50%(2)1 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 4 pages.
•band the slave trade in the district of Columbia but permit whites to hold slaves as before•adopt a new fugitive slave law and enforce it(E) the north benefitted more because they got California as a free state, the slave trade was banned, and they had a chance to make the remainder of the territories free through popular sovereignty.5.Did the Compromise of 1850 fail?Or would it have succeeded if the Kansas-Nebraska Act of1854 had either not been enacted or contained different provisions?For awhile the Comromise of 1850 seemed to have ended friction over whether the new territories won from the war with Mexico were to permit slavery. At best the Compromise of 1850, may have delayed war between the North and the South. However many Northerners thought that the Fugitive Slave Law which was part of the Compromise of 1850 was too harsh. This permitted a stricter federal law for the return of runaway slaves. Some Northern states interfered with its enforcement. Slaves continued to escape by the underground railroad. Southerners were unhappy that California entered the Union without slavery. Slavery was left to the settlers in the new territories of New Mexico and Arizona. So the issue was unresolved. But the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 made slavery legal in those territories where it had been prohibited by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. This was probably the most important reason for the failure of the Compromise of 1850.6.What were the main constitutional arguments advanced during the debate over slavery in the territories?Which of those arguments influenced Chief Justice Taney’s opinion in Dred
Scott?Taney wrote in his opinion in Dred Scott v. Sanford that Scott, as a slave, had no rights as a citizen of the United States. And since he was not a U.S. citizen, he could not sue his owner. Sanford, as a slave owner, had a right to keep his property under the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the "denial of property without due process of law." On the related matter of whether Scott was a free man because he had lived in Illinois and Wisconsin Territories, Taney relied on the distinction that because Scott was technically a slave when he filed the lawsuit (because he was living in Missouri, a slave state), he was still a slave under the law, no matter where he lived or when. Taney went further, ruling that the Missouri Compromise itself was unconstitutional. His argument was that because that Act of Congress deprivedslaveowners of their property, the Act itself was counter to the Constitutional right described under the Fifth Amendment7.What was Lincoln’s position on slavery during the 1850s?Did it differ from that of Stephen Douglas?Explain your answer.(A) Lincoln did not believe in slavery. Douglass did.(C) Lincoln saw slavery as a moral issue. He believed that the black was not his equal but they deserved as much a right to natural rights in the constitution as anyone else. He did not think the negro was equal but he did believe they had a right to eat what they worked for. God gave them that right.