O SlideShare utiliza cookies para otimizar a funcionalidade e o desempenho do site, assim como para apresentar publicidade mais relevante aos nossos usuários. Se você continuar a navegar o site, você aceita o uso de cookies. Leia nosso Contrato do Usuário e nossa Política de Privacidade.
O SlideShare utiliza cookies para otimizar a funcionalidade e o desempenho do site, assim como para apresentar publicidade mais relevante aos nossos usuários. Se você continuar a utilizar o site, você aceita o uso de cookies. Leia nossa Política de Privacidade e nosso Contrato do Usuário para obter mais detalhes.
<ul><ul><ul><li>Louisiana Purchase </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Missouri Compromise </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Wilmot Proviso </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Compromise of 1850 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Kansas-Nebraska Act </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Bleeding Kansas </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Bleeding Sumner </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Uncle Tom’s Cabin </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>John Brown’s Raid </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Dred Scott decision </li></ul></ul></ul>There are several catalysts to the Civil War and each can be tied to slavery.
<ul><li>Doubled the size of the United States </li></ul><ul><li>Increased the size of the national government </li></ul><ul><li>Increased tension over the admission status of states </li></ul>Louisiana Purchase
<ul><li>The compromise attempted to solve the problem of slavery in the LA Purchase </li></ul><ul><ul><li>stating that in LA Purchase territory and only in territory draw a line at 36*30′ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>the southern boundary of MO. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Slavery would be allowed south of that line, not north, except in Missouri </li></ul>1820 the Missouri Compromise dealt with the Louisiana Purchase territory
<ul><li>The Wilmot Proviso tried to attach an amendment to appropriations bill that would support the Mexican War if territory obtained would not allow slavery. </li></ul>The question still remained, what to do with all new territory?
<ul><li>Amendment to a bill put before the U.S. House of Representatives during the Mexican War; it provided an appropriation of $2 million to enable President Polk to negotiate a territorial settlement with Mexico. David Wilmot introduced an amendment to the bill stipulating that none of the territory acquired in the Mexican War should be open to slavery. The amended bill was passed in the House, but the Senate adjourned without voting on it. In the next session of Congress (1847), a new bill providing for a $3-million appropriation was introduced, and Wilmot again proposed an antislavery amendment to it. The amended bill passed the House, but the Senate drew up its own bill, which excluded the proviso. The Wilmot Proviso created great bitterness between North and South and helped crystallize the conflict over the extension of slavery. In the election of 1848 the terms of the Wilmot Proviso, a definite challenge to proslavery groups, were ignored by the Whig and Democratic parties but were adopted by the Free-Soil party. Later the Republican party also favored excluding slavery from new territories. </li></ul>http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0852373.html Wilmot Proviso, 1846
<ul><li>Political party that came into existence in 1847–48 chiefly because of rising opposition to the extension of slavery into any of the territories newly acquired from Mexico </li></ul>http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0819616.html Free-Soil Party
<ul><li>Proposed to solve several issues regarding admittance to the Union. </li></ul><ul><li>The question most addressed is slavery and the determination of slave or free states. </li></ul><ul><li>Some proposed the question be answered by popular sovereignty. </li></ul><ul><li>This opened questions as to when the people decide. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Should they decide before being admitted as a state? Should they decide with the adoption of a Constitution? Or, should they decide with a vote after statehood? </li></ul></ul>Compromise of 1850…background
