1.how do you think the admission of new territories as states will effect the slavery issue? 2.what...

1.How do you think the admission of new territories as states will effect the slavery issue?2.What does it mean to compromise?

US 1820Orange – slave statesGreen – free states

Terms to Know:• Compromise – an agreement in which two or more

sides agree to accept less than they originally wanted

• Sectionalism – loyalty to one’s region or “section” of the country instead of the nation as a whole

• Popular sovereignty – the right of the people to rule themselves– People will use this idea to argue that the voters in each

state, not the federal government, should decide key issues (ie. slavery)

Henry Clay Stephen Douglas

Compromise people!

• Complete the fill in the blank worksheet and ADD COLOR to each map using the key

• Creating America - pp. 464 for map – to review content use pages 358-359 for Missouri Compromise, pages 460-461 for Compromise of 1850 and pages 463-465 for Kansas-Nebraska Act

• American Nation – page 460 for Missouri Compromise, page 463-465 for Compromise of 1850, and pages 468-470 for Kansas-Nebraska Act

Missouri Compromise (1820)

• Issue – balance of power threatened when Missouri applies for statehood as slave state (11/11)

• Compromise – (Clay) – 1 Missouri admitted as slave state– 2 Maine admitted as a free state– 3 The rest of the Louisiana Territory was divided at

the 36⁰ 30’ – applied only to Louisiana Purchase lands. All new states north of line would be free, slavery permitted south of the line

• Outcome – Balance maintained for 30 years

Wilmot Proviso 1846- proposal to outlaw slavery in newly acquired

Mexican lands- did not pass, but led to birth of

Free-Soil Party – some elected to Congress

Compromise of 1850• Issue – balance of power threatened once again when

California applies for statehood as free state (15/15) • Compromise – (Pushed by Clay, then Douglas)

– 1 California admitted as free state– 2 New Mexico and Utah become territories, voters to

decide on slavery issue themselves (popular sovereignty) – 3 Harsher Fugitive Slave law passed (any African-American

from North could be kidnapped into slavery, all Northerners legally required to assist in catching slaves)

– 4 Slave trade (buying and selling) abolished in Washington DC, but not slavery itself

– 5 Border dispute settled between Texas and New Mexico• Outcome – tensions remain high because neither side

felt satisfied – the fugitive slave act was especially hard for northerners to accept

Kansas-Nebraska Act• Issue – Should the remaining parts of the

Louisiana purchase territory be free states or slave states?

• Compromise – (Douglas)– 1 The remaining land in the Louisiana Purchase was

split into two territories (Kansas and Nebraska)– 2 These territories would decide the issue of slavery

themselves – (popular sovereignty)• Outcome – Anti-slavery groups outraged –

slavery was already banned in this area with the Missouri Compromise! Groups from both sides move into Kansas to try and stake claim to the region

• Leads to …“Bleeding Kansas” (VIOLENCE)

Bell Ringer!• For the following statement indicate if it refers to

(M) Missouri Compromise(C) Compromise of 1850 (K/N) Kansas-Nebraska Act

1. Included a stronger Fugitive Slave Act to help slaveholders recapture runaways

2. Ensured a balance of free/slave states for almost 30 years3. Popular sovereignty used to decide on slavery, so people of

territory would vote on it (two compromises)4. Missouri admitted as a slave state5. Overturned Missouri Compromise Law

C

M

K/N,C

M

K/N

Bleeding Kansas simulation People Involved…

• Border Ruffians - pro-slavery groups who cross the border to fight with anti-slavery groups in Kansas– Returned on election day and vote illegally!

• Abolitionists – want to end slavery, refuse to follow new laws and create their own government

• Free-Soilers – wanted to outlaw slavery in newly acquired Mexican lands

• Kansas residents – move to Kansas mainly to farm – most have no loyalty to either side

• John Brown – Abolitionist who leads a group to strike back against border ruffians, uses extreme violence to strike “terror” into pro-slavery settlers

• Are the compromises Congress is enacting solving the slavery issue? Why or why not?

