1. Events Leading to the Civil War

2. Slavery & Civil War Review
#1: TRUE or FALSE
At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the number one crop grown in the South was cotton.
FALSE. It was tobacco.

3. Slavery & Civil War Review
#2: TRUE or FALSE
At the time of the writing of the Constitution, many Americans believed that the slave system would die out on its own.
TRUE.

4. Slavery & Civil War Review
#3: What invention suddenly made growing cotton much more profitable?
The cotton gin.

7. GROWTH OF SLAVERY Total U.S. population was 3.5 million…
Trial of tears
GROWTH OF SLAVERY
Total U.S. population was 3.5 million…
700,000 slaves in the U.S. at this time.
Still bought slaves through the slave trade.

8. GROWTH OF SLAVERY Total U.S. population was 18 million
Trial of tears
GROWTH OF SLAVERY
Total U.S. population was 18 million
2 million slaves in the U.S. at this time.
1808, importation of slaves was illegal
Slave trade within the U.S.
Increase of slave population was from natural reproduction

9. 33 million U.S. population, 4 million slaves in the South
Trial of tears
GROWTH OF SLAVERY
1860
33 million U.S. population, 4 million slaves in the South

10. Slavery & Civil War Review
#4: TRUE or FALSE
Over 50% of Southern families owned at least one slave.
FALSE. 75% of Southern families didn’t own any slaves at all!

11. FACTS ON SLAVERY

15. Life Under Slavery Slaves could not leave owners’ land
Could not buy or sell goods
Not allowed to learn to read or write
Treated as property
The Civil War: Episode 1
The Cause 13:50-22:40

16. Slavery Review #5: TRUE or FALSE
Many slaves resisted slavery in one way or another.
TRUE.
#6: How?

17. Fighting Back Most resisted slavery Quiet ways they resisted:
Learned to read
Broke tools
Left gates open to let the farm animals out
Faked illness
Hid stuff the owners needed and acted like they knew nothing about it at all

18. Escape Many chose to run away Found safe places to hide
Indians protected some
Some made it to the free North, some to Canada and others went south to Mexico
Many were helped by the Underground Railroad

19. Violent Resistance

20. CLOSER AND CLOSER A Series of Controversies Lead North and South
TO CIVIL WAR

21. Controversy Over Missouri
Free States
Slave States 11 11
Louisiana Territory

22. The Situation: The year is 1820
The Situation: The year is The debate over statehood for Missouri is getting hotter day by day. To complicate matters, Maine has just applied for admission to the union as well. Your job is to find a way to settle this controversy that is acceptable to both the North and the South.
Louisiana
Territory

23. The North’s Starting Position
Supports statehood for Missouri and Maine as free states.
Does NOT want slavery to expand into Louisiana Territory.
Opposes any solution that makes more slave states than free states.
The South’s Starting Position
Supports statehood for Missouri as a slave state
Believes slaveholders have the right to settle in ANY new territory.
Opposes any solution that makes more free states than slave states.
Your compromise should address these key questions:
Should Missouri be admitted to the union as a slave state, a free state, or not at all?
What stand, if any, should Congress take on the spread of slavery across Louisiana Territory?
What should Congress do about Maine’s request for statehood?

24. What really happened: The Missouri Compromise of 1820
Free
States 12
Slave
States 12
1. Missouri admitted
as a slave state.
2. Maine admitted
as a free state.
3. Slavery was
outlawed above
the 36⁰30’ line of latitude

