The Kansas-Nebraska Act The Kansas-Nebraska Act was important because, Kansas and Nebraska became slavery Outlawed states. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 allowed people in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska to decide for themselves whether or not to allow slavery within their borders. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was a bill that dealt with issues of slavery in new territories, like the Compromise of 1850. The territories of Kansas and Nebraska wanted to become states, but the problem was would they become slave or free states. The south wanted Kansas and Nebraska to become slaveholding states because the south wanted slavery to spread across.
The Mexican cession disrupted the balance, which suggests that the Missouri compromise wasn’t successful in minimalizing divisions between north and south. As it could be argued that the compromise actually avoided the issue that caused division in the first place when the debate about the territories gained in the Mexican war should be free soil or slave state. The Missouri compromise was successful because its aim was to maintain the free soil/slave state balance in congress as the north feared the southern majority in congress would vote to the expansion of slavery and the south feared that northern majority in congress would vote to abolish slavery. By using the idea that for every free state, there is a slave state, there is a balance in congress. For example the free soil states were Maine, Michigan, Iowa and Louisiana and the slaves states were Missouri, Arkansas, Florida and Texas.
How accurate are they? a. Part of the regional tensions were due the northern delegates wanting to end slavery and the southern delegates wanting to increase slavery .Mason of Virginia was against slavery, he felt the government should have more power over slavery. His predictions are pretty accurate. Ellsworth from Connecticut considered in moral light, ought to free those already in the country.
Lee concluded that slavery would help both white and black races grow equally. In the letter Lee also questions the motivations and morals of the founding fathers about what equality really meant to them. The letter seems to be ironic, reason being Robert E. Lee should be the biggest supporter of slavery for the South but seems to be torn on the issue (Fair Use
Eventually leading to the outbreak of the Civil war in 1861. This all began with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1847, providing new land in the south-western territories. However, the main problem was what to do with this new found land. Free Sollers and Northern Whigs heavily opposed the spread of slavery, but the southerners wanted more land for agriculture and increase their political power. Henry Clay’s proposition was accepted in 1850, however, this did not fix all issues.
Lincoln’s second inaugural address Lincoln took a very different approach to this speech than he did in a document such as the emancipation proclamation. Rather than taking a lawyers approach and using technical language, he decided to keep his address short and sweet. Lincoln used a good technique in his address when talking about the civil war. At the time of the speech the war was still active, but the Sherman’s march to sea had commenced and the north had all but won the war. During his address when speaking on the subject of the civil war, Lincoln, rather than placing the blame on the south of the north, places the blame on slavery, and says war was gods means of serving justice on the great injustice that was slavery.
Slavery is said to be the one breaking point that lead to the Civil War, but it is also said that during that time slavery was on the way out and was not the cause of the Civil War. That’s a whole other topic, though. Each side had very valid points as to why slavery was good or bad. Each side was right, from a certain
Some people who were moving into the West wanted to bring their slaves with them, but there were others that wanted the territories to remain without slaves. The country at this time was pretty equally divided when it came to free-states and slave-states, so it was difficult to come to a resolution that pleases the majority of the country. One solution that was proposed was to extend the Missouri Compromise line all the way to the pacific. The other two were to either allow the people of the territories decide when applying, or to bring the issue to the Supreme Court. Neither side felt that these solutions were sufficient.
In other words, as long as middle and working class groups are split along racial lines, they will fail to see how their combined efforts could change the political imbalance and promote policies that reflect their interests. A vision of American society can highlight racial differences rather than commonalities, which makes it difficult for Americans to see the need and appreciate the potential for mutual political support across racial lines. “When the U.S. was founded, equality was a radical new idea. But our early economy was based largely on slavery. The concept of race helped explain why some people could be denied the rights and freedoms that others took for granted” (“Race: The Power of an Illusion”).
But what led brothers to fight against brothers? Today we realize slavery as a moral issue, but in the nineteenth century, people saw this as a solution to economic problems rather than a moral issue. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery. The South had an economic interest in the spread of slavery to the new territories