# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Instructions for the Laws Regarding Slavery Prior to the Civil War

# data[].attributes.body
Class Instructions for the Laws Regarding Slavery Prior to the Civil War

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Instructions for the Laws Regarding Slavery Prior to the Civil War

# data[].attributes.body
An article from Battlefields.org for students to read about the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Passed on September 18, 1850 by Congress, The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was part of the Compromise of 1850. The act required that slaves be returned to their owners, even if they were in a free state. The act also made the federal government responsible for finding, returning, and trying escaped slaves. Section 1
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the persons who have been, or may hereafter be, appointed commissioners, in virtue of any act of Congress, by the Circuit Courts of the United States, and Who, in consequence of such appointment, are authorized to exercise the powers that any justice of the peace, or other magistrate of any of the United States, may exercise in respect to offenders for any crime or offense against the United States, by arresting, imprisoning, or bailing the same under and by the virtue of the thirty-third section of the act of the twenty-fourth of September seventeen hundred and eighty-nine, entitled "An Act to establish the judicial courts of the United States" shall be, and are hereby, authorized and required to exercise and discharge all the powers and duties conferred by this act.
Section 2
And be it further enacted, That the Superior Court of each organized Territory of the United States shall have the same power to appoint commissioners to take acknowledgments of bail and affidavits, and to take depositions of witnesses in civil causes, which is now possessed by the Circuit Court of the United States; and all commissioners who shall hereafter be appointed for such purposes by the Superior Court of any organized Territory of the United States, shall possess all the powers, and exercise all the duties, conferred by law upon the commissioners appointed by the Circuit Courts of the United States for similar purposes, and shall moreover exercise and discharge all the powers and duties conferred by this act.
Section 3
And be it further enacted, That the Circuit Courts of the United States shall from time to time enlarge the number of the commissioners, with a view to afford reasonable facilities to reclaim fugitives from labor, and to the prompt discharge of the duties imposed by this act.
Section 4
And be it further enacted, That the commissioners above named shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the judges of the Circuit and District Courts of the United States, in their respective circuits and districts within the several States, and the judges of the Superior Courts of the Territories, severally and collectively, in term-time and vacation; shall grant certificates to such claimants, upon satisfactory proof being made, with authority to take and remove such fugitives from service or labor, under the restrictions herein contained, to the State or Territory from which such persons may have escaped or fled.
Section 5
And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of all marshals and deputy marshals to obey and execute all warrants and precepts issued under the provisions of this act, when to them directed; and should any marshal or deputy marshal refuse to receive such warrant, or other process, when tendered, or to use all proper means diligently to execute the same, he shall, on conviction thereof, be fined in the sum of one thousand dollars, to the use of such claimant, on the motion of such claimant, by the Circuit or District Court for the district of such marshal; and after arrest of such fugitive, by such marshal or his deputy, or whilst at any time in his custody under the provisions of this act, should such fugitive escape, whether with or without the assent of such marshal or his deputy, such marshal shall be liable, on his official bond, to be prosecuted for the benefit of such claimant, for the full value of the service or labor of said fugitive in the State, Territory, or District whence he escaped: and the better to enable the said commissioners, when thus appointed, to execute their duties faithfully and efficiently, in conformity with the requirements of the Constitution of the United States and of this act, they are hereby authorized and empowered, within their counties respectively, to appoint, in writing under their hands, any one or more suitable persons, from time to time, to execute all such warrants and other process as may be issued by them in the lawful performance of their respective duties; with authority to such commissioners, or the persons to be appointed by them, to execute process as aforesaid, to summon and call to their aid the bystanders, or posse comitatus of the proper county, when necessary to ensure a faithful observance of the clause of the Constitution referred to, in conformity with the provisions of this act; and all good citizens are hereby commanded to aid and assist in the prompt and efficient execution of this law, whenever their services may be required, as aforesaid, for that purpose; and said warrants shall run, and be executed by said officers, any where in the State within which they are issued.
