# data[].attributes.body
The MO Compromise was a law proposed by Henry Clay in response to the worsening quarrels over slavery. The law proposed two main things: First, it made all Louisiana Purchase states north of the 36º 30 parallel free states. Secondly, the law recognized Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state; therefore, balancing out the free and slave states in the union. After 30 years, the law was repealed during the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 was then set in place.

Could the MO Compromise have been a lasting solution to the debate between slave and free states?

No, the MO Compromise couldn't have been a lasting solution to the debate between slave and free states. Southerners believed that this would lead to more slavery laws and Northerners didn't like the idea of slavery moving into the Western part of the nation. Not many people liked this law as they didn't get much of a say in it.

Answer from: https://www.history.com/topics/slavery/missouri-compromise
(Shortcomings of the Missouri Compromise)

# data[].attributes.body
The Nat Turner's Rebellion was led by Nathanial turner, an enslaved preacher. It was a slave revolt leading to the death of both white and black people. The rebels made their way to Jerusalem (now Courtland) killing 55 white people during the journey. Soon, white people attacked back by killing many black people without proper court trials. After the revolt died down a little bit, white people started giving fair trials to the remaining rebels. Many slaves were executed or sentenced to jail. Nat Turner was searched for until finally being captured and executed.

What were both the positive and negative effects of this rebellion?

The negative effects of this rebellion were the number of deaths and the oppressive laws that occurred after. The rebellion led to laws preventing the education, transportation, and grouping of slaves. However, the rebellion also led to a small positive effect as well. There was a time when white leaders believed that they should abolish slavery after all. However, that idea was soon crushed by the oppressive laws.

Answer from:
1. https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/nat-turner%E2%80%99s-rebellion-1831
2. https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/nat-turner#:~:text=His%20action%20set%20off%20a,War%20(1861%E2%80%9365).

# data[].attributes.body
David Wilmot proposed the Wilmot Proviso. The law wanted to ban slavery in lands gained from Mexico. Wilmont wasn't really an abolitionist, he only wanted more room for poor Americans. With slavery, crops and plantations were taking up all the land, giving lesser chances for the poorer Americans. However, this law didn't end up being passed.

Why was the Wilmot Proviso protested by Southerners?

The Wilmot Proviso was protested by Southerners because it restrained the spread of slavery. Many Southerners benefitted from slavery as it allowed for them to make a higher profit from their plantations. It was an essential thing for people in the south.

Answer from: https://www.history.com/news/wilmot-proviso-slavery

# data[].attributes.body
The Free Soil Party was a political party with similar beliefs as David Wilmot. With the slogan “free soil, free speech, free labor, and free men,” the party lured in small farmers, workers, merchants, and debtors. All of these people resented the competition slave owners presented. The party was led by the former president, Martin Van Buren. Buren and his party made sure that banned slavery in the west was well represented. However, the congressman lessened until merging into the Republican party. The intent remained the same within the party and they got closer to their goal. But, only up to the point where slavery was considered morally evil and unjust.

Though they did not win the presidential election, what political progress was made by the Free Soil party?

Some political progress made by the Free Soil party included the contribution to the electing of Whig candidate General Zachary Taylor. The party pulled enough votes from the Democratic party.

Answer mainly from: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Free-Soil-Party

# data[].attributes.body
The Compromise of 1850 was composed of 5 bills that all strived to resolve prior issues regarding the spread of slavery to the west. The bills did five main things: First, they admitted California to the Union as a free state. Second, the remaining part of Mexico was separated into Utah and New Mexico. Both of the states were left to decide on their own whether or not they were slave states. Thirdly, they created boundaries between Texas and the US. Fourth on the list, the Compromise of 1850 amended the Fugitive Slave act. This allowed slaveowners to recover runaway slaves. Lastly, the act of buying and selling slaves was banned in the District of Columbia.

What hurdles were faced in trying to pass the Compromise of 1850?

The whole compromise was not passed, so it was split into separate bills. This way, the congressmen could vote on a certain topic within the compromise. The bills were finally passed after the death of president Taylor as the vice president liked the compromise's bills.

