When the American colonies were first established, there was sectionalism evident even in those times. From the beginning of American history leading up to the Civil War, the North and the South were clearly divided by numerous factors, especially on the issue of slavery. Despite popular belief, however, the original purpose for the Civil War wasn’t to end slavery, but instead, to save the Union. Ironically, the main reason the Union was even threatened in the first place was because of slavery, so the two concepts were both equally responsible for the War. With this in mind, there were five instances that directly led up to the Civil War because each one caused a wider rift between the Union and pushed the issue of slavery further out …show more content…
Containing five components, the Compromise had one part that issued a Fugitive Slave Act, which more strongly reinforced the fugitive slave laws already enacted. With this Act, the issue of runaway slaves was supposed to stop because the Federal Government would enforce slave catchings. When a black was caught in the North and accused of being a runaway they would be put on trial, but they couldn’t testify on their behalf or even have a jury trial. Even worse, the Act made sure that judges would get a better reward for returning the slaves to the South than for actually freeing them. Because of this Act, however, the North fought even more against slavery, still continuing to aid runaways, even with the consequences they could get for doing so. This refusal to obey the laws angered southerners, so this Act on slavery further divided the nation and its …show more content…
Even when Dred Scott was moved to the free state of Illinois by his master, gained his freedom and had raised a family, his master still forced him to go back to Missouri to be a slave again. Rightfully feeling wronged by this, Scott sued his master and the case made it to the Supreme Court. Although Scott had been living in Illinois, the Court deemed that Scott and his family were just property, so they could be taken anywhere and still be slaves. The South loved this decision because now slavery couldn’t be banned in the territories. Meanwhile, the North condemned it because it meant that there were no truly free states. In effect, the decision on slaves created a greater division in
The United States began to dissatisfy some of its citizens and so the concerns of sectionalism, or the split of the country began to arise. There was a continuous riff between the south and the north over a few issues, a major one being slavery. The south argued that the slaves were necessary to support the southern economy. According to document A, the south were angry that the north was creating taxes that hurt the southern economy, thus increasing the need for slavery since they had to make up for the expense of the taxes. The south felt that the north was able...
One huge issue that led the country to sectionalism was slavery as some people wanted to support and allow slavery, whereas others didn’t. Sectionalism became more noticeable during the Missouri Compromise as the government didn’t allow slavery above the 36’30 line. As a result, the Northern and Southern region became more defined as the North wanted to abolish slavery, but the South wanted to keep it as the country expanded. When America added the Mexican te...
Was Dred Scott a free man or a slave? The Dred Scott v. Sandford case is about a slave named Dred Scott from Missouri who sued for his freedom. His owner, John Emerson, had taken Scott along with him to Illinois which was one of the states that prohibited slavery. Scott’s owner later passed away after returning back to Missouri. After suits and counter suits the case eventually made it to the Supreme Court with a 7-2 decision. Chief Justice Taney spoke for the majority, when saying that Dred Scott could not sue because he was not a citizen, also that congress did not have the constitutional power to abolish slavery, and that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional. The case is very important, because it had a lot
The Dred Scott decision involved two slaves, Dred Scott and his wife, who originated from one of the recognized slave states, Missouri, but they were relocated to settle in Wisconsin, a state where slavery was prohibited. In 1846, Scott filed a lawsuit and “sued for his freedom on the grounds that his residence in a free state and a free territory had made him free.” In 1854, Scott’s “case ultimately went to the Supreme Court.” By landing in the Supreme Court, the justices ruled seven to two against the Dred Scott and his wife for multiple reasons. One main reason that the court specified was that whether African Americans are enslaved or not, they were never recognized as citizens of the United States. Therefore, the justices believed that the case should not have been heard or discussed in the Supreme Court to begin with. The second reason was that regardless of any African American being transferred to a free state, does not necessarily change their social status. Thirdly, the Supreme Court ruled that the Missouri Compromise of 1820, a compromise that outlawed slavery north of the 36˚30’ latitude line, is unconstitutional because the Congress declared that they had “no power to ban slavery from any territory.” The decision was critical due to increasing the North population’s unease, and their concern that the South will begin to transport slaves to freed states, which will
The compromise outlined that “…three-fifths of all other persons” would get the same representation in House of Representatives as white people. These “other persons” were slaves, and the representation given to the slaves was in essence transferred to the white men living in the South. This gave them a higher degree of representation than their equivalent living in the North, because slaves were still considered property instead of people, and thus they had no rights. What happened afterwards was that the south became over represented in the Union, and could even have enough support to elect slave holding presidents, and public officials. This fostered a divide between the North and the South, which was turned into an ‘us vs them’ mentality, which can sometimes even be felt
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.
