The Missouri Compromise wanted that to end. At the time, this compromise was seen as a critical agreement to preserve the balance of Congress. The United States congress admitted Missouri to the union as a state that allowed slavery and Maine as a free state. This ended up as Missouri being a free state and ending the slavery debate. The Kansas-Nebraska act, also known as the “Bleeding-Kansas” was the act that allowed
The Kansas- Nebraska Act allowed divided western land into the territories of Kansas and Nebraska to choose the issue of slavery by popular sovereignty. This increased sectional tensions because the South wanted to build a southern railroad, as it would increase economic growth. Also, the North was upset because of the possibility of the expansion of slavery into western territories. Also, on the day of voting, border ruffians came from Missouri to vote in support of slavery. This greatly upset the North, especially the free-soilers.
Have you ever wondered how we founded Kansas and Nebraska into America? Well it wasn’t as easy as just finding it and claiming it, it took a lot of controversy over slavery. The Nebraska Act was the one who really started a major argument over slavery and whether or not it should be in those states. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was important, it was significant to American History, and it led to the Civil War. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was significant to American history because it caused another party to form, and it led to the Civil War because it had split up the Union.
In the late nineteenth century, the North and the South were sharply divided in terms of lifestyle, economical strengths and weaknesses, morals, and political viewpoints. There were many issues that were heatedly debated at the time; slavery, education, industrial expansion, and the rights of freed African Americans. The economy varied hugely depending on the region. In the North, factories fed the economy, and it was full of booming cities. The South however was dependent on "King Cotton," a crop which was almost entirely dependent on slave labor.
Many of the political events lead us into battles, like the Kansas-Nebraska Act during 1854. Senator Stephen Douglass, had thought that popular sovereignty seemed liked an excellent way to decide whether slavery would be allowed in Nebraska Territory. Douglas introduced a bill in congress on January 23, 1854 that would divide the area into two territories. Nebraska is in the north and Kansas is in the south, since the Kansas and Nebraska territory lay north of the Missouri Compromise line of 36°30’ and thereof it was legally closed to slavery. Kansas and Nebraska Act became a law in 1854.
As the United States moved west during its Westward expansion, it prevented the south from making the states above that line to become a slave state. Because of this the Compromise of 1850 was made so that certain states would be determined to be a slave state or not. In addition to this conflict, problems in Kansas and Nebraska sparked an internal territorial problem in these states. For example in Kansas there were battles over territories which either allowed slavery or opposed it. This caused the Kansas-Nebraska act to be
In 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed, making the decision of whether or not the Western states’ would have allow slavery based off of popular sovereignty. The act gave hope to southerners to expand slavery but angered the anti-slavery northerners. The act pitted anti-slavery and pro-slavery forces against each other for control of the new territories. To increase the numbers of anti-slavery, the northerners formed a company to help anti-slavery families move to the new territories. Pro-slavery forced did the same thing to counter what the north was trying to do.
Moreover, there was much trouble in Kansas such as the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The Kansas-Nebraska Act stated that two states, Kansas and Nebraska would be made up out of what was left of the Louisiana Purchase. These two territories could decide if they about slavery. Later, the people of Kansas wanted to separate their state into antislavery and pro-slavery groups. In March of 1855, elections for this idea began.
The core of the conflict that divided America culturally, politically, and economically was the westward expansion of slavery. A few people wanted to eliminate slavery, while others wanted to expand slavery throughout the nation. The strong opposing sides caused a movement towards a Civil War among the free states and the slave states. Many believed that slavery was the only way the nation would succeed.
Slavery was one of the biggest problems between 1820 and 1860. Sometimes two states had to be added to the Union at the same time, to make things fair. The North and the South fought almost constantly over the issue of slavery, sometimes things were able to be worked out about it, but as the years passed, the problems with slavery and territory started to become too big to ignore or
The effect of the Missouri Compromise was the immediate satisfaction of the members of Congress that no national decisions about slavery, applying to every state, would be made by a majority. Similarly, the Missouri Compromise is related to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 in which Stephen Douglass allowed the new states Kansas and Nebraska to decide amongst themselves whether slavery would be legal. Because Kansas and Nebraska were not in the Louisiana Purchase, this new act had to be created to again distribute states as free or slave. It is important because it immediately settled the disagreement over what new states would be free or slave, but highlighted the overall
The issue of slavery was a crucial factor in the North and South going to war in 1861 because those in the Southern states had relied on agrarian methods to maintain their livelihood such as tobacco, sugar and cotton. Southern cotton plantations held global dominance in the industry due to their unmatched efficiency and the use of slaves maximised profits. However, slavery cannot be seen as solely responsible for the North and South’s war in 1861. A key attributing factor was sectionalism, which led to secession and conflict following the rapid territorial expansion in the United States during 1846 to 1854; states had different agendas, environmental circumstances and beliefs regarding their rights. This was a key issue stemming from the formation
The Missouri Compromise included the 36 30 line to split the slave states and the non-slave states(Missouri was- at the time- the only exception to this rule). Both sides were seemingly happy with the Missouri Compromise until the newly gained Mexican territory was added into the equation. The Great Compromise was made to settle which areas of land would allow slavery and had objections on both sides. New states such as California (which were extensive and split down the width of the country) did not become slave states, but it gave the Southern slave states a chance to be even more harsh towards their slaves and push against the North for more control. The Kansas-Nebraska Act favored the South over the North because the 36 30 line was erased to make room for popular sovereignty, giving the South the chance to influence the new states to become pro-slavery.
Slavery was a big issue in the 1800s. It divided the country into an argument between having slavery or not having slavery. It also made a conflict between the north and south and they could not agree on it. Some wanted to keep it, some wanted to get rid of it. The states would argue and they could not come up with a compromise.
They became both pivotal moments in history, in law, and in the direction of American society, with which Lincoln, as a lawyer, was already immersed and passionate about. This is what gave him the motivation and incentive(in some measure) to get back into the game of politics with which he had contended for so long. McGovern says that “Along with many others, Lincoln was thundersruck and astounded when the new law [i.e. the Nebraska Act] was enacted... he feared there was a real danger that slavery would spread, perhaps rapidly, and he could no longer stnad by (37).” After all, if Kansas-Nebraska were to be separated in two, leaving it completely up to the newly formed states whether or not they would allow for slavery on their premises (36).
