves for legislative purposes. The free North states thought slaves shouldn’t be counted at all because it would give the slave states an unfair representation due to the high slave population. However, the South disagreed for they feared the Northern states would have a substantial population advantage if the slaves were not counted. They worried that the Northern states would use such an advantage against them to regulate or even abolish slavery. To appease the slavery states they enacted the Three-Fifths Compromise.
The case that changed it all came in 1857 as in the North people were also angered over the Dred Scott decision as it only widened the political and social gap between the North and South and took the nation only closer to a civil war. Dred Scott was a slave that was taken to a free slave state with his master and lived on the land for a long time to be only returned to Missouri, which was a slave state but his master passed away and Dred Scott decided to sue for his freedom by the help of abolitionist lawyers. Dred Scott claimed he should be free since he had lived on free soil for many years. In 1857, Dred Scott lost due to decision by seven out of nine of Justices on the Supreme Court voted he must be a citizen, so as a non-citizen he could not sue in a federal court and must go back to being a slave. Howard on page 33 states perfectly what this decision was truly meant by stating, “As relates to these States, it is too plain for argument, that they have never been regarded as a part of the people or citizens of the State, nor supposed to possess any political rights which the dominant race might not withhold or grant at their pleasure.” This also inferred that free soil and popular
Civil War began because the North wanted to abolish slavery, the South seceded from the Union, and the North overpowered the South. The North covets to abolish slavery for African-Americans in the South. However, abolitionists helped slaves escape to the North. Abolitionist such as William Lloyd Garrison, John Brown, Gerrit Smith and Charles Lenox Remond were against practice of slavery. Document four explains how abolitionist Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote Uncle
These court cases are a big impact to African American rights and their lives. Dred Scott v. Sanford, Dred Scott and his slave owner went to Illinois (which is a free state) then came to Missouri (which is a Slave state) but unfortunately the slave owner died, Dred Scott thought since he just came from a free state he can get freedom so he sued and his case went up 2 the Supreme Court which he loss cause a slave that 's below a regular person can 't sue the government and stayed a slave. The importance of this case is that slaves are not citizen and can 't sue the government and congress had a lack of power ban slavery in U.S. Territories As to the second case Shelley bought a house in Missouri but in that neighborhood there was a there was a agreement not all has sign to keep the colored away from the neighborhood so some of the neighbors were angry and wanted to kick Shelly out of the neighborhood so she sued the head of the neighborhood and won the case because the neighbors thought her there violated he 14th amendment which didn 't and was able to live in her house. The importance of this case was the case didn 't violate the 14th amendment and it changed for black people to buy a house
The two different groups represent two opposing ideologies that were willing to go to extremes to achieve their goals. The Topeka constitution was created by the inhabitants of Kansas which did not allow slavery so the free state party would support this constitution (Hahn 11/10). Since Kansas was above the thirty-six and thirty parallel line many people from the north migrated there because it will become a free state any way until Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed which allowed popular sovereignty, that the Kansas and Nebraska territory can decide for themselves if the residents want to have slaves or not. Since the residents could vote on slavery many people from Missouri crossed the border into to vote illegally and these people were called the border ruffians (Hahn 11/10). When the border ruffians started voting illegally to decide on statehood which gave pro-slavery side a huge advantage and would support the LeCompton that allowed slavery, so people from nearby free states were getting upset to the point where John Brown a deeply religious absolutist from the north took upon himself and his followers to take action that would his group killing five people which started ‘Bleeding Kansas’ (Hahn 11/10).
Dred Scott to them was a property belonging to his owner, and he could not be taken away from his owner without due process of the law. These did not seat well with the North as they believed Dred Scott should have been left free. A young lawyer took quite an interest in the case, the very same lawyer we later saw becoming the United States of America President, his name was Abraham Lincoln. Politically, the Northern and Southern states fell apart again slavery and the slave trade as the main player in causing this division. In the early 1800s, a higher percentage of the Northerners belonged to the Whig party, while most of the Southerners were Democrats.
During this historical period, The Kansa-Nebraska Act did very little to satiate the demand by southern states to receive more slave state status, which defined the increasingly divided political situation that Lincoln inherited as a free state representative in Congress: “If slaveholders miraculously captured Kansas, then a still more widely diffused and more intense anti-slave sentiment would be awakened.” These are important factors in the causality of the civil war, which was is presented in the increasing notion of a “house divided” in clash between free states and slave states in the new territories offered through western expansion.
Irene Emerson that Dred Scott and his family were free. On March 22, 1852 the Missouri Supreme Court reversed it. Dred Scott and his attorneys went to the Federal Court, the United States Supreme Court. On March 6, 1857 the court said that the Scott family would stay slaves. Chief Justice Roger Taney said that because the Scott’s were African Americans they were not citizens of the United States and could not sue for their freedom.
The differences between the north and the south soon became known as sectionalism, exaggerated to a particular region of the country. The Senate proposed prohibiting slavery in the remainder of the Louisiana Purchase north of 36 degrees 30’N latitude. The Missouri Compromise preserved the balance between slave