Section 6
And be it further enacted, That when a person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the United States, has heretofore or shall hereafter escape into another State or Territory of the United States, the person or persons to whom such service or labor may be due, or his, her, or their agent or attorney, duly authorized, by power of attorney, in writing, acknowledged and certified under the seal of some legal officer or court of the State or Territory in which the same may be executed, may pursue and reclaim such fugitive person, either by procuring a warrant from some one of the courts, judges, or commissioners aforesaid, of the proper circuit, district, or county, for the apprehension of such fugitive from service or labor, or by seizing and arresting such fugitive, where the same can be done without process, and by taking, or causing such person to be taken, forthwith before such court, judge, or commissioner, whose duty it shall be to hear and determine the case of such claimant in a summary manner; and upon satisfactory proof being made, by deposition or affidavit, in writing, to be taken and certified by such court, judge, or commissioner, or by other satisfactory testimony, duly taken and certified by some court, magistrate, justice of the peace, or other legal officer authorized to administer an oath and take depositions under the laws of the State or Territory from which such person owing service or labor may have escaped, with a certificate of such magistracy or other authority, as aforesaid, with the seal of the proper court or officer thereto attached, which seal shall be sufficient to establish the competency of the proof, and with proof, also by affidavit, of the identity of the person whose service or labor is claimed to be due as aforesaid, that the person so arrested does in fact owe service or labor to the person or persons claiming him or her, in the State or Territory from which such fugitive may have escaped as aforesaid, and that said person escaped, to make out and deliver to such claimant, his or her agent or attorney, a certificate setting forth the substantial facts as to the service or labor due from such fugitive to the claimant, and of his or her escape from the State or Territory in which he or she was arrested, with authority to such claimant, or his or her agent or attorney, to use such reasonable force and restraint as may be necessary, under the circumstances of the case, to take and remove such fugitive person back to the State or Territory whence he or she may have escaped as aforesaid. In no trial or hearing under this act shall the testimony of such alleged fugitive be admitted in evidence; and the certificates in this and the first [fourth] section mentioned, shall be conclusive of the right of the person or persons in whose favor granted, to remove such fugitive to the State or Territory from which he escaped, and shall prevent all molestation of such person or persons by any process issued by any court, judge, magistrate, or other person whomsoever.
Section 7
And be it further enacted, That any person who shall knowingly and willingly obstruct, hinder, or prevent such claimant, his agent or attorney, or any person or persons lawfully assisting him, her, or them, from arresting such a fugitive from service or labor, either with or without process as aforesaid, or shall rescue, or attempt to rescue, such fugitive from service or labor, from the custody of such claimant, his or her agent or attorney, or other person or persons lawfully assisting as aforesaid, when so arrested, pursuant to the authority herein given and declared; or shall aid, abet, or assist such person so owing service or labor as aforesaid, directly or indirectly, to escape from such claimant, his agent or attorney, or other person or persons legally authorized as aforesaid; or shall harbor or conceal such fugitive, so as to prevent the discovery and arrest of such person, after notice or knowledge of the fact that such person was a fugitive from service or labor as aforesaid, shall, for either of said offences, be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisonment not exceeding six months, by indictment and conviction before the District Court of the United States for the district in which such offence may have been committed, or before the proper court of criminal jurisdiction, if committed within any one of the organized Territories of the United States; and shall moreover forfeit and pay, by way of civil damages to the party injured by such illegal conduct, the sum of one thousand dollars for each fugitive so lost as aforesaid, to be recovered by action of debt, in any of the District or Territorial Courts aforesaid, within whose jurisdiction the said offence may have been committed.
Section 8
