The Gadsden Purchase
The Gadsden Purchase was one of the most curious real estate deals in which Uncle Sam has ever taken part.
James Gadsden (1788-1858), whose name the purchase bears, was a grandson of Christopher Gadsden (17241805), a South Carolina Revolutionary soldier and statesman who was captured by the British at Charleston and
confined as a prisoner for ten months at St. Augustine. James Gadsden soldiered for several years under General
Andrew Jackson and it was he who seized the papers that led to the trial and execution of Robert C. Ambister
and Alexander Arbuthnot in Florida in 1818, an incident that strained British-American diplomatic relations
almost to the breaking point.
Gadsden was appointed by President Monroe as the commissioner in charge of placing the Seminole Indians on
reservations. While living as a painter in Florida, he championed nullification and lost the patronage of
President Jackson. He had long been interested in promoting railroads and upon his return to South Carolina in
1839 was chosen president of the South Carolina Railroad Company. His pet dream was to knit all Southern
railroads into one system and then to connect it with a Southern transcontinental railroad to the Pacific, to make
the West commercially dependent on the South instead of the North.
After engineers advised Gadsden that the most direct and practicable route for the Southern transcontinental
railroad would be south of the United States boundary, he made plans to have the Federal Government acquire
title to the necessary territory from Mexico. Through his friend and fellow empire dreamer, Secretary of War
Jefferson Davis. Gadsden was appointed U.S. Minister to Mexico by President Franklin Pierce with instructions
of his own design to buy from Mexico enough territory for a railroad to the Gulf of California.
It was a perfect setup. By the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, signed February 2, 1848, at the close of the Mexican
War, the Republic of Mexico was compelled to abandon its claim to Texas and to cede to the United States the
territory now comprising most of New Mexico, Arizona, California, Colorado, Utah and Nevada. The territory
ceded to the United States by Mexico constituted about 200,000 square miles or two-fifths of all her territory.
In return for this vast territory, the United States gave $15,000,000 and assumed responsibility for paying
$3,000,000 in claims of American citizens against the Mexican Government. A large body of public opinion in
the United States had opposed the war against Mexico and felt that the Southern republic had been treated
badly. The territory desired by Gadsden and his group was then a sort of no man's land, experiencing frequent
Indian raids. The United States wanted to make certain "boundary adjustments"; Mexico needed money and
wanted a settlement of her Indian claims against the United States; and Gadsden and his friends wanted a route
for their railroad. In 1852 Gadsden agreed to pay Santa Anna $10,000,000 for a strip of territory south of the
Gila River and lying in what is now southwestern New Mexico and southern Arizona.
Many Americans were not especially proud of the Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty and considered the price of the
Gadsden Purchase as "conscience money." The Gadsden Purchase has an area of 45,535 square miles and is
almost as large as Pennsylvania. This tract of nearly 30,000,000 acres cost Uncle Sam about thirty-three cents
an acre.
The deal was so unpopular in Mexico that Santa Anna was unseated as dictator and banished. Gadsden was
recalled as Minister to Mexico for mixing in Mexican politics and domestic affairs and did not live to see the
Southern Pacific Railroad built through his purchase. When the inhabitants of Arizona asked Congress for a
Territorial government in 1854, one of the names suggested for the new Territory was Gadsonia, a Latin
adaptation of the surname of James Gadsden.
Directions: In short-answer format (one or two organized paragraphs); describe how the Gadsden Purchase
addresses the idea of Manifest Destiny?
The Compromises of the Civil War
Directions:
 Work Cooperatively
 Respond to the questions from each station
 Tie it altogether
Station 1 - The Missouri Compromise
Document 1
Today a gentleman from Virginia, Judge Nelson, read an extract of a letter from the sage of the
Mountain, as he called Mr. Jefferson, the mention of whose name by the speaker riveted all eyes
on him—all was hushed, all anxious to hear—“The Missouri question is the most portentous
(important) one which ever yet threatened our Union—in the gloomiest moment of the
Revolutionary War, I never had any apprehension equal to that I feel from this source.”
“Such is the warning voice of Jefferson,” [Nelson said.] “It added much to my fears, having
always entertained apprehensions of the tranquility of the states being interrupted in the
agitation of this question.”
Document 2
With the purchase of the Louisiana Territory and the application of Missouri for statehood, the
long-standing balance between the number of slave states and the number of free states would
be changed. Controversy arose within Congress over the issue of slavery.
