# data[].attributes.body
Again..how did it cause the civil war

# data[].attributes.body
You do a great job of explaining

# data[].attributes.body
Just stop... the book had no affect on the Civil War.

# data[].attributes.body
Exactly... the book is not relevant.. sorry.

# data[].attributes.body
Although he abolished slavery to keep the Union together, he still abolished it and the South did not agree with this. That is why they attempted to secede from the Union. Lincoln chose to fight in the Civil war rather than let the South secede in order to keep the Union together.

# data[].attributes.body
<--- were*

# data[].attributes.body
Does the KN NB act void the Missouri Compromise?

# data[].attributes.body
I agree this did add tension to the north and south views but i don't think it was enough to start the Civil War.

# data[].attributes.body
That is why Lincoln- Douglas debates were the foundation of the Civil War

# data[].attributes.body
This book is a review of all the things that were happening at this time. It shows the way the slaves were treaty to how they tried to achieve freedom. And yes the book was written after most of these events but the book itself highlights the main conflict the north and south had

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree because many people already knew about the evils of slavery ( narrative of Mr. Caulkins (1830)) and many people spoke out before

# data[].attributes.body
That is why they wanted to secede from the Union. They didn't want their lifestyle being threatened and they believed if they seceded they would not have to worry about the Union controlling their beliefs and actions

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with this because it started the violence that later turned into violence between two bigger mass.

# data[].attributes.body
Okay...but how did the information from this book cause such a long and violent war

# data[].attributes.body
I agree because it established laws that the North must follow or there would be consequences although it was not something that they believed in

# data[].attributes.body
This led to such a violent war because of how radical each side was. The North was set in stopping slavery, ready to mow down anyone whom did not agree, namley the South.

# data[].attributes.body
Can you explain how this led to such a violent war?

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with this statement because the South were attacked on the idea of wanting slaves to join and fight back against slavery.

# data[].attributes.body
You have done a great job in defining the Dred Scott case. However, You still have not stated how it lead to the war.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not agree with this being the leading cause of the Civil war because it enforced the laws of protecting a slave owners property and although it was a controversial event, it did not force the North into the act of having slaves and did not encroach on the Rights to not have slaves in their territory as some other events did

# data[].attributes.body
In this book there were many challenges and one of them was smuggling or sneaking slaves to freedom and it gave more people to come the idea of underground pass ways etc. By seeing the effects and strategies in the book, people was obsessed with being free at any cost.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not understand how you're saying that Congress not having the power to ban slavery is was caused The Civil War

# data[].attributes.body
Was Lincoln president at the time of Bleeding Kansas?

# data[].attributes.body
The south wanted to do what they could to keep living how they were.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with this because with the weapons they have gotten, it increased the tension between the 2 regions.

# data[].attributes.body
The Election of 1860 was divided between 2 democrats, 1 constitutional union and 1 republican. Thus the votes were divided as well. wouldn't this have caused division?

# data[].attributes.body
The Election of 1860 was divided between 2 democrats, 1 constitutional union and 1 republican. Thus the votes were divided as well. wouldn't this have caused division?

# data[].attributes.body
The Election of 1860 was divided between 2 democrats, 1 constitutional union and 1 republican. Thus the votes were divided as well. wouldn't this have caused division

# data[].attributes.body
The Election of 1860 was divided between 2 democrats, 1 constitutional union and 1 republican. Thus the votes were divided as well. wouldn't this have caused di

# data[].attributes.body
The Election of 1860 was divided between 2 democrats, 1 constitutional union and 1 republican. Thus the votes were divided as well. wouldn't this have caused

# data[].attributes.body
The Election of 1860 was divided between 2 democrats, 1 constitutional union and 1 republican. Thus the votes were divided as well.

# data[].attributes.body
The Election of 1860 was divided between 2 democrats, 1 constituttional union and 1 republican. Thus the votes were divided as well.

# data[].attributes.body
The Election of 1860 was divided between 2 democrats, 1 constituttional union and 1 republican

# data[].attributes.body
In this situation I don't think it was ironic since it was the first debate between US senate candidates . The media and numerous news outlets were in attendance which influence the topics and discussions of slavery since the whole country was watching.

Yes, the extension of slavery would catch the attention of both the North and South because The South would then know who to talk to to try to get slavery up in Illinois.

# data[].attributes.body
i dont think the south were looking for an oppertunity to seceed from the us. They felt that lincoln threatened there lifestyle.

response to response on right

The way you put it just sounded like they were begging to seceed even before the election, though it was only after lincoln

# data[].attributes.body
The Election of 1860 was divided between

# data[].attributes.body
I agree because it allowed states to have more power. The federal government already established how states would be decided to be a free state or a slave state with the Missouri Compromise (1820).

