POLITICS OF SLAVERY

• COMPROMISE OF 1850• DUE TO THE GOLD

RUSH,CALIFORNIA POPULATION HAD GROWN ENOUGH TO APPLY FOR STATEHOOD.

• CALIFORNIA’S NEW CONSTITUTION FORBADE SLAVERY.

• SOUTHERN OPPOSITION OF CALIFORNIA.

• SOUTHERN STATES THREATENED SECESSION.

COMPROMISE OF 1850

• HENRY CLAY WORKED TO SHAPE THE COMPROMISE THAT BOTH THE NORTH AND SOUTH COULD ACCEPT.

1. NORTH• CALIFORNIA ADMITTED

AS A FREE STATE

• SOUTH • PROPOSED A NEW

TOUGHER FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW.

• TO APPEASE BOTH SIDES, A PROVISION ALLOWED POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY, THE RIGHT TO VOTE FOR OR AGAINST SLAVERY.

COMPROMISE OF 1850

• WHAT 2 TERRITORIES WERE INVOLVED IN THE COMPROMISE OF 1850?

• NEW MEXICO AND UTAH

POLITICS OF SLAVERY• KANSAS NEBRASKA ACT-

PROPOSED BY SENTOR STEPHEN DOUGLAS.

• TO DOUGLAS, POPULAR SOVEREINTY WAS AN IDEAL WAY TO DETERMINE IF SLAVERY WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE NEBRASKA TERRITORY.

• THE DIFFICULTY OF THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT WAS IT’S TERRITORY WAS NORTH OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE AND WAS CLOSED TO SLAVERY.

POLITICS OF SLAVERY

• KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT WAS PASSED IN 1854.

• BOTH SUPPORTERS RUSHED TO KANSAS TO STAKE THEIR CLAIM ON THE ISSUE OF SLAVERY.

• HOW DID THE ADVOCATES FOR SLAVERY WIN THE ELECTION?

POLITICS OF SLAVERY• DRED SCOTT DECISION• SUPREME COURT CASE

WHEREBY SCOTT WAS TAKEN FROM MISSOURI (SLAVE STATE) TO A FREE STATE ILLINOIS, AND FREE TERRITORY WISCONSIN, AND THEN BACK TO MISSOURI.

• SCOTT APPEALED TO THE SUPREME COURT FOR HIS FREEDOM.

POLITICS OF SLAVERY• ON MARCH 6, 1857 THE

SUPREME COURT RULED AGAINST DRED SCOTT.

• THE COURT RULED SCOTT LACKED ANY LEGAL STANDING TO SUE IN FEDERAL COURT BECAUSE HE WAS NOT A CITIZEN, AND NEVER WOULD BE.

• THE COURT RULING WAS BASED ON THE 5TH ADMENDMENT, CITING A PERSON COULD NOT LOSE PROPERTY, INCLUDING SLAVES.

Documents