other+-+sectionalism

 ATG - Historian Stephen Ambros discusses the building of the Transcontintal Railroad The construction of the Transcontinental Railroad in the United States was as powerful an achievement as walking on the moon. The idea of the Trancontinental Railroad was constructed before the civil war; however it was not until after the war that President Abraham Lincoln started the project. The construction project of the transcendental railroad proved pivotal to the United States to the role to played in reuniting the country. The civil war was a time in US history consisting of major loss and brothers fight against brother. The railroad was able to unite these people to stimulate a greater future for the United States. The railroad was constructed by a labor force that came from all over the United States. It was not a slave labor force of Indians or African Americans, but for the first time it was a group of people working for free to complete the railroad. The Transcontinual Railroad started a boom in industry that would turn out to be the start of the industrial revolution in the United Sates. Many people and business wanted to use the railroad to transport their good across the country, taking advantage of the unrealistic speed of only seven days to get from one coast to the other. This start of the industrial revolution made the United States one of the leading countries that we are today. Although this period of the United States has been tainted by the Civil War the railroad had the ability to lift the Country out of the troblems following the war. much like the industrial revolution the railroad went resulted in further technological advances that would have never been possible with out the railroad.  ATG NBC - "The Alamo" The Battle of the Alamo in 1836 became the most important battle during the Texas Revolution. As the Mexican dictator, Santa Anna, continued to press heavy taxes on the Texans as well as abolishing slavery the Texans decided to take a stand and separate from the control of Santa Anna. The Battle of the Alamo was fueled by the slogan “victory or death” for the heavily out numbered Texans. The Alamo is the most important battle because of the role it played in the final result of the Texas Revolution. The taxies at the Alamo had two choices, they could leave and let the Mexicans walk through to San Jacinto or they could take a stand. Although outnumbered the Texans new that if they could hold off the Mexicans or better yet win the battle, they would have an advantage at San Jacinto with the help of even more rebels. Although the Battle of the Alamo was not as successful statistically, it was a sure win in the big picture. The thirteen days they were able to hold off the Mexican army allowed for more support to arrive in San Jacinto allow to rebels there time to prepare and stock up on supplies. The Alamo also helped the Texans mentally. The fight that the out numbered Texans put up against the powerful Mexican army gave the Texans additional hope that they could win at San Jacinto. The slogan “remember the Alamo” gave that rebels additional ambition that would one day prove pivotal when they win the Texas Revolution. failed to follow directions SLW NBC Video—“The Compromise of 1850 Attempts to Settle the Slavery Question” The Great Compromise of 1850 contained a new provision, the Fugitive Slave Law, which demonstrated that, even with the growing power of the abolitionist movement in the Northern states, slavery played a very big role in society. Some viewed the Great Compromise very highly, in that each of the states gained by the Mexican War, except for California, which was strictly added as a free state, was able to make its own determination, through popular sovereignty, as to whether it would be a free state of a slave state. Others however, viewed it as a means of impairing the rights of citizens to oppose slavery. The Fugitive Slave law implemented in the compromise required the governments of the Northern states to go against their will and become involved in the slavery issue by respecting the laws of Southern states which permitted slavery. Under the law, citizens of the free states were obliged to send back fugitive slaves that had escaped from the South or else be penalized with imprisonment and a fine. Many Northerners became infuriated with this provision because they felt as though they were forced with the choice of either of upholding their values and demanding the equal treatment and freedom of slaves or breaking federal law. Some Northerners felt as though this compromise fostered the values of the Southerners, while many Southerners disagreed and felt that the compromise did not go far enough in protecting their values. In either case, the Great Compromise did not solve the dispute between the North and the South relating to slavery and merely postponed the revolt of the South, giving rise to the American Civil War.

