Kansas-Nebraska Act And The Compromise Of 1850

The purpose of the Missouri Compromise was to try to keep Congress balanced with slave and free states. Two states were added: Missouri was a slave state and Maine was a free state. The Missouri Compromise also stated that the latitude line 36 30 was the line where slavery stopped.

Although the aftereffects of the era of good feelings dominated the beginning of the time period and compromises were at first effective, sectionalism over national subjects, especially slavery, led to a crisis in which compromises often meant more increase in political tensions. (Doc F) Sectionalism abruptly increased in the 1820 and 1830's with The Missouri Compromise and the Tallmadge Amendment. Tallmadge's radical proposition was that Missouri gradually emancipated its slaves and prohibit slavery in the rest of the Louisiana Purchase which produced raging political debates. If Missouri went either as a slave state or free state, the precarious balance of eleven to eleven states in the senate would be upset. The compromise

Research Task- Describe the role of the 1820 Missouri Compromise in the campaign against slavery!

In 1954, the Kansas- Nebraska Act was passed. Northern Democrat Steven Douglass in an attempt to build a transcontinental railroad petitioned the Kansas-Nebraska act on the bases that the Compromise of 1850 validated popular sovereignty. In Douglass’s opinion the Compromise of 1850 made the Missouri Compromise of 1820 void. There was opposition from Northern politicians who believed that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was a sacred pact made by previous lawmakers during the union’s long history of compromises. For Southern politicians the Kansas- Nebraska Act would help the extension of slavery which most of the Northerners were against. Ignoring the wishes of the Northerners and pushing the Democratic agenda which wanted not only the

The Kansas and Nebraska Act was also a major cause of political conflicts. It pressured popular sovereignty over those new territories. Kansas, according to the Northerners, was being pressured into becoming a slave state by having acts of violence be done against them. As well, people from Missouri were going into Kansas and using their power to vote for it as a slave state, and the North

The compromise of 1850 was a settlement on a series of issues plaguing the unity of the states. The primary issue to address was the institution of slavery, which was causing much dissension between the north and the south. Additional items to be addressed were territory issues and to prevent secession by the south. Henry Clay stepped forward to present a compromise, which had Congress in an eight-month discussion known as the “Great Debate”. As a result of the proposal, there were strong oppositions. One outspoken person who opposed the proposal was John C Calhoun. Calhoun was an intellectual southern politician, political philosopher and a proponent to the protection of Southern interests. He was an advocate for states’ rights and

The 1850s were a time of attempted compromise when compromise was no longer possible. The Union was becoming divided through many events in the time leading into the Civil War. The North and South had too many hostilities to account for. Socially, the North and the South could not stand what the other would do or say with anything. Politically, the government was completely divided and undecided. And economically, the South began to prosper as the North began to struggle. Thus, during the 1850s, socially, politically, and economically there was not any compromise that could fix the problems beginning to occur.

More than any other event, the American Civil War went far in defining a United States that had been imperfectly and incompletely shaped by its first 70 years. For seven decades, the presence of slavery in a republic founded on principles of human freedom increasingly confused the political system and unraveled the social fabric. (Heidler, David S. and Jeanne T. Heidler. (2015)). Although slavery in the South had given rise to antislavery movements in the North as early as the American Revolution, a fresh vigor characterized the abolition movement in the 1830s. Arguments over the western territories clouded the country into a series of disruptive crises. Each was settled with an unsatisfying compromise that left most Southerners feeling materially cheated and many Northerners morally embarrassed. (Heidler, David S. and Jeanne T. Heidler. (2015)). Efforts to organize the Midwest region called the Nebraska Territory in 1854, led to the ill-conceived Kansas-Nebraska Act. It was yet another attempt designed to secure Southern support for the organization of what by prior agreement would have been a free territory. Kansas and Nebraska were created from the region under the principal of popular sovereignty, which was to say that each territory would decide for itself whether to admit or prohibit slavery. (Heidler, David S. and Jeanne T. Heidler. (2015)). That plan

The measures, a trade off planned by Whig Senator Henry Clay, who neglected to get them through himself, were shepherded to entry by Democratic Senator Stephen Douglas and Whig Senator Daniel Webster. The measures were contradicted by Senator and previous Vice-President John C. Calhoun. The Compromise was conceivable after the demise of President Zachary Taylor, who was in resistance. Succeeding him was an in number supporter of the trade off: Millard Fillmore. It briefly defused sectional strains in the United States, deferring the withdrawal emergency and the American Civil War. The Compromise dropped the Wilmot Proviso, which never got to be law however would have banned subjugation in domain gained from Mexico. Rather the Compromise further embraced the regulation of "Mainstream Sovereignty" for the Territory of New Mexico and the Territory of Utah. The different bargains reduced political controversy for a long time, until the relative respite was broken by the divisive Kansas-Nebraska Act. Basically it was a progression of bills set out to keep the country united. Despite the fact that it postponed progression, it is seen as just a makeshift fix..

