Road to Civil War Activity
Name: ______________________
Station 1: The Missouri Compromise
1. When did Missouri apply for statehood? Did they want to be a slave state or a free state?
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
2. Why was Missouri becoming a slave state upsetting to Northerners? ________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
3. What line of latitude is mentioned in the compromise and how does it relate to Missouri?
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
4. What were the main points of the Missouri Compromise? _________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
5. What was the main compromise in the Missouri Compromise? _____________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Station 2: The Compromise of 1850
1. What state trying to gain statehood caused the compromise to be written? ____________
__________________________________________________________________________
2. What does the compromise say about slavery in parts of the Mexican Cession that aren’t
California? ______________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
3. How does Texas fit into the compromise? _____________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
4. In the Compromise of 1850, what happened to Washington, D.C.? __________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
5. What is the final and most controversial part of the compromise? ___________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Station 3: The Kansas-Nebraska Act
1. What is “popular sovereignty” in terms of slavery? ______________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
2. What was “Bleeding Kansas” and what two events caused it? _____________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
3. What was the initial purpose of the Kansas-Nebraska Act? ________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
4. What did the Kansas-Nebraska Act do to the Missouri Compromise? _______________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
5. When Kansas joined the Union was it a slave or a free state? ______________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Station 4: Dred Scott v. Sandford
1. Who was Dred Scott and who was John Sanford?
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
2. Why did Dred Scott believe he could sue John Sanford?
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
3. What did Dred Scott sue Sandford for?
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
4. Did Dred Scott win his case? _______________________________________________
5. What were the three main points of the court’s decision?
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Readings on the Missouri Compromise:
In the years after the Louisiana Purchase, the country was still debating the slavery issue, but things were
relatively calm because there was an equal number of slave states and free states in the Union. However, in
1819 Missouri applied for statehood as a slave state. This raised national tensions and a compromise was
needed to help maintain balance in the country. But would this compromise really solve things or would it only
be a temporary solution?
The Missouri Compromise
The Era of Good Feelings was short-lived. First, the Panic of 1819 shook the U.S. economy and caused a brief
depression toward the end of Monroe’s first term. Then,
the Missouri crisis of 1819–1820 arose when Missouri applied for admission to the Union as a slave state.
Northerners in the House rejected Missouri’s application because they wanted to maintain a balance between
free and slave states in the Senate. They also passed the Tallmadge Amendment in 1819, stopping any more
slaves from entering Missouri and gradually emancipating those already living there. Southerners were
outraged by these developments.
Under Henry Clay’s Missouri Compromise, northerners and southerners agreed to admit Missouri as a slave
state and Maine as a free state. The compromise also stipulated that slavery could not expand north of the 36°
30' parallel.
What was the whole compromise of the Compromise of Missouri in 1820?
Answer
The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to maintain the balance of power between the North and South
when Missouri petitioned for statehood. The Compromise allowed Missouri, a slave state, and Maine, a free
state, in together thereby maintaining equality between the two sides. However, the Compromise went on to
prohibit slavery in the rest of the Louisiana Purchase that was north of latitude 36° 30'N.
Missouri Compromise
Definition: Agreement put forward by Henry Clay that allowed Missouri to enter the Union as a slave state and
Maine to enter the Union as a free state. The Compromise also drew an imaginary line at 36 degrees 30
minutes north latitude, dividing the new Louisiana Territory into two areas, one north and one south. All of the
Louisiana Territory north of this line was free territory, meaning that any territories that became states from this
area would enable African-Americans to be free. The Compromise also encouraged people in the north to
return runaway slaves to their homes and did not prohibit slavery, even in the free territories.
The Missouri Compromise
Abolitionists wanted slavery outlawed everywhere, and they were willing to resort to violence to get what they
wanted. Many slave owners and even non-slave-owning Southerners were willing to fight to keep what they
thought was their right to own slaves if they chose. The country, only five years removed from a victory (again)
over Great Britain, was close to going to war with itself.
So how did Congress solve this growing problem? By compromising. Because both sides were on opposite
sides of the issue, both sides couldn't be satisfied by the same outcome. So Congress gave both sides
something: Each side got a new state.
