The expansion of the United States westward into newly acquired Mexican territories and other western territories caused a lot of controversy. The Mason-Dixon line was still the rule, but the controversy was when California, due to its climate where cotton and tobacco were unable to grow, entered the union as a free state, as slavery was unnecessary. The controversy was attempted to be put to rest by California agreeing to always having a pro-Slavery senator as to not have an anti-Slavery majority in the Senate. See the related link.
yes, because they were beginning a new chapter in developing more states so the slaves would work the fields
fuvk
John Calhoun of South Carolina (the 7th Vice President of the US) was among the Southerners who resisted Northern efforts to introduce abolitionist laws in Congress. He died in 1850, just as the anti-slavery movement was growing. The Southerners wanted slavery to move to the western territories. They wanted their already booming economy to be spread into the new states. However, they reached conflict with the Northerners who were not in favor of slavery. The Kansas- Nebraska Act allowed the citizens to vote whether or not they were for slavery caused major problems. This increased tensions between the opposing states. Before Abraham Lincoln's election, the country struggled on the issue of secession. When he took office in 1861, things reached their breaking point and the first Southern states seceded.
republicans
Indifferent For A+
It was the Wilmot Proviso that declared that there should be no slavery in the new states. This gained support in Congress, and by 1860 most Northerners agreed with it, while tolerating slavery in its traditional heartlands. That was how Lincoln got elected.
There were no new western states under Adams.
The Crittenden Compromise failed because it outlawed slavery in western states because Abraham Lincoln opposed the western expansion of slavery.
Yes, it did, and the majority of the conflict involved the north versus the south. But it should also be noted that back then, many states had slaves, and not just in the south. A number of mid-western states had decided to support slavery-- a good example was Missouri. And even states that were not officially slave states had pockets of slavery-- Illinois is a good example of this. There was considerable prejudice against blacks throughout Illinois, and as a result, no law was passed to officially outlaw slavery until 1848.
states' rights and slavery
Virginia was in favor of slavery due to their large plantations of tobacco.
He writted his book "Slavery in the United States" (1836) to express his view.
Abraham Lincoln completely opposed the spread of slavery to western territories.
They opposed the extension of slavery into the western territories.Below is a link with more info.united-states-free-soil-party
Northern workers opposed slavery; southern planters support it
not really sure about what states but the order of slavery starts with captue, thentransportation, then middle passage, then after that is landing then after that its the auction blockI'm not sure about the exact order, but the northern states would have got rid of it first, the western states weren't too keen on slavery either, or they didn't care about it. Slavery was prohibited in California as soon as it was made a state.