Congress does not have our best interest in mind. Although Congress is supposed to represent the entire nation, it has been overrun by Northern interest. It should be the States, not the federal government who enacts laws that affect the well-being of an entire state. Congress has no right to ignore the pleas of half of the country and to forfeit law-abiding citizen’s property. The men who founded this great nation were trying to escape a tyrannical and oppressive regime; however, I believe that a similar repressive regime has taken root in the United States. This time it is not in the form of a king; this new regime is Congress. Congress has grown too powerful. I believe that “There could not be a more dangerous heresy than that which concedes …show more content…
to the majority of Congress, the right to use all grants as in their discretion they may choose”(SOURCE). This gives Congress the ability to strip states of their rights and endanger the South’s way of life. The Northern way of life does not require the use of slavery; however, the institution of slavery is essential to the South’s economy. When Northerners in try to abolish slavery, they are threating our way of life. We could try to argue our point within Congress; however, Congress “acknowledges the right of the States to interpose against their federal agent only when the forms of the government are violated; in other words, for a palpable violation of the letter of the Constitution” (SOURCE). Congress does not believe that they are violating the Constitution by forcing their beliefs on us; therefore, they will not listen to our pleas. Congress has grown too powerful and has stopped acting in the best interest of the entire nation. Congress has been reduced to nothing more than a corrupt organization trying to push the Northern agenda onto the South. As a result of being wronged by Congress, the people of the South have lost faith in our political system.
The previous two-party system helped check the North’s power and keep balance in the federal government. However, after the collapse of this old system, the people of the South are not being welcomed into a new party with their best interests in mind (Holt, 405). Northern extremists are threatening slavery, which is a direct attack on the entire southern economy. If extremists succeed in abolishing slavery, they will effectively strip us of our freedom. How can we be free if we are imprisoned by the chains of poverty? The South lacks the political representation in the federal government to fight these extremists and I fear that one day the Northern extremists will destroy the South (Holt, 404). The Northern States have already grown incredibly wealthy due to their more industrial economy, how would the North react if we threatened to ban the use of machinery (Levine, 411)? Their entire economy would be crippled if they lost their main form of production. If slavery was abolished not only would the South lose its main way approach to producing goods; it would flood the market with cheap black labor, taking jobs away from whites (Levine, 410). Without political representation, we cannot get issues that effect Southern states onto the national stage. The federal government is trying to push a way of life onto the South and since the South lacks sufficient political
representation we are unable to advocate for our State’s rights. The institution of slavery should not be an issue on a national scale. It should be the right of the state government to decide weather or not to have slavery. A biased and excessively powerful federal government has no right to cast blanket laws over the entire country. Although I believe that this country should remain intact, one must realize the differences between the North and the South. The North has an industrial society where their economy is based off of machines and factories. In contrast, the South is built off of the free labor slaves provide. If we abolish slavery then the southern half of the country will lose its main form of production and might be weakened forever.
Both sides desired a republican form of government. Each wanted a political system that would “protect the equality and liberty of the individuals from aristocratic privilege and…tyrannical power.” (404) However, the north and south differed greatly in “their perceptions of what most threatened its survival.” (404) The secession by the south was an attempt to reestablish republicanism, as they no longer found a voice in the national stage. Prior to the 1850s, this conflict had been channeled through the national political system. The collapse of the two-party system gave way to “political reorganization and realignment,” wrote Holt. The voters of the Democrats shifted their influence toward state and local elections, where they felt their concerns would be addressed. This was not exclusively an economically determined factor. It displayed the exercise of agency by individual states. Holt pointed out, “[T]he emergence of a new two-party framework in the South varied from state to state according to the conditions in them.” (406) The “Deep South” was repulsed by the “old political process,” most Southerners trusted their state to be the safeguards of republicanism. (404) They saw the presidential election of Abraham Lincoln, a member of the “the anti-Southern Republican party,” as something the old system could not
The economies of the North and South were vastly different leading up to the Civil War. Money was equivalent to power in both regions. For the North, the economy was based on industry as they were more modern and self-aware. They realized that industrialization was progress and it could help rid the country of slave labor as it was wrong. The North’s population had a class system but citizens could move within the system, provided they made the money that would allow them to move up in class. The class system was not as rigid as it was in the South. By comparison, the South wanted to hold on to its economic policy. In doing so, the practice of slavery kept the social order firmly in place. The economic factors, social issues and a growing animosity between the two regions helped to induce the Civil War.