<ul><li>With the discovery of gold at Sutter’s Mill in California it became necessary to create a formal government there. </li></ul><ul><li>The New Mexico area also needed proper government organization. </li></ul><ul><li>Recommendations were made for both areas to create a constitution and apply for statehood. </li></ul><ul><li>The question was whether they would be slave or free. </li></ul><ul><li>New Mexico faced other challenges as well. </li></ul>Compromise of 1850…background
<ul><li>New Mexico was involved in a border dispute with Texas. There was also the Mormon question. The Mormon’s had proposed their own state status near the Great Salt Lake. Although not pro-slavery they did accept polygamy, which was just as deplorable as slavery to some members of Congress. Therefore, the focus was drawn to California. </li></ul>Other issues…
<ul><li>California quickly embraced the opportunity to become a state. </li></ul><ul><li>A constitution was created, but did not allow slavery. </li></ul><ul><li>This was frightening to Southerners due to the vast size of the area. </li></ul><ul><li>To solve the issue the Compromise of 1850 was proposed. </li></ul>California
<ul><li>Sought to appease both the pro- and anti-slavery factions </li></ul><ul><li>California would be admitted as a free state. </li></ul><ul><li>Texas would be excused from war debts if they would settled with the New Mexico border. </li></ul><ul><li>All new territory below the 36*30′ line could enter the Union as slave states and that above as free which would in part allow slaver into new territories. </li></ul><ul><li>Stronger fugitive slave law </li></ul>Compromise of 1850
<ul><li>The Kansas-Nebraska Act allowed for the determination of slave or free to be by popular sovereignty. </li></ul><ul><li>It also divided the territory into two. </li></ul><ul><li>Having two territories would allow a slave/free balance in Congress. </li></ul>Kansas-Nebraska Act
<ul><li>Many in Kansas did not desire to be a slave state. However, Kansas would be bordered on three sides by slave states. As Kansas is created as a territory and creates a Constitution leaving slavery to be voted on by the people, Missouri gets involved. </li></ul>Kansas-Nebraska Act…results
<ul><li>At the first election of a Congressional representative 1700 Missourians cross the border to sway the vote, choosing a pro-slavery candidate. </li></ul><ul><li>In March 1855 a territorial legislature had to be selected, 4-5000 crossed the MO/Kansas border for this vote. </li></ul><ul><li>Over 5000 pro-slavery votes were cast. </li></ul><ul><li>Almost 5000 were fraudulent but President Pierce did nothing. </li></ul><ul><li>A pro-slavery legislature passed a strict slave code restricting office holding to only those with proslavery views, imprisonment for anyone questioning pro-slavery views, death for anyone supporting slave rebellion or runaways. </li></ul>Bleeding Kansas
<ul><li>Free state settlers began to organize. Henry Ward Beecher suggested sending “Beecher Bibles”, or rifles, in support saying sharps rifles would do more than Bibles as that time to enforce morality. Free state settlers organized a free state party and held a constitutional convention to create a constitution prohibiting slavery. They established their own legislature in 1855-56. Pro-slavery voters boycotted. To prove themselves as not sympathetic to blacks they adopted an ordinance banning the entry of free blacks as well as slaves. </li></ul>
<ul><li>James McPherson describes the two Kansas legislatures, one legal but fraudulent, the other illegal but representing a majority of settlers. The Democratic Senate recognized the first along with the President. The Republican Senate recognized the second. </li></ul>
<ul><li>November of 1855 each side mobilized several hundred armed men along the Wakarusa river </li></ul><ul><li>Consisted of only a few skirmishes </li></ul><ul><li>Following a harshly cold winter 700 pro-slavery men rode into Lawrence destroying offices, businesses and the newspaper, throwing its press into the river. </li></ul><ul><li>The house of the free state governor was burned as well as a nearby hotel. </li></ul>Wakarusa War
THE ACTIONS LEAD TO BLEEDING SUMNER AND JOHN BROWN’S RAID.
