Events Leading up to the CIvil War

By Unknown Link, From Wikipedia Link

Background:

Missouri Compromise 1820 The Missouri Compromise was a United States federal statute devised by Henry Clay. It regulated slavery in the country's western territories by prohibiting the practice in the former Louisiana Territory north of the parallel 36°30′ north, except within the boundaries of the proposed state of Missouri. The compromise was agreed to by both the pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions in the United States Congress and passed as a law in 1820, under the presidency of James Monroe. More information: Link

Missouri becomes a state 1821 Missouri's Struggle for Statehood Read about it here: Link

Compromise of 1850The Compromise of 1850 was a package of five separate bills passed by the United States Congress in September 1850, which defused a four-year political confrontation between slave and free states regarding the status of territories acquired during the Mexican–American War (1846–48). The compromise, drafted by Whig Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky and brokered by Clay and Democratic Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois, reduced sectional conflict. Controversy arose over the Fugitive Slave provision. More information: Link

Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854

During the senate adjournment, the issues of the railroad and the repeal of the Missouri Compromise became entangled in Missouri politics as Atchison campaigned for re-election against the forces of Thomas Hart Benton. Atchison was maneuvered into choosing between antagonizing the state railroad interests and antagonizing the state slaveholders. Finally Atchison took the position that he would rather see Nebraska "sink in hell" before he would allow it to be overrun by free soilers.[5]

The immediate responses to the passing of the Kansas–Nebraska Act fell into two classes. The first, and less common, response was held by Douglas's supporters, who believed that the bill would "[withdraw] the question of slavery from the halls of Congress and the political arena, committing it to the arbitration of those who were immediately interested in, and alone responsible for, its consequences."[37] In other words, they believed that the Act would leave decisions about slavery more in the hands of the people, and less under the carefully balanced jurisdiction of the Federal Government. The second and far more common response was one of outrage, interpreting Douglas's actions as part of "an atrocious plot."[38] Especially in the eyes of northerners, the Kansas–Nebraska Act was pure southern aggression, an attack on the power and beliefs of free states.[39] This response led to calls for public action against the south, as seen in broadsides advertising gatherings in northern states to publicly discuss what to do about the presumption of the Act.[40]

Bleeding Kansas

Pro-slavery settlers came to Kansas mainly from neighboring Missouri. Their influence in territorial elections was often bolstered by resident Missourians who crossed into Kansas solely for the purpose of voting in such ballots. They formed groups such as the Blue Lodges and were dubbed border ruffians, a term coined by opponent and abolitionist Horace Greeley. Abolitionist settlers, known as "Jayhawkers" moved from the East with express purpose of making Kansas a free state. A clash between the opposing sides was inevitable.[41]

The Kansas–Nebraska Act divided the nation and pointed it toward civil war.[65] The act itself virtually nullified the Missouri Compromise of 1820. The turmoil over the act split both the Democratic and Whig parties and gave rise to the Republican Party, which split the United States into two major political camps, North (Republican) and South (Democratic). More information: Link

Financial Panic of 1857

The Panic of 1857 was a sudden downturn in the economy of the United States that occurred in 1857. A general recession first emerged late in 1856, but the successive failure of banks and businesses that characterized the panic began in mid-1857. While the overall economic downturn was brief, the recovery was unequal, and the lasting impact was more political than economic. The panic began with a loss of confidence in an Ohio bank, but spread as railroads failed, and fears that the US Federal Government would be unable to pay obligations in specie mounted. More than 5,000 American businesses failed within a year, and unemployment was accompanied by protest meetings in urban areas. Eventually the panic and depression spread to Europe, South America and the Far East. No recovery was evident in the northern parts of the United States for a year and a half, and the full impact did not dissipate until the American Civil War. More information: Link

Dred Scott Decision (1857)

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), also known simply as the Dred Scott case, was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that "a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves",[2][3] whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court,[4][5] and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. Dred Scott, an enslaved man of "the negro African race"[6] who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom. In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the court denied Scott's request. The decision was only the second time that the Supreme Court had ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional.[7] More information: Link