to what degree did THE COMPROMISE OF 1850 DELAY THE BREAKUP OF THE UNION???????????
961463
The Compromise of 1850 generated positive and negative results. Its passage quieted sectional animosities for a few years (until the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854) and held off the Civil War for about 10 years. On the other hand, Northerners were so enraged by the provisions of the Fugitive Slave Act that it was impossible to strike future compromises.\n1California was admitted to the Union as a free state. \n2The New Mexico and Utah territories were to decide the question issue by relying on “popular sovereignty,” allowing the actual settlers to vote on the issue. \n3Texas lost the New Mexico territory, but received $10 million from the federal government for its loss. \n4The slave trade in the District of Columbia was abolished. \n5A new Fugitive Slave Act was passed.
787544
the question of "States rights" was one of the divisive issues facing this nation at that time. which one should be supreme, the States or the Federal government. the Whigs were AWOL on that issue, truth be told. the Republican Party was actually founded on a States rights platform
669133
The union could not make people act certain ways to the African American population. It would have cost to much of the governments money to order troops to be stationed in every city in the CSA (Confederate States of America) to insure the equality of African Americans. Also on the other hand the US government tried to hard to give them equality such as giving African Americans land that was taken from former slave owners. This made the former slave owners mad because their land was being taken by force so that didn't help relations. In addition African Americans were us to working a farm no managing it making most of the African Americans to lose their farms due to bankruptcy and move out of the south.
372527
I believe that you are thinking of Texas, Mississippi, and Virginia which were not allowed to vote because they had not yet be readmitted to the Union.
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.
205921
The Fugitive Slave Act was part of the Compromise of 1850 and said that if a slave from the south escaped to the north, the northern people would have to return it. People in the north didn't like this law (or slavery) so they often disobeyed it. It also caused the Underground Railroad to change its route to Canada so the escaping slaves wouldn't be returned.
142315
The Compromise of 1850 called The Pearce Act was a series of Congressional legislative measures addressing slavery and the boundaries of territories acquired during the Mexican-American War (1846–48). In five laws balancing the interests of the slaveholding states of the American South and the free states, California was admitted as a free state, Texas received financial compensation for relinquishing claim to lands West of the Rio Grande, the United States territory of New Mexico (including present-day Arizona and Utah) was organized without any specific prohibition of slavery, the slave trade (but not slavery itself) was abolished in Washington, D.C., and the stringent Fugitive Slave Law was passed, requiring all U.S. citizens to assist in the return of runaway slaves.\nThe measures, brokered largely by Stephen Douglas, with support from United States Senate luminaries Henry Clay, known to American history as "The Great Compromiser," and Daniel Webster, one of the United States' most famous orators, with the influence of the Fillmore Administration (and opposition of the Taylor Administration), temporarily defused sectional tensions in the United States, postponing the secession crisis and the American Civil War. However, its rejection of the Wilmot Proviso, which had banned slavery in Federal territories, in favor of the doctrine of "Popular Sovereignty" for New Mexico and Utah, was a departure from the method of addressing slavery in the territories that had been created in the Missouri Compromise in 1820. The political peace achieved by the Compromise of 1850 lasted for four years only until it was shattered by the divisive Kansas-Nebraska Act.
928410
According to the compromise, Texas would relinquish the land in dispute but, in compensation, be given 10 million dollars -- money it would use to pay off its debt to Mexico. Also, the territories of New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah would be organized without mention of slavery. (The decision would be made by the territories' inhabitants later, when they applied for statehood.) Regarding Washington, the slave trade would be abolished in the District of Columbia, although slavery would still be permitted. Finally, California would be admitted as a free state. To pacify slave-state politicians, who would have objected to the imbalance created by adding another free state, the Fugitive Slave Act was passed.\n\nOf all the bills that made up the Compromise of 1850, the Fugitive Slave Act was the most controversial. It required citizens to assist in the recovery of fugitive slaves. It denied a fugitive's right to a jury trial. (Cases would instead be handled by special commisioners -- commisioners who would be paid $5 if an alleged fugitive were released and $10 if he or she were sent away with the claimant.) The act called for changes in filing for a claim, making the process easier for slaveowners. Also, according to the act, there would be more federal officials responsible for enforcing the law.\n\nFor slaves attempting to build lives in the North, the new law was disaster. Many left their homes and fled to Canada. During the next ten years, an estimated 20,000 blacks moved to the neighboring country. For Harriet Jacobs, a fugitive living in New York, passage of the law was "the beginning of a reign of terror to the colored population." She stayed put, even after learning that slave catchers were hired to track her down. Anthony Burns, a fugitive living in Boston, was one of many who were captured and returned to slavery. Free blacks, too, were captured and sent to the South. With no legal right to plead their cases, they were completely defenseless.\n\nPassage of the Fugitive Slave Act made abolitionists all the more resolved to put an end to slavery. The Underground Railroad became more active, reaching its peak between 1850 and 1860. The act also brought the subject of slavery before the nation. Many who had previously been ambivalent about slavery now took a definitive stance against the institution. \n\nThe Compromise of 1850 accomplished what it set out to do -- it kept the nation united -- but the solution was only temporary. Over the following decade the country's citizens became further divided over the issue of slavery. The rift would continue to grow until the nation itself divided.
