The general term is popular sovereignty, but this applies to many issues, not just slavery.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed by the US Congress on May 30, 1854 and allowed the territories of Kansas and Nebraska to vote on slavery, with violent results that should have been expected. The act abrogated the Missouri Compromise of 1820.
Because the North did not have slaves and did not support slavery. Also, because the North was considered the Union in the Civil war, so if you did not want slaves or if you thought that the South should not secede then you would live in the North.
No, they should not be blamed for it!
Most people view slavery as a bad thing, and if you do, then having it abolished is a good thing. Abolished means destroyed, put an end to. So having slavery abolished wasn't a bad thing for the African Americans, or for the people who believed that it should be abolished. Though many of the people who owned slaves might not think it was good because they would then have to do the work that their slaves used to do for them, or they would have to pay their slaves/servants.
literature aided the anti-slavery movement by spreading the word of slavery and why it should come to an end. abolitionists began spreading the word, writing books, newspapers. people began to read the books and newspapers and began to help the movement.
It hasn't. It is the only reasonable answer to this general question. Slavery still exists today, in every country of the world although the modern name for practices akin to slavery is human trafficking. Millions of people are forced to work in slavelike conditions around the world today.Slavery in the US, in case this is your specific issue, officially ended with the victory of the Union Army in the US Civil War in 1865. Trafficking is still going on though, with an estimated 50,000 people in forced labour in slave-like conditions in the United States at any one time. I think one should add that slavery in literal sense of human beings who are owned, and bought and sold has ended, except in parts of West Africa and the Sudan. It muddies the waters if one fails to distinguish slavery in that sense from smuggling people across borders, and if one talks about 'slavelike conditions'. After all, one could make out a case for regarding workers in sweatshops as 'slaves', but I doubt if that is what either the questioner or the person who wrote the above answer had in mind.
The people that live in a territory should choose whether to allow slavery or not
a territory's voters
Douglas proposed that the people within each new territory should decide the slavery question for themselves without regard to the rest of the country, known as Popular Sovereignty.
popular sovereignty
Popular sovereignty
popular sovereignty
popular sovereignty
.....slavery IS banned......
Popular Sovereignty
No they should not.
Wilmot Proviso.
Douglas was generally against slavery but as a populist, he believed that the people of a state or territory should decide (popular sovereignty). He was a leading proponent of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which led to further violence on both sides of the issue.