# data[].attributes.headline
Growing Sectionalism (1820 - 1850) Padlet

# data[].attributes.subject
Growing Sectionalism (1820 - 1850) Padlet

# data[].attributes.body
Below you will see a collection of topics and an essential question about each topic. Your group has been assigned to read and watch information related to one of the topics below. Once you have finished reading and discussing, you may answer the question by creating a new Padlet - just click the pencil in the bottom left hand corner of the page.

# data[].attributes.body
How did the Missouri Compromise change the relationship between the North and the South?

# data[].attributes.body
The Missouri Compromise led to tensions between pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions across the country. At the time, the United States had 22 states that were evenly divided between free and slaves states. Therefore, Missouri coming as a slave state would ruin the balance. So, the northerns argued that Congress had the power to prohibit slavery. And, the Southerners held that new states had the same freedom of action as the original thirteen and were thus free to choose slavery if they wished. After the Senate and House passed different bills, a compromsise bill was work out. In the bill, Missouri was admitted as a slave state and Maine as free, and except for Missouri, slavery was to be excluded from the Louisiana Purchase lands north of latitude 36 degrees 30

# data[].attributes.body
Who did arguments of the Free Soil Party appeal to and why?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Free-Soil Party | Definition, History, & Beliefs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Free-Soil Party: Free-Soil Party (1848-54), minor but influential political party in the pre-Civil War period of American history that opposed the extension of slavery into the western territories and was later absorbed into the Republican Party.

# data[].attributes.body
The free-soil party appealed to northerns who did not want slavery and also southerns who opposed slavery extending into the west. David Wilmot of Pennsylvania, was fearful of expanding slave power within the national government in 1846 introduced into Congress his famous Wilmot Proviso, calling for the prohibition of slavery in the vast southwestern lands that had been newly acquired from Mexico. The party had low impact in the government and was later absorbed by the Republican Party.

Landon Cutler

Victoria Gallagher

# data[].attributes.body
What lasting effects does the decision of the Dred Scott case have and why?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

The Dred Scott decision was the culmination of the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, one of the most controversial events preceding the Civil War. In March 1857, the Supreme Court issued its decision in that case, which had been brought before the court by Dred Scott, a slave who had lived with his owner in a free state before returning to the slave state of Missouri. Scott argued that time spent in a free state entitled him to emancipation. But the court decided that no black, free or slave, could claim U.S. citizenship, and therefore blacks were unable to petition the court for their freedom. The Dred Scott decision outraged abolitionists and heightened North-South tensions.

This convoluted case (1857), both a cause and an effect of sectional conflict, contributed to antebellum political and constitutional controversy. It also made Chief Justice Roger B. Taney seem a satanic figure to contemporary antislavery activists and many later historians.

Did You Know?

Dred Scott, along with several members of his family, was formally emancipated by his owner just three months after the Supreme Court denied them their freedom in the Dred Scott decision.

Who Was Dred Scott?

Dred Scott, a black slave, and his wife had once belonged to army surgeon John Emerson, who had bought him from the Peter Blow family of St. Louis. After Emerson died, the Blows apparently helped Scott sue Emerson's widow for his freedom, but lost the case in state court.

Because Mrs. Emerson left him with her brother John Sanford (misspelled Sandford in court papers), a New York citizen, Scott sued again in federal court, claiming Missouri citizenship. Scott's lawyers eventually appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Originally, Justice Samuel Nelson was to write a narrow opinion, arguing that the case belonged in the state, not a federal court. But northern antislavery justices John McLean of Ohio and Benjamin R. Curtis of Massachusetts planned to dissent, arguing that Scott should be freed under the Missouri Compromise because he had traveled north of the 36°30′ line, whereas the Court's southerners wanted to rule the compromise unconstitutional.

Roger B. Taney

Among several opinions, Taney's was both the most important and the most tortuous. He ruled that blacks, slave or free, could not be citizens (Curtis showed this to be counter to precedent). Nor could Scott have become free by traveling north of the Missouri Compromise line; slavery, Taney said, could not be banned in the territories.

Six justices agreed that Scott was not a citizen, but disagreed over whether a freed slave could become a citizen. Nelson concurred in the ruling but not in its reasoning, and McLean and Curtis dissented.

Republicans assailed the decision, which they saw as an attempt to destroy their nascent party. Democrats divided over the Dred Scott case. Stephen A. Douglas ended up opposing it as counter to his doctrine of popular sovereignty.

