Definition of Bleeding Kansas

Definition of Bleeding Kansas Bleeding Kansas was a term coined to describe violent conflicts in the US territory of Kansas from 1854 to 1858. The violence was provoked when the residents of Kansas had to decide for themselves whether to become a slave state or a free state.The unrest in Kansas amounted to a civil conflict on a small scale, and was something of a premonition of the full-scale war Civil War that was split the nation less than a decade later. The outbreak of hostilities in Kansas was essentially a proxy war, with pro-slavery and anti-slavery sympathizers in the North and South sending manpower as well as weapons. As events unfolded, elections were decided by outsiders flooding into the territory, and two different territorial legislatures were established. The violence in Kansas became a subject of fascination, with reports often being carred in the newspapers of the day. It was the influential New York City editor, Horace Greeley, who was crediting with coining the term Bleeding Kansas. Some of the violence in Kansas was perpetrated by John Brown, a fanatical abolitionist who traveled, with his sons, to Kansas so they might slaughter pro-slavery settlers. Background of the Violence The atmosphere in the United States in the 1850s was tense, as the crisis over slavery became the most prominent issue of the day. The acquisition of new territories following the Mexican War led to the Compromise of 1850, which seemed to settle the question of which parts of the country would allow slavery. In 1853, when Congress turned its attention to the Kansas-Nebraska territory and how it would be organized into states to come into the Union.  The battle over slavery began again. Nebraska was far enough north that it would clearly be a free state, as required under the Missouri Compromise of 1820. The question was about Kansas: would it come into the Union as a free state or a slave state? An influential Democratic senator from Illinois, Stephen Douglas, proposed a solution he called popular sovereignty. Under his proposal, the residents of a territory would vote to decide if slavery would be legal. The legislation put forth by Douglas, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, would essentially overturn the Missouri Compromise and allow slavery in states where the citizens voted for it. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was immediately controversial. (For instance, in Illinois a lawyer who had given up on politics, Abraham Lincoln, was so offended by it that he resumed his political career.) With the decision in Kansas approaching, anti-slavery activists from northern states began flooding into the territory. Pro-slavery farmers from the South also began to arrive. The new arrivals began to make a difference in voting. In November 1854 an election to choose a territorial delegate to send to the U.S. Congress resulted in many illegal votes. The following spring an election to choose a territorial legislature resulted in Border Ruffians coming across the border from Missouri to ensure a decisive (if disputed) win for pro-slavery candidates. By August 1855 the anti-slavery people who had come into Kansas rejected the new state constitution, created what they called a free-state legislature, and created a free-state constitution known as the Topeka Constitution. In April 1856 the pro-slavery government in Kansas set up in its capital, Lecompton. The federal government, accepting the disputed election, considered the Lecompton legislature as the legitimate government of Kansas. Eruptions of Violence Tensions were high, and then on May 21, 1856, pro-slavery riders entered the free soil town of Lawrence, Kansas, and burned homes and businesses. To retaliate, John Brown and some of his followers dragged five pro-slavery men from their homes at Pottawatomie Creek, Kansas, and murdered them. The violence even reached the halls of Congress. After an abolitionist senator from Massachusetts, Charles Sumner, delivered a blistering speech denouncing slavery and those who supported it in Kansas, he was beaten nearly to death by a South Carolina congressman. A truce was finally worked out by a new territorial governor, though violence continued to flare until finally dying down in 1859. Significance of Bleeding Kansas It was estimated that the skirmishing in Kansas ultimately cost about 200 lives. While it was not a major war, it was important as it showed how the tensions of slavery could lead to violent conflict. And in a sense, Bleeding Kansas was a precursor to the Civil War, which would violently split the nation in 1861.

Examples of Faulty Parallelism in English Grammar

Examples of Faulty Parallelism in English Grammar Faulty parallelism is one of the major grammatical sins in the English language. When you come across faulty parallelism, it clangs off the ear, destroys written sentences, and muddies any intention the author may have had. The previous sentence is an example of correct parallelism, but more on that below. Faulty Parallelism   Faulty parallelism is a construction in which two or more parts of a sentence are equivalent in meaning but not grammatically similar in form. By contrast, proper parallelism  is the placement of equal ideas in words, phrases, or clauses of similar types, notes  Prentice Hall, an education materials and textbook publisher. Properly crafted sentences match nouns with nouns,  verbs  with verbs, and phrases or  clauses  with similarly-constructed phrases or clauses. This will ensure that your sentences read smoothly, that the reader hones in on your meaning, and that they are not distracted by inequal parts. Faulty Parallelism  Examples The best way to learn what faulty parallelism is  -   and how to correct it  -   is to focus on an example. The company offers special college training to help hourly employees move into professional careers like engineering management, software development, service technicians, and sales trainees. Notice the faulty comparison of occupations (engineering management and software development) to people (service technicians and sales trainees).  To  avoid faulty parallelism, make certain that each element in a  series  is similar in form and structure to all others in the same series, as this corrected sentence demonstrates: The company offers special college training to help hourly employees move into professional careers like  engineering management, software development, technical services, and  sales. Note that all of the items in the series  -   engineering management, software development, technical services, and  sales  -   are now all the same because they are all examples of occupations. Faulty Parallelism in Lists You can also find faulty parallelism in lists. Just as in a series in a sentence, all items in a list must be alike. The list below is an example of faulty parallelism. Read it and see if you can determine what is incorrect about the way the list is constructed. We defined our purpose.Who is our audience?What should we do?Discuss findings.Our conclusions.Finally, recommendations. Notice that in this list, some items are full sentences starting with a subject, such as we for item 1 and who for 2. Two items, 2 and 3, are questions, but item 4 is a short, declarative sentence. Items 5 and 6, by contrast, are sentence fragments. Now take a look at the next example, which shows the same list but with a ​correct parallel structure: Define purpose.Analyze audience.Determine methodology.Discuss findings.Draw conclusions.Make recommendations. Notice that in this corrected example, each item begins with a verb (Define, Analyze, and Determine) followed by an object (purpose, audience, and methodology). This makes the list much easier to read because it is comparing like things using equivalent grammatical structure and punctuation: verb, noun, and period. Proper Parallel Structure In the opening paragraph of this article, the second sentence employs parallel structure correctly. If it had not, the sentence might have read: When you come across faulty parallelism, it clangs off the ear, it destroys written sentences, and the writer didnt make her meaning clear. In this sentence, the first two items in the series are essentially mini-sentences with the same grammatical structure: a subject (it), and an object or predicate (clangs off the ear and destroys written sentences). The third item, while still a mini-sentence, offers a different subject (author) who is actively doing something (or not doing something). You can correct this by rewriting the sentence as it is listed in the opening paragraph, or you can reconstruct it so that it serves as the subject for all three phases: When you come across faulty parallelism, it clangs off the ear, it destroys written sentences, and it muddies any intention the author may have had. You now have equivalent parts in this series: clangs off the ear, destroys written sentences, and muddies any intention. The verb-object repeats three times. By using parallel structure, you are building a sentence that is balanced, displays perfect harmony, and serves as music to the readers ear. Source Faulty Parallelism. Prentice-Hall, Inc.