Congress adopted this legislation and admitted Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a nonslave state at the same time, so that the balance between slave and free states in the nation
would remain equal. The Missouri compromise also proposed that slavery be prohibited above
the 36º 30´ latitude line in the remainder of the Louisiana Territory. This provision held for 34
years, until it was repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.
Document 3
Document 4
Document 5
The Missouri Compromise: "A Balance of Power" March 3, 1820
The institution of slavery had been a divisive issue in the United States for decades before the
territory of Missouri petitioned Congress for admission to the Union as a state in 1818. Since
the Revolution, the country had grown from 13 states to 22 and had managed to maintain a
balance of power between slave and free states. There were 11 free states and 11 slave states, a
situation that gave each faction equal representation in the Senate and the power to prevent the
passage of legislation not to its liking. The free states, with their much larger populations,
controlled the House of Representatives, 105 votes to 81.
In February 1819, New York Representative James Tallmadge proposed an amendment to ban
slavery in Missouri even though there were more than 2,000 slaves living there. The country
was again confronted with the volatile issue of the spread of slavery into new territories and
states. The cry against the South's "peculiar institution" had grown louder through the years.
"How long will the desire for wealth render us blind to the sin of holding both the bodies and
souls of our fellow men in chains?" Asked Representative Livermore from New Hampshire.
Tallmadge Amendments - Representative James Tallmadge, Jr., of New York offered two
amendments to the Missouri statehood bill on Feb. 13, 1819. The first prohibited any further
importation of slaves into Missouri; the second required gradual emancipation for the slaves
already there. The House passed his amendments, along strictly regional voting lines, but the
Senate, where representation of free and slaveholding states were balanced, rejected it.
The South's economy was dependent upon black slavery, and 200 years of living with the
institution had made it an integral part of Southern life and culture. The South demanded that
the North recognize its right to have slaves as secured in the Constitution.
Through the efforts of Henry Clay, "the great pacificator," a compromise was finally reached on
March 3, 1820, after Maine petitioned Congress for statehood. Both states were admitted, a free
Maine and a slave Missouri, and the balance of power in Congress was maintained as before,
postponing the inevitable showdown for another generation. In an attempt to address the issue
of the further spread of slavery, however, the Missouri Compromise stipulated that all the
Louisiana Purchase territory north of the southern boundary of Missouri, except Missouri,
would be free, and the territory below that line would be slave.
Document 6
Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Holmes on April 22, 1820:
“I thank you, Dear Sir, for the copy you have been so kind as to send me of the letter to your
constituents on the Missouri question. It is a perfect justification to them. I had for a long time
ceased to read the newspapers or pay any attention to public affairs, confident they were in good
hands, and content to be a passenger in our bark to the shore from which I am not distant. But
this momentous question, like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I
considered it at once as the knell of the Union. It is hushed indeed for the moment. But this is a
reprieve only, not a final sentence. A geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle,
moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be
obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper.”
Name: __________________
Period: ____
Station One
The Missouri Compromise
1.) How would you characterize Jefferson’s interpretation of the signing of the Missouri Compromise?
2.) Identify and describe the role that Henry Clay
3.) What were the principal goals of the Missouri Compromise? Did it accomplish those goals?
Station Two - The Compromise of 1850
Document 1
Henry Clay, U.S. senator from Kentucky, was determined to find a solution. In 1820 he had resolved a fiery
debate over the spread of slavery with his Missouri Compromise. Now, thirty years later, the matter surfaced
again within the walls of the Capitol. But this time the stakes were higher -- nothing less than keeping the Union
together.
There were several points at issue:

The United States had recently acquired a vast territory -- the result of its war with Mexico. Should the
territory allow slavery, or should it be declared free? Or maybe the inhabitants should be allowed to
choose for themselves?

California -- a territory that had grown tremendously with the gold rush of 1849, had recently petitioned
Congress to enter the Union as a free state. Should this be allowed? Ever since the Missouri
Compromise, the balance between slave states and free states had been maintained; any proposal that
threatened this balance would almost certainly not win approval.

There was a dispute over land: Texas claimed that its territory extended all the way to Santa Fe.

Finally, there was Washington, D.C. Not only did the nation's capital allow slavery, it was home to the
largest slave market in North America.