Impact of the Dred Scott Decision

President James Buchanan's supporters considered it a final answer to the sectional controversy, although they were unaware at the time that Buchanan had influenced Justice Robert Grier of Pennsylvania to join the southern majority so that it would look less like a sectional decision.

The Dred Scott case remained the subject of noisy constitutional and historical debate and contributed to the divisions that helped lead to Abraham Lincoln's election and the Civil War.

The Reader's Companion to American History. Eric Foner and John A. Garraty, Editors. Copyright © 1991 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

The groundbreaking series reimagined. ROOTS premieres Memorial Day at 9/8c on HISTORY.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dred Scott Decision - Black History - HISTORY.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Dred Scott decision was the culmination of the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, one of the most controversial events preceding the Civil War. In March 1857, the Supreme Court issued its decision in that case, which had been brought before the court by Dred Scott, a slave who had lived with his owner in a free state before returning to the slave state of Missouri.

# data[].attributes.body
This started with a man named Dred Scott that ran away to freedom. He was arrested and taken to the court for judgement. In the court case he was tried as guilty and regardless of him coming to a free state he was sent back to the south as a runaway. This was a big lead to the Civil War because it was making slaves just more like merchandise and less like people and now they had almost no way to get to freedom. Many abolitionists took this as the last straw and new war was eminent.

brandon ogbu, simi ona, alisha stephens,

ndey jasseh

# data[].attributes.body
How do the actions of Nat Turner play into the fears of white southerners?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nat Turner - Black History - HISTORY.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Find out more about the history of Nat Turner, including videos, interesting articles, pictures, historical features and more. Get all the facts on HISTORY.com

# data[].attributes.body
Nat Turner was a black american slave, who led a sucessful slave rebellion in 1831 that helped create more events that led the fear of the white american people. Nat Turner was literate, and educated as a slave because his owner allowed him to learn the ethics of american culture and literature. This benefited his opinion and his revolts against the American people. He created several missions to rebel against slave owners & plantation owners which ultimatly lead to fifty-six blacks being executed, and more than 200 others beaten by angry mobs or white militias. Ultimatly, they were a threat to the white plantion owners and that caused the beating and hurting of these black slaves.

# data[].attributes.body
How did the Compromise of 1850 reflect the goals of the various sections of the country?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
People & Events The Compromise of 1850 and the Fugitive Slave Act 1850

# data[].attributes.body
The addition of California as a free state pleased the Northerners who supported abolitionism. The Fugitive Slave Act stated that any slave who escapes to the North have to be sent back to their slave owners. This disrupted many of the slaves' lives that they were trying to start. This act also encouraged Northerners to join the abolitionism movement because it gave even more reason for slavery to be outlawed.

-Alyssa Adel, Andrea Bocanegra, Mariann Kim, Dana Lee

# data[].attributes.body
Who was upset with the Fugitive Slave Law and why?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Fugitive Slave Acts were a pair of federal laws that allowed for the capture and return of runaway slaves within the territory of the United States. Enacted by Congress in 1793, the first Fugitive Slave Act authorized local governments to seize and return escaped slaves to their owners and imposed penalties on anyone who aided in their flight. Widespread resistance to the 1793 law led to the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which added more provisions regarding runaways and levied even harsher punishments for interfering in their capture. The Fugitive Slave Acts were among the most controversial laws of the early 19th century.

What Were the Fugitive Slave Acts?

Statutes regarding refugee slaves existed in America as early as 1643 and the New England Confederation, and slave laws were later enacted in several of the 13 original colonies.

Among others, New York passed a 1705 measure designed to prevent runaways from fleeing to Canada, and Virginia and Maryland drafted laws offering bounties for the capture and return of escaped slaves.

By the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, many Northern states including Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut had abolished slavery.

Concerned that these new free states would become safe havens for runaway slaves, Southern politicians saw that the Constitution included a "Fugitive Slave Clause." This stipulation (Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3) stated that, "no person held to service or labor" would be released from bondage in the event they escaped to a free state.

Fugitive Slave Act of 1793

Despite the inclusion of the Fugitive Slave Clause in the U.S. Constitution, anti-slavery sentiment remained high in the North throughout the late 1780s and early 1790s, and many petitioned Congress to abolish the practice outright.

Bowing to further pressure from Southern lawmakers-who argued slave debate was driving a wedge between the newly created states-Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793.

This edict was similar to the Fugitive Slave Clause in many ways, but included a more detailed description of how the law was to be put into practice. Most importantly, it decreed that slave owners and their "agents" had the right to search for escaped slaves within the borders of free states.

