Abstract Slavery provided America with a wide range of labor, and fortune. Ideals from Christianity, and Revolution forced many to grapple with the idea of ending it. Throughout the antebellum era politicians debated the merits allowing the people of territories themselves to decide whether slavery would be prohibited or permitted. This solution created a host of problems. From the establishment of the Northwest and Southwest territories, to the Louisiana Purchase, the annexation of Texas, the acquisition of the Mexican Cession, and finally the debate over Kansas and Nebraska, the extension of slavery confounded politicians.
Consequently, the North and the South developed different societies and economies. During the 1830s, the abolitionist movement in the North viewed slavery as an immoral act and urged the end of slavery, which took away the liberty of slaves. In response to the abolitionism, many Southerners became more determined to defend slavery. This led to the splitting of free and slaves states. The North would have free states and the South would have slave states.
Jerry’s rescue illustrates the debate on Federal and state law on slavery. The Fugitive slave act complicated all of this. Now slave owners could cross into free states to retrieve fugitive slaves when under that states law they were free. The north used the free labor argument to append to the political discussion and hopefully abolish slavery. The Debate just escalated into violence after the Kansas Nebraska Act where a State could possibly decide on slavery through popular sovereignty.
In 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed, making the decision of whether or not the Western states’ would have allow slavery based off of popular sovereignty. The act gave hope to southerners to expand slavery but angered the anti-slavery northerners. The act pitted anti-slavery and pro-slavery forces against each other for control of the new territories. To increase the numbers of anti-slavery, the northerners formed a company to help anti-slavery families move to the new territories. Pro-slavery forced did the same thing to counter what the north was trying to do.
The divided opinion amongst the Justices illustrated the divided nation (Scott v. Sandford 1875). When the Dred Scott case came to the Supreme Court, the nation was in a time of great divide, with pro and antislavery groups arguing about whether new states should enter the nation as "slave" states, where slavery was legal, or "free" states, where slavery was illegal. The nation was on the verge of violent conflict over the issue and Congress was too divided to do anything (Pearson Education Inc. 2005). This argument was heightened by the establishment of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had some territories enter the nation as slave states and others as free states (Independence Hall Association 2013). The Supreme Court did something out of character.
Slavery was a problem that plagued the United States for years; human beings were used and treated like property in this shadowy time in American history. Between the years 1848 and 1861 however, a great debate arose throughout the nation. Americans across the country began to debate slavery and its moralistic and economic factors, and people everywhere took their stance on this issue. Both factors expanded and built up to useful arguments. The North used morality and the South argued economics to justify slavery and feared Abraham Lincoln’s election.
Slavery in The Civil War The American civil war from 1861 to 1865 divided many people in the United States, even turning brother against brother. There were also great amounts of bloodshed and was one of the bloodiest wars in the US and left a heritage of brief and bitterness. And the basis of this war, slavery, slavery is usually very cruel and has been around since early man. Their were two sides to this war, the North and the south. The North consisted of 19 free states in which slavery was prohibited and in the South 15 slave states which could own slaves.
The controversy over the expansion of slavery into western territory contributed greatly to the coming of the Civil War. The battle between the North and the South of maintaining the balance of free states and slave states. Many compromises have appeased yet pushed back the inevitable Civil War. In 1804 Jefferson was elected for his second term, and a year before that America had bought Louisiana. Buying this large territory expanded the U.S ' territory greatly, which brought great difficulty to regulate.
This act allowed the territories of Kansas and Nebraska to decide themselves if they wanted to be slave or free. Many people flocked to these territories to vote. Northerners and Southerners bribed many people to move to the territories and vote for or against slavery. Pro-Slavery settlers won the first election, but anti-slavery settlers charged them with fraud and another election was held. Violence erupted while the second election was taking place.
The civil war was an inevitable result due to tensions and events that had taken place within the union during the past few years before the beginning of the war. Events such as the Missouri Compromise, Kansas-Nebraska act which repealed the Missouri Compromise, and finally the assault of Fort Sumter. The southern states began to assume that their states rights’ were being violated, the north was attempting to gain control of the union in order to abolish slavery and thus the south began succession from the union. The southerners’ efforts and its expansion proslavery mobs became hostile and violent toward Northerners prior to the war, although southerners were resulting in violence and intimidation to prevent others from speaking out against