SLW NBC Video—“The Missouri Compromise" The Missouri Compromise was a congressional agreement that was intended to maintain the balance of power between slave states and free states, but actually prompted further debate between the Northern and Southern states that ultimately led to secession. During this time, while the Second Great Awakening was occurring and there was a rise in American reformation, different ideas emerged from the primarily industrial Northern states and the agricultural Southern states, such as: the diverging view of religious ideals, the distinctive thoughts on expansion of America into the Western frontier, and the idea of abolition. When news of the Louisiana Purchase and the new states that would form from this territory spread throughout the nation, sectionalism between the North and South was apparent and the protagonist conflicts that occurred, like the threats of secession, were characteristic of the Civil War itself. The Missouri Compromise simply postponed the inevitable controversy between the pro-slavery South and the anti-slavery North by sustaining an equal amount of slave states and free states from the new land acquired by the Louisiana Purchase. Maine was added as a free state while Missouri was added as a slave state. This compromise further split the North and South by prohibiting slavery north of the southern boundary of Missouri and permitting it below this line. Southerners did not want to lose political power to the North because of the importance of slavery to Southern economy, while many religious and educated Northerners did not want to let this practice continue in the South because of the immorality of slavery. The belief held by both sides of the controversy that secession from the Union was the only way to preserve their ideals became the basis for the American Civil War.

EKB- NBC Video- The Missouri Compromise

Slavery had always been a touchy subject within the American government. It had purposefully been left out of the Declaration of Independence and its controversial nature kept it from being discussed within Congress. Slavery, before the addition of new states, had been dealt with pretty easily. Most northern states did not practice slavery due to its immorality and most southern states relied on it for their wealth and commerce. However, when new lands were being added to the country through westward expansion and the Louisiana Purchase, new conflicts on slavery arose, especially when it came to annexation of territories into states. Main questions were whether or not popular soverignity (letting territories choose to be pro or anti slavery themselves) should carry on into statehood, and whether or not Congress should determine slavery within states.These controversies became especially apparent when Missouri wanted to become a state, which would have thrown the current balance in the Senate between free and slave states in favor of the slave states. This caused tension, debate and dissension in Congress until Henry Clay passed the "Missouri Compromise" which allowed Missouri to enter the Union as a slave state but brought in Maine as a free state to keep balance. This hushed up the slavery issue for a while but not forever. Why was slavery such an unspeakable issue? Why didn't the government put an end to slavery before the problems even started? The issue of slavery even from a very early time in American history, divided the country. It was a subject for which both sides had excellent arguments but neither would back down. As a result of sectionalism, the North had been expanding thei transportation systems and going through more internal improvements, the South had been expanding their plantations and thus their reliance on slaves. The South saw slaves as a necessity, while the North, after being subject to urbanization, industrialization, and two Great Awakenings, saw it as unnecessary and immoral. The government couldn't just free all of the slaves and expect it to work. Not only did it bring up the subject of state's rights, they would be collapsing the South's economy while breaking the country in half. Henry Clay knew this and being the "Great Compromiser", realized that this issue wasn't going to resolve itself and it was best to just hush it up for the moment. But as soon as Congress drew that line south of Missouri, they had already broken the country in half. That line banning slavery in territories north of Missouri and allowing it south of the line, prepared our country for war by splitting the country right down the middle. The Missouri Compromise was a decision that although necessary at the moment, not only put slavery back as a main conflict in Congress, it made war inevitable. asking questions in response okay for lang NOT for soc sciences

SMR- NBC Video: The Compromise of 1850

The Compromise of 1850 served more as a way of postponing a conflict rather than overcoming one. Instead of deciding whether the newly acquired Western states should be slave states or not, the government declared Popular Sovereignty, giving the people in the territories the right to decide. Although the compromise is seen as a great triumph of statesmanship, not everybody agreed. The slave holders in the South wanted the Western Territories to be slave states for obvious reasons. First, the slave holders believed that if these new territories were not slave states, then the government would shift toward an abolitionist point of view and destroy the economy in the South. However, this point is controversial, because if slavery had been abolished earlier in the South, then the plantation owners could have supplied jobs to workers, rather than used forced labor. While this would have cut the planter's profit, it would have fueled the United State's economy and set a stronger foundation. Nonetheless, the South depended on forced labor and would have advocated to support it. Unfortunately for the South, the North was strongly against slavery in these new territories. The root of the matter may come from the fact that the North was not nearly as dependent on slaves than the South. In the North, factories were the main source of labor and there were very little plantations. However, with the laws that came with the Compromise of 1850, Fugitive Slave laws became much tougher. Black slaves that had made their way up North were physically returned to their slaveholder. It became evident, that with this sort of institution, slavery held a much high spot in American society and politics than most would have liked to admit. This new law was a clear example of how the government coordinated itself with the slave holders. The best action to have taken from the start of this conflict was to stop slavery altogether. With slavery stopped, the American government would not have been dependent on forced labor. The battles that broke out on the topic of slavery, and ultimately succession, could have been avoided, as well as all the fatalities that went with it. The pressures with the North and the South would have been intense in the beginning, but would have eventually worn off. Finally, the separation of the United States could have been averted.