In the years paving the way to the Civil War, both north and south were disagreeable with one another, creating the three “triggering” reasons for the war: the fanaticism on the slavery issue, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the separation of the Democratic Party. North being against the bondage of individuals and the South being for it, there was no real way to evade the clash. For the south slavery was a form of obtaining a living, without subjugation the economy might drop majorly if not disappear. In the North there were significant ethical issues with the issue of subjugation. Amazing measures to keep and dispose of subjugation were taken and there was never a genuine adjusted center for bargain. Despite the fact that there were a lot of seemingly insignificant issues, the fundamental thing that divided these two states was bondage and the flexibilities for it or against. With these significant extremes, for example, John Brown and Uncle Tom's Cabin, the south felt disdain towards the danger the Northerners were holding against their alleged flexibilities. The more hatred the South advanced, the more combative they were to anything the Northerners did. Northerners were irritated and it parted Democrats over the issue of bondage and made another Republican gathering, which included: Whigs, Free Soilers, Know Nothings and previous Democrats and brought about a split of segments and abbreviated the street to common war. Southerners loathed the insubordination of the north and started to address how they could stay with the Union.
This book helps me understand how divided the republicans were before the Civil War because it shows how inadequate the law was during the time. The northerners who were trying to abolish slavery in the 1850’s created the Republican Party. The republic divided due to the politician discrepancies and issues. The conflicts that occurred within the government gradually led to the passion of the republican parties’ decision to abolish slavery. The matter was not settled until 1865, when the 13th amendment was
...ilities of Congress is that minorities and factions exist: dissent takes place, not disagreements. Verbal brawls take place rather than actual argumentation, and that is what kills democracy. That is why things never get done.
Since the beginning of the Market Revolution, the institution of slavery became the leading factor that intensified the relations between the North and the South. Regarding the geographic differences between the North and South, the South was primarily agrarian and the North was mainly urban. Therefore, the North rapidly industrialized while the South remained relatively rural and cotton-slave based. As a result, the Market Revolution economically separated the North and the South and created a second party system. Thus, the issues of pro-slavery and anti-slavery arose between the Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans in the 1850s. The North desired to halt the expansion of slavery into western territories while the South strongly opposed. These two opposing parties led to radical abolitionism in the North, William Henry Seward and John Brown, and extreme secessionism in the South, James Henry Hammond, and South Carolina Ordinance of Secession. Due to their strict ideologies regarding slavery, both parties could not compromise on the issue of the expansion of slavery. Therefore, according to Americans in the years prior to the Civil War, conflict was inevitable.
One important point that many authors on the subject make, and indeed many primary secession documents would lead one to believe, is the important role of the contentious issue over slavery in the territories. However, as part of his argument Freehling contends that this issue did not weigh heavily with the politicians in the eastern states such as South Carolina. Instead, the focus of his argument is the perceived loss of power, particularly among the influential slave holding class of the Deep South, and increasingly through the efforts of this minority, spreading among the broader Southern Democratic Party.
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.
Federalism was majorly influenced by Alexander Hamilton, who was the dominant author of the Federalist Papers. Hamilton did not want to repeat the mistake that Great Britain made and believed that spreading the power to multiple sources of government, along with checks and balances would abolish tyranny. Furthermore, it would aid the people to be heard and their concerns to be resolved faster and with attention from their government. Federalism is when a nation has two sources of government instead of one, the two levels are national and state/local. Similar to many American qualities, having a federal government has its advantages and disadvantages. Three positive factors of federalism are that there is a more orderly system to dispute and
The fabric of history shows the design and spirals the elections of 1860, the rise of the Republican Party, and the bills pushed through congress and the presidency left on our nation. This paper will examine show the indelible marks of the 1860 election and its importance as a prelude to the Civil War. With this examination revealing how the Republican Party was able to rise to power so quickly, and how that rise came to affect the entire nation not only at that moment in time but also forward into the future of the United States of America. To help us look at this specific instance in history we must look at the several aspects including the Republican’s rise to power and the effect of the bills they pushed through Congress. There were several bills during this time period that were opposed by the South. The passage of these bills would most likely not have been possible if the Southern Democrats had still held power in the legislation. Numerous bills could be examined, but to save time we will examine two that in my opinion are most important. They are the Homestead Act and the Morrill Tariff. Examining both the rise of the Republican Party and these two bills it will become clear as to why the election of 1860 was one of the most important and influential elections in American history.
