# data[].attributes.body
Bleeding Kansas was the violence between pro- and anti-slavery advocates. A source states, "In 1854 the Kansas-Nebraska Act overturned the Missouri Compromise’s use of latitude as the boundary between slave and free territory and instead, using the principle of popular sovereignty, decreed that the residents would determine whether the area became a free state or a slave state. Proslavery and free-state settlers flooded into Kansas to try to influence the decision" (History). This reveals how pro and anti-slavery advocates were rushing to Kansas to try to influence the vote in their favor. Stephen Douglas, an Illinois politician, wanted a transcontinental railroad built across Illinois which would bring trade and business to the state. However, Southerners were against the proposal, so to gain their support, he offered to open slavery in the Kansas and Nebraska Territories but it would be done through popular sovereignty meaning settlers had the ability to decide whether it would the territories would be a slave or free state. As a result, Northerners did not agree with this as it allowed slavery to expand. So to ease their worries, Douglas stated that Kansas and Nebraska were not suited for slave labor. However, Northerners were worried about Kansas since it was right next to Missouri, a slave state. So when the Kansas- Nebraska Act was passed,  Northerners and Southerners went to settle in Kansas in hopes of influencing the vote in their favor. As expected, putting pro and anti-slavery advocates in the same territory was not a wise idea. The violence began to emerge when pro-slavery advocates attacked the anti-slavery town of Lawrence, Kansas by burning the hotel and homes. As a response, "John Brown, who was raised in Ohio, four of his sons, and two additional men rode into Pottawatomie Creek, Kansas, a village of several slave-owning families. Brown and his followers attacked five men in front of their wives and children and hacked them to death with swords” (Ohio History Central). As can be seen, John Brown and his men killed five slavery owners as revenge for the attack on Lawrence by slavery supporters. People were killing each other over the issue of slavery. The reason why it is called Bleeding Kansas is that people killing each other over the issue of slavery in Kansas became frequent.

# data[].attributes.body
Dred Scott was a slave who sued for his freedom, arguing that because he as a free man since he lived in a free territory, Wisconsin for a few years. The case led to many arguments. The North believed that Dred Scott had the right to sue since the Constitution did not limit citizenship to white people. On the other hand, the South believed that because Scott was born a slave, not a citizen, therefore he had no right to sue. Furthermore, the North argued that when Dr. John Emerson, Scott's owner, took him to free territory, he gave up his right to treat Scott as a slave. A source states, "The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that any slave coming into the state with his master’s consent, even as a sojourner, became free and could not be reenslaved upon returning to a slave state" (Britannica).  This reveals how the North argued that Dred Scott was a free man since he went to free territory, (Wisconsin) with his owner's consent, therefore he became a free man, and going back to a slave state did not change that. On the contrary, the South believed the opposite. They argued that because Scott returned to Missouri, a slave state, with his owner as a slave, he should continue to be treated as one under Missouri Law.  Moreover, the case also brought up the question of whether Congress should be able to ban slavery in the territories. The North said yes, whereas the South disagreed. The text states, "Thus Taney continued, holding that Scott had never been free and that Congress had in fact exceeded its authority in the Missouri Compromise because it had no power to forbid or abolish slavery in the territories" (Britannica). This shows how the South argued that Congress could not make laws banning slavery in territories. Their reasoning was that under the Constitution, Congress could not make laws that deny people the use of their property anywhere, including the territories.  This means that slave owners had the right to bring slavery wherever they wanted since slaves were their property and they could use their property anywhere. With these arguments it was difficult to find a solution, however, the Supreme Court did come up with a decision. In a five to four decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Scott remained a slave despite going to free territory, African Americans were not citizens, therefore, they could not sue, and Congress could not ban slavery in any territory, therefore the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional.

# data[].attributes.body
The impact of Nat Turner's Rebellion was the passing of stricter slave codes and the realization that slave owners had regarding that slaves would turn n their masters if given the chance. Nat Turner saw a solar eclipse and believed that it was a sign from God, telling him that he should, "arise and prepare [himself] and slay [his] own enemies with their own weapons" (Haiku - Avoiding the Civil War - Track 3). In this case, Nat Turner's "enemies" were slave owners. Several days after receiving the message from God, Nat Turner and other slaves started a rebellion, killing every White person they could find. As a result of this revolt, slave owners passed stricter slave codes. According to a source, "Spreading terror throughout the white South, his action set off a new wave of oppressive legislation prohibiting the education, movement, and assembly of slaves and stiffened proslavery, anti-abolitionist convictions" (Britannica). This illustrates how Turner's rebellion led to stricter slave codes since the ones previously were not strict enough, considering that the rebellion was able to take place. Stricter slaves codes included outlawing slave meetings, slave patrols strengthen, and slaves caught away from the plantation without a pass would be whipped. Furthermore, the rebellion also made slave owners realize that slaves would betray them if given a chance. Slave owners would often tell themselves that African Americans were incapable of taking care of themselves, they are child-like people, therefore content to live as slaves, as their masters perceived themselves as their "parent." However, the rebellion debunked this belief, as it was clear that slaves were not pleased as being slaves. The revolt confirmed slave owners fear that slaves would betray them if given the opportunity. Thus, Nat Turner's rebellion led to stricter slave codes and confirmed slave owners' worst fear.