25. Nat Turner’s Rebellion (1830)
Led an attack killing 57 people
He and others were caught, tried in court, and hanged
Southern attitudes about slavery hardened
Turner started with a few trusted fellow slaves, but the insurgency ultimately numbered more than 70 enslaved and free blacks, some of whom were mounted on horseback.[9] On August 13, 1831, an atmospheric disturbance made the Sun appear bluish-green. Turner took this as the final signal, and began the rebellion a week later on August 21. The rebels traveled from house to house, freeing slaves and killing all the white people they encountered.
Because the rebels did not want to alert anyone, they discarded their muskets and used knives, hatchets, axes, and blunt instruments instead of firearms. (The latter also would have been more difficult for them to collect.) Historian Stephen B. Oates states that Turner called on his group to "kill all the white people."[10] A contemporary newspaper noted, "Turner declared that 'indiscriminate slaughter was not their intention after they attained a foothold, and was resorted to in the first instance to strike terror and alarm.'"[11] The group spared a few homes "because Turner believed the poor white inhabitants 'thought no better of themselves than they did of negroes.'"[10][12]
The rebels spared almost no one whom they encountered. A small child who hid in a fireplace was among the few survivors. The slaves killed approximately sixty white men, women and children[10] before Turner and his brigade of insurgents were defeated. A white militia with twice the manpower of the rebels and reinforced by three companies of artillery eventually defeated the insurrection
The rebellion was quashed within 48 hours. In the aftermath of the revolt, 48 black men and women were tried on charges of conspiracy, insurrection, and treason. "In total, the state executed 56 people, banished many more, and acquitted a few. The state reimbursed the slaveholders for their slaves. But in the hysterical climate that followed the rebellion, close to 200 black people were killed by white militias and mobs.[15]
Turner eluded capture over two months. On October 30, a White farmer, Benjamin Phipps, discovered him in a hole covered with fence rails, and Turner was then arrested. A trial was quickly arranged. On November 5, 1831, Nat Turner was tried for "conspiring to rebel and making insurrection", convicted, and sentenced to death.[21] He was hanged on November 11 in Jerusalem, Virginia. Turner's corpse was flayed, beheaded and quartered.[22]
After Turner's capture, a local lawyer Thomas Ruffin Gray wrote and published The Confessions of Nat Turner: The Leader of the Late Insurrection in Southampton, Virginia. The book was the result both of Gray's research while Turner was in hiding and of his conversations with Turner before the trial. This document remains the primary window into Turner's mind. Because of the author's obvious conflict of interest, historians disagree on whether to assess it as insight into Gray rather than Turner. In 1967, U.S. writer William Styron used Gray's work to create the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel The Confessions of Nat Turner.

26. Mexican-American War (1846-48)
U.S. picked a fight with its weak neighbor to gain territory
After a brief war, the U.S. took HALF of Mexico’s total land area

27. The stolen land had the potential to become a battleground over the slavery issue,
but there were very few people there and it didn’t appear to be an immediate issue.
But then came . . .

28. GOLD!

30. The Situation:
It is Congress is in an uproar over California and slavery. You will need all your skills as a compromiser to settle this conflict and keep the union from flying apart.

31. The North’s Starting Position
Supports statehood for California as a free state.
Wants to ban slavery in New Mexico and Utah territories.
Demands an end to slavery and the slave trade in Washington, DC.
Opposes any fugitive (runaway) slave law that would endanger runaways.
The South’s Starting Position
Opposes letting free states gain a majority in the Senate; reluctant to allow California admission to the union unless other territories are open to slavery.
Believes slavery must be allowed to expand into Utah and New Mexico.
Believes Congress has no power to meddle with slavery where it already exists.
Demands a strong fugitive slave law to help track down runaways.
Your compromise should address these key questions:
Should California be admitted to the union as a free state?
What stand, if any, should Congress take on the future of slavery in New Mexico and Utah territories?
Should Congress pass a strong new fugitive slave law?

32. The Compromise of 1850 1. 3. Stronger Fugitive Slave Law
2. Open to possible slavery
4. Slavery
to continue in DC,
but slave trade banned there
The Compromise was greeted with relief, although each side disliked specific provisions.
Texas surrendered its claim to New Mexico, over which it had threatened war, as well as its claims north of the Missouri Compromise Line, transferred its crushing public debt to the federal government, and retained the control over El Paso that it had established earlier in 1850, with the Texas Panhandle (which earlier compromise proposals had detached from Texas) thrown in at the last moment.
California's application for admission as a free state with its current boundaries was approved and a Southern proposal to split California at parallel 35° north to provide a Southern territory was not approved.
The South avoided adoption of the symbolically significant Wilmot Proviso[1] and the new New Mexico Territory and Utah Territory could in principle decide in the future to become slave states (popular sovereignty), even though Utah and a northern fringe of New Mexico were north of the Missouri Compromise Line where slavery had previously been banned in territories. In practice, these lands were generally unsuited to plantation agriculture and their existing settlers were non-Southerners uninterested in slavery. The unsettled southern parts of New Mexico Territory, where Southern hopes for expansion had been centered, remained a part of New Mexico instead of becoming a separate territory.
The most concrete Southern gains were a stronger Fugitive Slave Act, the enforcement of which outraged Northern public opinion, and preservation of slavery (but not the slave trade) in the national capital.
The slave trade was banned in Washington D.C.
3. Stronger Fugitive
Slave Law

33. So this is the lady who started the Civil War.
Harriet Beecher Stowe
So this is the lady who started the Civil War.
--Abraham Lincoln