On January 29, 1850, the 70-year-old Clay presented a compromise. For eight months members of Congress,
led by Clay, Daniel Webster, Senator from Massachusetts, and John C. Calhoun, senator from South Carolina,
debated the compromise. With the help of Stephen Douglas, a young Democrat from Illinois, a series of bills
that would make up the compromise were ushered through Congress.
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.
Of 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 commissioners -- commissioners 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.
For 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.
Passage 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.
Document 2
Document 3
North Gets
South Gets
California admitted as a free state
No slavery restrictions in Utah or New Mexico
territories
Slave trade prohibited in Washington D.C.
Slaveholding permitted in Washington D.C.
Texas loses boundary dispute with New
Mexico
Texas gets $10 million
Fugitive Slave Law
Document 4
The Fugitive Slave Act was part of the group of laws referred to as the "Compromise of 1850." In this
compromise, the antislavery advocates gained the admission of California as a free state, and the prohibition of
slave-trading in the District of Columbia. The slavery party received concessions with regard to slaveholding in
Texas and the passage of this law. Passage of this law was so hated by abolitionists, however, that its existence
played a role in the end of slavery a little more than a dozen years later. This law also spurred the continued
operation of the fabled Undergound Railroad, a network of over 3,000 homes and other "stations" that helped
escaping slaves travel from the southern slave-holding states to the northern states and Canada.
Document 5
The federal Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 required residents in free states to aid legal authorities in apprehending
runaway slaves. Those who assisted escaping slaves faced a $1000 fine (an enormous sum at that time), six
months in jail and possible charges of treason for defying the law.
The Fugitive Slave Law also established a separate judicial system to process accused fugitive slaves. Ignoring
ordinary legal rules and procedures, the system favored slave owners, leaving every free or enslaved African
American without basic Constitutional rights. This total denial of freedom and legal protection enraged
Northern whites, even those without firm antislavery convictions.
Abolitionists and ordinary citizens organized committees, raised funds, assisted the Underground Railroad and
rebelled against the government to rescue and protect accused African Americans. Attorneys tried using the
legal system, but only defiance of the law and the legendary Underground Railroad offered effective means of
gaining justice.
Document 6
Name: __________________
Period: ____
Station Two
The Compromise of 1850
1.) Identify and Describe at least two reasons why the Compromise of 1850 was necessary
2.) Think outside of the box‼! Considering the ramifications of the Fugitive Slave Act, how might a free
black in the North respond to this new law?
3.) How did the Compromise of 1850 solve the balance of free and slave states?
4.) What did the Fugitive Slave Act require of law enforcement officers?
Station Three - The Kansas-Nebraska Act
Document 1
The Kansas-Nebraska act made it possible for the Kansas and Nebraska
territories (shown in orange) to open to slavery. The Missouri Compromise had
prevented this from happening since 1820.
Document 2
On May 30, 1854 the areas of Nebraska and Kansas were territories that wanted to become states. Only one
thing had to be decided. Would they be slave or free? Steven Douglas said it would be decided on by popular
sovereignty. That means the popular vote of people living in Kansas and Nebraska would decide. People from
antislavery and proslavery parties flocked to Kansas and Nebraska. Soon a series of battles called "Bloody
Kansas" would break out.
Kansas Fever
"Kansas Fever" was sweeping over the country. It was the mid 1850’s and people from the north and south were
flocking to Kansas. Steven Douglas simply swept away the Missouri Compromise with the Kansas-Nebraska
Act. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to keep slavery from expanding. Now in Douglas’ desire to be
President, slavery had the opportunity to expand now that people could vote on it.
When people from Missouri voted in Kansas, the proslavery party won control and Kansas was voted to become
a slave state. Soon Kansas asked Congress for Statehood. Congress refused because since Kansas was north of
Missouri it could not be a slave state. While the proslavery party was stunned, the antislavery party quickly took
control of Kansas. Now there was a worry. A lot of antislavery people had moved to a party call the Democratic
Party. Now they might be denied Statehood. When they requested Statehood, Congress agreed and Kansas and
Nebraska both became free states.
Bloody Kansas
While this political battle was happening, a real battle was being fought. The antislavery party was fighting for
control of Kansas, so they could vote for it to become a free state. Led by John Brown, the Antislavery Army
wiped out the proslavery troops. One very famous battle was the Pottawatomie Massacre. John Brown and his
men killed 5 settlers at the Pottawatomie River. This act was part of "Bloody Kansas."
