0
What else can I help you with?
What are some Pros and cons of popular sovereignty in the U.S. during the 1800's?
Based on the times in which this slogan was created, and remembering that the US Supreme Court in its 1857 ruling on Dred Scott and slavery, popular sovereignty appeared to be the "democratic way" to settle issues of slavery in the Territories that would in time become States. As it was seen after the US Civil War, it required an amendment to the US Constitution to officially abolish slavery. The problems that popular sovereignty created, in Kansas due to the Kansas - Nebraska Act, was bloodshed in conflicts between pro slavery people and anti slavery people. It's difficult to make a case for any "cons" of allowing people the right to vote on issues. The main problem was the US Supreme Court with its rulings in favor of keeping slaves in the class of "property". The lawlessness in Kansas was the result of Federal troops non enforcing Federal laws in the US Territories. Taken in a much broader sense, the United States elects government officials on the basis of popular sovereignty. If fighting conflicts result in the course of elections, the duty of law enforcement is to enforce laws against violence. All this must be taken in the context of the 1800's.
What was Roman slavery was based on?
Roman slavery was not based on race.
Was slavery based on race at Greek?
No. Roman slavery was based upon birth, not race. Slavery was a class. The ancients, Roman and others, did not discriminate on the basis of skin color or race.No. Roman slavery was based upon birth, not race. Slavery was a class. The ancients, Roman and others, did not discriminate on the basis of skin color or race.No. Roman slavery was based upon birth, not race. Slavery was a class. The ancients, Roman and others, did not discriminate on the basis of skin color or race.No. Roman slavery was based upon birth, not race. Slavery was a class. The ancients, Roman and others, did not discriminate on the basis of skin color or race.No. Roman slavery was based upon birth, not race. Slavery was a class. The ancients, Roman and others, did not discriminate on the basis of skin color or race.No. Roman slavery was based upon birth, not race. Slavery was a class. The ancients, Roman and others, did not discriminate on the basis of skin color or race.No. Roman slavery was based upon birth, not race. Slavery was a class. The ancients, Roman and others, did not discriminate on the basis of skin color or race.No. Roman slavery was based upon birth, not race. Slavery was a class. The ancients, Roman and others, did not discriminate on the basis of skin color or race.No. Roman slavery was based upon birth, not race. Slavery was a class. The ancients, Roman and others, did not discriminate on the basis of skin color or race.
Should slavery be expanded to the new territories?
That was the old question that had divided Americans ever since the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. The Missouri Compromise, based on a straightforward dividing-line on the map (slavery banned anywhere North of the line), appeared to settle matters, but the new territories acquired from Mexico in 1847 made this unworkable. Three more compromises were attempted, but the rejection of the last one by the newly-elected Lincoln (because it would have allowed some extension of slavery) finally triggered the civil war.
How might the idea of manifest destiny relate to slavery or the civil war?
As the US spread westward in fulfillment of manifest destiny, the question always arose about whether slavery would be permitted in each of the new territories/states. An uneasy truce was reached that effectively allowed one new slave state for each new free state but the compromise was unsustainable because the slave based economy was not particularly suitable for most of the western territories that were being settled. The tension over slavery (and other issues) as the power shifted in favor of the northern and western states/territories eventually boiled over into the civil war.
what allowed territories to decide the fate of slavery based on popular sovereignty unintentionally had the effect of increasing tensions between pro-slavery and antislavery forces as they rushed?
The concept of popular sovereignty proposed in the Kansas-Nebraska Act allowed territories to decide the fate of slavery through popular vote. However, this led to violent conflicts between pro-slavery and antislavery forces as they both rushed to exert influence and secure control in these territories. This escalation of tensions ultimately contributed to the outbreak of the American Civil War.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act repealed parts of which previous decision?
The Kansas-Nebraska Act repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the Compromise of 1850, specifically the provision that prohibited slavery in territories north of the 36°30’ parallel. Instead, the Act allowed for the potential expansion of slavery into those territories based on popular sovereignty.
How did the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 deal with the issue slavery?
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 allowed the territories of Kansas and Nebraska to determine whether they would allow slavery based on popular sovereignty. This contradicted the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had prohibited slavery in this region. The Act ultimately led to violent clashes between pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces in Kansas, known as "Bleeding Kansas."
If Stephen Douglas believed that?
If Stephen Douglas believed in popular sovereignty, he would have supported allowing individual states and territories to decide for themselves whether to permit slavery. This stance was a key aspect of his political platform during his debates with Abraham Lincoln over the expansion of slavery in the United States. Douglas's belief in popular sovereignty was based on the principle of self-determination and state rights.
Who will decide whether slavery would be allowed in a territory under popular sovereignty?
Under popular sovereignty, the decision on whether slavery would be allowed in a territory is typically made by the residents of that territory through a vote or referendum. This allows the people living in the area to determine the status of slavery based on majority rule.
What was Stephen a Douglas view on slavery?
he was an erudite and decent man that didn't need to end to keep the country united
What was written primarily for the state of Kansas?
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 was primarily written for the state of Kansas. This act allowed for the territories of Kansas and Nebraska to decide whether they would allow slavery based on popular sovereignty. It ultimately led to violence and conflict in Kansas known as "Bleeding Kansas."
How did the controversy over slavery become violent?
With the slavery issue based on popular sovereignty, the territories would become slave or free depending on which side had more votes. Both antislavery Northerners and proslavery Southerners scrambled to settle Kansas. One fierce slavery opponent, John Brown, killed five proslavery people in a raid and started a small civil war that killed some 200 people from both sides.
How did Free-Soilers differ from abolitionists?
Free-Soilers were Northerners who wanted to contain slavery, as in keep it from spreading to new territories. Free-Soilers were alright with keeping the existing slavery where it was already prevalent. They're opinions were based on more political aspects.Abolitionists wanted to completely get rid of existing slavery and prevent it from becoming legal in new territories. They're opinions were based more on moral aspects.
Why did the south want to expand slavery to the north?
The south was based off of farming. They had a small scale of land and a low population. They wanted to reach new territories to help promote slavery and farming.
What are some Pros and cons of popular sovereignty in the U.S. during the 1800's?
Based on the times in which this slogan was created, and remembering that the US Supreme Court in its 1857 ruling on Dred Scott and slavery, popular sovereignty appeared to be the "democratic way" to settle issues of slavery in the Territories that would in time become States. As it was seen after the US Civil War, it required an amendment to the US Constitution to officially abolish slavery. The problems that popular sovereignty created, in Kansas due to the Kansas - Nebraska Act, was bloodshed in conflicts between pro slavery people and anti slavery people. It's difficult to make a case for any "cons" of allowing people the right to vote on issues. The main problem was the US Supreme Court with its rulings in favor of keeping slaves in the class of "property". The lawlessness in Kansas was the result of Federal troops non enforcing Federal laws in the US Territories. Taken in a much broader sense, the United States elects government officials on the basis of popular sovereignty. If fighting conflicts result in the course of elections, the duty of law enforcement is to enforce laws against violence. All this must be taken in the context of the 1800's.
What sovereignty means the government is based on the consent of the governed?
Popular sovereignty
