Throughout American history, slavery has always been a big focus. It made America who we are now and was present for many generations. When analyzing the compromises and acts that were passed regarding slavery, many delayed and/or set the stage for the road to the Civil War. In this essay, I will be analyzing how the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Compromise of 1850, the Fugitive Slave Acts, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, delayed and/or set the stage for the Civil War. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was created so that in the new state of Mississippi the slave population could not grow because they prohibited new introductions of slaves. They hoped that this compromise would solve the question of whether slavery would continue in America. …show more content…
The Missouri Compromise did set the stage for the Civil War since it turned the North and the South against each other since they had different moral standings on the topic of slavery. This was the beginning of the conflict between the North and South over the topic of slavery since they were now formally divided by the 36/30 latitude line. The compromise of 1850 was proposed after the end of the Mexican-American War after the United States gained territory, which included the states of California, Arizona, and New Mexico. This compromise contains 5 major provisions. As a result of these provisions, California was established as a free state, and Utah and New Mexico were left to decide if they would allow slavery by themselves. This compromise helped delay the start of the Civil War by delaying secession. This delayed the conflict of slavery between the South and the North. However, this conflict was still arising, which meant that this compromise also helped to push America into the Civil War by causing disputes and future compromises and acts based on the problem of
The Missouri Compromise and the Nullification Crisis were both very noteworthy events in American history. The significance of the two not only laid in the events themselves, but also the time period in which they occurred and what they foreshadowed. In short, the Missouri Compromise was an act of Congress passed in 1820 between the two faction of United States Congress, that is, the pro-slavery faction and the anti-slavery factions. The compromise primarily involved the regulation of slavery in the western territories of the United States. Although it prohibited slavery in the Louisiana Purchase Territory north of the 36 30 degree latitude, it carved out an exception for Missouri.
The compromise of 1850 was very similar to the Missouri compromise of 1820 in that they both succeeded in bringing together the North and the South. In the early 18th century, there was division in America as result of slavery. At that particular point, the North and South were already in tension due to issue of slavery. Slavery was not widely spread in the North however, businessmen enriched themselves through slave trade in the south. Both Missouri Compromise and Compromise of 1850 both aimed at restoring peace between the North and South slave sated and between the Free and the Slave states.
In Apostles of Disunion, Dew presents compelling documentation that the issue of slavery was indeed the ultimate cause for the Civil War. This book provided a great deal of insight as to why the South feared the abolition of slavery as they did. In reading the letters and speeches of the secession commissioners, it was clear that each of them were making passionate pleas to all of the slave states in an effort to put a stop to the North’s, and specifically Lincoln’s, push for the abolishment of slavery. There should be no question that slavery had everything to do with being the cause for the Civil War. In the words of Dew, “To put it quite simply, slavery and race were absolutely critical elements in the coming of the war” (81). This was an excellent book, easy to read, and very enlightening.
There are two mind paths to choose when considering the statement that the compromises of the 1800s were not really compromises, but sectional sellouts by the North, that continually gave in to the South's wishes. The first is that the compromises really were compromises, and the second is that the compromises were modes of the North selling out. Really, there is only one correct mind path of these two, and that is that the North sold out during these compromises and gave the South what it wanted for minimal returns. The three main compromises of the 19th century, the compromises of 1820 (Missouri) and 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 each were ways for the south to gain more power so that eventually, it could secede.
Ever since the formation of the colonies, differences stood in the way of a fundamental relationship between the north and the south. Despite these differences they were not the cause of the problems. In the 1820’s, the growth between territories and regions were increasing. This expansion went too far causing it to become a worldwide crisis. More chaos arouse since the north and the south did not agree on anything. The north strongly disagreed with the expansion of slavery, while south agreed to expand slavery throughout new territories and regions. The north's decision was based on factors such as political and economical threat instead of a moral threat, as it was depicted in the Missouri Compromise. However, the Compromise of 1850 , showed a more argument towards the morality threat, making it more united than ever.
Western expansion and the Louisiana Purchase both led to the formation of the Missouri Compromise because more states started applying for statehood, and this distorted the balance between the slave and free states. Division between the North and South increased as a result of the Missouri Compromise. It created a line that separated the Union and set it to the path of Civil War. At first, the North and South saw the compromise as a successful document that maintained the balance between the number of slave and free states; however, when the Union gained more territory through Mexican War, Congress decided to modify the existing compromise. Finally, the repeal of the compromise made the final push that led to the explosion of animosity between the North and South, which led to the Civil War. Slavery in the new territories remained the main issue that caused the necessity of forming the Missouri Compromise. Jefferson accurately stated that the Missouri Compromise stood only as a temporary solution that eventually led to the full-fledged sectional war between
The Missouri Compromise acted as a balancing act among the anti-slave states and the slave states. Since states generally entered the union in pairs, it stat...