• At this point, what method should abolitionists use to fight slavery? (Peaceful protest or direct action?)

• Is violence justified as a means to a political end or to social change? Why or why not?

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MILN_17KH6M

• Abolitionists (12 minutes)• Bleeding Kansas, John Brown, violence in

Senate, Dred Scott

Fugitive Slave Law of 1850• What would Thoreau say about this?CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE!

Uncle Tom’s Cabin• Harriet Beecher Stowe 1852• Best selling novel at the time, only second to the Bible!• Read widely, told of horrors of slavery

The Plot…• The book explores the different aspects of slavery exposing the

evils of even the “kind” masters• “Uncle Tom” is a slave who starts out on Mr. Shelby’s plantation

(kind master who sees the evils of slavery but still owns slaves) • Tom is eventually sold to a very cruel master (Simon Legree),he abuses Tom so badly that he eventually kills him• Tom never resists or attempts escape, uses religion to keep hope

“Bleeding Kansas”

• Pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers battling it out for domination in Kansas

• How does the idea of popular sovereignty lead to this?

Bleeding Sumner!

John BrownHow does John Brown “strike terror” into

pro-slavery settlers?

Dred Scott Case

Dred Scott Case

Court addresses 3 questions with this case:–1 – Can a slave sue in court?–2 – Does living in a free territory make a slave free?–3 – Can Congress outlaw slavery in any US state or

territory?

A: NO

SUPREME COURT DECISIONS:

Q: Was Scott a U.S. citizen with the right to sue?A: NO

Q: Did living in a free territory make Scott a free man?

A: NO

Q: Did Congress have the right to outlaw slavery in any territory?

Review : What is Judicial Review?• Can declare a law passed by Congress to be

UNCONSTITUTIONAL(So they can overturn any previous law passed)

•The Missouri Compromise was found to be unconstitutional

RESULTS:•Dred Scott was not given his freedom

Open to slavery through popular sovereignty (Compromise of 1850)

Open to slavery through popular sovereignty (KS-NE Act)

Missouri Compromise line is declared unconstitutional (Dred Scott Decision)

Opinions of the Court

• Majority opinion – Chief Justice Roger Taney• Minority (dissenting) opinion – Justice

Benjamin Curtis

• Taney – came from slave owning tobacco family, appointed by Jackson, firm believer in states’ rights

• Curtis – from Massachusetts, first Justice to have formal law degree (Harvard), eventually resigns from court on principle (in 1857)

• Following the Dred Scott case, many abolitionists became more radicalized (they were more likely to use violent means to end slavery)

• Others, like Garrison, believed violence only made things worse

• Do you think slavery could still end with non-violence? Why or why not?

• John Brown begins organizing a revolt• Would you join him? Why or why not?

John Brown and Harper’s Ferry

• He wanted to inspire slaves to fight • Planned to capturefederal arsenal (gun warehouse) at Harper’sFerry, Virginia

The Fight• Brown and 18 followers capture arsenal,

killing 4 people in the raid• Word is sent to rally and arm local slaves but

none join him (not many slaves in the area!)

An illustration entitled "Capture of John Brown in the Engine House"10 of Brown’s men were killed including 2 of his sonsA few escaped, 7 were captured, tried and hanged

Reports of the event add to hysteria:News reports like the New York Times Herald called the event the “Extensive Negro Conspiracy”

The arraignment of John Brown before the Federal court at Charles Town, West Virginia. Brown refused to plead guilty to insanity as a defense at his trial, and in his final speech attacking slavery, became a martyr for the abolitionist cause. He was hanged for treason on December 2, 1859.

Abolitionists respond to Brown’s Execution

John Brown: Martyr or Terrorist?Martyr – someone who dies for a cause

Terrorist – someone who uses violence to strike fear into enemy

How should Americans

remember me?

Video

• http://player.discoveryeducation.com/index.cfm?guidAssetId=5A8888F7-8474-435E-84C7-B45FB65FEC86&blnFromSearch=1&productcode=US