Maine applied for statehood about the same time, and both were eventually admitted to the Union, Maine as a
free state and Missouri as a slave state.
The Missouri Compromise, as it was called, found its greatest champion in Henry Clay, who was at that time
the Speaker of the House. A War Hawk from his days advocating war with Great Britain, he tried desperately to
keep the North and South from fighting over the slavery issue. Largely because of Clay's efforts, the Missouri
Compromise went into effect.
Here are some details of the Compromise:
• Missouri was admitted as a slave state
• Maine was admitted as a free state
• Slavery was forbidden north of the 36 degree latitude mark, the southern boundary
of Missouri.
• People in the North were encouraged to return runaway slaves to their masters.
• Slavery was not prohibited anywhere, not even in the free territories.
The Missouri Compromise solved the immediate problem but didn't solve the slavery issue as a whole. As
many people on both sides were sure, that would take a war.

Readings on the Compromise of 1850:
After the Mexican-American War, the United States had gained a vast amount of new land in the southwest.
Then in 1849, the California Gold Rush cause large numbers of people to move to California. By 1850,
California had met all of the requirements for gaining statehood, but people wondered: Would it be a slave or a
free state? What would happen to the rest of the Mexican Cession? And in the back of everyone’s minds was
the question about slavery in the nation’s capitol.
Compromise of 1850
1850
It being desirable, for the peace, concord, and harmony of the Union of these States, to settle and adjust
amicably all existing questions of controversy between them arising out of the institution of slavery upon a fair,
equitable and just basis: therefore,
1. Resolved, That California, with suitable boundaries, ought, upon her application to be admitted as
one of the States of this Union, without the imposition by Congress of any restriction in respect to the
exclusion or introduction of slavery within those boundaries.
2. Resolved, That as slavery does not exist by law, and is not likely to be introduced into any of the
territory acquired by the United States from the republic of Mexico, it is inexpedient for Congress to
provide by law either for its introduction into, or exclusion from, any part of the said territory; and that
appropriate territorial governments ought to be established by Congress in all of the said territory, not
assigned as the boundaries of the proposed State of California, without the adoption of any restriction
or condition on the subject of slavery.
3. Resolved, That the western boundary of the State of Texas ought to be fixed on the Rio del Norte,
commencing one marine league from its mouth, and running up that river to the southern line of New
Mexico; thence with that line eastwardly, and so continuing in the same direction to the line as
established between the United States and Spain, excluding any portion of New Mexico, whether lying
on the east or west of that river.
4. Resolved, That it be proposed to the State of Texas, that the United States will provide for the
payment of all that portion of the legitimate and bona fide public debt of that State contracted prior to its
annexation to the United States, and for which the duties on foreign imports were pledged by the said
State to its creditors, not exceeding the sum of dollars, in consideration of the said duties so pledged
having been no longer applicable to that object after the said annexation, but having thenceforward
become payable to the United States; and upon the condition, also, that the said State of Texas shall,
by some solemn and authentic act of her legislature or of a convention, relinquish to the United States
any claim which it has to any part of New Mexico.
5. Resolved, That it is inexpedient to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia whilst that institution
continues to exist in the State of Maryland, without the consent of that State, without the consent of the
people of the District, and without just compensation to the owners of slaves within the District.
6. But, resolved, That it is expedient to prohibit, within the District, the slave trade in slaves brought into
it from States or places beyond the limits of the District, either to be sold therein as merchandise, or to
be transported to other markets without the District of Columbia.
7. Resolved, That more effectual provision ought to be made by law, according to the requirement of
the constitution, for the restitution and delivery of persons bound to service or labor in any State, who
may escape into any other State or Territory in the Union. And,
8. Resolved, That Congress has no power to promote or obstruct the trade in slaves between the
slaveholding States; but that the admission or exclusion of slaves brought from one into another of
them depends exclusively upon their own particular laws.
The Compromise of 1850
Because Taylor and Fillmore had never made their views on slavery in the West clear, the issue remained
unresolved. When California applied for admission as a free state, the debate picked up right where it had left
off. In Congress, heavyweights Daniel Webster and Henry Clay met for the last time to hammer out a
compromise. After much debate, the North and South finally came to an agreement that both sides thought
would be lasting and binding.
