Presentation on theme: "Competing Ideologies Anti-slavery Federal Power Nationalism the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from."— Presentation transcript:
Competing Ideologies Anti-slavery Federal Power Nationalism the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations. Slavery State’s Rights Sectionalism excessive or narrow- minded concern for local or regional interests as opposed to the interests of the whole
McCulloch v Maryland Implied powers of federal government “necessary and proper” Supremacy of federal power Sovereignty of people, not states Federal government is the people
Missouri Compromise Missouri slave, Maine free (balance of slave and free) Congress creates line of demarcation between slave and free (Federal solution)
American System Federal government has a role in creating economic growth Henry Clay (economic nationalism) Protective tariff Federal bank Funding for internal improvements (transport.) Federal land sales Opposed along geographic and socio-economic lines
Monroe Doctrine Attempt for America to exert its supremacy in the hemisphere (nationalism) Pave the way for expansion as European power wanes Largely unenforceable, but popular ideologically
Jacksonian Era Bank of the US (strongly opposed) State’s Rights Indian removal (strongly supported) Nationalism Federal Power Nullification crisis Federal Power (sovereignty)
Westward… “Everybody” could agree on expansion (nationalism) Where “everybody” = White people Manifest Destiny This expression was popular in the 1840s. Many people believed that the U.S. was destined to secure territory from "sea to sea," from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. This rationale drove the acquisition of territory. Ho!
Howevah…. Expansion at any cost? Controversy over war for Texas (Spot Resolutions) America agitates war to justify forcing Mexico out What about slavery? Seemingly resolved by Missouri Compromise Not so fast… that only dealt with the territory of the Louisiana Purchase
Slavery in the new lands Wilmot Proviso – tried to prohibit slavery in new lands acquired from Mexico, Senate wasn’t buying (Federal power) Compromise of 1850 California free, no slavery in DC (anti-slavery) New Mexico and Utah -popular sovereignty (State’s rights) No federal interference in slave-trade between slave states (State’s rights) Fugitive Slave Act (Federal power, in support of slave interests)
Fugitive Slave Act Made it a crime to help runaway slaves and allowed officials to arrest runaway slaves in free areas Slaveholders could take suspected fugitives to U.S. commissioners who, decided their fate. Commissioners received more money for returning them to slaveholders. Accused fugitives could not testify on their own behalf Section 6: “In no trial or hearing under this act shall the testimony of such alleged fugitive be admitted in evidence”
Kansas-Nebraska Act Stephen Douglas introduced a bill in Congress to divide the remainder of Louisiana Purchase into two territories—Kansas and Nebraska Would allow people in each territory to decide on slavery (State’s rights) Would eliminate the Missouri Compromise’s restriction on slavery north of the 36°30’ line Antislavery northerners were outraged that free territory could be turned into slave territory.
“Bleeding Kansas” Antislavery and pro-slavery groups rushed supporters to Kansas since popular vote would decide the slavery issue. Pro-slavery voters crossed the border to vote, allowing their side to win the vote. The new government created strict laws, including that those who helped fugitive slaves could be put to death. Antislavery group created a new government in protest. President Pierce recognized only pro-slavery legislature.
“Bleeding Kansas” Pro-slavery supporters attack city of Lawrence, the location of anti-slavery leaders John Brown and his sons (famous abolitionist) attack and kill five pro-slavery men at Pottawatomie Massacre. Meanwhile, in Washington… Senator Charles Sumner criticized sack of Lawrence and insulted Senator Andrew Pickens Butler Representative Preston Brooks (Butler’s cousin) beat Sumner unconscious on floor of Senate chamber
Dred Scott Dred Scott was slave of Missouri physician. Had been taken to free territory by owner. Sued for freedom in 1846 after owner died, arguing he had become free when he lived in free territory. Case reached Supreme Court in 1857.
Dred Scott v Sandford Chief Justice Roger B. Taney Moderate state’s rights advocate, son of tobacco farmers 3 Critical Conclusions Americans of African descent, whether free or slave, were not American citizens and could not sue in federal court Congress could not prohibit slavery in any territory Slaves were “property” and were protected by the Fifth Amendment, which forbid Congress from taking property without just compensation