WMA- NBC Video: The Missouri Compromise

While the Missouri Compromise was a significant politcal accomplishment, it only served to prolong the issue of slavery. With the senate balanced upon an equal number of states favoring and opposing slavery a deadlock occurred. The difference in states' views of slavery divided the nation, similarly to the two-party system. In genral, Northern states argued for emancipation, and Southern states claimed that slavery was a necessity in Southern economics. When Louisiana petitioned for statehood conflict erupted. The ultimatum decided upon by Henry Clay quelled the dispute for the moment, but created long-term problems.

By creating an arbitrary barrier that decided future politcal views of states the government was effectively trampling on the philosophy of states' rights. States above the The Missouri Compromise Line were prohibited from practicing slavery, despite any possible desire to do so. Likewise, newly added Southern states were prevented from making the decisions themselves. Eventually The Supreme Court decided that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional because Congress did not possess the authority to prevent slavery in territories and states.The barrier itself also illuminated the political differences in Northern and Southern America, fostering sectionalism rather than Nationalism. The Missouri Compromise was intended to unite Americans via a cooperative decision, however, it further seperated the country.

The Missouri Compromise complicated the future admission of states out of fear of tipping the political balance. An example is the admissions of Arkansas in 1836 and Michigan in 1837. When a territory above the line was declared a state the government was forced to quickly declare statehood for a territory below the line. The Senate and House of Representatives were forced to preserve a tenuous

Despites these problems the American government was too young an inexperienced to confront the issue of slavery, in a manner other than violence. The Missouri Compromise averted war for the time and was repealed in the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Animosity and disagreement still lingered in Congress and the Civil War was ultimately unavoidable.

please follow directions -- failure to do so will negatively impact your grade


 * week one**

SAF- Video ”The California Gold Rush Begins” When the California Gold Rush began around 1848, mostly men traveled from all around the world to claim a fortune. Though most did not claim a fortune for themselves, they created a cultural mixing pot in a newly acquired portion of America. This led to many long term effects on the growing America including government, commerce, and economic effects, and effects on Native Americans. Concerning government and commerce, the California Gold Rush transformed California from a relatively unknown territory to a key American destination location that thousands of people traveled to. Cities and statehood was developed, government representatives elected, schools, roads, and churches organized. Clearly the California Gold Rush sparked the start of a now very influential and key state. Similar to when many other areas of the United States were populated, somebody had to first be displaced, which was of course the Native American Indians. The Indians were kicked out of their land by new settlers and often even kidnapped and forced to work. The new settlers also brought diseases such as smallpox, influenza and the measles which greatly killed off many Indians, similar to when Spanish settlers first began coming to America and infecting locals. The disruption of Indians is an example represented numerous times throughout history, from when the first colonists began coming to America all the way to the California Gold Rush, including many times in between. Though not everyone personally received a financial windfall, the California Gold Rush sparked economic markets around the world in many different areas. The travel industry including that of steamboats and railroads boomed as a result of the thousands of people looking to go to California. With all these new people, many consumer goods, food, and products were brought to California to sell to them, which created more jobs and benefitted the economy as a whole. SL: Scott v. Sandford