21725
No provision of the Constitution allows secession.  This was a contested theory, of course, because no state had tried it, and many states thought they still reserved the right to secede.  New England even considered a plan well before the Civil War to secede, under the Hartford Convention of 1814.\n\nThe structure of the Constitution, however, seems to deny a secession theory.  The Constitution may be amended by 3/4 of the states, which means that 1/4 of the states could be bound by a law they did not agree with.  It doesn't seem like that a state could just secede if they wanted to, since the very structure of the Constitution bound states with laws they didn't agree with.\n\nThe Civil War, then, was not "illegal."  The President used troops to prevent a rebellion.  The Confederacy had violated the structure of the Constitution, and it had circumvented legal methods of achieving its desires (e.g., legislation, constitutional amendment).
651461
This was a period in which the former States of the Confederacy were impelled and coerced through a societal transformation.  During this period 10 to 15 percent of the white voters were disfranchised as the local Republican Party united illiterate blacks, “scalawags,” and northern “Carpetbaggers” into an unscrupulous political triumvirate that indulged in an orgy of extravagance, corruption, and debauchery.  (from “Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men,” by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel).  \n\nDuring this same period, the Union military occupation forces made elected members of some State legislatures removed from office because they would not support ratification of the 14th Amendment.  They then replaced these legislatures with hand picked individuals who would vote the way they wanted.  While this is clearly extra-Constitutional, in the 1869 case of Texas v. White these acts of the Union were justified as legitimate “by right of conquest.”  \n\nThese acts of reconstruction were far outside the intent for Reconstruction of President Lincoln (prior to his assassination) further destroying the culture of these States and building resentment which would last for generations into the future.  For those interested they could find interesting such books as:\n\n“The Tragic Era: The Revolution after Lincoln” by Claude G. Bowers;\n“History of the United States From the Compromise of 1850 to the Restoration of Home Rule in the South in 1877”, by James Ford Rhodes;\nAlso by William Archibald Dunning, “Reconstruction: Political and Economic, 1865 – 1877; and,\nEssays on the Civil War and Reconstruction,” 2nd edition.
183020
bill that became law on May 30, 1854, by which the U.S. Congress established the territories of Kansas and Nebraska. By 1854 the organization of the vast Platte and Kansas river countries W of Iowa and Missouri was overdue. As an isolated issue territorial organization of this area was no problem. It was, however, irrevocably bound to the bitter sectional controversy over the extension of slavery into the territories and was further complicated by conflict over the location of the projected transcontinental railroad. Under no circumstances did proslavery Congressmen want a free territory (Kansas) W of Missouri. Because the West was expanding rapidly, territorial organization, despite these difficulties, could no longer be postponed. Four attempts to organize a single territory for this area had already been defeated in Congress, largely because of Southern opposition to the Missouri Compromise. Although the last of these attempts to organize the area had nearly been successful, Stephen A. Douglas, chairman of the Senate Committee on Territories, decided to offer territorial legislation making concessions to the South. Douglas's motives have remained largely a matter of speculation. Various historians have emphasized Douglas's desire for the Presidency, his wish to cement the bonds of the Democratic party, his interest in expansion and railroad building, or his desire to activate the unimpressive Pierce administration. The bill he reported in Jan., 1854, contained the provision that the question of slavery should be left to the decision of the territorial settlers themselves. This was the famous principle that Douglas now called popular sovereignty, though actually it had been enunciated four years earlier in the Compromise of 1850. In its final form Douglas's bill provided for the creation of two new territories—Kansas and Nebraska—instead of one. The obvious inference—at least to Missourians—was that the first would be slave, the second free. The Kansas-Nebraska Act flatly contradicted the provisions of the Missouri Compromise (under which slavery would have been barred from both territories); indeed, an amendment was added specifically repealing that compromise. This aspect of the bill in particular enraged the antislavery forces, but after three months of bitter debate in Congress, Douglas, backed by President Pierce and the Southerners, saw it adopted. Its effects were anything but reassuring to those who had hoped for a peaceful solution. The popular sovereignty provision caused both proslavery and antislavery forces to marshal strength and exert full pressure to determine the “popular” decision in Kansas in their own favor, using groups such as the Emigrant Aid Company. The result was the tragedy of “bleeding” Kansas. Northerners and Southerners were aroused to such passions that sectional division reached a point that precluded reconciliation. A new political organization, the Republican party, was founded by opponents of the bill, and the United States was propelled toward the Civil War
443559
I wont give you a Paragraph but I will get you started,\n\nIn the 1850's and early 1860's abolitionists who had the dream of ending slavery angered many southerners who wanted to keep their lasting traditions.  Many historians believe that the abolistionist movement in the north, along with the book "Uncle Toms Cabin" were major contributing factors to the Civil war.\n\n\nGood Luck!
