Slavery Overview

Chapter 4, Section 4 England Regulated Colonial Trade Yankees—a nickname for New England traders—dominated colonial trade. Colonial merchants developed many trade routes. One route was known as the triangular trade. Colonial merchants sometimes defied the Navigation Acts by buying goods from the Dutch, French, and Spanish West Indies.

Ch 16, sec 1 What was the purpose of the Missouri Compromise? Why did conflict arise over the issue of slavery in the western territories? Why was the Free-Soil party founded?

Chapter 16, Section 1 The Missouri Compromise In 1819, there were 11 free states and 11 slave states. Representation in the Senate was evenly balanced between the North and the South. Missouri wanted to join the Union as a slave state. That would give the South a majority in the Senate. Henry Clay proposed the Missouri Compromise. – Missouri would join the Union as a slave state. – Maine would join the Union as a free state. – Congress drew an imaginary line across the southern border of Missouri at latitude 36º30´N. Slavery would be permitted in the Louisiana Purchase south of that line.

Chapter 16, Section 1 The Issue of Slavery in the West The ProblemAs a result of the Mexican War, the United States acquired a vast amount of land. The Missouri Compromise applied only to the Louisiana Purchase, not the new western lands. The ArgumentNorth: Congressman David Wilmot of Pennsylvania called for a law to ban slavery in any territories won from Mexico. This proposal was known as the Wilmot Proviso. South: Southern leaders said Congress had no right to ban slavery in the West. The OutcomeThe house passed the Wilmot Proviso, but the Senate defeated it. The argument continued.

Chapter 16, Section 1 The Issue of Slavery in the West AbolitionistsSlavery should be banned throughout the country. It is morally wrong. Southern slaveholders Slavery should be allowed in any territory. Slaves who escape to the North should be returned. Other viewsThe Missouri Compromise line should be extended all across the Mexican Cession. Any state south of the line could allow slavery. States carved out of the Mexican Cession should decide the slavery issue by popular sovereignty; that is, voters in a new territory should decide for themselves whether or not to allow slavery.

Chapter 16, Section 1 The Founding of the Free-Soil Party In 1848, slavery became an important election issue for the first time. – Many northern Democrats and Whigs opposed the spread of slavery. – They did not speak up because they did not want to lose southern votes. Also, they feared the slavery issue would split the nation. – In 1848, antislavery members of both parties formed the Free-Soil party. Only a few members were abolitionists. The party’s main goal was to keep slavery out of the western territories.

Chapter 16, Section 2 The Compromise of 1850 Why did the slavery debate erupt again in 1850? What was the impact of the Compromise of 1850? How did Uncle Tom’s Cabin affect attitudes toward slavery?

Ch 16, sec 2 Why did the slavery debate erupt again in 1850? What was the impact of the Compromise of 1850? How did Uncle Tom’s Cabin affect attitudes toward slavery?

Chapter 16, Section 2 The Slavery Debate Erupts Again

Chapter 16, Section 2 The Slavery Debate Erupts Again In 1849, there were 15 slave states and 15 free states. California asked to enter the Union as a free state. If California entered the Union as a free state, the North would have a majority in the Senate. The South feared that Oregon, Utah, and New Mexico would also soon join the Union as free states. Some southerners worried that they would be outvoted in the Senate. They said southern states should secede, or remove themselves, from the United States. Northerners said that California should be allowed to enter the Union as a free state because most of the territory lay north of the Missouri Compromise line.

Chapter 16, Section 2 The Slavery Debate Erupts Again Henry Clay of Kentucky He pleaded for the North and South to reach an agreement and warned that the nation could break apart. The Argument in the Senate John C. Calhoun of South Carolina He refused to compromise and insisted that slavery be allowed in the western territories. He demanded that fugitive, or runaway, slaves be returned to their owners as lost “property.” He said that if the North did not agree to these demands, the South would use force to leave the Union. Daniel Webster of Massachusetts He felt that slavery was evil, but the breakup of the United States would be worse. He warned against civil war, a war between people of the same country. He thought that northerners should be forced to return fugitive slaves.

Chapter 16, Section 2 The Compromise of 1850 Compromise of 1850 Settles Texas/New Mexico border dispute Bans slave trade in Washington, D.C. Admits California as a free state Upholds popular sovereignty in New Mexico and Utah Includes Fugitive Slave Act

Chapter 16, Section 2 The Compromise of 1850

Chapter 16, Section 2 Impact of the Compromise of 1850 Provisions of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 All citizens must help catch runaway slaves. People who let fugitives escape could be fined $1,000 and jailed. Special courts would handle cases of runaways. There would be no jury trials. Judges would receive $10 for sending an accused runaway to the South and $5 for setting someone free. Response to the Fugitive Slave Act Some judges sent African Americans to the South whether or not they were runaways. The act enraged antislavery northerners. It made them feel as if they were part of the slave system. Tensions remained high because neither side got what it wanted.

