The Fugitive salve act was an act passed by the US Government in response to slaves escape from their slave masters. The law briefly stated that if the run away slave be caught by any of the free northern solider, They shall be handed back to their slave master in the south and the law also stated that the northern people will have to abide by that same law. This law should be considered unbearable. I personally would not abide with this law. There should be no such law.
The way to handle the situations was from one extreme to another. Anti-Slavery was one of the major views in the North on slavery. These people believed that the institution of slavery was wrong and to get rid of it, popular sovereignty was the answer. Popular sovereignty was the idea that the future state government should decide if they are for or against slavery. The antislavery activists also thought that slavery could be contained, and eventually the act would die out.
The Civil War was the war that tore the united states apart. Most people assume the war was fought only about slavery. But the war was fought for many more reasons. The north, known as the Yankees, or the union. Wanted to abolish slavery, decreases the economy difference in the southern farms and better state and equal rights.
The civil war did reduce sectional antagonism and did not make the United States one nation. These days there are more wars and confusion going on.There were individual states that wanted to have slaves and have there own rules and didn’t was to abide by any state 's rules.The rebellion is what started it all. Violence, cruelty, harshness against slaves,and that is how the Civil War was started. Just like the soldiers were getting treated differently. The slaves couldn’t take no more so they started the rebellion.
There were other factors and incentives that drove the anti-slavery supporters. Larry Gara describes this phenomenon: “While some abolitionists were indignant at the slave system and what it did to black men, many more northerners became anti-southern and antislavery because of what the slave system did or threatened to do to them. A failure to recognize this can easily lead us into a blind alley of oversimplification, and to view the events of a hundred years ago as a morality play with heroes and villains rather than a plausible presentation of a human dilemma.” Gara brings up a good point here. It is important that we don’t view segregation with twentieth century goggles. Racism was with no doubt present on both sides, but neither side would have gone to the extremes that they did over a dispute of how ‘human’ slaves were.
The Bible does give instruction over how to treat and own a slave, and none of these rules were popularly followed in the Civil War Era. In Exodus 21:16 it states that; “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” Although the stigma between whites and blacks will probably never truly heal because of America’s tainted past, much has been done to restore the relationship between these two races in our own nation. Brutal wars and thousands of deaths finally brought long sought justice to the abolitionists in the
Now that they don’t need us, they’re gonna kill us all off.” Everything said in this quote is not necessarily true. James Baldwin is correct in saying that the slave trade was used as a means of production. However, he is wrong to suggest that the white community no longer needs the black community after the termination of slavery. James Baldwin appears to be playing a theoretical game of connect the dots, but it seems to me that he is missing a few numbered dots. After the end of the slave trade market in the United States, the white community didn’t know what to do.
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.
(a) The Compromise of 1850 - The compromise increased tensions between the North and the South because it introduced popular sovereignty which allowed the new territories to decide whether or not to allow slavery. It also included the Fugitive Slave Law and popular sovereignty which for northerners were unacceptable and they ignored it and this just caused anger and fear in the South. (b) The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 - Stirred up a storm of opposition in the North. Northerners who aided the slave to escape were liable to heavy fines and jail sentences. Fugitive Slave Law was the most argumentable part of the Compromise of 1850 and caused many abolitionists to increase their efforts against slavery and also increased the Underground Railroad
Let’s begin by recrystallizing my advocacy. I argue that slavery ought be abolished because, first of all, it is net harmful. What Mr. Slaveowner does is try and indict my evidence, but this fails because the reasoning behind it is very logical: nonslaveholding whites are trapped in a cycle of poverty because what could be their jobs ends up becoming slave labor. Next, he tries to claim that Uncle Tom’s Cabin is an exaggeration, but my point still holds true. What I’m saying is that due to their legal status of property slaves can be subject to severe abuse.
Randall states “He believed that all men and women had been created equal and he considered blacks as MEN--he had capitalized the word in the clause in the Declaration of Independence that had been stricken by the Second Continental Congress” (592). Jefferson’s slave clause was only defeated by one vote, and according to Allison he wanted slaves gone by 1800 (114). Aaron Schwabach who wrote “Thomas Jefferson, Slavery, Slaves.” said that by January 1, 1808 all states with except for South Carolina, slaves became illegal. Jefferson did not take the changes well, he became disappointed by the slavery part getting turned down (277). Jefferson also states that it is the King’s fault for the slave trade going on for seven years, he is the one who started it, he blames him (Randall 212).
The negative opinions were affecting certain people, such as the ones that were put under pressure by doing all the work. This whole situation caused controversy and anger feelings. Even though there wouldn’t be an agreement because of those who accepted slavery to happen and a war would end up happening the government could have ended it by agreeing with the northern states, and instead of seeing those who fought for their rights being killed they should have just set laws favoring all citizens, and not letting violence happen and creating a bigger problem. There were ways to solve a situation like this instead of choosing violence. The civil war could have been prevented if there was union, but instead of choosing other ways they decided to divide and have opposing sides that only caused
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.
But the South still didn’t have enough to keep slaves from absconding. In 1850, the South pushed through Congress an even harsher and more punitive law, which was more invasive of the rights claimed by free states. The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 specifically required all marshals and deputy marshals to carry out its provisions. These provisions included to arrest and keep safe fugitives and to assist slave holders in returning their slaves. The provisions also included a command to citizens to aid and assist in the execution of the law, and it ordered local courts to issue to slaveholders certificates empowering them to use force and restraint to remove and return their fugitives.
In 1787 the South made sure that a law was passed where no slave would automatically be set free in the circumstances of escaping to a free state (“history.com”). The Slave Acts didn’t stop there, for one was passed in 1793 and then another one in 1850, and these acts of inequity only caused America to delve into a greater tremble that would soon erupt into war (“history.com”). The Fugitive Slave Acts caused a riot among the Northern Abolitionists, because they were detested with the cruelty that those laws imprinted on the lives and hope of all black people. History.com says that “In 1851 a mob of antislavery activists rushed a Boston courthouse and forcibly liberated an escaped slave named Shadrach Minkins from federal custody” (“history.com”). This was not the last rescue either, for the abolitionists stopped at nothing to give slaves the freedom they deserved (“history.com”).