Scott v. Sandford or the Dred Scott Decision was significant because it further defined slaves as property by denying slaves citizenship and refusing them any basic civil rights. Dred Scott was originally owned by the Missouri planter, Peter Blow, but was later sold at Blow's death to Dr. John Emerson. During Emerson's ownership of Scott, he moved to Illinois and Wisconsin, both free states. When they returned to Missouri, Scott sued Emerson for withholding his freedom because he believed that by moving to an emancipated state, Scott had earned his freedom. When Scott's case was heard, Dr. Emerson had already died, and thus the case was passed onto the executor of his will, John Sandford of New York. The case was heard in Missouri courts, eventually working its way up to the Supreme Court. By this time, a new Supreme Court Chief Justice, Roger Brooke Taney replaced John Marshall, becoming the first Roman Catholic to take this position. Taney differed from John Marshall because he was an avid supporter of state's rights, the Jacksonian policies. However, Taney was against the "peculiar institution" and freed his slaves before slavery was abolished in his home state of Maryland. Taney's personal actions conflicted with his ruling in the Dred Scott case because the Supreme Court found that African Americans imported from Africa were not US Citizens, and therefore did not have any legal rights. The Court also ruled that Scott's stay in a free state did not negate his servitude because he was not an actual American citizen. The Court also found the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, which was the second time the Supreme Court had found a law unconstitutional. The Supreme Court found it unconstitutional because the Fifth Amendment "protected against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure" which meant that the Federal government could not enact laws that infringed on basic civil rights. In this case, the Supreme Court found that the Missouri Compromise, which "forced" emancipation in the Northwest Territories, violated this because the federal government had no right to deprive slave owners in these states of their slaves. Shortly after the Dred Scott decision, the Panic of 1857 occurred, due to increased uncertainty over the West's future as slave or free area. The possibility of slavery becoming widespread made people reluctant to move out there, which decreased railroad profits. This decline in the railroads had a negative impact in the North's economy, but had little effect on the South's because it was centered around cotton production. This difference of economic strain further developed sectionalism between the North and South, which further contributed to the outbreak of the Civil War.

KLM: Scott v. Sandford (1856) Peter Blow, who moved to Missouri to open a hotel, originally owned the slave Dred Scott. Once Blow died, Scott was sold to Dr. John Emerson, an army doctor, who migrated frequently with Scott to various states, such as Illinois and Wisconsin, which were both emancipated from the Northwest Ordinance. After returning to Missouri, Scott sued for his freedom, believing that his residence in free states would qualify him as a free man. However, it was ruled by the Supreme Court in Scott v. Sandford (1856) that Dred Scott was not a citizen, and thus, could not sue for his freedom. The Supreme Court also determined that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, the second time that such a ruling had been decided. Due to the Fifth Amendment, which protects against abuse of government authority in legal procedure and against infringement of citizen's rights, it was ruled that territorial legislatures lacked the authority to ban slavery, because it would deprive a slaveholder of their property. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, a supporter of slavery and of the South, believed that this decision would make a definitive ruling, settling slavery controversy. The Supreme Court, to back their ruling, claimed that the ratifiers of the Constitution believed that Blacks were wholly inferior and thus unfit to associate with Whites. Despite holding that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case, once it was determined that Scott was not a citizen, the Justices still passed judgement over the issue. Scott v. Sandford set the precedent that people of African descent imported into the US as slaves were not protected by the Constitution and could never be US citizens. Slaves could not sue in court, as they were not citizens, and, as private property, could not be taken away from owners without due process. It also held that the US Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories, which caused the Missouri Compromise to be ruled unconstitutional. Contrary to Taney's belief that this ruling would resolve slavery controversy by turning the issue from political to an issue settled by law, nationwide awareness exponentially increased, leading to great partisan and sectionalist dissension. Previously, most Northerners felt that they were immune to the spread of slavery, believing that it would stay indigenous to the South. However, slavery was now permitted in all American territories, representing to the Northerners that some of the previous checks on slavery's spread were now being eliminated. For this, many Northerners, fearing the expansion of slavery, began to become more active in the abolition effort. The decision was viewed by opponents of slavery as an offense to the principles of liberty, of which America was founded on, and as a victory for slave states over free states. To Northerners, it seemed to represent a push to expand slavery. Chief Justice Taney, despite hoping to restore national concord, destroyed the delicate medium between the opposing regions, through his decision on the Missouri Compromise and on his rejecting of the principle if popular sovereignty. Protest began to be unleashed upon the Court and Buchanan's administration, which had supported and even had tried to contribute to the ruling. The verdict has also been implicated in triggering the Panic of 1857. Uncertainty about whether the West would suddenly become slave territory or would be beset with conflict like as in Bloody Kansas damaged the economy. Americans became unsure whether or not they should invest in or migrate to the West. The halted influx of money damaged the latitudinal railroads between the East and West. The South was able to recover quickly and efficiently, but the North was not able to. This contributed to the Southern faith that "Cotton is King" and belief that the South had nothing to fear economically from the North, unless slavery was abolished. Scott v. Sandford also had a significant long-term impact on American history. As Frederick Douglass, an abolitionist, had implied by saying "my hopes were never brighter than now," the pro-slavery decision did have a positive impact on abolition efforts; the ruling brought the slavery controversy to national attention, helping to lead to slavery's end. Scott v. Sandford is one of the major causes of the Civil War, as it worsened relations between the North and South. Sectionalism exponentially grew because of the conflict over this verdict, contributing to Southern secession during the Civil War. The North was fearful that this ruling, which allowed the expansion of slavery into territories and states, would lead to a great increase in political power, especially Congressionally, to the South. The Democratic party became sectionally divided because of differences of opinions, which was a step towards complete separation through secession between the North and South. The ruling validated the Southern claim that the Constitution gave them the right to bring slaves into territories, regardless of any implementation of legislatorial decisions. The Supreme Court asserted that no slave nor their descendants were citizens of America nor were they protected under any provisions in the Constitution that related to non-citizens. By declaring the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, the Supreme Court gave the Democrats sufficient support to repeal the Compromise and to issue the Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854). Ultimately, Scott v. Sandford's precedents were overturned with the adoption of the 13th and 14th Amendments, which abolished slavery and gave citizenship to people of all races and backgrounds.