And be it further enacted, That the marshals, their deputies, and the clerks of the said District and Territorial Courts, shall be paid, for their services, the like fees as may be allowed for similar services in other cases; and where such services are rendered exclusively in the arrest, custody, and delivery of the fugitive to the claimant, his or her agent or attorney, or where such supposed fugitive may be discharged out of custody for the want of sufficient proof as aforesaid, then such fees are to be paid in whole by such claimant, his or her agent or attorney; and in all cases where the proceedings are before a commissioner, he shall be entitled to a fee of ten dollars in full for his services in each case, upon the delivery of the said certificate to the claimant, his agent or attorney; or a fee of five dollars in cases where the proof shall not, in the opinion of such commissioner, warrant such certificate and delivery, inclusive of all services incident to such arrest and examination, to be paid, in either case, by the claimant, his or her agent or attorney. The person or persons authorized to execute the process to be issued by such commissioner for the arrest and detention of fugitives from service or labor as aforesaid, shall also be entitled to a fee of five dollars each for each person he or they may arrest, and take before any commissioner as aforesaid, at the instance and request of such claimant, with such other fees as may be deemed reasonable by such commissioner for such other additional services as may be necessarily performed by him or them; such as attending at the examination, keeping the fugitive in custody, and providing him with food and lodging during his detention, and until the final determination of such commissioners; and, in general, for performing such other duties as may be required by such claimant, his or her attorney or agent, or commissioner in the premises, such fees to be made up in conformity with the fees usually charged by the officers of the courts of justice within the proper district or county, as near as may be practicable, and paid by such claimants, their agents or attorneys, whether such supposed fugitives from service or labor be ordered to be delivered to such claimant by the final determination of such commissioner or not.
Section 9
And be it further enacted, That, upon affidavit made by the claimant of such fugitive, his agent or attorney, after such certificate has been issued, that he has reason to apprehend that such fugitive will he rescued by force from his or their possession before he can be taken beyond the limits of the State in which the arrest is made, it shall be the duty of the officer making the arrest to retain such fugitive in his custody, and to remove him to the State whence he fled, and there to deliver him to said claimant, his agent, or attorney. And to this end, the officer aforesaid is hereby authorized and required to employ so many persons as he may deem necessary to overcome such force, and to retain them in his service so long as circumstances may require. The said officer and his assistants, while so employed, to receive the same compensation, and to be allowed the same expenses, as are now allowed by law for transportation of criminals, to be certified by the judge of the district within which the arrest is made, and paid out of the treasury of the United States.
Section 10
And be it further enacted, That when any person held to service or labor in any State or Territory, or in the District of Columbia, shall escape therefrom, the party to whom such service or labor shall be due, his, her, or their agent or attorney, may apply to any court of record therein, or judge thereof in vacation, and make satisfactory proof to such court, or judge in vacation, of the escape aforesaid, and that the person escaping owed service or labor to such party. Whereupon the court shall cause a record to be made of the matters so proved, and also a general description of the person so escaping, with such convenient certainty as may be; and a transcript of such record, authenticated by the attestation of the clerk and of the seal of the said court, being produced in any other State, Territory, or district in which the person so escaping may be found, and being exhibited to any judge, commissioner, or other office, authorized by the law of the United States to cause persons escaping from service or labor to be delivered up, shall be held and taken to be full and conclusive evidence of the fact of escape, and that the service or labor of the person escaping is due to the party in such record mentioned. And upon the production by the said party of other and further evidence if necessary, either oral or by affidavit, in addition to what is contained in the said record of the identity of the person escaping, he or she shall be delivered up to the claimant, And the said court, commissioner, judge, or other person authorized by this act to grant certificates to claimants or fugitives, shall, upon the production of the record and other evidences aforesaid, grant to such claimant a certificate of his right to take any such person identified and proved to be owing service or labor as aforesaid, which certificate shall authorize such claimant to seize or arrest and transport such person to the State or Territory from which he escaped: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as requiring the production of a transcript of such record as evidence as aforesaid. But in its absence the claim shall be heard and determined upon other satisfactory proofs, competent in law.