The Southern and Northern states varied on many issues, which eventually led them to the Civil War. There were deep economic, social, and political differences between the North and the South. These differences stemmed from the interpretation of the United States Constitution on both sides. In the end, all of these disagreements about the rights of states led to the Civil War. There were reasons other than slavery for the South?s secession. The manifestations of division in America were many: utopian communities, conflicts over public space, backlash against immigrants, urban riots, black protest, and Indian resistance (Norton 234). America was a divided land in need reform with the South in the most need. The South relied heavily on agriculture, as opposed to the North, which was highly populated and an industrialized society. The South grew cotton, which was its main cash crop and many Southerners knew that heavy reliance on slave labor would hurt the South eventually, but their warnings were not heeded. The South was based on a totalitarian system.
"The American constitution recognized slavery as a local constitution within the legal rights of the individual states. But in the North slavery was not adaptable to the local economy, and to many, it contradicted the vision of the founding fathers for a nation in which all men are to be free. The South considered slavery as a necessary institution for the plantation economy. It was linked to the local culture and society. As the United states expanded, the North worried that the South would introduce slavery into the new territories. Slavery had become both a moral issue and a question of political power." (Kral p61)
One item in the Compromise of 1850 was the provision for a stronger Fugitive Slave Law. This new law made it a federal crime to not return a runaway slave to the south. The law also established that any suspected runaway slave was to be tried by a single judge, not by a jury. Also, these judges were compensated by a system that provided them with more money for deciding that the slave was guilty than innocent. This law obviously encouraged people not to harbor runaway slaves, and when they were caught, it provided the judge an incentive to have them returned to the south.
Near the end of the Antebellum Era, tensions and sectionalism increased as the states argued over what was constitutional. The South had later seceded from the United States and had become the Confederacy of America while the North had remained as the Union. The South had fully supported states’ rights while the north had strongly disapproved it. However, westward expansion, southern anger with the abolitionists, and the secession of the South that had destroyed the feeling of unity in the country because of the disagreement over slavery had been the main factors to the cause of the Civil War. Therefore, since slavery was the primary reason for the discontent in the country, it had been the primary cause of the Civil War.
The majority of speculations regarding the causes of the American Civil War are in some relation to slavery. While slavery was a factor in the disagreements that led to the Civil War, it was not the solitary or primary cause. There were three other, larger causes that contributed more directly to the beginning of the secession of the southern states and, eventually, the start of the war. Those three causes included economic and social divergence amongst the North and South, state versus national rights, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Dred Scott case. Each of these causes involved slavery in some way, but were not exclusively based upon slavery.
The Fugitive Slave Act was part of the Compromise of 1850. This act required that authorities in the North had to assist southern slave catchers to retrieve and return slaves to their owners. Southerners favored this act because they saw no slavery in the territories to the west, by the passing of the Fugitive Slave Act it would help preserve slavery in the south. This act allowed southern slave owners to get their slaves back when they escaped to the North that is why this act was important and critical to southern survival. The view of this act by the North was the opposite, especially from those who were black, they feared this act. The blacks in the North were terrified that this act would make it so they could be ushered back to the south even if they were innocent. This led to the creation of resistance groups in the North.
In 1914, the German Reichstag declared a “civil peace”, which meant that the civilians would unite for the country. At first, while Germany was facing success, the people remained united and fought for a cause. As the war progressed and the impact of it was faced, the people started turning against the war, in hopes of ending it as soon as possible. By the end of the war, the people had completely turned against the government which resulted in the abdication of the Kaiser, as well as the surrender of Germany. Germany attained unity and prosperity through its victories in 1914, but as the war continued, the opinions of the people changed as protests replaced pride; by the conclusion of the war, radicals had taken a rise and the government and
The Civil War was America's bloodiest conflict in history. So many people felt it was necessary to fight though. Their efforts helped redefine what it meant to be an American, and their efforts weren't in vain. "We have come to dedicate portion of the field, as a final resting place for those who have gave their lives that that nation might live," on page 432 of Abraham Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address".
“The inevitable negro question would of course be the most [stirred] conversation,” (Letters to the Green Mountain Freeman, p. S14-2). This quote demonstrates that slavery was the “inevitable question,” amplifying the notion of slavery being the driver of war. It was constantly being discussed and questioned about how to approach the matter. On the other hand, it is not uncommon belief that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War, but was rather the different political views between the North and South. The southern states wanted a strong state government, in which the powers were held within individual states; while the northern states wanted a strong central government, power being concentrated in the federal government.