PPT Accompaniment for To Secede or Not to Secede: Events Leading to Civil War To view this PDF as a projectable presentation, save the file, click View in the top menu bar of the file, and select Full Screen Mode To request an editable PPT version of this presentation, send a request to CarolinaK12@unc.edu
Northern Goals vs. Southern Goals After the Louisiana Purchase (1803), both the North & South wanted the acquired western land to benefit their sectional interests. Northern Goals Continue to develop manufacturing jobs and trade, which do not depend on enslaved workers Pass laws to promote trade and growth of factories Make sure new Western votes in Congress are for Northern interests by not allowing slavery in new territories Southern Goals Expand agriculture (such as cotton and other cash crops), which does depend on enslaved workers Pass laws to protect slavery and growth of agriculture Make sure new Western votes in Congress are for Southern interests by allowing slavery in new territories
A Balancing Act to Keep the Union Different views regarding slavery and states rights led to constant disagreements through out the pre-civil War years. In an attempt to appease both sides, Congress began to make various legislative compromises. Why do you think they did this? What can be difficult about compromising? What can be effective about compromising?
Compromises regarding slavery begin Passed by the Continental Congress, this ordinance created the Northwest Territory and banned slavery north and west of the Ohio River. Few Southerners protested this ordinance because they were more concerned about laws affecting states that were south of the Ohio River and north of Florida. This ordinance set the stage for the balancing act between free and slave states. Northwest Ordinance, 1787
Missouri Compromise, 1820 When Missouri applied for statehood, Congress had to confront the issue of whether to let slavery spread into the territories. The goal of this compromise was to keep the balance of power between slave and free states by admitting Maine to the Union as a free state and Missouri as a slave state. Additionally, to prevent future arguments over the Louisiana Territory, an imaginary east-west line was drawn at the southern boundary of Missouri that said any new state north of the line would be a free state and any new state south of the line would be a slave state. However, many observers, such as Thomas Jefferson, predicted that the division of the country created by the Compromise line would eventually lead to the destruction of the Union.
Other Debates on the Issue of Slavery: Congress Passes the Gag Rule In 1834 the American Anti-Slavery Society began an antislavery petition drive. In 1837 38 alone, abolitionists sent more than 130,000 petitions to Congress asking for the abolition of slavery in Washington, DC. As antislavery opponents became more insistent, Southern members of Congress were increasingly adamant in their defense of slavery. In May of 1836 the House passed a gag rule, a resolution that automatically "tabled," or postponed action on all petitions relating to slavery without hearing them. At first, only a small group of congressmen, led by Representative John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts, opposed the rule. As antislavery sentiment in the North grew however, more Northern congressmen supported Adams s argument that, whatever one s view on slavery, stifling the right to petition was wrong. In 1844 the House rescinded the gag rule on a motion made by John Quincy Adams.
Compromise of 1850 A series of laws that attempted to resolve conflict between the northern and southern states. In the Compromise California was admitted as a free state New Mexico and Utah were allowed to decide their own slavery laws The slave trade (buying and selling enslaved Africans) was abolished in Washington DC and the Fugitive Slave Law passed. The Compromise did not satisfy any side completely.
The Fugitive Slave Act/Law Passed by Congress on September 18, 1850, as part of the Compromise of 1850 Declared that all runaway slaves be brought back to their masters. Abolitionists nicknamed it the "Bloodhound Law" for the dogs that were used to track down runaway slaves. If you were a slave who escaped to the North, how might this law impact you?
Kansas-Nebraska Act, 1854 This act created the territories of Kansas and Nebraska, allowing the settlers to decide whether to have slavery (popular sovereignty) This decision angered Northerners, who thought these territories should be free states because of the Missouri Compromise. Southerners responded by arguing that the Compromise of 1850 replaced the Missouri Compromise. Both sides were upset and the stage was set for Civil War.
Bleeding Kansas Things worked out as anticipated in Nebraska, but not in Kansas. Violent hostilities erupted between pro and antislavery forces in the Kansas territory during the mid and late 1850s. Also known as the Border War, the violent events that took place are often regarded as the opening shots of the Civil War.
The Courts Grapple with Slavery: Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857 Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia around 1799. In 1834, a man named Dr. Emerson bought Dred Scott and they moved to Illinois, a free state. In 1836, they moved to Minnesota, also free state. There, Scott married another slave named Harriet. In 1838, the Emersons and the Scotts moved to Missouri, a slave state. In 1843, Dr. Emerson died, leaving his wife possession of the Scotts. Dred Scott sued Mrs. Emerson. He claimed that he was no longer a slave because he had become free when he lived in a free state. The jury decided that Scott and his family should be free. The Emersons did not like the decision and appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court in 1852. That court said that Missouri does not have to follow the laws of another state. As a slave state, Missouri's laws meant that Scott and his family were not free. Do you feel that the Missouri Supreme Court made the right decision? Why or why not?