1122960
That was in 1865.  The Civil War was over, but the South had not yet been readmitted to the Union.
84091
As President Grant said in his memoirs, the South stopped working for compromise when they could no longer command political dominance of the country. Back in the early 1980's, the Commerce Department put out a series of books on the economic history of the United States, which brought up many aspects of early US history that are now forgotten.\n\nAfter the revolution, when the country was a bankrupted swath of states along the Atlantic Ocean, there seemed no way the country could survive economically. Then, the industrialization of the American Northeast was financed in large part by hard currency achieved through the export of cotton and tobacco. These were the only resources the US had in large quantities that had a monopoly throughout the world, and this was of course produced exclusively in the South. The grains produced in the Northeast and later in the Midwest were largely barred from European markets because of the British Corn Laws and other agricultural protective measures across the world.\n\nYou must remember, this was before the advent of sectionalism, and many across the country gave their political loyalty to the Whig Party, which represented Business both large and small. As a result, the South would reap huge profits on cotton (which thus became an industry only for those rich and powerful enough to hold large amounts of land and large numbers of slaves) and then invest those profits in the North to build industry. This also gave the South a certain amount of extra influence in how things were done across the country.\n\nAs the North began to also grow rich because of its expanding industrial base, leaders in the North began to also throw their political and economic weight around. In the 1830's, Northern and Midwestern sections brought about a very protective tariff against foreign manufactured goods and European luxuries (hence the name Sectionalism).\n\nAs we have seen all throughout our history, when a domestic industry is protected by increasing the price of foreign competition, rather than using the protection to increase their market share and long term health, American business will simply increase their prices to maximize their short term profits. This was the case here as well. The leaders in the North, because they needed semi-skilled labor which is not condusive to slavery, started to fund the political movement to abolish slavery which, when gold was discovered in California and people had to travel through Missouri and actually see the way slaves were treated, became an uncontrollably emotional issue. The South found themselves now having to pay higher prices for goods they could not produce themselves, even though they had made those goods possible, and found their peculiar institution which was the basis of their own wealth attacked as being immoral.\n\nThe two sections of the country had found themselves growing farther apart, and the differences were becoming too stark for the Southern leaders to deal with. While they defended African slavery as moral and humanitarian, they lived in mortal fear of becoming slaves themselves. The Whig Party began to unravel, with those in the North going to the Republicans and the South going to the Democrats. With the very idea of slavery being called into question, the South demanded a concession in the Compromise of 1850 that they felt would force the whole country to recognize the institution of slavery, the Fugitive Slave Act. This completely backfired on the South, because now to the people in the North, slavery was no longer just some bad thing that was happening far far away that you could pretend was someone else's problem (like Darfur today). The new law now required Northern communities to arrest and hold captive black people in their local jails with their local police for no other reason than because someone in the South said the black person was a runaway slave (there was no hearing, and no evidence allowed other than the statement of
674658
The Ohio River.\n\nThe Compromise established a boundary between the slave states of the south and the free states of the north... This boundary became referred to as the Mason-Dixon line because it began in the east along the Mason-Dixon line and headed westward to the Ohio River and along the Ohio to its mouth at the Mississippi River and then west along 36° 30' North.\n\nhttp://ask.yahoo.com/20000829.html
177811
the Compromise of 1877 was an imaginary line to seperate the free states and the slave states during the civil war.
586845
False. Civil War was not WITHIN Kansas, and the Missouri Compromise is more directly to blame for setting the stage for the Civil War.\n\nYou'd better do some research to back that up before you use it on your homework.