Answer from: https://www.history.com/topics/slavery/compromise-of-1850

# data[].attributes.body
The first Fugitive Slave Acts were enacted in 1793. They were a set of laws that allowed for escaped slaves to be captured and returned to their owners. The acts were then amended and changed to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 due to resistance to the law. This time, the law was harsher and had more provisions regarding the escapees.

How was Henry David Thoreau involved in the fight against the Fugitive Slave Act?

Henry David Thoreau was involved in the fight against the Fugitive Slave Act as he defied it. Thoreau was a major helper in the Underground railroad. He escorted slaves as they traveled to Canada. Thoreau also gave out speeches sharing abolitionist beliefs, one in opposition to the carrying out of the Fugitive Slave Act.

Answer From:
1. https://concordlibrary.org/special-collections/antislavery/39#:~:text=He%20escorted%20fugitives%20to%20the,Burns%20(1854)%20angered%20him.
2. https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/fugitive-slave-acts

# data[].attributes.body
The Kansas-Nebraska Act had a similar effect as one of the bills from the Compromise of 1850. This bill was proposed by Stephen Douglas for the Nebraska territory (modern-day Kansas, Nebraska, Montana and the Dakotas). This bill had the Missouri Compromise repealed, allowing for the option of slavery to open. Specifically, it allowed for the people of the territory to determine if slavery was allowed using popular sovereignty.

Why did Douglas want to repeal the Missouri Compromise and replace it with the KS/NE act?

Douglass believed that the KS/NE act and ue to the idea of popular sovereignty would resolve the debate over slavery's future in the US. He needed some vote supporting slavery in the west. Because of this, Douglass needed to get the MO Compromise repealed.

Answer from: https://www.history.com/topics/19th-century/kansas-nebraska-act

# data[].attributes.body
Bleeding Kansas was a period of time where proslavery and antislavery groups constantly fought against each other. The event was a mini civil war that was composed of two main events:

Sack of Lawrence:
Pro-slavery mobs attacked the city of Lawrence, Kansas. They destroyed, looted, and burned buildings such as houses, hotels, printing presses, and stores.

Pottawatomie Massacre:
A response to the Sack of Lawrence, led by abolitionist John Brown. Brown and seven other men marched down the Pottawatomie valley in Kansas. They went around to the settlements and ended up killing five men.

If the Missouri Compromise had not been repealed and replaced, would this violence have occurred? Explain.

If the Missouri Compromise had not been repealed and replaced, there wouldn't be as much violence as there is now. The Missouri Compromise banned slavery in the west, upsetting southerners and/or pro-slavery groups. Soon enough, the pro-slavery groups would have rebelled. However, there would be mainly one-sided rebellions as the anti-slavery groups were content.

Answer from: https://www.history.com/topics/19th-century/bleeding-kansas

# data[].attributes.body
Dred Scott was an enslaved black man fighting for his freedom. Scott lived in slave states and was legally owned until the death of his owner. Scott's second owner, John Emerson, lived in free states and territories. However, that wasn't the reason for wanting his freedom. Emerson soon died, so Scott and his family were then owned by Emerson's wife, Irene Sandford. This was when Scott started to fight for his freedom. Scott and his filed separate lawsuits. One relating to the Missouri statute stating that colored people could sue due to unjustified enslavement. The second following the statute that any slave that had been taken to a free state or territory must be freed even if they are moved back to a slave state. Scott's case was constantly ruled against and then appealed, finally reaching the Supreme Court. However, Scott lost again. But then, Irene married Calvin Chaffee, an abolitionist. He sold Scott and his family back to Scott's original owner's son, Taylor Blow. Blow finally freed Scott.

Should the Supreme Court always be trusted? Explain.

No, the Supreme Court shouldn't always be trusted. This is because the court is full of people with their own entitled opinion. Judges in the court are biased against slaves as they are not actual citizens.

Answer From:
1. https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/dred-scott-case

2. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/dred-scott-v-sandford

# data[].attributes.body
Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln and Democratic Senator Stephen A. Douglas had a series of seven debates regarding the spread of slavery into the new territories.