Approved, September 18, 1850.

# data[].attributes.body
An article from History.com for students to read about the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 for more information.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Table of Contents

1. What Were the Fugitive Slave Acts?

2. Fugitive Slave Act of 1793

3. Prigg v. Pennsylvania

4. Fugitive Slave Act of 1850

5. Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Acts

The Fugitive Slave Acts were a pair of federal laws that allowed for the capture and return of runaway enslaved people within the territory of the United States. Enacted by Congress in 1793, the first Fugitive Slave Act authorized local governments to seize and return escapees 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 enslaved people.

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 runaways, 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 the 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 owners of enslaved people and their "agents" had the right to search for escapees within the borders of free states.

In the event they captured a suspected runaway, 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 enslaved person and return to their home state. The law also imposed a $500 penalty on any person who helped harbor or conceal escapees.

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 enslaved people 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 enslaved 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 enslaved people 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 runaways. It also denied enslaved people 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 runaway 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 runaways.

The Underground Railroad reached its peak in the 1850s, with many enslaved people 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 escapee 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 enslaved people 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.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fugitive Slave Acts - Definition, 1793 & 1850 | HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Fugitive Slave Acts, passed in 1793 and 1850, were federal laws that allowed for the capture and return of runaway enslaved people within the United States.

# data[].attributes.headline
Presentation over the Fugitive Slave Act

# data[].attributes.subject
Presentation over the Fugitive Slave Act

# data[].attributes.body
A short presentation to get quick information about the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
1850 Fugitive Slave Law. Law enforcement officials who chose not to arrest alleged runaway slaves could be fined $1000 ($26,600 today) A claimant's sworn testimony was sufficient for an arrest No jury trial could be given, nor could the suspected runaway provide testimony

# data[].attributes.body
An article from Battlefields.org for students to explore about the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Described by historians as the most consequential piece of legislation ever passed, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 represented a pivotal moment in American history which forever changed American politics and unequivocally contributed to the coming of the American Civil War.

By 1853 discontent over President Franklin Pierce's patronage allotementcaused the Democrats to lose support among their constituents. In order to save the party from ruin, the Democrats needed something that would rally their base behind it and the best way to achieve this was to provoke opposition from its rival party-the Whigs. However, Pierce did not have any domestic policy that would serve this purpose, so Democratic Senator Stephen Douglas filled that void. Douglas developed a three-pronged western development program to drum up conflict with the Whigs. The first part was the formal organization of the territory west of Iowa and Missouri. The second part was enacting a homestead law that gave free land to settlers. The final part was the construction of a transcontinental railroad with federal land grants, which of course, would run through his home state of Illinois. Douglas's top priority was the preservation of the Democratic Party not the preservation of the Union. It was a common trend among antebellum politicians to make decisions that would achieve short term partisan advantages with little concern for the long-term consequences these decisions would have on the health and preservation of the Union.

It is important to note that the pressure to organize the land west of Missouri and Iowa did not come from land-hungry southern slaveholders or southern politicians wanting to extend slavery, rather it came from two northern sources. The first source were farmers seeking cheap land, as they could not gain a title for their settlements until Congress organized the territorial government. The second source was railroad promoters (including Stephen Douglas) because the construction of a continental railroad required Congress to survey the land into sections to subsidize to the railroad companies. Thus, northern politicians faced pressure from their constituents to organize this territory although many wanted the continuation of the Missouri Compromise restriction to these lands, which restricted slavery above the 36°30' parallel, Missouri's southern border.

In order to execute his plan, Douglas first needed to organize the territory west of Iowa and Missouri (Nebraska and Kansas). Southern Democrat support was necessary for Douglas's plan, yet many southerners despised the Missouri Compromise and the limitations it placed on slavery, which required the construction of a territorial organization bill that repealed the Missouri Compromise. This bill became known as the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The Kansas-Nebraska Act stipulated that the territory west of Missouri and Iowa would be organized into two territories and that "all questions pertaining to slavery in the territories and in the new states to be formed therein are to be left to the people residing therein, through the appropriate representatives." This principle quoted in the bill is known as popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty was first introduced as a potential solution during the crisis over organizing the territory gained through the Mexican Cession, but it failed to gain headway among politicians. In principle, popular sovereignty is neither pro-slavery nor anti-slavery as it is the citizens in the specific territories who decide if slavery should be allowed in these places, not Congress. However, the Kansas-Nebraska Act in itself was a pro-southern piece of legislation because it repealed the Missouri Compromise, thus opening up the potential for slavery to exist in the unorganized territories of the Louisiana Purchase, which was impossible under the Missouri Compromise. Despite Douglas's understanding that the North would be furious with the repeal of the Missouri Compromise restriction, Douglas proceeded with the Kansas-Nebraska Act because he wrongfully assumed that slavery would never exist in those territories and he needed to garner southern support for his bill.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act forced the repealing of the Missouri Compromise, which infuriated northerners. However, the Kansas-Nebraska Act easily passed the Senate on March 4, 1854 by a vote of 37 to 14 with southern Whigs voting in favor of the bill-even if southern Whigs voted against the bill, it still would have passed the Senate. However, in the House of Representatives some northern Democrats caved to this political pressure from their constituents and voted against the bill. Despite this, on May 22, 1854, the bill passed the House by a much closer vote of 113 to 100 with northern Democrats split right down the middle, 44 voted in favor, 44 voted against. Additionally, 13 out of the 24 southern Whigs voting in favor (four abstained), enough to tie the House vote if they voted against. President Pierce signed this bill into law on May 30, 1854 and the massive political fallout that ensured had immediate and enduring consequences.