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857 Sanford moved to New York and left the Scotts in Missouri. Scott sued Sanford again in a federal court. Federal courts decide cases where the citizens live in different states. In 1854, the U.S. Court for the District of Missouri heard the case. Sanford won the case and Scott then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the country. When the case came to the Supreme Court of the United States, the country was in deep conflict over slavery. In the past, some slaves had successfully sued their owners for freedom. However, by the 1850's, many states were hardening their positions on slavery, making such cases more difficult to win. It would not be long before the country was in a civil war over the issue of slavery. How do you predict the Supreme Court decided in this case?
Dred Scott v. Sandford- Final Ruling of the US Supreme Court In a harsh decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants whether or not they were slaves were not protected by the Constitution and could never be citizens of the United States. It also held that the US Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories. The Court also ruled that because slaves were not citizens, they could not sue in court. Lastly, the Court ruled that slaves as private property could not be taken away from their owners without due process.
Following the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Abraham Lincoln began attacking the legislation and its author, Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois. When Douglas ran for reelection in 1858, Lincoln opposed him in Illinois. Douglas won that election, but the seven Lincoln-Douglass Debates they held across Illinois were mentioned in newspapers around the country, raising Lincoln s political profile. In late 1859, Lincoln was invited to give a speech in New York City in which he denounced slavery. The speech was a triumph and made Lincoln a political star. Lincoln s ambition to become undisputed leader of the Republicans in Illinois began to evolve into a desire to run for the Republican nomination for president in the 1860 election. The Election of Abraham Lincoln
The Election of Abraham Lincoln Unlike presidential elections today, between the time of Lincoln s nomination and the actual election, he had little to do. Members of their party held rallies and torchlight parades, but such public displays were considered beneath the dignity of the candidates. Lincoln did appear at one rally in Springfield, Illinois in August. He was mobbed by an enthusiastic crowd and was lucky not to have been injured. Running against Lincoln on the Democrat ticket was Senator Stephen A. Douglas and John C. Breckenridge. The presidential election was held on November 6, 1860. Lincoln did very well in the northern states, and though he garnered less than 40 percent of the popular vote, he won a landslide victory in the electoral college. Ominously, Lincoln did not carry any southern states.
The Election of Abraham Lincoln How do you think the Southern states will respond to the election of Abraham Lincoln? Lincoln declared, A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot last forever, half slave and half free. I do not expect the house to fall-but I do expect it will cease to be divided. What message is Lincoln conveying?
North Carolinians Debate Secession Catherine Edmondston Daughter of a wealthy eastern NC planter;married a planter in 1846 & settled on a plantation in hjalifax County, NC, where she was living in 1860 William A. Graham Held a number of prominent positions in NC prior to 1860, including governor of NC, US senator, and secretary of the navy. He owned several plantations worked by slave labor. John W. Ellis Governor of NC from 1858-1861 Zebulon B. Vance Serving in US Congress in 1860 Jonathan Worth State senator in 1861 Based on this bit of information provided about each person, how would you predict he/she feels about secession and why? As your classmates read excerpts in these people s own words, be prepared to summarize their views on secession.
What decision did NC make? An ordinance to dissolve the union between the State of North Carolina and the other states united with her under the compact of government entitled the Constitution of the United States. We, the people of the State of North Carolina, in Convention assembled, do declare and ordain That the ordinance adopted by the State of North Carolina in the Convention of 1789, whereby the Constitution of the United States was ratified and adopted, and also, all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly, ratifying and adopting amendments to the said Constitution, are hereby repealed, rescinded and abrogated. We do further declare and ordain, That the union now subsisting between the State of North Carolina and the other States under the title of the United States of America, is hereby dissolved, and that the State of North Carolina is in the full possession and exercise of all those rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State. Ratified the 20th day of May, 1861.
The Southern States Secede During Lincoln s campaign, Southern states, due to their fear of a ban on slavery, warned they would secede if Lincoln won. Thus, on December 20, 1860, South Carolina became the first state to secede from the Union. Shortly after, the other southern states followed to join the newly formed Confederate States of America, with Jefferson Davis as their recognized president. North Carolina was the last Southern state to secede on May 20, 1861.
The Civil War Begins: The Battle at Fort Sumter The nation wondered how President Lincoln would handle the secession of the southern states, which he viewed as illegal. His response came in April 1861, when Confederate South Carolina soldiers fired on federal troops stationed at Fort Sumter in Charleston. Upon hearing this news, Lincoln telegraphed each of the states that remained in the Union requesting that they supply the United States Army with troops. The Civil War had officially begun. In your opinion, did Lincoln make the right decision? Why or why not?