# data[].attributes.body
The Election of 1860

# data[].attributes.body
The Election of 1860

# data[].attributes.body
I do agree with this because the introduction of weapons and a newly established "military" increased the tension between the North and the South and led to the ideas of war and fighting to solve conflict.

# data[].attributes.body
Is it ironic that a non slave state would host a debate over slavery? Also wouldn't the extension of slavery catch the attention of both the North and South?

# data[].attributes.body
I agree , it gave the north and south tension because most northerners didn't listen and some southerners took free men from the north to replace the slaves they lost

# data[].attributes.body
You have done a great job in explaining the 2 sides. However, you still have not said how it lead to the war.

# data[].attributes.body
You have done a great job in explaining the 2 sides. However, you still have not said

# data[].attributes.body
You talk about how it "helped shape the idea of freeing slaves" but how how did people hear about this book and how did it contribute to the Civil War

# data[].attributes.body
i disagree because it was a conflict supposedly resolved by a vote, and should have been done with

# data[].attributes.body
How did the book "shape the idea of freeing slaves"?

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree with this because there was always conflict between people who were anti-slavery and people who were pro-slavery. How would this have been any more extreme than those other conflicts.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with this because it gave them a reason to stand against slavery since the book explained the extremes they went through.

# data[].attributes.body
You have done a great job in defining the law. However, you still have not said how it lead to the war.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree because Lincoln did not want to abolish slavery completely while running for president he abolished it to keep the union together.

# data[].attributes.body
Why were they attacked? Who actually did the attacking?

# data[].attributes.body
The Ostend Manifesto led to the Civil war because Northerners thought it was not in americas right to seise cuba and was extendin the moral evil of slavery. The south wanted another slave state to expand to. It started the war by stirring up tension between the north and south, whom had very conlflicting views.

# data[].attributes.body
led to the the Civil War because it provided Southern slaveholders with legal weapons to capture slaves who had escaped to the free states.This required U.S. citizens to assist in the return of escaped slaves which caused many residents of free states to be outraged by this demand. The Fugitive Slave Acts were among the most controversial laws of the 19th century. The Fugitive Slave Act brought the issue to anti-slavery citizens in the North and made them responsible for enforcing slavery which put them in a difficult situation that they were not in agreement with.

# data[].attributes.body
John Brown's Raid led to the Civil War because since the South was attacked by whites and freed slaves because the abolitionist wanted slaves to fight back against slavery and they were trying to arm them with weapons. The south began to establish an army to defend against future raids against slaves. .

# data[].attributes.body
This book gave a detailed review on how slaves were really treated and it helped shape the idea of freeing slaves and not having them because its cruel and wrong and this book allowed people to stand and fight to abolish all evil.

# data[].attributes.body
The Dred Scott case led to the Civil War because it stated that a slave was property, Congress did not have the power to ban slavery, and that Americans of African descent were not citizens which caused rising tensions between the North and the South. This led to the South trying to expand slavery to everywhere in the nation while the North was outraged and resorted to violence between slave owners and abolitionists.

# data[].attributes.body
"Bleeding Kansas" was a term used to describe the violent period of the settling of Kansas territory. This event sparked the civil war because Lincoln's initial intent as president was to abolish slavery in all U.S. territories but Kansas was allowed to choose to be a slave state or not and was given this power by the Kansas-Nebraska Act this then led to an increase in the interference of votes bringing an uprise in violence .

# data[].attributes.body
The election of Lincoln led to the Civil War because Southern Democrats believed that this would be the opportunity that they needed so that secession from the Union would be possible for them.

# data[].attributes.body
The Kansas-Nebraska Act led to the Civil War because it allowed the people of Kansas and Nebraska to choose whether or not slavery should be allowed or not. The act was used to repeal the Compromise of 1820 which prohibited slavery north of a certain latitude. Since they were allowed it caused conflicts between people who were pro-slavery and anti-slavery. The conflicts led to Bleeding Kansas and later the Civil War. At the time of Bleeding Kansas Lincoln was not the President it was President Pierce.

# data[].attributes.body
According to History.com “The battle of the Union is to be fought in Illinois,” a Washington paper declared. During these debates topics such as sectional conflicts of slavery and states' rights were tackled. Lincoln's view in opposing the extensions of slavery toward the west is what really caught the attention of the North. Lincoln used the debates to develop and strengthen the moral quality of his position. The South who were all about slavery being property and being able to be expand west. Neither Douglas nor Lincoln appealed much to the South. Even though Lincoln lost the state election, his views and morals were the foundation of his presidency.