Why didn't the Compromise of 1850 allow slavery in the Utah Territory?
441917
it was up to popular sovernty, if the majority wanted slavery then there would be. They voted and decided not to allow slavery in the utah territory.
205921
The Fugitive Slave Act was part of the Compromise of 1850 and said that if a slave from the south escaped to the north, the northern people would have to return it. People in the north didn't like this law (or slavery) so they often disobeyed it. It also caused the Underground Railroad to change its route to Canada so the escaping slaves wouldn't be returned.
657768
Yes, you can move and start a sheep farm in Utah. Under federal multiple spouses is illegal however, there is a splinter group of the Mormon Church that does it(wives only  i think) still.Research it and see if you can join. Peace.
586845
False. Civil War was not WITHIN Kansas, and the Missouri Compromise is more directly to blame for setting the stage for the Civil War.\n\nYou'd better do some research to back that up before you use it on your homework.
646952
Some historians have said that the Southern states missed their best chance to win their independence by not seceding in 1850, when the North was less prepared to deal with a crisis of that magnitude.  By waiting until 1861 to try to leave the Union, the Southern states gave the North too much time to grow stronger, and their defeat was almost inevitable.
317777
kentucky was a slave state but it did not succede to the south in the civil war
235055
If it is the US civil war, indeed slavery was one reason, but tensions between Northern and Southern politicians is another problem as they couldn't effectively compromise over how to deal with slavery and 1850 Compromise, Missouri Compromise etcetra were not effective. Also, Lincoln's election as President is a cause as well as he was suspected to be against slavery as he was a Republican:  as the Southern states succeeded in response to Lincoln's election, the North wanted the South to return = war. Also, arguments over who owned Fort Sumter is another cause. Other causes such as the break down of the two party system can be also claimed to have caused the civil war.
460712
Even though I live in the south, I would have been on the Union side.  I don't believe one person can "own and sell" another person.
429703
It was one of the contributory causes. The North wanted to weaken the institution while the South wanted to preserve it. The South believed that President Lincoln intended to end it contributing to secession. \n\nLincoln initially declared his purpose to be the preservation of the Union, not emancipation. He had no wish to alienate the thousands of slaveholders in the Union border states, some of whom stayed loyal. The long war radicalised the Governments policy. With the Emancipation Proclamation, announced in September 1862 and put into effect four months later, Lincoln adopted the abolition of the Slave Power as a second mission—that is slaves owned by rebels had to be taken away from them and freed.
136302
In fact, based in part on the efforts of these Founders, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts abolished slavery in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island did so in 1784; New Hampshire in 1792; Vermont in 1793; New York in 1799; and New Jersey in 1804. Furthermore, the reason that the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery was a federal act authored by Rufus King (signer of the Constitution) and signed into law by President George Washington which prohibited slavery in those territories.\n\nIt is not surprising that Washington would sign such a law, for it was he who had declared:\n\n\n"I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery]."\n      -George Washington
1027381
The soldiers of the North believed they were fighting to preserve the Union (which represented the whole of the United States as it existed at the time).  The soldiers of the South were fighting for the right of secession, and the freedom of self-determination, as they felt that the Federal Government had become to powerful and was over-stepping it's consitutional limits.  \n\nIn specific, the war was not originally over slavery, but over whether or not a man had the right to own property that he could do with as he chose without government interference.  Ever hear of a zoning ordinance?  They did not exist in the South before the Civil War - and the people of the South did not want them.  The reasoning is that if someone else can tell you how you can or can not use your property, then it is not yours - it's theirs, because (much like a king) THEY decide what is done with it.
923996
a pre civil war act that gave thwe citizens of kansas and nebraska the right to decide whether or not they wanted slavery in their state
133223
Slavery had little to do with the Civil War. The prime issue was balance of power between Federal and State. Slavery happened to be the issue that fell along this divide. Could also throw in north-south economic disparacy.
928410
According to the compromise, Texas would relinquish the land in dispute but, in compensation, be given 10 million dollars -- money it would use to pay off its debt to Mexico. Also, the territories of New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah would be organized without mention of slavery. (The decision would be made by the territories' inhabitants later, when they applied for statehood.) Regarding Washington, the slave trade would be abolished in the District of Columbia, although slavery would still be permitted. Finally, California would be admitted as a free state. To pacify slave-state politicians, who would have objected to the imbalance created by adding another free state, the Fugitive Slave Act was passed.\n\nOf all the bills that made up the Compromise of 1850, the Fugitive Slave Act was the most controversial. It required citizens to assist in the recovery of fugitive slaves. It denied a fugitive's right to a jury trial. (Cases would instead be handled by special commisioners -- commisioners who would be paid $5 if an alleged fugitive were released and $10 if he or she were sent away with the claimant.) The act called for changes in filing for a claim, making the process easier for slaveowners. Also, according to the act, there would be more federal officials responsible for enforcing the law.\n\nFor slaves attempting to build lives in the North, the new law was disaster. Many left their homes and fled to Canada. During the next ten years, an estimated 20,000 blacks moved to the neighboring country. For Harriet Jacobs, a fugitive living in New York, passage of the law was "the beginning of a reign of terror to the colored population." She stayed put, even after learning that slave catchers were hired to track her down. Anthony Burns, a fugitive living in Boston, was one of many who were captured and returned to slavery. Free blacks, too, were captured and sent to the South. With no legal right to plead their cases, they were completely defenseless.\n\nPassage of the Fugitive Slave Act made abolitionists all the more resolved to put an end to slavery. The Underground Railroad became more active, reaching its peak between 1850 and 1860. The act also brought the subject of slavery before the nation. Many who had previously been ambivalent about slavery now took a definitive stance against the institution. \n\nThe Compromise of 1850 accomplished what it set out to do -- it kept the nation united -- but the solution was only temporary. Over the following decade the country's citizens became further divided over the issue of slavery. The rift would continue to grow until the nation itself divided.
143610
U.S. "legalized" slavery may have ended in 1861, but please do not let us fool ourselves -- slavery, in many forms, still exists today . . . and I'm not talking "slave to my job" kind either.    :-(
1109324
It was a struggle between a strong central government vs a strong state government. States' Rights. Lincoln was afraid that if the South seceded from the Union, as a divided country, we would be open to invasion and take over by foreign nations. "United we stand; divided we fall,"  he said. So he wanted a Strong central government to keep a degree of unity and to keep us strong.\n\nDavis, on the other hand, had to argue that the power of government should remain basically in the hands of the states who were sovereign and who could overrule the federal government. That is how he justified slavery, namely, that slavery or no slavery was the job of each state to decide and not the federal government.\n\nLincoln won that debate via a Civil War, the argument still rages today--whether the states should have equal or more power than the federal government.\n\nI hope this helps.
48705
It was mostly political, the abolition movement was very strong in the north, and obviouslty opposed in the south being it powered their mostly agricultural society...(there weren't a lot of farm Machines back then). Political force threatened to divide the country. Lincoln didn't want the country to divide the country on his watch...(wouldn't have looked too good in the history books). The abolition movement would never have lost steam, the industrial north had the upper hand so reasonably Lincoln sided with the north...that's just a practical view....But he also had a personal reasons for choosing the ending of slavery.