Madaras, Larry, and James M. SoRelle. Issue 14 “Was Slavery the Key Issue in the Sectional Conflict Leading to the Civil War?." Taking Sides. 13th ed. Dubuque, IA: McGraw Hill Higher Education, 2009. 310-329. Print.
After the Turner revolt, the topic of slavery took over American politics (3,91). Congressman David Wilmot suggested that legislation prohibit slavery in new territories that were conquered from the victory in a war with Mexico (3,91). Wilmot acted in hopes of stopping slavery’s expansion westward but his movement did not pass with the Senate and was therefore disregarded (3,91). The South’s population was slowly becoming overshadowed by the North’s, leaving little room to stop anti-slavery legislation (3,91). When California was admitted as a free state in 1850, the US was left with no slave state to balance this addition and some southerners desired a separation of slave states from the union (3,92). Congressmen and senators started to fear their political opponents tremendously; tension was slowly building up (3,92). The Compromise of 1850 admitted California as a free state but also passed a law making it painless for slave-owners to recover their escaped slaves from free states (3,92). Congress then passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act which allowed inhabitants to decide whether Kansas would be a free state or a slave state (3,92). In hopes of victory, the opposing sides invaded the territory which was after nick-named “Bleeding Kansas” by the easterners (3,92). This unsettled region would be the perfect setting to launch a crusade against slavery (3, 92). This scheme was exactly what John Brown had in mind (3,92).
Additionally, the majority of states had conflicts between slavery in their territory, one of them dealt with missouri. Missouri applied for admission into the Union as a slave state; this became a problem because missouri ruined the balance for free slaves and slave states. The northern states wanted to ban slavery from occurring in missouri because the unbalanced situation it put towards the other states. In response, the southern states declared how congress doesn’t have the power to ban slavery in missouri. However, Henry Clay offers a solution, the missouri compromise of 1820. Missouri admitted as slave state and Maine becomes a free slave state. Slavery is banned in Louisiana creating a 36 30 line in missouri’s southern border; this maintained the balance in the U.S senate.
The Civil War began on April 12, 1861 at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor when the Confederate army attacked Union soldiers and ended on May 9, 1865 with a Union Victory. There are many events, laws, and people that provoked the Civil War. The two most important causes are slavery and the expansion of the United States, causing an unbalance of free and slave states. This essay examines major events that initiated the war, starting from the Compromise of 1820 to the election of 1860, and proves how the Civil War was inevitable. After Thomas Jefferson, who served as president from 1801 to 1809, made the Louisiana Purchase on April 30, 1803, the U.S. gained 828 thousand square miles of territory from France.
After winning the Mexican-American War in 1848, the United States gained the western territories, which included modern-day California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, as well as parts of Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma. However, controversial topics, that helped cause the Civil War, arouse with the addition of these new territories. Primarily, the people of the United States wanted to know whether the new territories would be admitted as free states or slave states. In order to avoid fighting between the slave states of the South and the free states of the North, Henry Clay (Whig) and Stephen Douglas (Democrat) drafted the Compromise of 1850. Although the compromise was created to stop conflict ...
The American Civil War was the bloodiest military conflict in American history leaving over 500 thousand dead and over 300 thousand wounded (Roark 543-543). One might ask, what caused such internal tension within the most powerful nation in the world? During the nineteenth century, America was an infant nation, but toppling the entire world with its social, political, and economic innovations. In addition, immigrants were migrating from their native land to live the American dream (Roark 405-407). Meanwhile, hundreds of thousand African slaves were being traded in the domestic slave trade throughout the American south. Separated from their family, living in inhumane conditions, and working countless hours for days straight, the issue of slavery was the core of the Civil War (Roark 493-494). The North’s growing dissent for slavery and the South’s dependence on slavery is the reason why the Civil War was an inevitable conflict. Throughout this essay we will discuss the issue of slavery, states’ rights, American expansion into western territories, economic differences and its effect on the inevitable Civil War.
After thoroughly assessing past readings and additional research on the Civil War between the North and South, it was quite apparent that the war was inevitable. Opposed views on this would have probably argued that slavery was the only reason for the Civil War. Therefore suggesting it could have been avoided if a resolution was reached on the issue of slavery. Although there is accuracy in stating slavery led to the war, it wasn’t the only factor. Along with slavery, political issues with territorial expansion, there were also economic and social differences between North and South. These differences, being more than just one or two, gradually led to a war that was bound to happened one way or another.
Driving Miss Daisy For Black History Month, I recently watched the 1989 film adaption of Driving Miss Daisy. Starring Morgan Freeman and Jessica Tandy, it won a number of Academy Awards and Golden Globes as well as recieving positive reviews from film critics. The plot of the film is a relatively simple one, but becomes more complex as the film progresses. Daisy Werthan (Tandy) is a 72 year-old wealthy, white, Jewish, widowed, and a retired school teacher. When Miss Daisy wrecks her car, her son Boolie hires Hoke Colburn (Freeman).