Many northerners view the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act as evidence of the slave power's hostility to the North and the damaging effects it had on northern interests. Consequently, the Democratic Party faced significant backlash from its northern wing. In the congressional elections of 1854 and 1855, the Democrats lost 66 out of the 91 seats they held prior to the passage of this bill and of the 44 northern Democrat Representatives who voted in favor of this bill, only seven won reelection. The alienation of northern Democrats from the southern wing of the party was hardly the solidification and unification Pierce and Douglas intended to bring about through this legislation. The fracture between northern and southern Democrats only grew with Bleeding Kansas and the crisis over the Lecompton Constitution, two additional direct consequences of this bill. Additionally, the negative reaction to this bill destroyed Pierce's ambitious plan for additional territorial expansion-the Gadsden Purchase almost failed in Congress and ruined Pierce's hope of annexing slaveholding Cuba into the United States.

However, one of the most significant and lasting effects the Kansas-Nebraska Act had on the American political system was the formation of the Republican Party. The Kansas-Nebraska Act directly led to the creation of the Republican Party. In 1854, the Whig Party was essentially on life support as Pierce's election, Henry Clay's death and the formation of "Conscious" and "Cotton" factions served to be significant blows to the party's unification and message. However, the southern Whig support for the Kansas-Nebraska Act represents the final death blow to the party. The bill would have failed if southern Whigs voted against it and northern Whigs viewed their support as a betrayal to Whig principles. The final sectional split between northern and southern Whigs occurred when anti-slavery northern Whigs left the party over the perceived betrayal by southern Whigs and joined ranks with independent free soilers to join a new broad anti-slavery party that opposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, slavery's extension and the slave power's control of politics-the Republican Party.

As the 1850s progressed, Republicans continued to build their base with each perceived aggression from the slave power, including Bleeding Kansas and the Lecompton Crisis, and became a significant threat to the Democrat Party. The split between northern and southern Democrats would continue to grow throughout the 1850s to the point where the Democratic party intentionally ran a northern candidate (Stephen Douglas) and a southern candidate (Vice President John C. Breckenridge) in the presidential election of 1860. The consolidation of Republican power and the fracturing of the alliance between northern and southern Democrats led to Abraham Lincoln's Election in 1860, triggering the secession of the lower south states. While the Kansas-Nebraska Act in no way directly caused the Civil War, its existence and the political consequences that arose from it remain essential to the coming of the Civil War and had lasting effects on the United States.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Described by historians as the most consequential piece of legislation ever passed, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 represented a pivotal moment in American history which forever changed American politics and unequivocally contributed to the coming of the American Civil War. By 1853 discontent over President Franklin Pierce's patronage allotementcaused the Democrats to lose support among their constituents.

# data[].attributes.headline
Quizlet to Memorize the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

# data[].attributes.subject
Quizlet to Memorize the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

# data[].attributes.body
A Quizlet created to help students study and comprehend information about the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kansas Nebraska Act Flashcards | Quizlet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Start studying Kansas Nebraska Act. Learn vocabulary, terms and more with flashcards, games and other study tools.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sound Smart: The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 | History

# data[].attributes.body
A guide to find information on the Missouri Compromise.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In an effort to preserve the balance of power in Congress between slave and free states, the Missouri Compromise was passed in 1820 admitting Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state. Furthermore, with the exception of Missouri, this law prohibited slavery in the Louisiana Territory north of the 36° 30´ latitude line. In 1854, the Missouri Compromise was repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Three years later the Missouri Compromise was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision, which ruled that Congress did not have the authority to prohibit slavery in the territories.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Research Guides: Missouri Compromise: Primary Documents in American History: Introduction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Enacted in 1820 to maintain the balance of power in Congress, the Missouri Compromise admitted Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state. This guide compiles Library of Congress digital materials, external websites, and a print bibliography.

# data[].attributes.body
An article from History.com for students to read about the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 for more information.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Table of Contents

1. Pro- and Anti-Slavery Factions in Congress

2. Maine and Missouri: A Two-Part Compromise

3. Shortcomings of the Missouri Compromise

The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was a law that tried to address growing sectional tensions over the issue of slavery. By passing the law, which President James Monroe signed, the U.S. Congress admitted Missouri to the Union as a state that allowed slavery, and Maine as a free state. It also banned slavery from the remaining Louisiana Purchase lands located north of the 36º 30' parallel (the southern border of Missouri). The Missouri Compromise would remain in force for just over 30 years before it was repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. In 1857, the Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott decision that the compromise was unconstitutional, setting the stage for the Civil War.

