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.