Download
politics of slavery n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
POLITICS OF SLAVERY PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
POLITICS OF SLAVERY

POLITICS OF SLAVERY

114 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

POLITICS OF SLAVERY

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. POLITICS OF SLAVERY • COMPROMISE OF 1850 • DUE TO THE GOLD RUSH,CALIFORNIA POPULATION HAD GROWN ENOUGH TO APPLY FOR STATEHOOD. • CALIFORNIA’S NEW CONSTITUTION FORBADE SLAVERY. • SOUTHERN OPPOSITION OF CALIFORNIA. • SOUTHERN STATES THREATENED SECESSION.

  2. COMPROMISE OF 1850 • HENRY CLAY WORKED TO SHAPE THE COMPROMISE THAT BOTH THE NORTH AND SOUTH COULD ACCEPT. 1. NORTH • CALIFORNIA ADMITTED AS A FREE STATE • SOUTH • PROPOSED A NEW TOUGHER FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. • TO APPEASE BOTH SIDES, A PROVISION ALLOWED POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY, THE RIGHT TO VOTE FOR OR AGAINST SLAVERY.

  3. COMPROMISE OF 1850 • WHAT 2 TERRITORIES WERE INVOLVED IN THE COMPROMISE OF 1850? • NEW MEXICO AND UTAH

  4. POLITICS OF SLAVERY • KANSAS NEBRASKA ACT- PROPOSED BY SENTOR STEPHEN DOUGLAS. • TO DOUGLAS, POPULAR SOVEREINTY WAS AN IDEAL WAY TO DETERMINE IF SLAVERY WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE NEBRASKA TERRITORY. • THE DIFFICULTY OF THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT WAS IT’S TERRITORY WAS NORTH OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE AND WAS CLOSED TO SLAVERY.

  5. POLITICS OF SLAVERY • KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT WAS PASSED IN 1854. • BOTH SUPPORTERS RUSHED TO KANSAS TO STAKE THEIR CLAIM ON THE ISSUE OF SLAVERY. • HOW DID THE ADVOCATES FOR SLAVERY WIN THE ELECTION?

  6. POLITICS OF SLAVERY • DRED SCOTT DECISION • SUPREME COURT CASE WHEREBY SCOTT WAS TAKEN FROM MISSOURI (SLAVE STATE) TO A FREE STATE ILLINOIS, AND FREE TERRITORY WISCONSIN, AND THEN BACK TO MISSOURI. • SCOTT APPEALED TO THE SUPREME COURT FOR HIS FREEDOM.

  7. POLITICS OF SLAVERY • ON MARCH 6, 1857 THE SUPREME COURT RULED AGAINST DRED SCOTT. • THE COURT RULED SCOTT LACKED ANY LEGAL STANDING TO SUE IN FEDERAL COURT BECAUSE HE WAS NOT A CITIZEN, AND NEVER WOULD BE. • THE COURT RULING WAS BASED ON THE 5TH ADMENDMENT, CITING A PERSON COULD NOT LOSE PROPERTY, INCLUDING SLAVES.