Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Social and political reasons for secession
Causes and effects of secession
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Social and political reasons for secession
One Way Road: Secession Even as President Anson Jones turned the leadership of Texas over to Governor James Henderson in 1846, the national issue of slavery was heating up. The ongoing debate had already split the country into North and South factions, the Southerners supporting not only slavery, but defending their established economy and way of life. The annexation of Texas as a slave state fueled the fire of abolitionists who were concerned slavery would continue west even as southerners welcomed the opportunity Texas provided to expand their “peculiar institution” (Howell 137,138). The early statehood of Texas was a one-way road paved with social, economic and political bricks forged in the institution of slavery that led inescapably …show more content…
Settlers brought their cultures with them, and the southerners quickly established the slave-driven plantation culture with class distinctions they were accustomed to. The upper class was comprised of planters who enjoyed benefits of economic wealth and political power gained via slave labor. Middle class consisted of farmers and city dwellers while poor whites were considered lower class and free blacks were even lower than poor whites (147). Each social class was distinct from the other, yet there existed a societal co-dependency that tied most of the population to slavery in one form or another (156). The layered Texas southern culture and lifestyle based on slavery formed strong social bricks which reinforced the road to secession with shared values and heritage of the other slave …show more content…
From Wilmot’s controversial amendment during the Mexican War to the dispute over Texas’ claim to Santa Fe, Texans were very aware of the attempts to curb slavery’s expansion, and the Compromise of 1850 only delayed again the sectional crisis over slavery that loomed ahead. Three chief events stand out as the catalyst for finally forcing Texas to the end of the brick-laden road to secession: John Brown’s raid on Harper Ferry, the “Texas Troubles”, and the election of Abraham Lincoln. Abolitionist John Brown’s failed attempt to start an armed slave revolt caused Texans and other southerners to believe the institution of slavery was in direct danger (153). The “Texas Troubles,” a series of fires across the state, were suspected to be the actions of an organized plot by the Republicans or abolitionist ministers. After months of fires, “sentiments toward breaking away from the Union increased throughout Texas” (153). The Conflict between the North and South reached a breaking point during the presidential election of 1860. Southerners were convinced any candidate that “did not strongly support slavery [was] an enemy to the South” (153). Republican Abraham Lincoln was therefore equated to be the greatest threat to slavery and upon his election secessionists in Texas demanded a special legislative session to approve the
In the book, Apostles of Disunion, author Charles B. Dew opens the first chapter with a question the Immigration and Naturalization service has on an exam they administer to prospective new American citizens: “The Civil War was fought over what important issue”(4). Dew respond by noting that “according to the INS, you are correct if you offer either of the following answers: ‘slavery or states’ rights’” (4). Although this book provides more evidence and documentation that slavery was the cause of the Civil War, there are a few places where states’ rights are specifically noted. In presenting the findings of his extensive research, Dew provides compelling documentation that would allow the reader to conclude that slavery was indeed the cause for both secession and the Civil War.
In The article “Slavery, the Constitutional, and the Origins of the Civil War”, Paul Finkelman discusses some of the events that he believes lead the United States to have a Civil War. He discusses how both the North and the South territories of the Untied States did not see eye to eye when it came to ab...
In, “Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War,” Charles B. Dew analyzes the public letters and speeches of white, southern commissioners in order to successfully prove that the Civil War was fought over slavery. By analyzing the public letters and speeches, Dew offers a compelling argument proving that slavery along with the ideology of white supremacy were primary causes of the Civil War. Dew is not only the Ephraim Williams Professor of American History at Williams College, but he is also a successful author who has received various awards including the Elloit Rudwick Prize and the Fletcher Pratt Award. In fact, two of Dew’s books, Tredegar Iron Works and Apostles of Disunion and Ironmaker to
Brown had his mind made up to travel on the pathway to Harpers Ferry right when he was born and believed he is the only one that has to lead this battle. His parents were passionate Calvinists who taught their children to view life as an endless fight contrary to evil. The battle of John Brown was on a more personal level where he remembered a memory when he was five years old and his mother whipped him for stealing a vast amount of brass pins. In addition, the battle was somewhat on a political point as well because Brown and his family considered that the sincere had to be spectators against the bad people in America. They assumed that the biggest evil during their time has to be none other than the establishment of slavery. Therefore, the father of John Brown replaced their family residence in northeast Ohio into a stop on the Underground Railroad and made his son into a dedicated abolitionist. Brown’s developing participation in the movement in the 1830s and ’40s made him set his commitment as well as the rising nationwide fight over slavery’s position in a country supposedly devoted to equal opportunity. During this era, abolition...
The seeds of secession had been sown early in American history; quite literally with the fundamental differences in agriculture and resultant adoption of slavery in the South. From early days, the thirteen states had grown up separately, and each had their own culture and beliefs, which were often incompatible with those held in other states. The geographical and cultural differences between north and south would manifest themselves at regular and alarming intervals throughout the hundred years following the drafting of the constitution. Tension reached a peak during the 1850s, over the right to hold slaves in new territories. The Wilmot Proviso of 1846, roused bitter hostilities, and vehement debate turned to physical violence during the period of 'Bleeding Kansas'. The election of Lincoln, who the South perceived to be an abolitionist, in 1860 was the final straw, and the secession of seven Southern states followed soon after.