Pro- and Anti-Slavery Factions in Congress

When the Missouri Territory first applied for statehood in 1818, it was clear that many in the territory wanted to allow slavery in the new state. Part of the more than 800,000 square miles bought from France in the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, Missouri was known as the Louisiana Territory until 1812, when it was renamed to avoid confusion with the newly admitted state of Louisiana.

Missouri's bid to become the first state west of the Mississippi River, and to allow slavery within its borders, set off a bitter debate in a Congress that was-like the nation itself-already divided into pro- and anti-slavery factions.

In the North, where abolitionist sentiment was growing, many people opposed the extension of the institution of slavery into new territory, and worried that adding Missouri as a slave state would upset the balance that currently existed between slave and free states in the Union. Pro-slavery Southerners, meanwhile, argued that new states, like the original 13, should be given the freedom to choose whether to permit slavery or not.

During the debate, Rep. James Tallmadge of New York proposed an amendment to the statehood bill that would have eventually ended slavery in Missouri and set free the existing enslaved workers living there. The amended bill passed narrowly in the House of Representatives, where Northerners held a slight edge. But in the Senate, where free and slave states had exactly the same number of senators, the pro-slavery faction managed to strike out Tallmadge's amendment, and the House refused to pass the bill without it.

Maine and Missouri: A Two-Part Compromise

After this stalemate, Missouri renewed its application for statehood in late 1819. This time, Speaker of the House Henry Clay proposed that Congress admit Missouri to the Union as a state that allowed slavery, but at the same time admit Maine (which at the time was part of Massachusetts) as a free state.

In February 1820, the Senate added a second part to the joint statehood bill: With the exception of Missouri, slavery would be banned in all of the former Louisiana Purchase lands north of the 36º 30' latitude, which ran along Missouri's southern border.

On March 3, 1820, the House passed the Senate version of the bill, and President James Monroe signed it into law four days later. The following month, the former President Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend that the "Missouri question...like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. It is hushed indeed for the moment. But this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence."

Shortcomings of the Missouri Compromise

Though the Missouri Compromise managed to keep the peace-for the moment-it failed to resolve the pressing question of slavery and its place in the nation's future. Southerners who opposed the Missouri Compromise did so because it set a precedent for Congress to make laws concerning slavery, while Northerners disliked the law because it meant slavery was expanding into new territory.

In the decades after 1820, as westward expansion continued, and more of the Louisiana Purchase lands were organized as territories, the question of slavery's extension continued to divide the nation. The Compromise of 1850, which admitted California to the Union as a free state, required California to send one pro-slavery senator to maintain the balance of power in the Senate.

In 1854, during the organization of Kansas and Nebraska Territories, Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois spearheaded the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which mandated that the settlers of each territory should decide the issue of slavery for themselves, a principle known as popular sovereignty.

The controversial law effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise by allowing slavery north of the 36º 30' parallel. Passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act sparked violence between pro- and anti-slavery settlers in " Bleeding Kansas," delaying Kansas' admission to the Union. Opposition to the act led to the formation of the Republican Party, and the emergence to national prominence of Douglas's Illinois rival, a formerly obscure lawyer named Abraham Lincoln.

Bitter controversy also surrounded the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. According to Chief Justice Roger B. Taney and six other justices, Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories, as the Fifth Amendment guaranteed owners of the enslaved could not be deprived of their property without due process of law. The 14th Amendment, passed in 1865 after the conclusion of the Civil War, would later overturn major parts of the Dred Scott decision.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Missouri Compromise: Date, Definition & 1820 - HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Missouri Compromise, an 1820 law passed amid debate over slavery, admitted Missouri to the Union as a state that allowed slavery, and Maine as a free state.

# data[].attributes.body
A map showing the Missouri Compromise of 1820.

# data[].attributes.body
A guide to find information on the Compromise of 1850.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
P.F. Rothermel, artist; R. Whitechurch, engraver. The United States Senate, A.D. 1850. 1855. Library of Congress Prints & Photographs Division.

