in 1854 it cost the u.s. goverment at least $100,000 to return one fugitive slave to the south. Who was he?
608021
I don't know the answer, but I know it was not Dredd Scott. He was not a fugitive slave, he had been freed and had sued for back wages because his former master had brought him into a free territory and then took him back to a slave state.
223621
In the 1840s things started heating up between North and South over general states' rights against the rights of the federal government. The issues adressed generally dealt immediatly with slaves. New states admitted to the Union had to be judged as "slave states" (slaves allowed) or "free states" (slavery prohibited). \n\nBoth sides wanted new states to be whichever side they favored because it would give them more legislative power in the US Congress. This led to bloodshed in many areas, particularly in Kansas, which became known as "Bloody Kansas". \n\nIn 1861, South Carolina seceded from the Union (said they werent part of the US any more) and started seizing federal property, including arms and munitions. \n\nOther states started seceding as well. Soon the seceded states formed what they called the "Confederate States of America", which came to be headed by Jefferson Davis as President. They attacked Fort Sumner in South Carolina and seized the fort, capturing it's inhabitants. This was treason.\n\nAbraham Lincoln (President of the US) immediatly called for 75,000 troops to put down the uprising. Then the Civil War started, eventually involving millions of troops. 600,000 men eventually died in the conflict, and the US was shattered for decades after the war. Remember, this war was fought to unite the Union, NOT for slavery. In fact, slavery was only addressed in 1862 when Lincoln set forth the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing all slaves in the Confederate states. By 1863 there were armed black soldiers in Union armies, serving with distinction. In 1865 the CSA tried to use black troops, but they were destroyed before the plan could be implemented.\n\nIn 1865 the final Confederate forces surrendered (General Johnston was the last to surrender, but with the surrender of General Robert E. Lee the war was pretty much over). Richmond, VA, the Confederate capital, was seized. \n\nLincoln began steps to rebuild and reunite the US. He planned to be kind to the newly reunited South and not punish them for seceding. Before he could start, he was killed by a man named John Wilkes Booth. \n\nThe years following became years of anger and hate for Southerners. The North oppressed and punished Southern insurrection with high taxes and legal oversight. This period became known as Reconstruction, and it really only ended around the 1970s, one century after it started.\n\nHope I helped,\nThe Wise One\n\nP.S. For more information check out http://www.wikipedia.com\nThey are pretty good, but it's better to read books...however that takes more time than I think you want to spend.
525593
Probably when slavery was illegal, 1865.
101189
c.1820—1913, American abolitionist, b. Dorchester co., Md. Born into slavery, she escaped to Phildelphia in 1849, and subsequently became one of the most successful "conductors" on the Underground Railroad. Returning to the South more than a dozen times, she is generally credited with leading more than 300 slaves (including her parents and brother) to freedom, sometimes forcing the timid ahead with a loaded revolver. She became a speaker on the anti-slavery lecture circuit and a friend of the principal abolitionists, and John Brown almost certainly confided his Harpers Ferry plan to her. During the Civil War, Tubman attached herself to the Union forces in coastal South Carolina, serving as a nurse, cook, laundress, scout, and spy, and in 1863 she played an important part in a raid that resulted in the freeing of more than 700 slaves. At Auburn, N.Y., her home for many years after the war, the Cayuga co. courthouse contains a tablet in her honor.
135230
the south wanted to secede from the union and pres lincoln just wasnt gunna have it
431328
NONE of my family came to this country until 1887.  We were\nnot even in this country while slavery was common practice.\nWhy on earth should they be need reparations for something\nthat didn't touch them???????  NOT ONE OF THEM has ever \nbeen a slave. The civil war was over in 1865, so no one \nhas even remotely distant relatives that were effected by it.  THIS WHOLE ISSUE IS RIDICULES!!!!
312296
I believe it was Abraham Lincoln,her is some info...\n\nAbraham Lincoln was born on February 12, 1809, in a one-room log cabin on the 348 acre (1.4 km²) Sinking Spring Farm in the Southeast part of Hardin County, Kentucky, then considered the frontier (now part of LaRue Co., in Nolin Creek, three miles (5 km) south of Hodgenville), to Thomas Lincoln and Nancy Hanks. Lincoln was named after his deceased grandfather, who was scalped in 1786 in an Indian raid. He had no middle name. Lincoln's parents were uneducated, illiterate farmers. When Lincoln became famous, reporters and storytellers often exaggerated the poverty and obscurity of his birth. However Lincoln's father Thomas was a respected and relatively affluent citizen of the Kentucky backcountry. He had purchased the Sinking Spring Farm in December 1808 for $200 cash and assumption of a debt. The farm site is now preserved as part of Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site. His parents belonged to a well that had pulled away from a larger church because they refused to support slavery. From a very young age, Lincoln was exposed to anti-slavery sentiment. However, he never joined his parents' church, or any other church, and as a youth ridiculed religion.\n\nThree years after purchasing the property, a prior land claim filed in Hardin Circuit Court forced the Lincolns to move. Thomas continued legal action until he lost the case in 1815. Legal expenses contributed to family difficulties. In 1811, they were able to lease 30 acres (0.1 km²) of a 230 acre (0.9 km²) farm on Knob Creek a few miles away, where they then moved. In a valley of the Rolling Fork River, this was some of the best farmland in the area. At this time, Lincoln's father was a respected community member and a successful farmer and carpenter. Lincoln's earliest recollections are from this farm. In 1815, another claimant sought to eject the family from the Knob Creek farm. Frustrated with litigation and lack of security provided by Kentucky courts, Thomas decided to move to Indiana, which had been surveyed by the federal government, making land titles more secure. It is possible that these episodes motivated Abraham to later learn surveying and become an attorney.\n\nIn 1816, when Lincoln was seven years old, he and his parents moved to Spencer County, Indiana, he would state "partly on account of slavery" and partly because of economic difficulties in Kentucky. In 1818, Lincoln's mother died of "milk sickness" at age thirty four, when Abe was nine. Soon afterwards, Lincoln's father remarried to Sarah Bush Johnston. Sarah Lincoln raised young Lincoln like one of her own children. Years later she compared Lincoln to her own son, saying "Both were good boys, but I must say — both now being dead that Abe was the best boy I ever saw or ever expect to see." (Lincoln, by David Herbert Donald, 1995)\n\nIn 1830, after more economic and land-title difficulties in Indiana, the family settled on government land on a site selected by Lincoln's father in Macon County, Illinois. The following winter was especially brutal, and the family nearly moved back to Indiana. When his father relocated the family to a nearby site the following year, the 22-year-old Lincoln struck out on his own, canoeing down the Sangamon to Sangamon County, Illinois, in the village of New Salem. Later that year, hired by New Salem businessman Denton Offutt and accompanied by friends, he took goods from New Salem to New Orleans via flatboat on the Sangamon, Illinois and Mississippi rivers. While in New Orleans, he may have witnessed a slave auction that left an indelible impression on him for the rest of his life. Whether he actually witnessed a slave auction at that time or not, living in a country with a considerable slave presence, he probably saw similar atrocities from time to time.\n\nHis formal education consisted of perhaps 18 months of schooling from unofficial teac
246871
1861\nFort Sumpter\nThe less populous south detested the more populous north using its majority position to dictate policies regarding economics and slavery in ways that benefitted the north and appeared to harm the south.