There were five components to this Compromise of 1850. First, California would be admitted as a free state.
Second, popular sovereignty would determine the fate of the other western territories. Third, Congress would
cancel some of Texas’s debts and, in exchange; give some of Texas’s western land to New Mexico Territory.
Fourth, slave trading would be banned in Washington, D.C. Finally, Congress would pass a tougher Fugitive
Slave Law, to reduce the number of slaves who escaped to the North and Canada every year. Although
Southerners had not conceded a lot in making the bargain, Northerners were still offended by the new law, and
many refused to obey it.
Definition: The Compromise of 1850 was a series of five bills that were intended to stave off sectional strife.
Its goal was to deal with the spread of slavery to territories in order to keep northern and southern interests in
balance. Here is a summary of the five bills:
1. California was entered as a free state.
2. New Mexico and Utah were each allowed to use popular sovereignty to decide
the issue of slavery. In other words, the people would pick whether the states
would be free or slave.
3. The Republic of Texas gave up lands that it claimed in present day New Mexico
and received $10 million to pay its debt to Mexico.
4. The slave trade was abolished in the District of Columbia.
5. The Fugitive Slave Act made any federal official who did not arrest a runaway
slave liable to pay a fine. This was the most controversial part of the Compromise of 1850 and caused
many abolitionists to increase their efforts against slavery.
Readings on the Kansas-Nebraska Act
The land of the Louisiana Purchase had caused questions ever since 1803 when it was added to the United
States. Some questions were answered in 1820, but many more remained. In 1854, the debate over the
course of the transcontinental railroad made people in the government provide for the creation of new
territories in the heart of the country. But no sooner had the creation been posed than controversy erupted.
Would the territories allow slavery? How would they decide? What would happen if people didn’t like the
decision?
The Kansas-Nebraska Act
Hoping to attract railroad development through the North, Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas introduced the
Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 and pushed it successfully through
Congress. The act carved the territory into the Kansas and Nebraska territories and,
more controversially, declared that popular sovereignty would determine the future of slavery there.
Southerners jumped at this opportunity, because the act effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820
that had banned slavery north of the 36 ̊ 30' parallel. As soon as the Kansas-Nebraska Act passed, hundreds
of Missourians crossed the state line into Kansas with their slaves to push for slavery. These “border ruffians”
set up a government in Lecompton, Kansas, and rigged elections to get more proslavery delegates sent to the
constitutional convention. Northerners were shocked and astonished that Southerners had managed to repeal
the almost-sacred Missouri Compromise.
Bleeding Kansas
Fearing that Kansas would become the next slave state, hundreds of Northern abolitionists also flocked to the
territory and set up their own government in Lawrence. A band of proslavery men, however, burned Lawrence
to the ground in 1856. In revenge, an abolitionist gang led by John Brown killed five border ruffians at the
Pottawatomie Massacre.
These two events sparked an internal war so savage that many referred to the territory as “Bleeding Kansas.”
The Kansas crisis was so shocking and so controversial that it even ignited tempers in Washington, D.C. In the
most infamous case, one Southern congressman nearly caned abolitionist Senator Charles Sumner to death
on the Senate floor for speaking out against the act and its authors.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 created the territories of Kansas and Nebraska, opened new lands for
people, repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820, and allowed the settlers to decide whether or not to have
slavery within those territories. The initial purpose of the Kansas- Nebraska Act was to create opportunities for
a Midwestern Transcontinental Railroad. It was not problematic until popular sovereignty was written into the
proposal. The new Republican Party, which formed in reaction against allowing slavery where it had been
forbidden, emerged as the dominant force throughout the North. The act was designed by Democratic Senator
Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois. The act established that settlers could decide for themselves whether to allow
slavery, in the name of "popular sovereignty" or rule of the people. Opponents denounced the law as a
concession to the Slave Power of the South. The act and the subsequent civil war in Bleeding Kansas was a
major step on the way to the
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 were dubbed border ruffians by their opponents; a term coined by Horace Greeley, and formed
groups like the Blue Lodges. Abolitionist settlers moved from the East with express purpose of making Kansas
a free state. A clash between the opposing sides was inevitable. Successive territorial governors, usually
sympathetic to slavery,
attempted unsuccessfully to maintain the peace. The territorial capital of Lecompton, Kansas, the target of
much agitation, became such a hostile environment for free-soilers that they set up their own unofficial
legislature at Topeka.