34. Uncle Tom’s Cabin 1852 Sold 300,000 copies in the first year.
Sold 2 million in a
decade!

35. “Brooks v. Sumner” 1856 Rep. Preston Brooks (D-SC) Sen. Charles Sumner
(R-MA)

36. 1854
The Kansas-Nebraska Act opens up two territories to “popular sovereignty”

37. Bleeding Kansas (1856-58) 56 people brutally killed
Bleeding Kansas, Bloody Kansas or the Border War was a series of violent political confrontations involving anti-slavery Free-Staters and pro-slavery "Border Ruffian" elements, that took place in the Kansas Territory and the neighboring towns of Missouri between 1854 and At the heart of the conflict was the question of whether Kansas would enter the Union as a free state or slave state. As such, Bleeding Kansas was a proxy war between Northerners and Southerners over the issue of slavery in the United States. The term "Bleeding Kansas" was coined by Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune; the events it encompasses directly presaged the American Civil War.
Congress had long struggled to balance the interests of pro- and anti-slavery forces. The events later known as Bleeding Kansas were set into motion by the Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854, which nullified the Missouri Compromise and instead implemented the concept of popular sovereignty. An ostensibly democratic idea, popular sovereignty stated that the inhabitants of each territory or state should decide whether it would be a free or slave state; however, this resulted in immigration en masse to Kansas by activists from both sides. At one point, Kansas had two separate governments, each with its own constitution, although only one was federally recognized. On January 29, 1861, Kansas was admitted to the Union as a free state, less than three months before the Battle of Fort Sumter which began the Civil War.
In October 1855, John Brown came to Kansas Territory to fight slavery. On November 21, 1855 the (relatively bloodless) "Wakarusa War" began when a Free-Stater named Charles Dow was shot by a pro-slavery settler. The only fatal casualty occurring during the siege was one Free-State man named Thomas Barber. He was shot and killed on December 6, 1855 where the main body of the invaders were encamped, some 6 miles (10 km) from Lawrence. A few months later, on May 21, 1856, a group of Border Ruffians entered the Free-State stronghold of Lawrence, where they burned the Free State Hotel, destroyed two newspaper offices and their printing presses, and ransacked homes and stores.
The following day, on the afternoon of May 22, 1856, South Carolina Democrat Preston Brooks physically attacked Massachusetts Free Soil Senator Charles Sumner in the Senate chambers, hitting him on the head with his thick cane. Sumner was blinded by his own blood, and staggered away until he collapsed, lapsing into unconsciousness. Brooks continued to beat Sumner until his cane broke. Several other senators attempted to help Sumner, but were blocked by Rep. Laurence Keitt, holding a pistol and shouting "Let them be!", as retaliation for insulting language Sumner had used against a relative of Brooks in a speech denouncing Southerners for pro-slavery violence in Kansas. Sumner did not return to his Senate desk for three years as a result of his injuries to the head and neck area.
Preston Brooks attacking Charles Sumner in the U.S. Senate in 1856.
These acts in turn inspired Brown to lead a group of men in Kansas Territory on an attack at a proslavery settlement at Pottawatomie Creek. During the night of May 24, the group, which included four of Brown's sons, led five pro-slavery men from their homes and hacked them to death with broadswords. Of the men initially taken captive during the three cabin raids that night, Brown's men let two of them— Jerome Glanville and James Harris— return home to Harris' cabin after questioning them regarding their involvement in violence against free-state settlers and being satisfied that they had not participated in any (the other man taken from that cabin, William Sherman, did not fare as well and was killed with swords at the edge of a nearby creek).[4]
On June 2, 1856, Brown took future Confederate Colonel Henry Clay Pate and almost two dozen other pro-slavery soldiers prisoner at the Battle of Black Jack. In 1856, the official territorial capital was moved to Lecompton, a town only 12 miles (19.3 km) from Lawrence. In April 1856, a three-man congressional investigating committee arrived in Lecompton to look into the troubles. The majority report of the committee found the elections to be improperly influenced by Border Ruffians. President Pierce failed to follow its recommendations and continued to recognize the pro-slavery legislature as the legitimate government of Kansas. In fact, on July 4, 1856, the president sent federal troops to break up an attempted meeting of the shadow government in Topeka.[citation needed]
In August 1856, thousands of proslavery men formed into armies and marched into Kansas. That same month, Brown and several of his followers engaged 400 proslavery soldiers in the "Battle of Osawatomie". The hostilities raged for another two months until Brown departed the Kansas Territory, and a new territorial governor, John W. Geary, took office and managed to prevail upon both sides for peace. This was followed by a fragile peace broken by intermittent violent outbreaks for two more years. The last major outbreak of violence was touched off by the Marais des Cygnes massacre in 1858, in which Border Ruffians killed five Free State men. In all, approximately 56 people died in Bleeding Kansas by the time the violence ended in 1859.[5] Following the commencement of the American Civil War in 1861, additional guerrilla violence erupted on the border between Kansas and Missouri.
Large #s of Pro-slavery &
Anti-slavery advocates
Flock to Kansas

