The sectional crisis between the Northern and the Southern states grew to a dangerous situation between 1860 and April of 1861 when hostilities began. The newspaper articles from the Augusta county, Virginia newspapers described the events of the times in a local Southern viewpoint. The Staunton Spectator is a pro-Union newspaper. An article appearing in the January 17, 1860 editorial argues that war would be foolish and preserving the Union is the manly thing to do. The article called southern “fire-eating” gentlemen insane, and argued that abandoning rights granted by the constitution would be inglorious. It takes the position that they should fight to stay in the Union and that war is a foolish way to solve grievances. On November 13, …show more content…
The author warns the tax burden must fall on landowners to bear the brunt of taxes. He believes all of their problems can be resolved under the Constitution, and the scheme of many politicians is to break up the Union and try to reconstruct it with a Southern Confederacy. The writer is opposed to these ideas and believes, “it would be the source of incalculable evil.” An article appearing in the Spectator on March 12, 1861, tries to make the argument that states which have succeeded are experiencing huge tax increases. The writer reasons that the raised taxation from the Union is for the “defense of the State”. The author questions “As these things occur in times of peace, what may we expect in times of war?” The Staunton Vindicator is a pro-succession newspaper. On February 10, 1860, an article appeared that tried to unite Virginia on the Southern Conference issue. This conference is peaceable and for purposes of self-defense. Had its proposals been in place, it would have helped to prevent the Harper’s Ferry raid. The Southern Conference was not intended to be a “preparatory step to going out of the Union.” As a state, Virginia did not wholeheartedly support South Carolina with its decision to leave the Union and, meanwhile the Congress of the United States passed a law abolishing the slave trade in the District of Colombia. This is a direct attack …show more content…
The writer of the article wants the US Congress to stay out of territorial affairs and use “popular sovereignty” to decide territorial laws. The author argues that the only reason slavery is still illegal in the North is because of the many foreign immigrants providing cheaper labor than the slaves. “It was a matter of dollars and cents, and not conscience: and thus it never will be,” he
On the question as to whether states’ rights was the cause of the Civil War, Dew references a speech made by Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States of America, during his inaugural address as one that “remains a classic articulation of the Southern position that resistance to Northern tyranny and a defense of states’ rights were the sole reason for secession. Constitutional differences alone lay at the heart of the sectional controversy, he insisted. ‘Our present condition…illustrates the American idea that governments rest upon the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish governments whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established’”(13).
In addition to a crumbling national identity, the necessities of war diminished morale among citizens of the Confederacy. Early on, the South believed that Europe would a...
The Union Army was able to match the intensity of the Confederacy, with the similar practice of dedication until death and patriotism, but for different reasons. The Union soldiers’s lifestyles and families did not surround the war to the extent of the Confederates; yet, their heritage and prosperity relied heavily on it. Union soldiers had to save what their ancestors fought for, democracy. “Our (Union soldiers) Fathers made this country, we, their children are to save it” (McPherson, 29). These soldiers understood that a depleted group of countries rather than one unified one could not flourish; “it is essential that but one Government shall exercise authority from the Gulf of Mexico to Canada, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific” (Ledger, 1861).
The North and the South had been sectionalized for years on many issues, yet the majority of the congressmen had still come together when necessary for the good of the Nation, up until 1854. After Lincoln won the election in 1860, the nation was divided by sectionalism. Due to the Nation being divided and the Southerners being paranoid about the slaves being freed, I believe both issues were causes that led to the Civil War. Works Cited Brands, H. W.. American Stories: A History of the United States. New York: Routledge, 1998 2nd ed.
Crisis struck in 1820, when the North/South balance in the Senate was threatened by the application of Missouri to join the Union as a slave state. Southerners, aware of their numerical inferiority in the House of Representatives, were keen to maintain their political sway, in the Senate. The North feared that if Southerners were to take control of the Senate, political deadlock would ensue. Compromise was found in 1820 when Maine applied to join as a free state, maintaining the balance.
More confederates than unions were illiterate due to the fact that most held professional or white-collard jobs (36). To make the Union soldiers sample fair sense most blacks couldn’t read or write, 2 who could were included in the sample (36). The levels of patriotism differed from the upper and lower south given to the fact that the upper south were mainly cotton states. The confederates felt as if it was a “rich mans woar but the poor man has to do the fifting” (16). The confederates were mainly fighting for “independence, property and way of life” (27). Some characteristics the soldiers had in common were McPherson’s calculations for the Union. He came to seeing that out of 562 Union soldier’s letters read only 67 percent voice strong patriotic motives. This is the same as the two-thirds of Confederates. As a result from reading McPherson’s book, research showed that the Union and Confederate soldiers expressed about the same degree of patriotic and ideological convictions. Even though they both had different reasons for fighting the levels of sincerity and dedication in their notes were
After the American Revolution, slavery began to decrease in the North, just as it was becoming more popular in the South. By the turn of the century, seven of the most Northern states had abolished slavery. During this time, a surge of democratic reform swept the North to the West, and there were demands for political equality, economic and social advances for all Americans. Northerners said that slavery revoked the human right of being a free person and when new territories became available i...
"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)
The Compromise of 1850 and Kansas-Nebraska Acts were very advantageous to the South. In both pieces of legislation the south gained things that would aid them in their campaign to expand slavery. The advantages the south included a stronger fugitive slave law, the possibility for slavery to exist in the remaining part of the Mexican Cession, the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and the eventual plan to build the Southern Pacific Railroad.
The antebellum American antislavery movement began in the 1820s and was sustained over 4 decades by organizations, publications, and small acts of resistance that challenged the legally protected and powerful institution of slavery and the more insidious enemy of black equality, racism. Abolitionists were always a radical minority even in the free states of the North, and the movement was never comprised of a single group of people with unified motivations, goals, and methods. Rather, the movement was fraught with ambiguity over who its leaders would be, how they would go about fighting the institution of slavery, and what the future would be like for black Americans.
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...
Tensions between the North and South had grown steadily since the anti slavery movement in 1830. Several compromises between the North and South regarding slavery had been passed such as the Nebraska-Kansas and the Missouri act; but this did little to relieve the strain. The election of President Lincoln in 1861 proved to be the boiling point for the South, and secession followed. This eventually sparked the civil war; which was viewed differently by the North and the South. The Northern goal was to keep the Union intact while the Southern goal was to separate from the Union. Southern leaders gave convincing arguments to justify secession. Exploring documents from South Carolina’s secession ordinance and a speech from the Georgia assembly speech will explain how the Southern leaders justify the secession from the United States.
The Civil War began on April 12, 1861 at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor when the Confederate army attacked Union soldier 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.
During the 1830s the issue on whether if the national government should have limited power and if the states should have rights to have power have been highly debated between two senators, Robert Hayne and Daniel Webster. Both senators have given political speeches about their judgement of the federal government limited power and the states’ rights. “The crowded senate galleries thrilled to the eloquence of the two parliamentary gladiator,” said in Document 2. Senator Hayne and Webster both have spoken in the house of the senators about national government and states having power. Furthermore, both senators address the use of taxation. “The South is acting on a principle she has always held scared- resistance to unauthorized taxation,” says
Lincoln indirectly shows in the House Divided that superiority is necessary for the flourishing of a country by showing folly of a “sacred right of self-government” (2). Stephen A. Douglas, leading advocate for ‘Squatter Sovereignty,’ followed the doctrine of the Nebraska bill that s...