Causes of the CW. by Marsha Teal

Lincoln-Douglas Debates

2016-11-28 14:59:41 UTC

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.

Kansas-Nebraska Act

2016-11-28 15:00:18 UTC

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.

Election of Lincoln

8406920 — 2016-11-28 15:00:44 UTC

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.

"Bleeding Kansas"

2016-11-28 15:01:21 UTC

"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 .

Dred Scott v. Sanford

2016-11-28 15:02:02 UTC

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.

Uncle Tom's Cabin

2016-11-28 15:02:21 UTC

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.

John Brown's Raid

2016-11-28 15:02:22 UTC

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. .

The Fugitive Slave Law

8345681 — 2016-11-28 15:02:29 UTC

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.

Ostend Manifesto

2016-11-28 15:03:22 UTC

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.

marshar_teal — 2016-11-28 15:07:58 UTC

Why were they attacked? Who actually did the attacking?

Election of Lincoln

2016-11-28 15:11:31 UTC

I disagree because Lincoln did not want to abolish slavery completely while running for president he abolished it to keep the union together.

marshar_teal — 2016-11-28 15:11:55 UTC

You have done a great job in defining the law. However, you still have not said how it lead to the war.

2016-11-28 15:13:00 UTC

I agree with this because it gave them a reason to stand against slavery since the book explained the extremes they went through.

8406920 — 2016-11-28 15:14:18 UTC

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.

marshar_teal — 2016-11-28 15:14:24 UTC

How did the book "shape the idea of freeing slaves"?

2016-11-28 15:14:42 UTC

i disagree because it was a conflict supposedly resolved by a vote, and should have been done with

2016-11-28 15:15:43 UTC

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

marshar_teal — 2016-11-28 15:15:54 UTC

You have done a great job in explaining the 2 sides. However, you still have not said

marshar_teal — 2016-11-28 15:15:55 UTC

You have done a great job in explaining the 2 sides. However, you still have not said how it lead to the war.

2016-11-28 15:17:13 UTC

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

marshar_teal — 2016-11-28 15:17:14 UTC

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?

8406920 — 2016-11-28 15:18:05 UTC

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.

marshar_teal — 2016-11-28 15:18:15 UTC

The Election of 1860

marshar_teal — 2016-11-28 15:18:17 UTC

The Election of 1860

2016-11-28 15:18:31 UTC

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).

marshar_teal — 2016-11-28 15:18:43 UTC

The Election of 1860 was divided between

2016-11-28 15:18:59 UTC

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

Lincoln-Douglas Debates

2016-11-28 15:19:00 UTC

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.

marshar_teal — 2016-11-28 15:19:00 UTC

The Election of 1860 was divided between 2 democrats, 1 constituttional union and 1 republican

marshar_teal — 2016-11-28 15:19:24 UTC

The Election of 1860 was divided between 2 democrats, 1 constituttional union and 1 republican. Thus the votes were divided as well.

marshar_teal — 2016-11-28 15:19:25 UTC

The Election of 1860 was divided between 2 democrats, 1 constitutional union and 1 republican. Thus the votes were divided as well.

marshar_teal — 2016-11-28 15:19:29 UTC

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

marshar_teal — 2016-11-28 15:19:31 UTC

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

marshar_teal — 2016-11-28 15:19:31 UTC

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

marshar_teal — 2016-11-28 15:19:32 UTC

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?

marshar_teal — 2016-11-28 15:19:33 UTC

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?

2016-11-28 15:19:41 UTC

I agree with this because with the weapons they have gotten, it increased the tension between the 2 regions.

2016-11-28 15:19:57 UTC

The south wanted to do what they could to keep living how they were.

marshar_teal — 2016-11-28 15:20:15 UTC

Was Lincoln president at the time of Bleeding Kansas?

2016-11-28 15:20:37 UTC

I do not understand how you're saying that Congress not having the power to ban slavery is was caused The Civil War

Uncle Tom's Cabin

2016-11-28 15:20:56 UTC

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.

8406920 — 2016-11-28 15:21:38 UTC

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

marshar_teal — 2016-11-28 15:21:46 UTC

You have done a great job in defining the Dred Scott case. However, You still have not stated how it lead to the war.

Agree

8345681 — 2016-11-28 15:22:13 UTC

I agree with this statement because the South were attacked on the idea of wanting slaves to join and fight back against slavery.

2016-11-28 15:23:50 UTC

Can you explain how this led to such a violent war?

2016-11-28 15:24:45 UTC

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.

2016-11-28 15:25:22 UTC

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

2016-11-28 15:26:08 UTC

Okay...but how did the information from this book cause such a long and violent war

2016-11-28 15:26:45 UTC

I agree with this because it started the violence that later turned into violence between two bigger mass.

response to left statement

8406920 — 2016-11-28 15:26:57 UTC

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

2016-11-28 15:27:14 UTC

I disagree because many people already knew about the evils of slavery ( narrative of Mr. Caulkins (1830)) and many people spoke out before

Uncle Tom's Cabin

2016-11-28 15:27:29 UTC

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

2016-11-28 15:28:29 UTC

That is why Lincoln- Douglas debates were the foundation of the Civil War

2016-11-28 15:28:32 UTC

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.

marshar_teal — 2016-11-28 15:29:27 UTC

Does the KN NB act void the Missouri Compromise?

2016-11-28 15:29:46 UTC

<--- were*

response to left

8406920 — 2016-11-28 15:29:54 UTC

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.

2016-11-28 15:29:58 UTC

Exactly... the book is not relevant.. sorry.

2016-11-28 15:31:09 UTC

Just stop... the book had no affect on the Civil War.

2016-11-28 15:31:29 UTC

You do a great job of explaining

2016-11-28 15:32:11 UTC

Again..how did it cause the civil war