wagner's docs

The tension was raised betweeen the South and the North because the were talking bad about each other.

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

They also saw the law as something that enacted the crime of kidnapping and also as something that wasn’t covered in the Constitution. The whole compromise led to the rapid settlement of Kansas and Nebraska because the Compromise of 1850 led to the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This rapid settlement was because in both Kansas and the Nebraska the issue over slavery would be determined by popular sovereignty. This rapid settlement led to Bleeding Kansas where a series of violent events occurred. Both sides of Slavery fought for control over the state of the Kansas Territory. The Democrats tried to force slavery upon free soilers who came to not allow slavery in Kansa because it was a new territory (Document F). This action showed great division in the union because of the differing views of Slavery and the constitutionality of many decisions.

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

As tensions between the North and the South rose on the issues of slavery and states’ rights, numerous compromises were proposed to ease the conflict. Such compromises included the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and the Crittenden Compromise. These compromises had intentions of defining where slavery was permitted and clarifying states’ rights. They were only temporary fixes to a more pressing issue. Between the Missouri Compromise and the Crittenden Compromise, a series of events changed the political atmosphere of the United States and prevented any more compromises on the institution of slavery from being passed.

Debates over which powers were rightly the states and rightly the federal governments were already tense and the question of whether slavery should or shouldn’t exist in the new territories of America, added on to the already strained relationship between the two sides. Document A describes this situation as a cup on the edge of the shelf, certain things almost pushing it over the edge such as the addition of new states being free or under a slavery economy. Many compromises were formed to try and keep states’ rights as well as keep power for the government. The south wanted to assert their authority over the federal government so they could abolish federal rights they didn’t support, this was

The Missouri Compromise stated Missouri would be a slave state and Maine would be carved out of Massachusetts and created into a non-slave state. The Missouri Compromise really angered the North, contributing to the Civil War.

Since Missouri’s population was composed of 16 percent slaves, it would be admitted as a slave state therefore upsetting the balance in favor of the south. Northerners didn’t like this because Missouri was at the same latitude as the free states of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, and because of this they feared that it would set a precedent for slave states coming more north. The north and south continued to argue and argue over the issue of slavery. The north accused the south of trying to extend the institution of slavery and the south said that the north was conspiring to destroy the Union and end slavery. To resolve this crisis, congress passed a series of agreements that became known as the Missouri Compromise, which smoothed over the crisis. In 1820, Congress admitted Maine as a free state and Missouri as a slave state in order to balance the number of free and slave states and to keep order between the north and south. Also, it prohibited slavery in the remainder of the Louisiana Purchase north of the southern boundary of Missouri. This compromise soon fell apart after it was passed. Missouri drafted its own Constitution saying that free blacks were prohibited from entering their territory. Because of this provision, which was against the federal Constitution stating that citizens of one state were entitled to the same rights as citizens of other states, antislavery northerners

Every effort the North made to pacify the South and/or to help the Blacks was blatantly rejected by the South. If the North declared one law, the South would find a loophole and thus the country was a mess of disunity and debate over Constitutional changes (?) (Doc. A and B). This tug-of-war is also anther reason for why no social changes resulted from constitutional changes from 1860 to 1877. Even if the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were wholeheartedly radical and revolutionary constitutional changes, social changes, never mind developments, were not in any way possible because of strong Southern resistance (Doc. G).

The secession of seven southern states. After Lincoln was elected southern states were furious. The reason why they were furious was that they never voted for him. They felt that their votes did not matter to them. Some states threatened to secede from the union. Secession was declared unconstitutional, but the states did not care. Lincoln argued that “The government was a union of people and not of states.”. He could of of helped the states or let the states go and let the United States look weak and apart. He picked the second choice, eleven states seceded, South Carolina was the first to go. The states were Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee,

In 1820 Missouri wanted to join the Union as a slave state. Since it would ruin the balance between Slave states and Free states in the Senate, Henry Clay came up with the Missouri compromise. What it did was make Missouri a Slave state and Maine a free state. “This law prohibited slavery in the Louisiana Territory north of the 36° 30´ latitude line.”(Bibliography source #2) It also allowed the owners to recapture runaway slaves that fled to the North, like wanted posters describing them and how much for the reward. “Runaway from the subscriber, on the night of Thursday, the 30th of September” (Bibliography#3) They limited themselves by only applying the Compromise to the states gained in the Louisiana Purchase, this than led to the fighting after the Mexican war when America gained new territories in the West. This ruined the Missouri Compromise. Historians believe that if the Compromise had been applied to all

First off, the way they declared secession and proceeded to do so was illegal. To begin with everyday we recite the pledge of allegiance where it states, “one nation, indivisible”. Those southerners recited the same pledge we did and they recited themselves that this union is indivisible. Next, under the constitution of the United States of America secession was and always will be considered illegal because of Article 10 Section 1. In this part of the constitution it was illustrated that, “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation….”. The southern states obviously did not follow that and violated the constitution they agreed to abide by themselves. When they concurred to join the Union they agreed to join an indivisible nation. Nowhere could they make a complaint worthy enough to try to separate for the states that they agreed to join, but of course they tried to with the controversial subject of slavery.

By passing Missouri to be subjugation state and Maine a free state, there was an adjust in the house and none of the districts profited to the detriment of the other. The northern states restricted the authorization of the Missouri trade off as it would prompt an expanded populace and regional space along these lines conceding the southern more power than the northern. The Southern, then again, were guarding the Missouri bargain as going of Missouri as a bondage state would expand the quantity of southern portrayal in us house along these lines making the northern insecure. Be that as it may, the expansion of the need to make Maine a slave Free State helped in keeping up a harmony between the slave and the slave Free states in America. The revoking of the Missouri trades off by the Supreme Court prompted the ascent of common war in

This shows that South Carolina had the right to secede because it was a sovereign state. It also shows how the South should have had the right to decide whether they would want to secede from the country or not. Another example is that when the Southern states joined the Union, it was voluntarily (Appleby et.al 556). “Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of the union of the states being permanent.” (http:/civilwar.bluegrass.net). This shows that they should have the right to leave the Union if they choose to. They had this right because the South had no bind with the Union stating that they had to stay except for the United States constitution in which the North had already violated. Even though the United States constitution was what they looked at as a contract, the Union already desecrated its’ terms before this dispute. It also shows how the right was their own and the government could not control their choices in staying or not. These reasons and examples show how the South had to right to secede because of various reasons regarding the political state the government was in.

What is secession? The definition is the act of withdrawal. This can mean a country such as Germany withdrawing from the European Union, or a state or states withdrawing from the United States. This can also be broken down into a withdrawal of counties from a state or even a town from a county. This can even be broken down into an individual act of secession, an individual withdrawing from the government. Within this essay I intended to show that not only is secession legal but also that it is a natural law that is imbued to all people. I will also touch on secession within the United States as well as in the rest of the world. I will also show that the Constitution allows for the secession of the states as well.