Slavery Dbq

Part C

C1.

During the antebellum period, slavery was a hot topic. There were two main groups of people, the ones who were pro-slavery and those who were abolitionists. Most of the North were abolitionists and the South were pro-slavery. The basis of these views was that the people in the North were focused more on social improvement while the South focused on personal growth. The South argued that slavery should remain and that it was a “positive good” that was beneficial to society. They continued to justify the morality of it by referencing the bibles passages of slaveholding. Despite their justifications on the good of slavery, the Souths reasoning for owning slaves was built on racism. The Southern white population believed that the

whites were more intellectual and superior and that blacks were more physical and should do the hard labor. This deepened by saying that social order was laid down by God. They stated that humankind was naturally unequal, and that people were born into their place in life. They doubted that blacks could be capable of virtue and the requirements to be free and a citizen. Another argument those on the side of pro-slavery utilized was the financial aspect. Slaves were not only their property but also fueled economic wealth. The South felt strongly about sticking to tradition and were reluctant for things to change. They believed if any change should come it should be done gradually. (Norton, 2015)

The abolitionists in the North argued to rid of slavery. The North continuously worked towards improvement. Instead of using slaves to fuel the economy they became self-sufficient. The people in the North would focus on farming marketable crops, families began to work for others instead of on their own farms and families would purchase goods from others instead of making the products themselves. A huge piece of the abolitionists reasons for ridding of slavery was religion. They believed that slavery was a sin. It was thought that a humans’ actions determined their spiritual fate and that by keeping slaves they were denying the slaves their ability to be “moral free agents.” They spread their word and belief of ridding slavery through papers and campaigns. In 1835, abolitionists sent out an abundance of anti-slavery mail, collected signatures door to door and even made clothes and other goods to help escaped slaves. (Norton, 2015)

C2.
Tensions began to increase between the North and South regarding westward expansion. The main topic of disagreement between expansion was slavery. As discussed above, the North wanted to rid of slavery and the South was pro-slavery. In 1836, a man named Sam Houston, went to the United States government to propose annexation as state. Both the North and South tried to avoid this topic because a new state would ruin the balance they had of free states and slave states. This balance is what both the North and South fought for. When the Secretary of State John Calhoun’s letter to the minster in Washington leaked a series of events occurred. John Calhoun was attempting to justify Texas annexation as a way to protect slavery and the Senate rejected it. Then the South got worried that expansion was at risk and began to fight for more power. Democrats in the south convinced their party’s convention in 1844 to require a two-thirds vote for a presidential nominee. This new rule blocked an opponent of annexation, Martin Van Buren, and allowed James K. Polk an expansionist to run. This angered the Northern Whigs who believed that the Democrats nationalism was going to begin a war. James K. Polk won the election and led to Texas joining the Union as another slave state. The acquisition of land continued with Oregon, Washington, Idaho and parts of Wyoming and Montana. When a war with Mexico over expansion began, tensions rose again. The South were enthusiastic about the war while the North were against it and some Northerners claimed that the war was a scheme to expand slavery. (Norton, 2015)

C3.
The Civil War was caused by numerous events but three major events that contributed to the war are the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Dredd Scott case and John Brown’s Raid. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was a bill for “popular sovereignty.” It overturned the Missouri Compromise’s boundaries for slavery and left the decision of being a slave or a free state up to the people of the state. The bill became what it was after Southern congressman persuaded Stephen A. Douglas to rescind the Missouri Compromise’s boundaries in exchange for the Southern support. Douglas agreed and included it in the bill believing that the geographic conditions would deter slavery from Kansas and Nebraska. Despite his belief that slavery wouldn’t occur, the bill still made slavery permissible on land where it was previously prohibited. To the Free-Soilers and those against slavery, this act was a betrayal. Political parties start to weaken and separate, parties support started to decrease, and Northern Democrats congressional seats drastically dropped. A new political party, the Republicans, formed with the main goal of preventing slavery to enter the North. This all led to violence in Kansas. Those were against slaves were armed and wanting land in Kansas while those were pro-slavery did the same. This created a violent and even murderous spree between the two groups which was called “Bleeding Kansas.” This was a huge turning point of hatred between the North and South. (Norton, 2015)

With tensions still high regarding slavery and Congress trying to solve the issue, another important event occurred.

Dred Scott and his wife Harriet were both slaves from Missouri and sued for their freedom. Dred Scott’s argument was that his former owner ignored the Missouri Compromise for years and took him into the free state of Illinois and into Fort Snelling in Minnesota. Scotts first case was successful but once it moved on to appeal he continued to lose. Eleven years later he made it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Courts decision was based on whether Dred Scott was eligible to sue since he was black and if being in a free state made him free. The decision was made when two northern justices indicated that they were going to argue in Scott’s favor, angering southerners on the Court. Chief Justice Roger Taney delivered the verdict that Scott would not be free, and that Congress didn’t have the power to bar slavery from any territory. This went against the almost four-decade compromise and popular sovereignty. This reassurance of the courts viewing blacks inferior excited those who were pro-slavery but sparked fear and rage in the North. Fugitive slaves began to escape to other countries and the northern whites became suspicious. Republicans began to use these fears as way to push their antislavery platform. Abraham Lincoln who was strongly against slavery continued to speak out about the issue and Republicans began to be in a state of conflict with the Dred Scott verdict. The Court choosing one side of the issue created tensions and distrust in not only the North and the South but also between the North and the Court. (Norton,

2015)

The tension rose to a new level and antislavery activism became armed rebellion. An example of this was John Brown’s Raid. John Brown was raised in a religious family against slavery. He believed that slavery was “unjustifiable” and that justice should be “an eye for an eye.” In his mind the only way to rid of slavery was though revolutionary acts. He started his journey to cause the destruction of slavery by leading eighteen people, both white and black, in an attack. They went to attack a federal arsenal in Virginia but instead of creating the slave rebellion he hoped for, he was captured. Brown had a trial that was followed by many and a publicized execution. The mixed feelings through the United States brought different feelings towards Brown, some viewed him as a villain and others viewed him as a martyr. The South were outraged when they found out that Brown not only had financial backing but was being viewed as a holy warrior. They believed that Brown was a terrorist and in the wrong. His prediction written in a note to his jailer turned out to be the truth. Brown said that he was certain that the crimes of the land “will never be purged away, but with blood.” (Norton, 2015)

Reference

Norton, M.B. (2015). A people & a nation. Retrieved from https://lrps.wgu.edu/provision/53540310