552661
South half of the United States of America there was a lot of slavery in New York.
283913
If the government was going to pay descendants of former slaves, this would lead to a series of problems.\n\n1. How does the government tell who was a descendant of a former slave and who immigrated after the Civil War?\n\n2. If we are going to pay descendents of slave reparations, what about all the families (like mine) who sacrificed everything running underground railroads? These, mostly white, families often lost EVERYTHING, including their lives, when the bounty-hunters and pro-slavery forces found out who ran a station.\n\n3. What about every other indentured servant or forced laborer and their descendants?\n\n4. Who will pay for this? What about descendants of people who never owned slaves or fought against those who did?  Why should they pay?  What about those who came to America after the Civil War?  Also, since the money from the government comes from taxes, how do we know "who" exactly paid?  How do we know the descendant of a slave is just not paying more taxes to pay themselves?\n\n5. How much is the per capita reparation?  What should each person get?  Will we need, yet another, expensive bureaucracy to manage it?\n\n6. Is this a one time payment or an installment?  If so, then for how long?  Does this reparation mean other assistance programs are discontinued?  If so, which ones? Does this payment continue from generation to generation or just the current generation?  If not, why not?  If so, why?\n\n7. Should we not then demand that EVERY nation which ever held slaves or participated in their trade be forced to pay reparations?  Would it matter if they were not the same country, or a country at all, when it happened?  What about Italy who, when they were the Romans had slaves fight to the death?  What about the Greeks, or the Egyptians, or the Philistines (Palestinians), or the Syrians, or the Chinese, or pick a country? What about the Dutch who had a large role in the slave trade?  Do they not owe reparations as an accomplice in the African slavery issue?  What about the tribes in Africa who helped the Dutch get slaves?  What about those that still own slaves in Africa (Sudan is the center of modern slave trading)?\n\nThese are just a few of the questions this issue raises.
229067
Secretary of State William Seward. He made the Lousiana Purchase AND bought Alaska ... both of which were done without permission, which makes him a hero AND the greatest government thief in all history.
951009
Individual is spelled wrong.\n\nokay as for the intro:\n\n"I had crossed the line. I was free, but there was no one to welcome me to the land of freedom.  I was a stranger in a strange land."  That quote is from Harriet Tubman, a great lady who was well respected by many. She made it her life's work to be sure others like her, run away slaves, would find someone to welcome them on their journey to freedom.  Harriet Tubman began a secret movement that has come to be known as "The Underground Railroad".\n\nFrom there you can get into what a slave's life was like and how difficult it was to disobey and seek freedom with angry owners and dogs on your trail, knowing death could very well be the price you pay if caught.
382926
Well, Dred Scott was a black slave in the South.  When Dred Scott's master died, he went to the North, but was brought back to the South.  His claim was that he was the property of one man, who was dead.  The court ruled against him, however, saying that property was passed through the family, or something of that nature.  Basically, it was a debate over race, time spent in the North, and property...and Dred Scott lost, which angered the North
831608
The Missouri Compromise, also called the Compromise of 1820, was an agreement passed in 1820 between the pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions in the United States, involving primarily the regulation of slavery in the western territories. It prohibited slavery for all new states north of the 36°30' line, or the border of the Arkansas territory (excluding Missouri). Prior to the agreement, the House of Representatives had refused to accept this boundary and a conference committee was appointed. The United States Senate refused to concur in the amendment, and the whole measure was lost. During the following session (1819-1820), the House passed a similar bill with an amendment introduced on January 26, 1820 by John W. Taylor of New York allowing Missouri into the union as a slave state. In the meantime, the question had been complicated by the admission in December of Alabama, a slave state (the number of slave and free states now becoming equal), and by the passage through the House (January 3, 1820) of a bill to admit Maine as a free state.
1169459
No. Freedom comes with a cost. Answered by an african-american who had ancestors that were slaves.
678079
The last President to own slaves during his presidency was Zachary Taylor. The last President to own slaves, though no longer President at the time, was Ulysses Grant.
1011316
about a hundred dollars...