Which option most accurately summarizes the conflicting perspectives that erupted into the conflict known as “Bleeding Kansas”?
Proslavery advocates believed slave owners had a right to transport slaves into the territories; antislavery advocates argued that this gave slaveholding settlers an unfair advantage over non-slaveholding settlers.
Proslavery advocates argued that the slave status of Kansas should be determined by popular vote; antislavery advocates argued that Kansas should be free because of its location north of the 36° 30' parallel.
Proslavery advocates contended that free African Americans in Kansas should not be permitted rights under the state constitution; antislavery advocates argued that the federal constitution took precedence over Kansas’s state constitution.
Proslavery advocates held that slavery in the state was legal, as established in the Missouri Compromise of 1820; antislavery advocates argued that this legislation was invalidated by the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Dred Scott case.
I think it is B
I am inclined to agree with you. It was the effort by both sides to get allies to move in and vote that resulted in chaos.
The correct option that most accurately summarizes the conflicting perspectives that erupted into the conflict known as "Bleeding Kansas" is:
Proslavery advocates argued that the slave status of Kansas should be determined by popular vote; antislavery advocates argued that Kansas should be free because of its location north of the 36° 30' parallel.
To determine the correct answer, let's examine the conflicting perspectives that led to the conflict known as "Bleeding Kansas" mentioned in each option:
Option A: Proslavery advocates believed slave owners had a right to transport slaves into the territories, while antislavery advocates argued that this gave slaveholding settlers an unfair advantage over non-slaveholding settlers.
Option B: Proslavery advocates argued that the slave status of Kansas should be determined by popular vote, while antislavery advocates argued that Kansas should be free because of its location north of the 36° 30' parallel.
Option C: Proslavery advocates contended that free African Americans in Kansas should not be permitted rights under the state constitution, while antislavery advocates argued that the federal constitution took precedence over Kansas's state constitution.
Option D: Proslavery advocates held that slavery in the state was legal, as established in the Missouri Compromise of 1820, while antislavery advocates argued that this legislation was invalidated by the Supreme Court's ruling on the Dred Scott case.
Based on the provided descriptions, the option that most accurately summarizes the conflicting perspectives that erupted into the conflict of "Bleeding Kansas" is Option D. This is because proslavery advocates believed that slavery in Kansas was legal, as established in the Missouri Compromise of 1820, but antislavery advocates argued that this legislation was invalidated by the Supreme Court's ruling on the Dred Scott case. These conflicting perspectives regarding the legitimacy of slavery in Kansas were among the primary causes of the violent conflicts that ensued.