History 151
Are a people ever justified in openly violating laws (like the Fugitive Slave Act) that they disapprove of and think immoral? What has been the fate of such laws in U.S. history? Should the majority always Rule I believe that if the law is so immoral that it causes harm you have an obligation to disobey. According to the law, it was the responsibility of the federal government to help owners recapture these runaway slaves, who were denied any legal means to try and fight their return to slavery. After the Fugitive Slave Law led to many conflicts between Northern abolitionists and Southern slave owners in the 1850s, the outbreak of the U.S. Civil War at the start of the next decade essentially rendered the law meaningless. Yes the majority always Rule When the U.S. Civil War began in 1861, the states in the North who claimed to be beholden to a higher law simply ignored the Fugitive Slave Law. They legally justified this response by claiming that since they were at war with the South, the fugitive slaves were part of the contraband of that war and need not be returned. All slaves gained their freedom at the conclusion of the war following passage of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. How did the war with mexico provoke a conflict over slavery many northerners believed that southerners wanted to take territory from Mexico in order to extend slavery. The United States had always been divided by sectionalism and slavery, but it steadily worsened in the years prior to the Civil War. The southern states began to not only use slavery, but try to expand it into the newly acquired territories a stricter Fugitive Slave Act, which forced northerners to accept and protect slavery. Any slave who escaped into the free territory could not be hidden or aided in any way, under penalty of law. This forced northern abolitionists to take a step back, allowing for the recapture of many southern slaves. The South was not willing to give up slavery, and the North was not