SLW: NBC Video—The Anaconda Plan <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The Anaconda Plan, devised by Winfield Scott, was one of the first well-thought out military plans in American history. Previously, most conflicts were fought as a “gentleman’s warfare” in which people lined up and shot at each other or fights occurred without a decisive or well-developed plan of attack. The Anaconda Plan was a new approach in military planning by Winfield Scott who believed that, in order for the North to defeat the South, methodical planning was necessary. This was contrary to the belief of other military leaders in the North who supported a deliberate and careless large-scale invasion. Scott’s military strategy was smarter, more strategic, devoid of bloodshed, and allowed for the South to feel battle wounds in a different manner. The plan was for the Southern economy, which depended upon the exporting of cash crops (like cotton and tobacco), to collapse as a result of an economic blockade of Southern seaports. Another strategic aspect of the plan called for Northern control of the Mississippi River, which would lead to the division of the main part of the Confederated States of America from its westernmost parts. Although President Lincoln dismissed this plan, certain aspects of it were used in the civil war like Union naval blockading. The major impact of the plan was that, through naval blockading, Fort Monroe, which was located on the entrance to Chesapeake Bay, was able to be controlled by the Union. This significantly contributed to the ultimate defeat of the South, just as Scott had predicted.

SLW:

NBC Video—The Kansas-Nebraska Act The Kansas-Nebraska act was a very controversial act that reopened the issue of slavery to popular debate. Some viewed it as a positive proposition because it instilled the policy of popular sovereignty in the newly formed Nebraska and Kansas territories by allowing the local resident of each territory to vote on the issue of whether they wanted to be a pro-slavery or anti-slavery state. Most people though, both abolitionists and pro-slavery southerners disliked the act because it repealed the accepted boundaries established by the Missouri Compromise, in which no slavery was to exist in the portion of the lands acquired through the Louisiana Purchase north of 36˚30’ latitude and because it had been generally assumed that Kansas would become a slave state and Nebraska, a free state. The unintended consequence of the Kansas-Nebraska Act was that the Northern abolitionists and the slavery advocates from the South both sent an influx of people to Kansas to try to influence the vote. It was surprising because the Northerners did not sit back and allow Kansas to follow its presumed path of becoming a slave state and forced the South to send advocates to fight for Kansas as well. Episodes of extreme violence took place as a result. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was also significant because it completely altered the political landscape by leading to the establishment of a new Republican Party and to the decline of the Whig Party. It also led to further debate between the Northerners and Southerners as to the issue of slavery, which ultimately led to the Civil War.

