Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
What were the main causes of the civil war
Failures and successes of the 1850 compromise
Fugitive slave law
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: What were the main causes of the civil war
Growing tension between the North and South of the newly formed, America, started due to their drastically different views on slavery. While the North believed owing another man and forcing him to do one’s labor is unconstitutional, the South strongly disagreed. After many compromises, acts of violence, and political differences, the North and South decided they could not stay unified. The fundamental differences between the North and the South’s beliefs on slavery led to overwhelming tensions that ultimately sparked the civil war. America started to expand west in the 1840’s in both land and population: going from 890,000 to 3,000,000 miles of land and from 5.3 million to 23 million people. At this time, the South’s political importance …show more content…
Unfortunately, Northern free black people were sometimes taken from their community and shipped to the South to be sold into slavery. The Northerners saw a strong denial of personal rights to these escaped slaves, so they passed personal liberty laws between 1842 and 1850 stating that they would not cooperate with the federal recapture efforts. These personal liberty laws angered Southerners because they believed it was illegal infringement of their property, slaves. As part of the Compromise of 1850, the Fugitive slave law was passed by Congress when the federal government started to support slave owners. It gave power to slave owners to capture escaped slaves, and imposed federal penalties on citizens who protected or helped fugitives. In a newspaper called the Anti-slavery Almanac, a story of a black man being kidnapped was posted. It stated that when, “offered for sale in Louisiana, he so clearly stated the facts that a slaveholding court declared him FREE-- thus giving a withering rebuke to Northern servility” (A Northern Freeman) . This posting clearly indicates that the North did not believe in the preposterous rules being placed upon them by the …show more content…
He did this because he wanted to expand the construction of the transcontinental railroad. The issue with this proposition was that it left the question of slavery open to the residents. This strained the major political parties, seeing as Whigs, one of the political parties much like Democrats, were split in the North and South. Northern Whigs were against the idea, and Southerner Whigs were for it. This act, in essence, repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820 by stating that, “all part of the territory of the United States included within the following limits… beginning at a point in the missouri River where the fortieth parallel of north latitude crosses the same…”, when the Missouri Compromise stated that slavery was not allowed north of the 36-30 latitude line (A Century). The act was extremely controversial, and anti-Nebraska rallies broke out all over. This started to spark the thought that abolition and staying together as a country would not work. In a letter from one Northerner to another, J. Locke Hardeman says just that as he writes, “In conclusion, I would respectfully ask if Kansas be settled by abolitionists, can missouri remain a slave state?. . . I know that abolition & union can not stand together ” (J. Locke). Due to this doubt of unification, John Brown, an antislavery man,
To put it simply (as I recall and it's been years since I've had to read about this subject)a new territory was opened to settle in. It was decided that the settlers of these states would decide whether or not slavery would be permitted. This gave birth to the new Republican Party which opposed slavery. The Act was designed by Stephen A Douglas a Democratic senator from Illinois (the same who would later defeat a young Abraham Lincoln for the senate in 1858) and repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Thousands of settlers both pro and anti slavery rushed into Kansas particularly and bloody, murderous fights broke out among the groups hence the nickname "Bleeding Kansas". It was actually one territory but this Act divided it into two states.
4. If Don Higginbotham’s argument or line of reasoning is true, it means that South Carolinians and Georgians believed that the preservation of slavery would be completed and they could find out about independence later. “Perhaps Pinckney was close to the truth about free white males in the late eighteenth century. If so, it was a condition worth preserving and enlarging”, the last paragraph of this article, explains what he is trying to prove in the article. Furthermore, this paragraph supports his idea, if his argument is
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.
During the time period of 1860 and 1877 many major changes occurred. From the beginning of the civil war to the fall of the reconstruction, the United States changed dramatically. Nearly one hundred years after the Declaration of Independence which declared all men equal, many social and constitutional alterations were necessary to protect the rights of all people, no matter their race. These social and constitutional developments that were made during 1860 to 1877 were so drastic it could be called a revolution.
On April 12, 1861, Abraham Lincoln declared to the South that, the only reason that separate the country is the idea of slavery, if people could solve that problem then there will be no war. Was that the main reason that started the Civil war? or it was just a small goal that hides the real big reason to start the war behind it. Yet, until this day, people are still debating whether slavery is the main reason of the Civil war. However, there are a lot of facts that help to state the fact that slavery was the main reason of the war. These evidences can relate to many things in history, but they all connect to the idea of slavery.