<ul><li>May19-20 Charles Sumner speaks to the Senate regarding “the crime against Kansas”, using sexual metaphors of a rape against Kansas. </li></ul><ul><li>Sumner also made abusive references to Senator Andrew Butler of South Carolina. </li></ul><ul><li>Two days later in retaliation for his cousin Andrew Butler, Preston Brooks enters the Senate Chamber and proceeds to beat Charles Sumner with a cane. </li></ul>Bleeding Sumner
Why a cane? <ul><li>When someone is insulted, to get revenge they either challenge the person to a dual if he is an equal, or cane/whip them if they are an inferior. Caning Sumner was symbolic. </li></ul>
<ul><li>Brooks continued beating Sumner, who was trapped at his desk, until other members pulled Brooks away. Sumner was unable to return to his Massachusetts Senate seat for 3 years. It had been saved for him as a symbol of the barbaric nature of slavery. </li></ul><ul><li>Southern moderates denounced Brooks for his actions. However, others applauded him.(There were some who actually sent him engraved canes.) Due to Southern vote the necessary 2/3 majority needed to expel him could not be reached. Brooks resigned, but was unanimously re-elected in his district, and he returned. </li></ul>The Caning of Sumner
<ul><li>John Brown believed an “eye for an eye”. He had organized a militia for the Wakarusa War. After learning of the caning of Sumner, Brown led a raid along the Pottawatomie Creek. They seized five pro-slavery settlers and murdered them by splitting their skulls with broad swords. This launched a guerilla war in Kansas. About 200 men died in Kansas fighting in 1856. A truce and strained peace was finally brought to Kansas after the replacement of Kansas Governor Shannon with John Greary. </li></ul><ul><li>According the James McPherson, the “violent conflict (at Harpers Ferry) climaxed more than a decade of rising sectional tensions.” </li></ul>John Brown’s reaction
<ul><li>John Brown planned to capture the arsenal at Harpers Ferry, seize weapons, and supply slaves he thought would join him. </li></ul><ul><li>October 16, 1859: Brown rented a farm in Maryland across the river from Harper’s Ferry. He had 17 white and 5 black recruits to help. (He tried to get Frederick Douglas to join in, but Douglas refused, thinking the attack would be futile.) </li></ul>John Brown: At Harper’s Ferry
<ul><li>Brown made several mistakes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>failed to inform slaves of his intentions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>had no escape route </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>had no extended supplies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>had no defense for counter attack </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ultimately he had no plan, but attack. </li></ul></ul>
<ul><li>October 17: Local citizens and militia responded to the raid. They cut off bridges across the Potomac, blocking escape. The raid was put down by Robert E. Lee and Jeb Stuart. Brown would be tried and hanged for his insurrection. </li></ul><ul><li>No slaves voluntarily participated. </li></ul>The raid
<ul><li>The actual raid was a failure, but the effects were tremendous. Brown was almost revered as a martyr for the cause of abolition. His trial and post-trial behavior was respected. People felt he acted with dignity. He accepted his fate and almost embraced it, telling friends and family he was worth more to the cause hanged. Brown gained Northern sympathy. Although many disagreed with his method, they embraced his teaching. </li></ul><ul><li>John Brown’s Harpers Ferry raid was divisive. The North sympathized with the cause. The South, according to McPherson, identified Brown with abolition, abolition with Republicans, and Republicans with the North. </li></ul>John Brown’s Raid: The Results
<ul><li>During the 1850's in the United States, Southern support of slavery and Northern opposition to it collided more violently than ever before over the case of Dred Scott, a black slave from Missouri who claimed his freedom on the basis of seven years of residence in a free state and a free territory. When the predominately proslavery Supreme Court of the United States heard Scott's case and declared that not only was he still a slave but that the main law guaranteeing that slavery would not enter the new midwestern territories of the United States was unconstitutional, it sent America into convulsions. The turmoil would end only after a long and bloody civil war in which an important issue was the question of slavery and its extension into America's unorganized territories. The Supreme Court's ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford helped hasten the arrival of the American Civil War, primarily by further polarizing the already tense relations between Northerners and Southerners. </li></ul>http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/scott/
The Civil War. A failure to compromise War was the result of this polarization because no compromise completely settled the issue of slavery. Each compromise postponed the inevitable. Upon the deaths and destruction, public emotions became involved. The morals of people would not be subject to political compromise.