John Brown and his sons gained notoriety in the fight against slavery by brutally murdering five pro-slavery
farmers in the Pottawatomie Massacre. Brown also helped defend a few dozen free soil supporters from
several hundred angry pro-slavery supporters at the town of Osawatomie.
Hostilities between the factions reached a state of low-intensity civil war, which was extremely embarrassing to
Pierce, especially as the nascent Republican Party sought to capitalize on the scandal of Bleeding Kansas.
Routine ballot-rigging and intimidation practiced by pro-slavery settlers failed to deter the immigration of antislavery settlers, who won a demographic victory in the race to populate the state.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act divided the nation and pointed it toward civil war. It is commonly acknowledged as
the beginning of the antebellum period of American history. The act itself virtually nullified the Missouri
Compromise of 1820 and the Compromise of 1850. The turmoil over the act split both the Democratic and
Know Nothing parties and gave rise to the Republican Party, which split the United States into two major
political parties- North (Republican) and South (Democratic).
Eventually a new anti-slavery state constitution was drawn up. On January 29, 1861, Kansas was admitted to
the Union as a free state. Nebraska was admitted to the Union as a state after the Civil War in 1867.
Kansas-Nebraska Act
Kansas-Nebraska Act, bill that became law on May 30, 1854, by which the U.S. Congress established the
territories of Kansas and Nebraska. By 1854 the organization of the vast Platte and Kansas river countries W
of Iowa and Missouri was overdue. As an isolated issue territorial organization of this area was no problem. It
was, however, irrevocably bound to the bitter sectional controversy over the extension of slavery into the
territories and was further complicated by conflict over the location of the projected transcontinental railroad.
Under no circumstances did proslavery Congressmen want a free territory (Kansas) W of Missouri. Because
the West was expanding rapidly, territorial organization, despite these difficulties, could no longer be
postponed. Four attempts to organize a single territory for this area had already been defeated in Congress,
largely because of Southern opposition to the Missouri Compromise. Although the last of these attempts to
organize the area had nearly been successful, Stephen A. Douglas, chairman of the Senate Committee on
Territories, decided to offer territorial legislation making concessions to the South. Douglas's motives have
remained largely a matter of speculation. Various historians have emphasized Douglas's desire for the
Presidency, his wish to cement the bonds of the Democratic party, his interest in expansion and railroad
building, or his desire to activate the unimpressive Pierce administration.
The bill he reported in Jan., 1854, contained the provision that the question of slavery should be left to the
decision of the territorial settlers themselves. This was the famous principle that Douglas now called popular
sovereignty, though actually it had been enunciated four years earlier in the Compromise of 1850. In its final
form Douglas's bill provided for the creation of two new territories—Kansas and Nebraska—instead of one.
The obvious inference—at least to Missourians—was that the first would be slave, the second free. The
Kansas-Nebraska Act flatly contradicted the provisions of the Missouri Compromise (under which slavery
would have been barred from both territories); indeed, an amendment was added specifically repealing that
compromise. This aspect of the bill in particular enraged the antislavery forces, but after three months of bitter
debate in Congress, Douglas, backed by President Pierce and the Southerners, saw it adopted. Its effects
were anything but reassuring to those who had hoped for a peaceful solution.
The popular sovereignty provision caused both proslavery and antislavery forces to marshal strength and exert
full pressure to determine the “popular” decision in Kansas in their own favor, using groups such as the
Emigrant Aid Company. The result was the tragedy of “bleeding” Kansas. Northerners and Southerners were
aroused to such passions that sectional division reached a point that precluded reconciliation. A new political
organization, the Republican party, was founded by opponents of the bill, and the United States was propelled
toward the Civil War.
