EOC Spot Check Road to Disunion Day 01

How did Northern abolitionists view the relationship between adherence to the law and their moral position on slavery?

• They believed moral principles should take precedence over unjust laws like the Fugitive Slave Law.

• They felt all laws, including those supporting slavery, must be strictly followed.

• They thought economic considerations should override moral concerns.

• They believed only state laws were relevant, not federal laws like the Fugitive Slave Law.

Why did the Northern resistance to the Fugitive Slave Law anger Southerners and increase sectional tensions?

• Southerners believed the North was undermining their legal rights and way of life by refusing to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law.

• Southerners felt the North was providing better economic opportunities for freed slaves.

• Southerners thought the North was trying to abolish slavery in Southern states directly.

• Southerners were upset because the North was benefiting financially from the Fugitive Slave Law.

Drag the descriptions to the correct compromise or act: the Compromise of 1850 or the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

Groups:

(a) Compromise of 1850

,

(b) Kansas-Nebraska Act

• Directly led to a violent conflict

• Admitted California as a free state

• Increased tensions between pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers

• Allowed popular sovereignty in Utah and New Mexico territories

• Abolished the slave trade in Washington, D.C.

• • Included a stronger Fugitive Slave Law

• • Allowed popular sovereignty in the Kansas and Nebraska territories

• • Effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise

Answer explanation

The Compromise of 1850 was a series of laws aimed at resolving the territorial and slavery controversies arising from the Mexican-American War, which included admitting California as a free state and introducing a stricter Fugitive Slave Law. The Kansas-Nebraska Act allowed the territories of Kansas and Nebraska to decide on the legality of slavery through popular sovereignty, effectively nullifying the Missouri Compromise's restriction on slavery north of the 36°30' line, leading to violent conflicts known as "Bleeding Kansas."

How did the principle of popular sovereignty in the Kansas-Nebraska Act contribute to the violence depicted in the images?

• It allowed settlers to vote on whether Kansas would be a free or slave state, leading to violent clashes between pro-slavery and anti-slavery groups.

• It mandated that Kansas be a slave state, causing conflict with neighboring free states and increased tension.

• It required federal troops to enforce slave laws, leading to resistance and violence across the region.

• It abolished all forms of slavery in the Kansas territory, angering Southern settlers who wanted to expand slavery.

Who is the notable individual depicted in the second image, and what role did he play in the violence in Kansas?

• John Brown, who led anti-slavery forces in violent actions against pro-slavery settlers.

• Stephen Douglas, who advocated for the Kansas-Nebraska Act in Congress and supported popular sovereignty.

• Jefferson Davis, who supported the expansion of slavery into Kansas and encouraged pro-slavery settlers.

• Abraham Lincoln, who spoke out against the violence but did not participate directly in any conflicts.

What was the impact of the Dred Scott decision on the status of African Americans in the United States?

• • It ruled that African Americans could not be citizens and had no rights under the Constitution.

• • It granted African Americans the right to vote in federal elections.

• • It declared that African Americans were free in all states and territories.

• • It had no significant impact on the status of African Americans.

Answer explanation

The Dred Scott decision stated that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be citizens and therefore had no rights under the U.S. Constitution. This ruling reinforced the institution of slavery and denied African Americans legal protections.

How did the Dred Scott decision affect Congress's power to regulate slavery in the territories?

• Congress could not prohibit slavery in the territories because it violated the property rights of slaveholders.

• Congress had full authority to abolish slavery in the territories.

• It allowed each territory to decide on the legality of slavery through popular sovereignty.

• It required Congress to pass new laws to expand slavery into all territories.