Missouri Compromise (1820) Introduction This paper will explain and analyze the Missouri Compromise (1820). As the U.S. added territories, the issue of slavery resulted in political tension between the north and south. The southerners believed that slaves were needed to continue farming in the new lands and they attempted to introduce slave states in the west. On the other hand, the northerners argued that it was appropriate to prohibit and prevent the slavery institution from spreading westward. The north and south representatives in the House were also divided about the issue of abolition but were interested in the Union.
Savannah Gitchel Mrs. Hodges-Bond Cambridge US History 3 October 2016 Meeting of the Minds Dred Scott The Dred Scott v. Sandford case was a pivotal point in leading America to civil war. The Supreme Court stated that even though Scott was in a free state, he was still the property of his owner and had to remain that way. Abolitionists were angered even further by this decision, whether they wanted complete abolishment, or just to stop the spread of slavery into the North. Reversely, the south was overjoyed with the decision. This increased the sectional conflict between the North and South.
The South wanted to keep slaves while the North wanted to abolish them. In conclusion, the primary cause of the civil war was not slavery instead was the issue of states rights. The Northern armies won the Civil War and the the South returned to the Union. “The Civil War started because of differences between free slaves states and the power of the government that said if slavery was correct or incorrect.”(The Civil War in America Prologue). Slavery was right at that time but now it is wrong.
In document 3 it says “ The South thus quickly established a rural way of life supported by an agricultural economy based on slave labor.” So if the South lost slavery their economy would fall and the south would be very very poor. So therefore the Southern states left the union because they didn’t want to be poor. In conclusion the Southern states wanted to secede from the union because President Lincoln was elected, Uncle Tom’s Cabin was published, and because slavery was the basis of their community. They were feared that Lincoln would abolish slavery. They didn’t want Southerners to be convinced that slavery is evil.
Northerners thought that they could stop slavery from occurring in Mexico because it never existed. Northern also disagreed with the expansion of slavery West because they knew it would discourage free laborers from settling in the area. Senator of South Carolina Calhoun argued that Congress had no right to say whether slavery should or shouldn’t occur in new territory because territory belong
Dred Scott was taken back into slavery and accused Sandford because Scott was in a free states and claimed that he was in the free state long enough to be a free slave. The Supreme court ruled against Dred Scott, this decision affected blacks preventing them to become citizens and an giving them the right to appeal to a jury and making it harder for a slave to escape because the free states didn’t make a runaway slave a free slave. The case also affected popular sovereignty. Where states got to choose if they were to be a free states or a slave
After the 1860 election, Lincoln made a firm public decision not to accept the expansion of slavery into the territories. In other words, Lincoln 's early position as president was that, slavery could remain in current slave states but could not expand to new states or territories. Although, Lincoln’s views on slavery often shifted some of them seemed to contradict one another. On another note, current slave states could vouch to keep things the way that they are but, Lincoln still felt that if a nation was divided it would be almost impossible to survive. Lincoln 's views at this time were politically motivated, and they focused on ending the war and preserving the Union.
The Dred Scott V. Sanford case of 1857 declared that African Americans were not citizens of the United States and did not receive the same support from the Federal Government. During this time the Congress also lacked the power to ban slavery in all territories belonging to the United States. In 1850 Dred Scott and his family were declared free under the state court however, this did not last long. The Supreme Court of Missouri revoked the Scott’s family freedom which led him to take his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court denied him citizenship of the U.S. even if he was a citizen of a free state.
However, the President and the Confederates tried unsuccessfully to portray that slavery was not the main cause of conflict and that is wasn’t the primary cause of the Civil War. Lincoln tried to convince himself that the South could keep slavery and that eventually slavery would just fade away. However, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 changed the Presidents outlook
The colonies legalized the slave trade, which caused diverse ideas between the North and the Southern colonies. The North believed that slavery should not be legal, while the southern colonies opposed. Due to this when the seven years war came, the Britain forces offered slaves freedom if they helped with the war, soon southerners had no choice but to offer the same deal. Nevertheless, slavery was soon
8 Powerpoint). This was a problem for the south, because they relied on slaves for profit and moving westward would allow the southern states to gain more slave states. Although The Tallamadge Amendment prohibited slavery, if passed, southern congressman threatened and this could lead to civil war, but the Tallamadge Amendment was never passed. This foreshadowed Missouri to become more of a slave state because southern states pushed for Missouri to become a slave