There was a delicate balance of eleven free and eleven slave states in the Union, and the admission of a new state would serve to destroy the balance. However, a Kentuckian by the name of Henry Clay brought about the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which stated that Missouri would become a slave state, and that Maine would be admitted as a free state. It also outlined that any land south of the 36°30′ parallel, also known as the ‘Mason Dixon Line’, would be admitted to the union as a slave state. This compromise was criticized by southerners because they didn’t believe that Congress had the power to make laws about slavery, and it was also criticized by northerners who wanted to see the expansion of slavery ended. Though it faced popular disapproval, the compromise managed to hold the union together for several decades after it was
Imagine that you are an escaped African slave. After years of being a slave, you’ve finally done it, you escaped the terrors that are slavery. You are looking forward to the freedoms that you have heard are promised in the north. However, these “freedoms” are all what they were made out to be. Blacks in the north were, to some extent, free in the years before the Civil War.
As the country began to grow and expand we continued to see disagreements between the North and South; the Missouri Territory applied for statehood the South wanted them admitted as a slave state and the North as a free state. Henry Clay eventually came up with the Missouri Compromise, making Missouri a slave state and making Maine it’s own state entering the union as a free state. After this compromise any state admitted to the union south of the 36° 30’ latitude would be a slave state and a state north of it would be free. The country was very much sectionalized during this time. Thomas Jefferson felt this was a threat to the Union. In 1821, he wrote, ”All, I fear, do not see the speck on our horizon which is to burst on us as a tornado, sooner or later. The line of division lately marked out between the different portions of our confederacy is such...
In 1819, Missouri wanted to join the Union, although in the North, as a slave state. In would make the balance of power in the Congress unequal.
The civil war, a devastating conflict amongst the American North and South in the mid to late 1800s, was caused by growing tension between the opposing sides for many reasons but also because of territorial expansion of America. In determining the impact of territorial expansion in the mid 1800’s on the sectionalism that led to the civil war, one would first have to look at the tactics for territorial expansion in America. Americans began to entertain the idea of heading west in the early 1800’s, which then brought forth the acts and events of the United States spreading its boundaries from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Historical events involving the expansion of America such as Manifest Destiny, the War with Mexico, and popular sovereignty in the west, all contributed to the growing tension between the North and the South, ultimately starting the Civil War.
The original Fugitive Slave Act was made in 1793. One of the things this stated was that slave owners were allowed to search for their escaped slaves in states that didn’t believe in slavery. When a slave (or a person suspected of being a slave) was caught, the people (or person) went to court to get the slave returned to it’s owner. If enough evidence was provided, the slaves were returned to their owners. This act also made it so that anyone who helped slaves in anyway, such as hiding them, were to face a $500 fee. Many people, especially those from northern states, disagreed with this act. The people of the northern states felt as if their land was being used by bounty hunters. They also disliked how, with people taking free African Americans as slaves, it felt as if the act was leading up to the legalization of kidnapping. Certain people who disagreed with this act created groups to help save slaves, and even created housing for them that would be safe for them to escape to areas where slavery was illegal.
When the Kansas-Nebraska Act was introduced in the U.S., the North was upset because the new territories would probably be pro-slavery. As soon as they could, both sides of the issue sent in settlers to try and gain control. This “race for Kansas” made the race to make a final decision on the issue of slavery in the U.S. an even more urgent issue. This battle to decide what side the two new territories would be on probably pushed the issue so hard it caused a lot of discomfort and probably hurried people like John Brown into making decisions quickly, because people were afraid. I believe that the rush to make a ruling for or against slavery was one reason why John Brown chose bloodshed over compromise.
In studying the Southern defense of slavery, it appears that southerners were defending a way of life. Many believed that the institution of slavery was the lesser of two evils in terms of providing benefits for workers, others believed that it was at the very foundation of a free society to own slaves and still others saw it merely as an expedient means to an economic end. Although one may acknowledge that the South had understandable political, social and religious reasons for supporting the institution of slavery, the fundamental moral obligation to treat all humans as equals supercedes them all.
The representation of these two groups in Congress led to the initiation of the Missouri Compromise agreement between the anti-slavery and the pro-slavery groups (Eisenstark, & Weber, 2010). Both parties were in consensus that the slavery was banned in the north of latitude 36 degrees 30’ except with the boards of the state of Missouri. The agreement also allowed slavery in the states that lied on the Southern part of the latitude. Henry Clay sponsored this deal; speaker of the House and it stated that Missouri would become part of the union as a Slave State and that Maine would become part of the union as a Free State.
Missourians wanted to be a slave state but couldn’t get the votes unless they outlawed slavery. In 1820, two years after Missouri applied for state ship, Henry Clay came up with the Missouri Compromise. The compromise stated that Missouri could enter the Union as a slave state if Maine enters as a free state. This allowed the number of free and slave states two continue to be equal. Then the Southern and Northern states agreed that all states that joined the Union would be free if they were north of the latitude 36o 30’ except for Missouri.