Actually, the last plan to 'save the Union' was offered by the Indiana congressional delegation after the secession of South Carolina. The idea was that Popular Sovereignty would be allowed in all territories if the South would concede to some even minimal hearing process to determine if persons seized under the Fugitive Slave Act were in fact fugitive slaves (the accused had NO rights once the petition was filed and the person seized). This only made the South even angrier!
2006-12-28 09:28:53
·
answer #1
·
answered by sdvwallingford 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
ay....there was no absolute last plan to save the union by guaranteeing slavery in the territories. There was a Missouri Compromise, which stated that pretty much all of the Louisiana Purchase would not have slavery, except for what was left that was South of Missouri, but that was in 1820, 41 years before the Civil War broke out. There was the Compromise of 1850, which had popular sovereignty (let the people there choose) for the Utah and New Mexico territories, but that didn't guarantee slavery. Nor did the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which extended popular sovereignty to those two territories (in violation of the Missouri Compromise, no less).
Perhaps you are looking for the Crittenden Compromise, which was proposed in 1861 after seven southern states had seceded, and guaranteed a constitutional amendment protecting slavery where it existed already and extending that 36'30 line of the Missouri Compromise across the continent to the Pacific, thus guaranteeing more slave states. This however did not pass the Congress.
So I think that's what the question is asking for, the Crittenden Compromise.
2006-12-28 10:18:56
·
answer #2
·
answered by mr_ljdavid 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
I am pretty sure it is the Missouri Compromise. Slavery was permitted in Missouri but prohibited in the western territories above a certain line.
That was supposed to save the Union but only lasted for 40 years till the Civil War.
2006-12-28 10:09:28
·
answer #3
·
answered by chris B 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
well im not sure exactly what you are asking...the emancipation proclamation as far as i know because in it Lincoln abolished slavery in the confederacy only this was to save the Union which was split over slavery and nonslavery....
If you're talking about justifying slavery in general then it is the Dred Scott decision that said african american could not be citizens and that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. but that did nothing to preserve the UNION.
2006-12-28 09:30:20
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Research the US Supreme Court Dred Scott decision, about 1854.
2006-12-28 09:15:09
·
answer #5
·
answered by jack w 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Emancipation Proclimation.
2006-12-28 09:15:00
·
answer #6
·
answered by Alex T 1
·
0⤊
1⤋