In Steven Douglas’ mad desire for Presidency the entire nation went mad over Kansas. Steven Douglas’
thoughts were all based around becoming the President, and he forgot how mad people in the north were at the
south and how much the south hated the north. He didn’t stop and think what would happen if he angered the
two, the answer was a Civil War.
As the Kansas-Nebraska Act ended the peace created by the Missouri Compromise, antislavery and proslavery
supporters fought and fought over whether Kansas would be a slave state or a free state. The Kansas-Nebraska
Act caused the Civil War, partly, while it also caused a war of its own called "Bloody Kansas." As soon as it
was over, Kansas and Nebraska both became free states.
Document 3
The Kansas – Nebraska Act repealed the Missouri Compromise, which had outlawed slavery above the 36º 30'
latitude in the Louisiana territories and reopened the national struggle over slavery in the western territories.
In January 1854, Senator Stephen Douglas introduced a bill that divided the land west of Missouri into two
territories, Kansas and Nebraska. He argued for popular sovereignty, which would allow the settlers of the new
territories to decide if slavery would be legal there. Antislavery supporters were outraged because, under the
terms of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, slavery would have been outlawed in both territories.
After months of debate, the Kansas-Nebraska Act passed on May 30, 1854. Pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers
rushed to Kansas, each side hoping to determine the results of the first election held after the law went into
effect. The conflict turned violent, aggravating the split between North and South until reconciliation was
virtually impossible.
Opponents of the Kansas-Nebraska Act helped found the Republican Party, which opposed the spread of
slavery into the territories.
Document 4
The Kansas ‐ Nebraska Act stated that states joining the union could decide on slavery based on a vote
by the people, this is called popular sovereignty. It also repealed the Missouri Compromise by allowing
slavery north of the 36’30’ latitude that had previously been outlawed to allow slavery. On Election Day
the proslavery settlers won by a huge margin. However, those who were anti‐slavery claimed that slave
supporters from Missouri voted illegally. A pro slave mob entered into Lawrenceburg, Kansas to arrest
anti‐slave leaders, burned a hotel, and wrecked much of the town. Abolitionist leader John Brown was
outraged by the events and led an armed band of followers to retaliate in Kansas. The conflict became
known as “Bleeding Kansas” as 200 people had died and it became apparent that the time for
compromise was over.
Name: __________________
Period: ____
Station Three
The Kansas – Nebraska Act
1.) How did the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 attempt to reduce the growing sectionalism of the American union
over the slavery controversy?
2.) Why did this act cause conflict between the Northern and Southern States?
“Be a Gamer”
Topic: The Civil War
Background Information: For this particular activity, you will be able to utilize your “mad” art skills, your creativity,
your imagination, and maybe find a future career as a Video Game Designer.
Task: Working cooperatively, your group will develop a storyboard incorporating the key events of the Civil War
(template for your video game).





Must include at least five key events per level.
Must include at least three levels – may be based on skill level or game progression. e.g. Prove
victorious during the first level, the player may move on to the next level and next series of key events.
Include at last six clearly defined characters
Include a one-paragraph summary for each key event and character, which describes the impact of the
event and the character during the war and your game.
Utilizing either iWorks or PowerPoint, present your storyboard. During this part of the activity, the
classroom will assume the role as the Board of Directors (key personnel of gaming company that may
be interested in developing your game for production.
Closure: Summarizing what you learned

Independently, each student will write a one-page summary of what you learned regarding the Civil
War.
 Emphasize the “who, what, where, and why”
Hypothetical – Write a one-page hypothesis answering the following question: Imagine for a moment that the game you
developed could alter time, what might the United States look like if the South won the war?
John Brown: Martyr or Terrorist
Small Group Reading Activity
Reading #1
John Brown and the Pottawatomie Killings
On the night of May 24, 1856, John Brown and his company of Free State volunteers murdered five men
settled along the Pottawatomie Creek in southeastern Kansas. The victims were prominently associated with the
pro-slavery Law and Order Party, but were not themselves slave owners. This assault occurred three days after
Border Ruffians from Missouri burned and pillaged the anti-slavery haven of Lawrence, and two days after
Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner was severely beaten by Senator Preston Brooks of South Carolina. The
action on the 24th occurred at three different houses:
At the Doyle farm, James and two of his sons, William and Drury, were dragged outside and hacked up with
short, heavy sabres donated to Brown in Akron, Ohio. Mrs. Doyle, a daughter, and fourteen year old John were
spared. The gang then moved on to Allen Wilkinson's place. He was 'taken prisoner' amid the cries of a sick
wife and two children. Two saddles and a rifle were apparently confiscated. The third house visited that night
was owned by James Harris. In addition to his wife and young child, Harris had three other men sleeping there.