In the event they captured a suspected slave, these hunters had to bring them before a judge and provide evidence proving the person was their property. If court officials were satisfied by their proof-which often took the form of a signed affidavit-the owner would be permitted to take custody of the slave and return to their home state. The law also imposed a $500 penalty on any person who helped harbor or conceal escaped slaves.

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 was immediately met with a firestorm of criticism. Northerners bristled at the idea of turning their states into a stalking ground for bounty hunters, and many argued the law was tantamount to legalized kidnapping. Some abolitionists organized clandestine resistance groups and built complex networks of safe houses to aid slaves in their escape to the North.

Refusing to be complicit in the institution of slavery, most Northern states intentionally neglected to enforce the law. Several even passed so-called "Personal Liberty Laws" that gave accused runaways the right to a jury trial and also protected free blacks, many of whom had been abducted by bounty hunters and sold into slavery.

Did you know? The passage of the Fugitive Slave Acts resulted in many free blacks being illegally captured and sold into slavery. One famous case concerned Solomon Northup, a freeborn black musician who was kidnapped in Washington, D.C. in 1841. Northup would spend 12 years as a slave in Louisiana before winning back his freedom in 1853.

Prigg v. Pennsylvania

The legality of Personal Liberty Laws was eventually challenged in the 1842 Supreme Court case Prigg v. Pennsylvania. The case concerned Edward Prigg, a Maryland man who was convicted of kidnapping after he captured a suspected slave in Pennsylvania.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Prigg, setting the precedent that federal law superseded any state measures that attempted to interfere with the Fugitive Slave Act.

Despite decisions like Prigg v. Pennsylvania, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 remained largely unenforced. By the mid-1800s, thousands of slaves had poured into free states via networks like the Underground Railroad.

Fugitive Slave Act of 1850

Following increased pressure from Southern politicians, Congress passed a revised Fugitive Slave Act in 1850.

Part of Henry Clay 's famed Compromise of 1850-a group of bills that helped quiet early calls for Southern secession-this new law forcibly compelled citizens to assist in the capture of runaway slaves. It also denied slaves the right to a jury trial and increased the penalty for interfering with the rendition process to $1,000 and six months in jail.

In order to ensure the statute was enforced, the 1850 law also placed control of individual cases in the hands of federal commissioners. These agents were paid more for returning a suspected slave than for freeing them, leading many to argue the law was biased in favor of Southern slaveholders.

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was met with even more impassioned criticism and resistance than the earlier measure. States like Vermont and Wisconsin passed new measures intended to bypass and even nullify the law, and abolitionists redoubled their efforts to assist runaway slaves.

The Underground Railroad reached its peak in the 1850s, with many slaves fleeing to Canada to escape U.S. jurisdiction.

Resistance also occasionally boiled over into riots and revolts. In 1851 a mob of antislavery activists rushed a Boston courthouse and forcibly liberated an escaped slave named Shadrach Minkins from federal custody. Similar rescues were later made in New York, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Acts

Widespread opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 saw the law become virtually unenforceable in certain Northern states, and by 1860 only around 330 slaves had been successfully returned to their Southern masters.

Republican and Free Soil congressmen regularly introduced bills and resolutions related to repealing the Fugitive Slave Act, but the law persisted until after the beginning of the Civil War. It wasn't until June 28, 1864, that both of the Fugitive Slave Acts were repealed by an act of Congress.

Watch the groundbreaking series reimagined. Watch ROOTS now on HISTORY.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Fugitive Slave Acts were a pair of federal laws that allowed for the capture and return of runaway slaves within the territory of the United States. Enacted by Congress in 1793, the first Fugitive Slave Act authorized local governments to seize and return escaped slaves to their owners and imposed penalties on anyone who aided in their flight.

# data[].attributes.body
The fugitive slave act allowed state governments to capture runaway slaves, return them to their owners, and punish all that abetted in their escape. Northern states were upset that the act was passed. They felt it allowed their states to be grounds for bounty hunters. The fugitive slave act also led to many free african americans to be kidnapped and put into slavery.

# data[].attributes.body
How does popular sovereignty play into larger problems of sectionalism?

# data[].attributes.body
Popular sovereignty gave both the north and the south the right to vote wheather slavery would be allowed in the territories. It was thought to be the obvious solution but there were many problems. The north and the south had strongly different opinions on slavery and popular sovereignty increased the tension between the two groups