The lawyers that would go around looking for the fugitive slaves would get more money when they had there court case if they were a slave then a free black man, therefore they would make majority of them slaves to get more money
The importance of the Fugitive Slave Act was because slaves kept running away from their masters and well they wanted them back. The Fugitive slave act was that you could bring back your slaves no matter where they are. Some Northern states declared the Personal Liberty Laws which meant that there would be a trial that would declare if a slave could be moved. The Missouri Supreme Court voluntarily transported the slaves to free states and that automatically made them free slaves. To make it simple, the Fugitive Slave Act dealt with slaves who ran away without their master's consent. Hope that helped! If it didn't then just go on Google or something. :)
your question does not make sense so do you mean who was the slave who tried to sue "something" for his freedom?
the former slave owners were usually wealthy Greeks so they didn't try to make the slaves lives harder but they tried to make their lives easy.
mostly whipping them
It was because they had an even number of slave and free states. If Missouri came in as a slave state then it would make it uneven.
It was because they had an even number of slave and free states. If Missouri came in as a slave state then it would make it uneven and it would upset the balance.
Under the Missouri Compromise of 1820 Missouri was admitted as a slave state and Maine as a free state.
well California was a part of mexico originally, around the time we were trying to become a state, the United states had an even number of slave/no slave states California wanted to enter in as a free(no slave) state. his caused an issue because it would obviously make the free side bigger and the slave states thought it would bring an end to slave states. Despite this after a lot of "debates" California was voted in, and because we entered as a free state we basically started the civil war, there were other factors but we were a big art in it.
It made the issue even more prevalent. People had the decision to make a state free or a slave state.
This vast territory extended so far on either side of the Missouri line that a new Compromise had to be worked out. To get California admitted as free soil, Congress had to make special concessions to the South, of which the most controversial was the Fugitive Slave Act, where official slave-catchers were appointed, to hunt down runaways. This raised the temperature of the debate, and certainly hastened the onset of civil war.
Under the terms of the Act, two territories were to be formed, Kansas and Nebraska. One would presumably become a slave state and the other a free state. Popular sovereignty would prevail and it was assumed that slave-owning Southerners would occupy Kansas and make it a slave state, while free state advocates would settle Nebraska. Things worked out as anticipated in Nebraska, but not in Kansas. Kansas was a Free State.
To keep the balance between slave and free states equal. Missouri wanted to join the Union as a slave state, which made the anti-slavery activists angry. So, they decided to make Maine a free state as well so there would be an equal number.
Yes, Texas as a Republc, as a US State, and as a Confederate state was a slave state. Mexico had abolished slavery in 1826 and if a Texas slave could make it across the river they were free to become colonists in Mexico.
Because the North didn't want slaves, but the south did, so the supreme court was trying to figure out whether the should make California a slave state or a free slave state.
Yes. That's why they had to make a special gesture to appease the South, in strengthening the Fugitive Slave Act.
Dred Scott sued his slaveholder because he was treating him as a slave even though they had lived in a non slaveholding state ... [Scott and his slaveholder had moved from Missouri, a slave state, to Illinois, a free state, and back to Missouri.] The Supreme Court ruled (1856) that Scott's residence in a free state did not make him a free person. This decision gave further impetus to the abolitionist movement, in that it suggested that laws against slavery would be held to be invalid, and was one of the causes of the civil war.