# data[].attributes.headline
Multiple Perspectives Lincoln and Douglas Debate 

# data[].attributes.subject
Multiple Perspectives Lincoln and Douglas Debate 

# data[].attributes.body
Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas had different point of views over the issue of slavery and African Americans' rights. To begin, Lincoln believed that a Union that was divided could not endure and the nation should not be half slave and half free. This is seen when he says his famous words, "'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this Government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free'" (Digital History). On the other hand, Douglass believed that the nation could go eternally half slave and half free. Moreover, both had different points of view on the expansion of slavery. A source states, "Lincoln, on the other hand, regarded slavery as a dynamic, expansionistic institution, hungry for new territory. He argued that if Northerners allowed slavery to spread unchecked, slave owners would make slavery a national institution and would reduce all laborers" (Digital History). This reveals how Lincoln believed that if the Northerners allowed slavery to expand, it would become a "national institution." For that reason, he believed that we should focus on restricting slavery because if we do not, it will continue to expand. On the contrary, Douglas had a different opinion.  He believed that "...slavery was a dying institution that had reached its natural limits and could not thrive where climate and soil were inhospitable. He asserted that the problem of slavery could best be resolved if it were treated as essentially a local problem" (Digital History). This illustrates how unlike Lincoln, Douglas believed that we should treat slavery as "a local problem" since it will not be able to expand. Douglas believed that slavery would die as it will run out of territories to expand since the climate and geography of some will not be suitable for slave labor. As a result, the North did not have to worry about slavery too much, since it would die eventually. This represents multiple perspectives as Lincoln viewed that slavery would continue to grow if we do not stop it, whereas Douglas believed that it would die eventually. Lastly, both men had different views on African American's rights. It states, "Douglas was unable to conceive of blacks as anything but inferior to whites, and he was unalterably opposed to Negro citizenship. "I want citizenship for whites only," he declared" (Digital History). Here is explained how Douglas viewed African Americans inferior to Whites, therefore he did not support "Negro citizenship" or any right for African Americans for that matter. Lincoln was racist as well and shared the same opinion regarding Negro citizenship, however, he viewed the African Americans had certain rights as well. The source states, "Lincoln said that he, too, was opposed to "bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races." But he insisted that black Americans were equal to Douglas and "every living man" in their right to life, liberty, and the fruits of their own labor" (Digital History). This conveys how even though Lincoln opposed Negro citizenship, he still believed that they had the same right as White people in their right to life, liberty, and labor. This shows multiple perspectives as Lincoln believed African Americans had certain rights that Whites had whereas Douglas did not.

# data[].attributes.body
The consequence of John Brown attempting slave rebellion and his actions in Bleeding Kansas led him to given a death sentence. The text states, "Tried and convicted of treason and murder, Brown received a death sentence. His hanging shook the North" (USH&G 506). This shows how Brown's consequence for "treason and murder" was execution. He was guilty of murder because of his killing in Kansas. It states, "In May 1856, slavery supporters attacked the town of Lawrence, an antislavery stronghold. Its forces retailed. John Brown led an attack that killed five supporters of slavery" (USH&G 495). Here is revealed how John Brown and his men killed five pro-slavery advocates. Brown did this as revenge of when slavery supporters attacked the anti-slavery town of Lawrence, Kansas by burning the hotel and homes. However, before he was caught, Brown fled to Canada and lived there for several years, until he eventually came back. Moreover, Brown was guilty of "treason" by trying to abolish slavery by attempting to start a slave rebellion. It is stated, "On the night of October 16, 1859, Brown and his band overran the arsenal. Some of his men rounded up a handful of hostages, including a few slaves. Word of the raid spread, and by morning Brown and his men were surrounded...the soldiers overran Brown and his followers. Ten of his men were killed, including two of his sons”  (History). This shows how Brown was able to obtain weapons and hostages in order to start a slave rebellion. He hoped that this rebellion would “destroy slavery across the south” (Haiku - Avoiding the Civil War - Track 7). However, before the rebellion could take place he was stopped by soldiers, where some of his men were killed and he was wounded. He was then taken to court, where he was guilty of treason and murder. As a result, they hung him on December 2, 1859.