Only one of them, William Sherman, was executed. Weapons, a saddle, and a horse were confiscated from the
house. While members of the rifle company, including four of Brown's sons, asserted that their Captain did not
commit any of the actual murders himself, he was the undisputed leader and made the decisions as to who
should be spared.
The combination of the fall of Lawrence and the Pottawatomie killings caused southeastern Kansas to erupt into
guerilla warfare. Raiders from Missouri terrorized the Free Soilers, while roving gangs of Free State volunteers
inflicted similar violence upon their pro-slavery neighbors. While neither John Brown nor any members of his
company were apprehended for their involvement at Pottawatomie, his two eldest sons-- who were with their
own rifle company near Lawrence at the time of the murders-- were seized by mobs and nearly lynched. Jason
Brown was released relatively quickly, but John Jr. was imprisoned until September. The recent events had also
triggered a temporary insanity, from which he did not recover until after his release.
Reading # 2
John Brown's plan seemed fairly straightforward: he and his men would establish a base in the Blue Ridge
Mountains from which they would assist runaway slaves and launch attacks on slaveholders. At least that was
the plan that the militant abolitionist had described to potential funders in 1857. But his plans would change. He
had been ready in 1858 to launch his war -- he had both the men and the money to proceed. Brown was asked to
postpone the launch, though, because one of his followers had threatened to reveal the plan -- a threat that the
blackmailer did follow through on. So Brown agreed to go into hiding.
The following summer, after a one-year delay, Brown was eager to get underway. He rented a farm in
Maryland, across the Potomac River from Harpers Ferry. Here he assembled his arms and waited for his "army"
to arrive.
The delay had an adverse effect on Brown's plan. Many of the men he had recruited the previous year had
changed their minds, moved away, or simply didn't think the plan would work. Even Henry Highland Garnet,
the radical abolitionist who advocated insurrection, didn't have faith in the plan, believing that slaves were
unprepared. Brown also met with Frederick Douglass in August of 1859, when Brown told his friend of his
intentions of seizing the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry rather than staging guerilla warfare from the
mountains. Attacking the arsenal was in effect attacking the federal government and, in Douglass' estimation, a
grave mistake. "You're walking into a perfect steel-trap," he said to Brown, "and you will never get out alive."
On October 16, Brown set out for Harpers Ferry with 21 men -- 5 blacks, including Dangerfield Newby, who
hoped to rescue his wife who was still a slave, and 16 whites, two of whom were Brown's sons. Leaving after
sundown, the men crossed the Potomac, then walked all night in heavy rain, reaching the town at 4am. They cut
telegraph wires, then made their assault. First they captured the federal armory and arsernal. They then captured
Hall's Rifle Works, a supplier of weapons to the government. Brown and his men rounded up 60 prominent
citizens of the town and held them as hostages, hoping that their slaves would join the fight. No slaves came
forth.
The local militia pinned Brown and his men down. Under a white flag, one of Brown's sons was sent out to
negotiate with the citizens. He was shot and killed. News of the insurrection, relayed by the conductor of an
express train heading to Baltimore, reached President Buchanan. Marines and soldiers went dispatched, under
the leadership of then Colonel Robert E. Lee. By the time they arrived, eight of Brown's 22-man army had
already been killed. Lee's men moved in and quickly ended the insurrection. In the end, ten of Brown's men
were killed (including two blacks and both of his sons), seven were captured (two of these later), and five had
escaped.
Brown, who was seriously wounded, was taken to Charlestown, Virginia (now Charles Town, West Virginia),
along with the other captives. There they were quickly tried, sentenced, then executed. John Brown's statements
during his trial reached the nation, inspiring many with his righteous indignation toward slavery. The raid
ultimately hastened the advent of the Civil War.
Directions: Working cooperatively, respond and present on the following question: Was John Brown a
Martyr or a Terrorist?