Introduction
The Civil War had started with much tension occurring among the citizens of America. Sectionalism already came about with how their moral values and economic differences separated the two areas. The North had specialized in industrialism with mass amount of immigrants, and women getting an opportunity to work in factories. In the South, however, one specific crop became one of the most desired things overseas which resulted in the South’s overgrowing pride, “King Cotton,” as the most dependable economic prosperity.
The Civil War had occurred with different types of compromises causing ruckus among the two sections. The Compromise of 1820 (Missouri Compromise) added more to the sectionalism issue by separating their moral values of slavery. It involved the 36'30 line which was right below Pennsylvania and right above Maryland. It had suggested that right above the line slavery was not allowed, while below that line slavery was permitted. Both sections had tried to create a balance in the Senate with such compromise, but that all changed when the Compromise of 1850 came about. It had come right after the Mexican War which involved Texas trying to gain its independence from Mexico. Texas had won its freedom and had eventually entered the Union, which caused dismay to Northerners because of the entrance of another slave state. Mexico had wanted their territories to be a free of slavery area, but what the government had done was opened the territory to popular sovereignty.
Popular sovereignty involved the people in the territory voting on whether or not that the acquired area was going to be a slave or anti-slave area. Many Northerners and Southerners argued over this because it could go either way. There would either be more slavery states than free states or vice-versa, which threw off the balance in the Senate.
The Compromise of 1850 involved the territories of California, Arizona, and New Mexico. Westward expansion had much to do with the decision of what California would be. Since many citizens were just starting off in California and with the instant government that was established over there, popular sovereignty won them over as a free state. Many Southerners cried out that it was unfair due to the North gaining a lot of land because of the the Missouri Compromise.
Another idea was the Wilmot Proviso, which was proposed by David Wilmot to make the territory from Mexico a continuing slave-free area. It never passed the Senate due to the Southern members not wanting to be robbed of possible slave states that would arise later on in the future. This created a larger advantage for the North as they gained a larger area, but it all changed with the Kansas-Nebraska Act. With the unstable balance in the Senate, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was proposed. It had required, Nebraska to be a free state, while Kansas was to be a slave state. It caused much mayhem as the North claimed it to be impossible as it went against the Missouri Compromise. In the end, the North had gained Kansas as free state, but Bleeding Kansas begun to wore on as Kansas was surrounded by slave-territory, and many citizens were upset. It wasn't an issue that was easily disposed of as Bleeding Kansas was not only on the land, but also in the halls of Congress.
While politicians wanted to prevent the extension of slavery, many abolitionists sought to get rid of slavery as a whole, which many Northerners agreed with. Southerners, however, opposed both thoughts and said that slavery was what kept their economy to a high level.
The Civil War had occurred with different types of compromises causing ruckus among the two sections. The Compromise of 1820 (Missouri Compromise) added more to the sectionalism issue by separating their moral values of slavery. It involved the 36'30 line which was right below Pennsylvania and right above Maryland. It had suggested that right above the line slavery was not allowed, while below that line slavery was permitted. Both sections had tried to create a balance in the Senate with such compromise, but that all changed when the Compromise of 1850 came about. It had come right after the Mexican War which involved Texas trying to gain its independence from Mexico. Texas had won its freedom and had eventually entered the Union, which caused dismay to Northerners because of the entrance of another slave state. Mexico had wanted their territories to be a free of slavery area, but what the government had done was opened the territory to popular sovereignty.
Popular sovereignty involved the people in the territory voting on whether or not that the acquired area was going to be a slave or anti-slave area. Many Northerners and Southerners argued over this because it could go either way. There would either be more slavery states than free states or vice-versa, which threw off the balance in the Senate.
The Compromise of 1850 involved the territories of California, Arizona, and New Mexico. Westward expansion had much to do with the decision of what California would be. Since many citizens were just starting off in California and with the instant government that was established over there, popular sovereignty won them over as a free state. Many Southerners cried out that it was unfair due to the North gaining a lot of land because of the the Missouri Compromise.
Another idea was the Wilmot Proviso, which was proposed by David Wilmot to make the territory from Mexico a continuing slave-free area. It never passed the Senate due to the Southern members not wanting to be robbed of possible slave states that would arise later on in the future. This created a larger advantage for the North as they gained a larger area, but it all changed with the Kansas-Nebraska Act. With the unstable balance in the Senate, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was proposed. It had required, Nebraska to be a free state, while Kansas was to be a slave state. It caused much mayhem as the North claimed it to be impossible as it went against the Missouri Compromise. In the end, the North had gained Kansas as free state, but Bleeding Kansas begun to wore on as Kansas was surrounded by slave-territory, and many citizens were upset. It wasn't an issue that was easily disposed of as Bleeding Kansas was not only on the land, but also in the halls of Congress.
While politicians wanted to prevent the extension of slavery, many abolitionists sought to get rid of slavery as a whole, which many Northerners agreed with. Southerners, however, opposed both thoughts and said that slavery was what kept their economy to a high level.
Gag Rule
The House of Representatives had adopted many rules throughout the years of 1836-1840. One of those rules involved abolition and slavery, that rule was known as the Gag Rule. This rule had supported pro-slavery congressmen because it had banned any kinds of petition to abolish slavery. In usual house procedures, the first 30 days, each session in Congress was used for reading petitions by the people. This rule had banned any readings of anything pertaining to the abolition of slavery because many slave-owning Southern Representatives felt no need to read further into it. The House of Representatives had passed this 21st rule on January 27th, 1840, which banned any types of antislavery petitions. It was opposed by many Northern Democrats and Whigs and the vote ended up being 114 to 108. However, on December 3rd, 1844 it was repealed by them when they had voted to get rid of it.
Dred Scott
The Dred Scott decision also had caused trouble among the North and the South. Dred Scott, was a slave who had lived with his master in a free soil territory for 5 years. Thinking that he had gained his freedom due to his long residence on the free territory, he had sued his master. This caused a lot of interest in the North, as they had supported Dred Scott, but when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the master, it caused many outcries. The Supreme Court ruled that private property could be taken into any territory and be legally held there in the person's possession, and since slaves were considered to be private property, they had seen nothing wrong with it. They also called for it going against the 5th amendment which forbade Congress from depriving people of their property and further stated that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, and that Congress had no power to ban slavery in any territory.