The end of the Civil War left many questions for both the North and the South. The federal government was faced with the responsibility of rebuilding the South and reuniting the country politically, economically, and culturally. At the war’s end, the country was left to grapple with 200,000 deaths and over a million casualties, more than any other war for the United States, either past or since[1]. The turbulence of the era left the countryside and the economy of the South in ruins. Plantation owners, the antebellum economic lords who ruled with an iron fist, were financially devastated by the war. Confederate currency was worthless, free slave labor was outlawed, and the federal government confiscated many acres of plantation land. In addition to rebuilding the Southern economy and its infrastructure, the federal government had to address the situation of newly freed blacks. Though Southern blacks had gained their freedom in the Emancipation Proclamation of 1862, they still faced great economic and social hardship as they struggled to make a living and find their niche in Southern society. While the Radical Republicans pushed for the full equality of blacks, they faced staunch opposition from Southern Democrats and more moderate Republicans. While the period of Reconstruction figured as a time of increased freedom and equality for southern blacks, it was ultimately only a temporary condition, as the power of the Southern Redeemers and the waning support of northern Republicans resulted in the reinstitution of white domination. With the end of slavery, Southern whites eventual...
The United States is trying to move toward a new cultural change in the government where the ideals of North states are overarching the needs of the Southern states. This trend is not favorable for South Carolina because the North does not have the knowledge of what the South needs to succeed. The North is doing whatever it needs to improve its situation without considering the implications of excluding the South from the plans of the future. The South cannot compete with the North trying to unconstitutional take advantage of the South due to their governmental size. The South cannot compete with the Northern supremacy in the government because they are trying to oppress Southern ideas. South Carolina does not have to keep taking the changes that the government is implementing because the North is not helping the South. South Carolina can seced...
The rift between northern and southern political ideals grew as the Civil War approached. Many southern politicians felt that their interests became less important as liberal Northerners dominated the political arena. As the years ticked on and more and more states were accepted into the Union, it was clear that northern and southern citizens had different sets of interest that had to be accommodated in different ways. The 1820s brought the emergence of the territory issue—which states would be accepted into the Union, and with what provisions—and mass sectional politics (as northern and southern ideals grew apart). Southerners felt that their needs were not being represented in Congress, since even though the Senate was balanced, the House had slightly more northern representatives than the south. In 18...
The Civil War has been viewed as the unavoidable eruption of a conflict that had been simmering for decades between the industrial North and the agricultural South. Roark et al. (p. 507) speak of the two regions’ respective “labor systems,” which in the eyes of both contemporaries were the most salient evidence of two irreconcilable worldviews. Yet the economies of the two regions were complementary to some extent, in terms of the exchange of goods and capital; the Civil War did not arise because of economic competition between the North and South over markets, for instance. The collision course that led to the Civil War did not have its basis in pure economics as much as in the perceptions of Northerners and Southerners of the economies of the respective regions in political and social terms. The first lens for this was what I call the nation’s ‘charter’—the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the documents spelling out the nation’s core ideology. Despite their inconsistencies, they provided a standard against which the treatment and experience of any or all groups of people residing within the United States could be evaluated (Native Americans, however, did not count). Secondly, these documents had installed a form of government that to a significant degree promised representation of each individual citizen. It was understood that this only possible through aggregation, and so population would be a major source of political power in the United States. This is where economics intersected with politics: the economic system of the North encouraged (albeit for the purposes of exploitation) immigration, whereas that of the South did not. Another layer of the influence of economics in politics was that the prosperity of ...
I begin with a simple premise. The Constitution was divinely inspired. It is based upon truths and principles of God set forth by foreordained men. The Lord desired a nation in which liberty, especially freedom of religion, was a right ensured under law. He inspired men penning the document to include in it certain protections.The existence of these safeguards would create a far better framework for the Restoration of the Gospel than could be found elsewhere.