38. The Situation:
The Supreme Court is considering the case of Dred Scott, a slave who is suing for his freedom. Consider the arguments on each question in this difficult case. Then come up with a decision you can all live with.

39. 2. Cotton plantation in AL
Dred Scott Case (1857)
5. Ft. Snelling, MN (1 year)
4. Rock Island, IL (3 years)
6. Back to St. Louis
3. St. Louis, MO
1. Born in VA
Dred Scott (1795 – September 17, 1858), was an African-American slave in the United States who unsuccessfully sued for his freedom and that of his wife and their two daughters in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857, popularly known as "the Dred Scott Decision." The case was based on the fact that although he and his wife Harriet Scott were slaves, they had lived with his master Dr. John Emerson in states and territories where slavery was illegal according to both state laws and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, including Illinois and Minnesota (which was then part of the Wisconsin Territory). The United States Supreme Court decided 7–2 against Scott, finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's temporary residence outside Missouri did not bring about his emancipation under the Missouri Compromise, which the court ruled unconstitutional as it would improperly deprive Scott's owner of his legal property.
While Chief Justice Roger B. Taney had hoped to settle issues related to slavery and Congressional authority by this decision, it aroused public outrage and deepened sectional tensions between the northern and southern U.S. states. President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and the post-Civil War Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments nullified the decision.
In 1850, Irene Sanford Emerson had remarried. Her new husband, Calvin C. Chaffee, was an abolitionist, who shortly after their marriage was elected to the U.S. Congress. Chaffee was apparently unaware that his wife owned the most prominent slave in the United States until one month before the Supreme Court decision. By then it was too late for him to intervene. Chaffee was harshly criticized for having been married to a slaveholder. He persuaded Irene to return Scott to the Blow family, his original owners. By this time, the Blow family had relocated to Missouri and become opponents of slavery. Henry Taylor Blow emancipated the four Scotts on May 26, 1857, less than three months after the Supreme Court ruling.
Later life and death[edit source | editbeta]
Scott went to work as a porter in St. Louis. About 17 months later, he died from tuberculosis in September Scott was survived by his wife and his two daughters.
2. Cotton plantation in AL

40. The North’s Starting Position
The Constitution does not limit citizenship to white people; African Americans have legal rights.
By taking Scott to free territory, his owner gave up his right to treat Scott as a slave.
Congress can make laws banning slavery in territories.
The South’s Starting Position
Scott was born a slave, not a citizen, and has no right to sue.
Scott returned to Missouri with his owner as a slave and should continue to be treated as a slave under Missouri law.
Under the Constitution, Congress cannot make laws that deny people the use of their property (including slaves) anywhere, including the territories.
Your compromise should address these key questions:
Is Scott a citizen with the right to sue in federal court?
Did Scott’s visit to a free territory make him a free man?
Should Congress be able to ban slavery in the territories?

41. The Dred Scott Decision (1857)
1. Scott is not a citizen, so he has no right to sue in court.
2. Slaves are property and can be brought anywhere; therefore, the Missouri Compromise of 1820 is unconstitutional
3. Congress cannot make laws banning slavery in the territories
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that African Americans, whether slave or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court,[2][3] and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. Dred Scott, an African American slave who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom. In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the Court denied Scott's request and in doing so, ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional for the second time in its history.[4][5]
Although Taney hoped that his ruling would settle the slavery question once and for all, the decision immediately spurred wide public debate. Most scholars and many contemporary political figures (including the leadership of the then-new Republican Party) considered that the ruling regarding slavery in the territories to not be binding precedent, but instead mere dictum. The decision would prove to be an indirect catalyst for the American Civil War and was functionally superseded by the post-war Reconstruction Amendments. It is now widely regarded as the worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court.[6][7][3]

43. John Brown’s Raid on Harper’s Ferry, Virginia (1859)

44. New President
Abraham Lincoln elected President of the United States in 1860
During the election, he had spoken out strongly against the spread of slavery and hoped that one day it would end.

46. Secession!