Debate Structure:

1. Opening statement - candidate 1

2. Counter to the opening - candidate 2

3. Rebuttal to the Counter - candidate 1

What was the “Freeport Doctrine” and how did it both help and hurt Douglas?

The "Freeport Doctrine" states that slavery was only allowed if the general public agreed with the ruling. This was an idea that was strange to Southerners. Douglas did win against Abraham because his views were liked by the Illinois legislature. However, lots of Southerners disliked Douglas's views. This led to southern Democrats backing up a different candidate.  Douglas ended up only winning Missouri, exhausted by the campaign.

Answer From: https://www.history.com/topics/19th-century/lincoln-douglas-debates

# data[].attributes.headline
John Brown’s Raid on Harper’s Ferry (1859)

# data[].attributes.subject
John Brown’s Raid on Harper’s Ferry (1859)

# data[].attributes.body
John Brown, an abolitionist, led a small amount of people on raid in a federal armory. Brown's goal was to create a rebellion group of armed slaves in an attempt to get rid of slavery. After the raid, U.S. marines arrived and killed ten of the men and sent Brown to court. Brown went to jail soon enough, and passed a note to one of the guards reading, "I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood.” Brown's raid inflamed the tensions surrounding slavery, setting stakes for the upcoming election.

Was John Brown justified in his plan?

No, John Brown was not justified in his plan.  Brown was a very committed abolitionist, but there were other ways to share is opinion. Brown resorted to violence, disregarding other types of protests.

Answer From: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/john-browns-raid-on-harpers-ferry

(Inferred from article and prior knowledge)

# data[].attributes.body
The Presidential Election of 1860 was a very significant election. The election consisted of Abraham Lincoln (Republican), Stephen Douglas (Democratic), John Breckinridge (Southern Democratic), and John Bell (Constitutional Union). The Republic party was against the expansion of slavery, and some members were even against slavery as a whole. The Democratic party was split over the expansion of slavery and the idea of self-governing states. As result, the party split into the Democrats (Northern Democrats) and the Southern Democrats. The Northern Democrats opposed the expansion of slavery and believed in the national government. The Southerners were with the idea of slavery and liked the idea of self-governing states. The Constitutional Union party consisted of unhappy Democrats, Unionists, and former Whigs.

Results:
Lincoln:  180 electoral votes
Douglas: 12 electoral votes
Breckenridge: 72 electoral votes
Bell: 39 electoral votes

How did divided political parties lead to Lincoln’s election?

The divided political parties lead to Lincoln's election by dividing the democratic votes. Together, the democrats could have one. However, the separated party led to the votes being separated as well. This meant that the separated groups got half of a normal party.

Answer from: https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/election-of-1860

# data[].attributes.body
The term secession refers to the legal withdrawal from a federation or body. In the context of the Civil War, Secession was a period of time when eleven total states located in the south seceded or withdrew from the union. The first seven were South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. They had a government set up in Alabama that later moved to Virginia after Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina joined the new government. These states called themselves the Confederate States of America. The US states bordering the Confederate States of America contributed to this new government body, but stuck with the union.

Could secession have been a long-term solution?

No, secession couldn't have been a long term solution. One-third of the nation had withdrawn, taking with them, valuable resources. Also, since most of the South had left, the North didn't have the proper crops and materials to manufacture items. There wasn't a cohesive economic and industrial balance.

Answer from: https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/secession

# data[].attributes.body
Located in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, Fort Sumter was the location of the Civil War's first battle. The battle happened after the secession when the Confederate states bombed the fort when the supplies were being replenished.  U.S. Major Robert Anderson led the US troops, soon surrendering to the Confederate army. The Confederate states occupied the fort for almost four years after the battle.

What actions did Lincoln take to prevent an outbreak of violence at Fort Sumter?

Some actions that Lincoln took to prevent an outbreak of violence at Fort Sumter included sending three ships and Union volunteers in an attempt to calmly reject the war. He sent them unarmed to show they came in peace and didn't want the war.

Answer from: https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/fort-sumter