The Compromise of 1850 consists of five laws passed in September of 1850 that dealt with the issue of slavery and territorial expansion. In 1849 California requested permission to enter the Union as a free state, potentially upsetting the balance between the free and slave states in the U.S. Senate. Senator Henry Clay introduced a series of resolutions on January 29, 1850, in an attempt to seek a compromise and avert a crisis between North and South. As part of the Compromise of 1850, the Fugitive Slave Act was amended and the slave trade in Washington, D.C., was abolished. Furthermore, California entered the Union as a free state and a territorial government was created in Utah. In addition, an act was passed settling a boundary dispute between Texas and New Mexico that also established a territorial government in New Mexico.

This resource guide compiles links to digital materials related to the Compromise of 1850 that are available on the Library of Congress website. The guide also provides links to external websites and a selected print bibliography.

Compromise of 1850: Acts

From "Statutes at Large, 31st Congress, 1st Session," A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Research Guides: Compromise of 1850: Primary Documents in American History: Introduction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Compromise of 1850 consists of five laws passed in September of 1850 that dealt with the issue of slavery and territorial expansion. In 1849 California requested permission to enter the Union as a free state, potentially upsetting the balance between the free and slave states in the U.S. Senate.

# data[].attributes.body
An article covering information about the Compromise of 1850.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Until 1845, it had seemed likely that slavery would be confined to the areas where it already existed. It had been given limits by the Missouri Compromise in 1820 and had no opportunity to overstep them. The new territories made renewed expansion of slavery a real likelihood.

Many Northerners believed that if not allowed to spread, slavery would ultimately decline and die. To justify their opposition to adding new slave states, they pointed to the statements of Washington and Jefferson, and to the Ordinance of 1787, which forbade the extension of slavery into the Northwest. Texas, which already permitted slavery, naturally entered the Union as a slave state. But the California, New Mexico, and Utah territories did not have slavery. From the beginning, there were strongly conflicting opinions on whether they should.

Southerners urged that all the lands acquired from Mexico should be thrown open to slave holders. Antislavery Northerners demanded that all the new regions be closed to slavery. One group of moderates suggested that the Missouri Compromise line be extended to the Pacific with free states north of it and slave states to the south. Another group proposed that the question be left to "popular sovereignty." The government should permit settlers to enter the new territory with or without slaves as they pleased. When the time came to organize the region into states, the people themselves could decide.

Despite the vitality of the abolitionist movement, most Northerners were unwilling to challenge the existence of slavery in the South. Many, however, were against its expansion. In 1848 nearly 300,000 men voted for the candidates of a new Free Soil Party, which declared that the best policy was "to limit, localize, and discourage slavery." In the immediate aftermath of the war with Mexico, however, popular sovereignty had considerable appeal.

In January 1848 the discovery of gold in California precipitated a headlong rush of settlers, more than 80,000 in the single year of 1849. Congress had to determine the status of this new region quickly in order to establish an organized government. The venerable Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, who twice before in times of crisis had come forward with compromise arrangements, advanced a complicated and carefully balanced plan. His old Massachusetts rival, Daniel Webster, supported it. Illinois Democratic Senator Stephen A. Douglas, the leading advocate of popular sovereignty, did much of the work in guiding it through Congress.

The Compromise of 1850 contained the following provisions: (1) California was admitted to the Union as a free state; (2) the remainder of the Mexican cession was divided into the two territories of New Mexico and Utah and organized without mention of slavery; (3) the claim of Texas to a portion of New Mexico was satisfied by a payment of $10 million; (4) new legislation (the Fugitive Slave Act) was passed to apprehend runaway slaves and return them to their masters; and (5) the buying and selling of slaves (but not slavery) was abolished in the District of Columbia.

The country breathed a sigh of relief. For the next three years, the compromise seemed to settle nearly all differences. The new Fugitive Slave Law, however, was an immediate source of tension. It deeply offended many Northerners, who refused to have any part in catching slaves. Some actively and violently obstructed its enforcement. The Underground Railroad became more efficient and daring than ever.
Source Citation:
"An Outline of American History," United States Information Agency. https://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/history/ch6.htm#compromise.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Until 1845, it had seemed likely that slavery would be confined to the areas where it already existed. It had been given limits by the Missouri Compromise in 1820 and had no opportunity to overstep them. The new territories made renewed expansion of slavery a real likelihood.

# data[].attributes.body
A Youtube video covering the Compromise of 1850.

# data[].attributes.body
An image of the map that goes along with the Compromise of 1850.