GEB Scott v Sanford During the mid-1850s with all the westward expansion, there was much debate on slave states v. free states and the rules following up for between state issues. The //Scott vs Sanford// (1856) case, commonly known as the Dred Scott Decision, held that all people of African descent whether slave or not, were not under the Constitutional jurisdiction and therefore not citizens. Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote the Supreme Court’s decision for this case and included the fact that the court deemed the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, therefore allowing slavery in any territory. Dred Scott, a slave of Peter Blow, was sold to John Emerson after Blow passed away. Emerson traveled through Illinois and Wisconsin, among others, which were considered free states at this point, then returned back to MO with Scott. Once home Scott sued Emerson for his freedom in 1846 for the first of three times. Scott’s argument in court was based on previous cases such as //Somerset v. Stewart// and //Rachel v. Walker,// from which he demanded his freedom due to his presence in free territories. Unfortunately the case was thrown out because Scott did not have any witnesses to corroborate his story. He refiled his case again at the end of 1847 and the jury decided that Scott was legally free due to his residence in free states. Eliza Emerson, the now owner of Scott, appealed to the Supreme Court of MO and moved her support of the case over to her brother, John Sanford. The decision was rescinded and Scott was yet again labeled a slave. In 1853 Scott sued Sanford (//Scott vs. Sanford//) in federal court. The court decided that Missouri’s law would settle the debate of Scott’s slavery and because the MO Supreme Court concluded that Scott was still property of Eliza Emerson, the federal court found in favor of Sanford. The court in sum decided that Scott was not able to legally sue because he was not a citizen, Scott would remain a slave, and that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. The long term effect of this case really aided in the separation between the North and the South and pushed them further towards the Civil War. The south at this time believed that the slaves were property and since they were allowed to bring their furniture anywhere, their slaves the equivalent of furniture, slaves should be permitted to be brought to any territory despite the territory legislative ruling. This could then eventually lead to more slave states than free and with the Three-Fifths Compromise; the slave states would have greater political representation in Congress. The //Scott vs. Sanford// case encouraged this idea, appalling many Northerners leading to the publishing of articles in the “Evening Journal” of Albany which defamed the court’s ruling as a violation of liberty and a victory for the slave states. While at the time the South may have won this battle, the North did win the war in the end.

NMD: NBC Video- The Kansas-Nebraska Act

The Kansas-Nebraska is so important in American history mostly because it is referred back to as the one of the major events on the timeline leading South Carolina and other states to declare independence from the Union and begin the War of Southern Secession. When the land which was purchased as the Louisiana Purchase needed to be organized for future development, the question of whether or not to allow slavery was decided through Stephen A. Douglas' idea of popular sovereignty, which stated that the citizens of a territory or state should vote on whether or not to allow slavery since they were the ones who knew if it needed to be legalized for economic reasons. Yet, this vote would violate the Missouri Compromise which had been reached by the northern and southern states decades earlier which stated that slavery would not be allowed to expand above the state of Missouri's southern border. This vote led to the bloody clash between anti-slavery and pro-slavery forces in the Kansas Territory, a historical event which would later be called Bleeding Kansas. Over the course of this conflict, 200 men would die fighting for either slavery or freedom in the Kansas Territory. Upon this outbreak of violence, many more settlers flooded in to try and swing the vote which way. this historical event will be remembered because it was the first instance in which a large scale and violent conflict took place over the legalization of slavery in a new territory. Bleeding Kansas would also become a marker, along with John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry in Virginia, as the beginning of the quick and violent path America would soon take towards the War of Southern Secession

WMA - NBC Video "Wilmot Proviso"

In 1846 David Wilmot, a young Pennsylvanian Democrat, introduced the Wilmot Proviso. Mimicking the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 Wilmot hoped that his amendment would be uncounterable and pass through both houses, ending the debates over slavery in Texas, New Mexico, and California. Unfortunately the Wilmot Proviso only lead America further down the path of secession. The bill passed in the House of Representatives due to a Northern support, but failed in the senate where the South held more power. Southerners concluded that because slaves were propert they were protected under the Constitution. Debates raged over the amendment later influenced the 1857 Scott v Sandford ruling that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. The Wilmot Proviso literally undermined past American compromises between the North and South, causing the gap to widen further. After the amendment's defeat disgruntled, Northern Democrats loyal to Martin Van Buren, known as Barnburners, convened and created the Free-Soil party. This weakened Northern Democrats by reducing their numbers and harmed Southern attempts at defending slavery because of the pary's passion for equality. This passion later resulted in the Kansa-Nebraska Act of 1854, which repealed the Missouri Comprmise. Additionally, ideals conceived during the Wilmot Proviso disccusions stimulated the Compromise of 1850, another bill that lead to secession. Ultimately the Southern victory empowered Congressmen like Calhoun, prolonging debates over slavery. While the amendment was intended to end disputes over slavery in the Southwest, it only served to sabotage past compromises, and motivate decisions that pushed America towards civil war.