I grew up in the "Land of Lincoln" in a rural town near Springfield, Illinois. It had always been common knowledge that it was on January 1, 1863 that Abraham Lincoln freed all slaves with his Emancipation Proclamation. Though, it had never occurred to me that this was not the case in Texas. It was not until June 19, 1865 when the Union General Gordon Granger arrived at Galveston, Texas with the good news. His first order of business in Galveston was to read the General Order Number 3 to the people of Texas freeing the last 250, 000 slaves, which read as follows:
The turmoil between the North and South about slavery brought many issues to light. People from their respective regions would argue whether it was a moral institution and that no matter what, a decision on the topic had to be made that would bring the country to an agreement once and for all. This paper discusses the irrepressible conflict William H. Seward mentions, several politician’s different views on why they could or could not co-exist, and also discusses the possible war as a result.
Randolph B. Campbell is currently a history professor at the University of North Texas. In the years of 1993-1994 Campbell was the president of the Texas State Historical Association, he was a man fascinated by the history of how the United States came to be where it is today. Campbell graduated with his doctorate’s early 19th century American History from the University of Virginia which is the state he was also born in. Campbell has also written and published several other books some of which including Gone to Texas: A History of the Lone Star State, and Grass Roots Reconstruction in Texas, showing that Campbell was interested mostly in Texas history after he had left Virginia to find a state with a lot of history behind it.
As a disjunctive president Buchanan did not have the power or the acceptance to make major policy changes that would have been needed. Unfortunately, Buchanan did not understand that the old Democratic ideals that were accepted under Polk and Pierce, were not favored by the growing regionalization of the country. The people in Kansas felt that Buchanan was forcing them to become a slave state without considering the infighting that was breaking out around him. As proof of his position as a disjunctive president, as Morrison describes it “Buchanan’s failure resulted from his inability to recognize – good Jacksonian Democrat that he was – that the territorial crisis that followed the Mexican cession had separated the nation from the ebullient nationalism of the mid-1840s when he was Polk’s Secretary of State and oversaw the expansion of the Union… what Buchanan did not – or could not – realize is that by his presidency the slavery extension issue had become for Americans of the 1850’s what the conflict over the Second Bank was for Jackson: a way of identifying and rooting out subversive elements” only without realizing how vulnerable his position was in comparison (Morrison
The North and South were forming completely different economies, and therefore completely different geographies, from one another during the period of the Industrial Revolution and right before the Civil War. The North’s economy was based mainly upon industrialization from the formation of the American System, which was producing large quantities of goods in factories. The North was becoming much more urbanized due to factories being located in cities, near the major railroad systems for transportation of the goods, along with the movement of large groups of factory workers to the cities to be closer to their jobs. With the North’s increased rate of job opportunities, many different people of different ethnic groups and classes ended up working together. This ignited the demise of the North’s social order. The South was not as rapidly urbanizing as the North, and therefore social order was still in existence; the South’s economy was based upon the production of cotton after Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin. Large cotton plantations’ production made up the bulk of America’s...
The presidential elections of 1860 was one of the nation’s most memorable one. The north and the south sections of country had a completely different vision of how they envision their home land. What made this worst was that their view was completely opposite of each other. The north, mostly republican supporters, want America to be free; free of slaves and free from bondages. While on the other hand, the south supporters, mostly democratic states, wanted slavery in the country, because this is what they earned their daily living and profit from.
Roark, J.L., Johnson, M.P., Cohen, P.C., Stage, S., Lawson, A., Hartmann, S.M. (2009). The american promise: A history of the united states (4th ed.), The New West and Free North 1840-1860, The slave south, 1820-1860, The house divided 1846-1861 (Vol. 1, pp. 279-354).
The secession movement in Texas becomes a hotly debated topic as historians of the past and present, determine how the secessionists obtain enough power to overcome the government controlled Unionists? By researching primary and secondary sources, it becomes evident that following the 1859 Gubernatorial election the secessionists sought political and social power in Texas over the pro-Unionist. Evidence demonstrates that following the 1860 Presidential election; the secessionist achieved their goal of dominance over the Unionist. There exist several factors for secessionist success in defeating the Unionist in Texas. Following the annexation of Texas to the Union in 1845, the population tripled, with most of the population migrating
From the very second the words of annexation of Texas hit the US borders anti-slavery activists were on the ball...
Imagine a historian, author of an award-winning dissertation and several books. He is an experienced lecturer and respected scholar; he is at the forefront of his field. His research methodology sets the bar for other academicians. He is so highly esteemed, in fact, that an article he has prepared is to be presented to and discussed by the United States’ oldest and largest society of professional historians. These are precisely the circumstances in which Ulrich B. Phillips wrote his 1928 essay, “The Central Theme of Southern History.” In this treatise he set forth a thesis which on its face is not revolutionary: that the cause behind which the South stood unified was not slavery, as such, but white supremacy. Over the course of fourteen elegantly written pages, Phillips advances his thesis with evidence from a variety of primary sources gleaned from his years of research. All of his reasoning and experience add weight to his distillation of Southern history into this one fairly simple idea, an idea so deceptively simple that it invites further study.