Readings on the Dred Scott Supreme Court Decision
Along with controversies over whether or not new states and territories would allow slavery, the 1850s also
saw the Supreme Court give one of its most controversial rulings ever in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case. Dred
Scott was a slave owned by a military surgeon in Missouri (a slave state). This surgeon then moved himself
and Dred Scott to Illinois (a free state). A few years later the surgeon and Scott and his family returned to
Missouri. The surgeon then sold Scott and his family to John Sandford. Upon being sold, Dred Scott sued his
new owner for false imprisonment and assault. The questions were: Was Dred Scott free because he lived in a
free state? and Could he sue his owner?
THE DRED SCOTT CASE
APRIL TERM, 1854
Dred Scott, Plaintiff in error, v. John F. A. Sandford.
Dred Scott sued his owner, John F. A. Sanford on three counts of assault. One count against Dred Scott, one
against his wife, and one against his children.
The merits of the suit against Mr. Sanford rested on the premise that because of the Missouri Compromise,
Dred Scott became a free man when he was brought into the state of Illinois, thus his "owner" had no right to
assault him in that he was a free man and citizen.
But, the Court declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional because it deprived a person of his
or her property; a slave, without due process of law. The court also ruled that slaves were not citizens of any
state nor of the United States.
The counsel then filed the following agreed statement of facts, viz:
In the year 1834, the plaintiff was a negro slave belonging to Dr. Emerson, who was a surgeon in the army of
the United States. In that year, 1834, said Dr. Emerson took the plaintiff from the State of Missouri to the
military post at Rock Island, in the State of Illinois, and held him there as a slave until the month of April or
May, 1836. At the time last mentioned, said Dr. Emerson removed the plaintiff from said military post at Rock
Island to the military post at Fort Snelling, situate on the west bank of the Mississippi river, in the Territory
known as Upper Louisiana, acquired by the United States of France, and situate north of the latitude of thirtysix degrees thirty minutes north, and north of the State of Missouri. Said Dr. Emerson held the plaintiff in
slavery at said Fort Snelling, from said last-mentioned date until the year 1838.
In the year 1835, Harriet, who is named in the second count of the plaintiff's declaration, was the negro slave
of Major Taliaferro, who belonged to the army of the United States. In that year, 1835, said Major Taliaferro
took said Harriet to said Fort Snelling, a military post, situated as hereinbefore stated, and kept her there as a
slave until the year 1836, and then sold and delivered her as a slave at said Fort Snelling unto the said Dr.
Emerson hereinbefore named. Said Dr. Emerson held said Harriet in slavery at said Fort Snelling until the year
1838.
In the year 1836, the plaintiff and said Harriet at said Fort Snelling, with the consent of said Dr. Emerson, who
then claimed to be their master and owner, intermarried, and took each other for husband and wife. Eliza and
Lizzie, named in the third count of the plaintiff's declaration, are the fruit of that marriage [Ed.'s italics]. Eliza is
about fourteen years old, and was born on board the steamboat Gipsey, north of the north line of the State of
Missouri, and upon the river Mississippi. Lizzie is about seven years old, and was born in the State of Missouri,
at the military post called Jefferson Barracks.
In the year 1838, said Dr. Emerson removed the plaintiff and said Harriet and their said daughter Eliza, from
said Fort Snelling to the State of Missouri, where they have ever since resided.
Before the commencement of this suit, said Dr. Emerson sold and conveyed the plaintiff, said Harriet, Eliza,
and Lizzie, to the defendant, as slaves, and the defendant has ever since claimed to hold them and each of
them as slaves. At the times mentioned in the Plaintiff's declaration, the defendant, claiming to be owner as
aforesaid, laid his hands upon said plaintiff, Harriet, Eliza, and Lizzie, and imprisoned them, doing in this
respect, however, no more than what he might lawfully do if they were of right his slaves at such times [Ed.'s
italics].
The Verdict
The verdict was that Scott, or any slave, was not free by virtue of residence in a free state or territory, and
since Scott was living in Missouri, his status must ultimately be determined in a court there. The verdict also
stated that Negroes were not "citizens" as stated in the Constitution, and did not have the right to sue in any
federal court. When it was decided that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, it was on the grounds
that slaves were property, and prohibiting slavery in free territories would violate a slave owner's right to own
property.