true
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in Scott v. Sandford,(1857)
So they wouldn't keep getting outvoted in Congress
Slavery was abolished in the United States territories in June 1862. Any new territory was not to have possession of any slaves after this date.
== == The Fugitive Slave Law required Northern citizens to help catch escaped slaves. But many Northerners hated the law as much as they hated slavery. They ignored it from the time it was passed by Congress. In this way, the Fugitive Slave Law increased the tension between Northerners and Southerners.
Consider this: Exactly which "people of those territories" wanted expansion of slavery. Definitely not any of the black people. Actually, nearly all the lobbying for slavery came from people living in the South who were anxious to gain more power in the House and Senate for their cause.
The acquisition of vast new territories from Mexico. The South wanted to spread slavery into these new territories. But it was getting harder to create new slave-states, and Congress had to make a big gesture of appeasement to the South in the form of the Fugitive Slave Act.
taney (a judge)
They would have been, if Congress had not appeased them with a couple more states where slavery would be permitted, plus enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act.
The extension of slavery into new territories
law
The extension of slavery into new territories
Expansion of slavery into acquired territories, such as Texas.
The extension of slavery into territories acquired from mexico
Yes. Congress could NOT tell territories or states not to have slaves.
The Fugitive Slave Act was a pro-slavery part of the Compromise of 1850.
Slavery was the big issue. In particular, whether to allow slavery in the territories acquired from Mexico and other territories that might become states. There also problems with dealing with fugitive slaves and the people who helped them escape.
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in Scott v. Sandford,(1857)