Chapter 16, Section 2 Uncle Tom’s Cabin What is Uncle Tom’s Cabin? Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote a novel called Uncle Tom’s Cabin to show the evils of slavery and the injustice of the Fugitive Slave Act. The book tells the story of Uncle Tom, an enslaved African American noted for his kindness and piety. How did people react to Uncle Tom’s Cabin? NorthernersSoutherners Northerners could no longer view slavery as a political problem for Congress to settle. More and more northerners now saw slavery as a moral problem facing every American. Southerners claimed that the book did not give a true picture of a slave’s life.

Ch 16, sec 3 What was the goal of the Kansas-Nebraska Act? Why did violence erupt in Kansas and in the Senate? What impact did the Dred Scott case have on the nation?

Chapter 16, Section 3 The Kansas-Nebraska Act The ProblemThe Compromise of 1850 dealt mainly with the Mexican Cession, and not with the lands that were part of the Louisiana Purchase. Provisions of the Kansas-Nebraska Act Nebraska Territory was to be divided into two territories—Kansas and Nebraska. The settlers in each territory would decide the issue of slavery by popular sovereignty. The argument for the act Many people thought the act was fair because the Compromise of 1850 had applied popular sovereignty in New Mexico and Utah. Southerners hoped slave owners from Missouri would move into Kansas and make Kansas a slave state. The argument against the act The Missouri Compromise already banned slavery in Kansas and Nebraska. In effect, the Kansas-Nebraska Act would overturn the Missouri Compromise. Northerners protested by challenging the Fugitive Slave Act.

Chapter 16, Section 3 Violence Erupts in Kansas (continued) Abolitionist John Brown led a band to the town of Pottawatomie Creek and killed five proslavery settlers there. The killings at Pottawatomie Creek led to more violence. Both sides engaged in guerrilla warfare, or the use of hit-and-run tactics. Newspapers started calling the territory “Bleeding Kansas.”

Chapter 16, Section 3 Violence Erupts in Kansas Kansas settlers were to settle the slavery issue by popular sovereignty. Proslavery and antislavery settlers fought for control of Kansas. Abolitionists brought in settlers from New England. Proslavery settlers also moved into Kansas, and proslavery bands from Missouri—Border Ruffians—often rode across the border into Kansas. In 1855, Kansas held elections. Border Ruffians voted illegally, helping to elect a proslavery legislature. Antislavery settlers refused to accept the legislature and elected their own governor and legislature. Kansas had two governments. A band of proslavery men raided the town of Lawrence, destroying homes and smashing the press of a Free-Soil newspaper.

Chapter 16, Section 3 Violence Erupts in Kansas (continued) Abolitionist John Brown led a band to the town of Pottawatomie Creek and killed five proslavery settlers there. The killings at Pottawatomie Creek led to more violence. Both sides engaged in guerrilla warfare, or the use of hit-and-run tactics. Newspapers started calling the territory “Bleeding Kansas.”

Chapter 16, Section 3 Violence Erupts in the Senate Charles Sumner of Massachusetts was the leading abolitionist senator. In one speech he denounced the proslavery legislature of Kansas and viciously criticized his southern foes, especially Senator Andrew Butler of South Carolina. A few days later Butler’s nephew, Congressman Preston Brooks, marched into the Senate chamber and with his cane beat Sumner until he was unconscious.

Chapter 16, Section 3 The Dred Scott Case What was the Dred Scott Case? Dred Scott filed a lawsuit, that is, a legal case brought to settle a dispute between people or groups. Dred Scott had been enslaved in Missouri. He moved with his owner to Illinois and then to the Wisconsin Territory, where slavery was not allowed. Scott with his owner returned to Missouri. When his owner died, Scott claimed that because he had lived in a free territory, he had become a free man. The case reached the Supreme Court as Dred Scott v. Sandford. What did the Supreme Court decide? Scott could not file a lawsuit because, as an enslaved person, he was not a citizen. Slaves were considered to be property. Congress did not have the power to outlaw slavery in any territory. This decision meant the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional.

Chapter 16, Section 3 The Dred Scott Case White southerners White southerners were overjoyed. The decision meant that slavery was legal in all territories. What impact did the Dred Scott Case have? African American northerners Northern African Americans condemned the ruling and asked whites to join their efforts to end slavery. White northernersWhite northerners were shocked. They had hoped that if slavery were kept to the South, it would eventually just die out. Now, slavery could spread.