What does it mean to compromise? How do you think the admission of new territories as states will effect the slavery issue? What does it mean to compromise? US 1820 Orange – slave states Green – 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!

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)

Do Now! For the following statement indicate if it refers to (M) Missouri Compromise (C) Compromise of 1850 (K/N) Kansas-Nebraska Act Included a stronger Fugitive Slave Act to help slaveholders recapture runaways Ensured a balance of free/slave states for almost 30 years Popular sovereignty used to decide on slavery, so people of territory would vote on it (two compromises) Missouri admitted as a slave state Led to violence in the territory and in Congress Overturned Missouri Compromise Law C M K/N, C M K/N K/N

Bleeding Kansas 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

At this point, what method should abolitionists use to fight slavery At this point, what method should abolitionists use to fight slavery? (Peaceful protest or direct action?) Are the compromises Congress is enacting solving the slavery issue? Why or why not? 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

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 How does the idea of popular sovereignty lead to this?

Bleeding Sumner!

John Brown and violent resistance

Agree or Disagree?

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?

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? A: NO

Review : What is Judicial Review? Can declare a law passed by Congress to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL (So they can overturn any previous law passed)

RESULTS: •Dred Scott was not given his freedom •The Missouri Compromise was found to be unconstitutional 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

Speaker(s) 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)