CMD –

NBC Video – “The Missouri Compromise”

Before Missouri’s application to join the Union, there was a balance between free and slave states and much of the debate on slavery had been successfully postponed. However when applied for Missouri statehood, it reopened the whole debate on slavery. While the compromise was intended to end the debate on slavery throughout the nation, it intensified and spurred more debate between the North and the South. During this time, the north and the south began to develop opposing views on religion and westward expansion, as well as two completely different economies. This led to opposing views on things such as abolition. While the Missouri Compromise was able to put off any more of the fighting it had caused, it also created a rift between the north and the south on issues such as slavery that would continue to expand until it tore the country apart in the civil war. It was able to put off the fighting Missouri’s request to enter the Union had caused, via the creation of Maine as a free state, maintaining the balance of free and slave states. The balance of free to slave states was important, because it determined the number of senators that were pro- or anti- slavery. Both sides thought that if the balance were turned in the opposite direction, that the other side would attempt to make the laws favor their opinions on slavery instead of an average of the nation as a whole. The biggest reason that southerners did not want to lose political power to the north, is because the main engine of the economy in the south was the slaves and if the northern abolition movement was successful; the southern planters felt that they would be ruined and extremely poor.

SMR-- "The Gadsden Purchase"

The Gadsden Purchase was the missing puzzle piece of the United States. This piece of land was the last territory bought by the United States, and ultimately completes the geography of our nation as we know it today. Perhaps the more important aspect of this piece of land, is that without it, trade and commerce across the southern end of our country would have been extremely difficult or even impossible. It was the Gadsden Purchase that linked up the Southern part of the United States, going from El Paso to Lose Angeles, but also to parts in central Mexico, enabling trade and commerce to travel to port cities in California and Mexico. This boost in transportation and commerce greatly fueled the economy. The Gadsden Purchase set the precedent for national commerce and the use of the Transcontinental Railroad. This piece of land was purchased for $10 million from the Mexican government. Although the land was purchased mainly for the acquisition of land, it also served as a reconciliation of outstanding border issues ensuing the treaty that ended the Mexican-American War-- the Treaty of Guadeloupe-Hidalgo. It is a major American trend to pay reparations for the country that has lost the war. Most likely, it is an effort by the Americans to stay on good terms with foreign nations to ensure future dealings. If the Americans had not helped Mexico pay for war damages or it they had been bitter about their victory, it is likely that Mexico would not have been as inclined to do business with the United States, consequently, it would have affected commerce and the links between the South. <span style="color: #0086ff; display: block; font-family: 'Arial Black',Gadget,sans-serif;">checked

ARS: Upon meeting Harriet Beecher Stowe, Abraham Lincoln said, “ So you're the little woman who wrote the book that made this great war!”    Lincoln   was referring to her book // Uncle Tom’s Cabin. // Since there was no record from either Lincoln or Stowe historians are left to analyze if  Lincoln   was condemning Stowe or advocating her. The only account Stowe had of her meeting with  Lincoln   was that he had told her, "Whichever way it ends, I have the impression that I sha'n't last long after it's over." Stowe’s family members reconstructed the historic meeting in their writings, but even these portraits of the event are conflicting. Although  Lincoln   was opposed to slavery and wanted it to be abolished he did not want what he thought to be was an unnecessary war. In reference to Linclon’s war actions Stowe said,”Mr. Lincoln has been too slow”. Lincoln  becomes the standard by which Stowe's abolitionism is measured, and Lincoln-a reluctant emancipator by any standard-is shown to possess the superior prescience and wisdom regarding the abolition of slavery.

APC: Dred Scott vs. Sanford Case

In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permiting slavery in all of the country's territories. The case before the court was that of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom. Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression -- wrote in the Court's majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The framers of the Constitution, he wrote, believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it." Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ." Abolitionists were incensed. Although disappointed, Frederick Douglass, found a bright side to the decision and announced, "my hopes were never brighter than now." For Douglass, the decision would bring slavery to the attention of the nation and was a step toward slavery's ultimate destruction. Douglass believed that Taney's verdict in court would help the abolitionists bring more awareness to slavery throughout both the north and the south.