5.1E: Causes of the Civil War, 1851-1860

Which of the following occurred as a result of the Kansas-Nebraska Act?

• antislavery supporters winning control of the territorial legislature

• the ransacking of the town of Lawrence, Kansas, by antislavery activists

• the creation of two opposing governments in the Kansas territory

• the formation of the Whig Party, following a split within the Democratic Party

Which of the following pieces of legislation effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise?

• the Kansas-Nebraska Act

• the Wilmot Proviso

• the Compromise of 1850

• the Mexican Cession

In the period before the Civil War, the principle of popular sovereignty meant that whether or not a territory allowed slavery would be left up to

• the territorial populations

• the United States Senate

• the United States Supreme Court

• the President most recently elected

What did the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and "Bleeding Kansas" have in common?

• they were all vetoed by President Abraham Lincoln

• they helped Abraham Lincoln win the Election of 1860

• they all dealt with the expansion of slavery into the western territories

• they were permanent solutions to the conflict between the North and the South

Dred Scott, a Virginia slave, sued his owners' estate for his freedom in 1857. The case was heard by the US Supreme Court. Which of the following BEST explains how the Court's decision played a major role in causing the Civil War?

• the Court ruled that Dred Scott should be freed and that all slavery in the US should be outlawed immediately, angering the Southern states, which began to view war as the only way to protect their way of life

• the Court ruled that Dred Scott was a piece of property and that Congress had no power to limit slavery, outraging abolitionists and deepening the divide between Northern and Southern states

• the Court ruled that Dred Scott's freedom was a matter for the state to decide, not the federal government, causing the North to view war as the only option for ridding the country of slavery

• the Court ruled that Dred Scott should be awarded his freedom and that the federal government could decide whether or not slavery should be allowed in any given state, causing Southern states to support seceding from the Union

Which best describes a result of the Supreme Court's decision in the Dred Scott case?

• a slave had the right to sue for freedom in a federal court

• a slave was only a citizen after he or she purchased freedom

• a slave was not a citizen but rather property of an owner

• a slave who lived on free soil for any length of time was free

Which of the following was one result of the Supreme Court decision Dred Scott v. Sandford?

• the decision denied Congress the legal power to regulate slavery in the territories

• the decision prohibited slavery west of the Mississippi River and Northwest Territory

• the decision allowed for the expansion of slavery into the Texas and California territories

• the decision supported the proposed law granting citizenship to all African American slaves

Which of the following is the MOST LIKELY reason why Southerners approved of the Dred Scott decision?

• because of its directive to Northern states to permit Southern slave owners to transport their slaves into the North

• because of its order permitting slave owners to settle in Kansas

• because of its decree that the Fugitive Slave Act was constitutional

• because of the implication that something like the Missouri Compromise could never again be enacted by Congress

Which event marks an important victory for slave owners in the American South?

• the massacre at Pottawatomie, which saw the capture and trial of pro-slavery opponents

• the Dred Scott decision, which recognized slaves as property and not as citizens

• the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which allowed Kansas to enter the Union as a slave state

• the raid on Harper's Ferry, which struck a blow against the US government

How did the Dred Scott v. Sandford case affect the Missouri Compromise?

• the Supreme Court held that the Missouri Compromise did not apply outside of Missouri

• the Supreme Court held that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and invalid

• the Supreme Court held that the Missouri Compromise could be applied nationwide

• the Supreme Court held that the Missouri Compromise freed all slaves in Missouri