The Missouri compromise was a very important event that marked the beginning of the long battle against slavery. In the years leading up to the Missouri compromise tensions were rising between the North and the South. The states were all being divided into slave states and free states. Free states were states that were anti-slavery and were made up of mainly Northern states while slave states were states that supported slavery and were all mostly Southern states. Before the Missouri compromise the amounts of slave and free states were kept balanced. When Missouri met all the requirements to become a state and wanted to be admitted as a slave state, it threatened to tip the balance. The Missouri compromise allowed the admission of Missouri as a slave state while at the same time allowing Maine to be admitted as a free state, maintaining the balance. It also prohibited slavery in the states North of the southern boundary of Missouri. This conflict inspired other people and was the first major battle against slavery. It also kept the number of free and slave states even preventing the balance from being tipped in favor of slavery. One of the arguments that I intend to make to prove that the Missouri compromise was the beginning of this battle is that the Missouri Compromise prevented pro slavery states from gaining majority in the senate. A second point that I will make is that the Missouri compromise opened up serious debates and conversations that otherwise may not have

A leading example of the struggles of slavery in the western states was the struggle over slavery in Kansas. Document F depicts a political cartoon basically stating that Stephen Douglas, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan all attempted intentionally or unintentionally to spread slavery to the West. Stephen Douglas proposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act in which the Midwest Nebraska territory would be divided into two states Kansas and Nebraska and the issue of slavery would be determined by in state vote known as "popular sovereignty". Franklin Pierce aided with the signing of the bill. The results upon this bill was harsh fighting between pro-slavery supporters and non-slavery supporters in Kansas over this issue. It also led to the non-reelection of Pierce and the end to the Whig party, along with the introduction of the sectional Republican party, who opposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act. An attempt at forcing slavery into

The Civil War was a very important time in history. The Missouri Compromise was one of the causes of the war. It basically settled the dispute of Missouri wanting to be a slave state. The Missouri Compromise was the states way of stopping all the newly gained states from becoming anti-slavery. The fear of having slavery banned across the whole United States scared many people.

The Civil War, which lasted from 1861 to 1877, was mainly caused by the diverging society between the North and the South. The North and the South had different goals. There were many factors that led to the war and the chief ones were political and economic differences between the North and the South. The North’s aggression to control the South had led to the point where it was intolerable. The issue on slavery was one of the causes of the Civil War. Slavery and slave trades had become a big part of the South’s economy. The slaves were needed to work on plantations which helped the South prospered. During the 19th Century, the North worked hard on abolishing slavery, which they thought was a disgrace to the Union.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act was one of the most crucial events leading up to the Civil War. In 1854 the Kansas-Nebraska Act created territories for both Kansas and Nebraska. This gave a chance for people to move slavery to the Midwest. This put the center of attention on Kansas, because this was going to alter the balance between the North and the South. The territory we know as Kansas was better known as “Bleeding Kansas” due to all the violent clashes between the pro- and anti-slavery parties.

In efforts to better understand the Civil War most historians examine the Sectional Crisis and the Compromise of 1850 in the decades leading up to the worst years in American History. Some historians prefer to focus on the underlying theme of the war, others tightly examine individual leaders, events, and political parties, connecting them all together like puzzle pieces to define the years prior to the war. Despite the contrasting views, it is clear to realize the constant prevailing issues of the Antebellum Period, the Sectional Crisis and the Compromise of 1850. In particular, the Compromise of 1850 is deceivingly taught as only establishing 3 pivotal elements: the status of slavery in future territories (popular sovereignty), California statehood, and the fugitive slave law. Granted these elements of the compromise provide a great amount of controversy long after their birth, but one element of the compromise perceives to fail in obtaining recognition. The Texas-New Mexico boundary resolution seems to find itself fading away from its relevancy to the civil war, shadowed by more prominent issues regarding the stability of the Union. Abandoning the traditional teaching of the compromise, the Texas-New Mexico border decision figuratively and literally changed the identity of Texas. This was the long awaited result caused by deep rooted social and political issues dating back to the Texas Revolution.