More handpicked essays just for you.
The difference between the north and south on the eve of the civil war
How the civil war impacted america
The impact of the American civil war
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Introduction It is often said that one cannot understand the American history without understanding the Civil War. From April 15, 1861 to 1865 April, the United States was between the north and south of the war, also known as the American Civil war. Northern leaders are bourgeois war; combat forces are vast numbers of workers, peasants and black. In the south, insist the war is only plantation slave owners, their war aims to defend slavery, secession, a confederate, reflects the country from the establishment of the moment, have the right to choose their own life of freedom, and the purpose is to beat the north south, to restore national unity and the abolition of the slave system, so that the capitalists get more cheap labor, which makes the capitalist to obtain the smooth development. The importance of the civil war created USA history, American morphology. Common generalization people made on the Civil War & real reason behind it The direct cause looks for the Republican candidate for the abolition of slavery Lincoln was elected, and then the Southern States declared their independence, and the northern states to maintain the federal unified grounds, playing such a unification and division of the war. One look fine, you 'll notice, Lincoln in the 1860 election, only to get the country into four of the vote, except in Vermont, in the northern most states, Lincoln just took five or six of the vote, while in the South he didn 't appear on the ballot paper. That is to say, the Republican Party as a regional party, won the election victory, and this victory, also confirmed that the former president Martin van Buren many years ago prophecy: the ruling party if you can 't get a nationwide support, the country will face split. To be, ... ... middle of paper ... ...iggered Southern secession from the union. During the secession crisis, many politicians argued for a new sectional accommodation to preserve the Union, focusing in particular on the proposed "Crittenden Compromise." But historians in the 1930s such as James G. Randall argued that the rise of mass democracy, the breakdown of the Second Party System, and increasingly virulent and hostile sectional rhetoric made it highly unlikely, if not impossible, to bring about the compromises of the past (such as the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850). Indeed, the Crittenden Compromise was rejected by Republicans. One possible "compromise" was peaceful secession agreed to by the United States, which was seriously discussed in late 1860—and supported by many abolitionists—but was rejected by James Buchanan 's conservative Democrats as well as the Republican leadership.
Both sides desired a republican form of government. Each wanted a political system that would “protect the equality and liberty of the individuals from aristocratic privilege and…tyrannical power.” (404) However, the north and south differed greatly in “their perceptions of what most threatened its survival.” (404) The secession by the south was an attempt to reestablish republicanism, as they no longer found a voice in the national stage. Prior to the 1850s, this conflict had been channeled through the national political system. The collapse of the two-party system gave way to “political reorganization and realignment,” wrote Holt. The voters of the Democrats shifted their influence toward state and local elections, where they felt their concerns would be addressed. This was not exclusively an economically determined factor. It displayed the exercise of agency by individual states. Holt pointed out, “[T]he emergence of a new two-party framework in the South varied from state to state according to the conditions in them.” (406) The “Deep South” was repulsed by the “old political process,” most Southerners trusted their state to be the safeguards of republicanism. (404) They saw the presidential election of Abraham Lincoln, a member of the “the anti-Southern Republican party,” as something the old system could not
By 1824 however, the strong nationalistic unity had collapsed, ushering John Quincy Adams, who would prove to be a very divisive president. One must also look at the duality of the issue of the Missouri compromise. One hand, as shown in Document F, the very idea of drawing a line across the country is wholly separatist. The tensions and divisions created with the Missouri compromise would grow, and lead to the establishment of two very different societies in the North and South. On the other hand, the line illustrated the willingness of the politicians to work together to improve the nation.
Some of the causes from the civil war were that the North was more experienced than the South, they also had more resources to fight in battle. The civil war started when Southern states seceded from the Union after the election with Abraham Lincoln. The battle of Gettysburg had a huge impact on the civil war because it was a three-day battle, making it the bloodiest battle from the American Civil War. Also, the south’s Army of Northern Virginia into Pennsylvania enetered in late June 1863.
In the spring 1861, years of building tensions between the northern states and southern states resulted in the American Civil War. In 1680 an anti-slavery Republican, Abraham Lincoln was elected president causing seven southern states to secede from the union. These seven states included--Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas--. These seven states formed the Confederate States of America. The American Civil War lasted from April 12, 1861 to May 9, 1865 and claimed more than roughly 620,000 lives. So what caused the Civil War? The three main causes of the Civil War were differences between the north and the south in economies, disagreements in abolishing slavery, and whether the State or Federal
There are various explanations as to who and what really caused the Civil War. It is even fair to say that sometimes morals stand in the way when deciding who really started the war. Therefore, the facts must be analyzed clearly and in depth. It is true that the north played a major role in the Civil War, however, the south would not release their strict traditional beliefs of slavery. As time progressed, slavery debates pressured the South more and more to stand by their strict beliefs. Fugitive acts, Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Secession all showed how the south used brutal methods to preserve slavery. Therefore, since the popular sovereignty doctrine, the pro-slavery souths’ strict use of slavery and decisions to secede from the nation, angered the north, leading to a civil war.
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.
In 1860 Abraham Lincoln was elected as president of the United States of America, the repercussions of which led to civil war. However it was not only Lincoln’s election that led to civil war but also the slavery debate between the northern and southern states and the state of the economy in the United States. Together with the election of Lincoln these caused a split, both politically and ideologically, between the North and South states which manifested into what is now refereed to as the American Civil War.
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.
Since the beginning of the Market Revolution, the institution of slavery became the leading factor that intensified the relations between the North and the South. Regarding the geographic differences between the North and South, the South was primarily agrarian and the North was mainly urban. Therefore, the North rapidly industrialized while the South remained relatively rural and cotton-slave based. As a result, the Market Revolution economically separated the North and the South and created a second party system. Thus, the issues of pro-slavery and anti-slavery arose between the Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans in the 1850s. The North desired to halt the expansion of slavery into western territories while the South strongly opposed. These two opposing parties led to radical abolitionism in the North, William Henry Seward and John Brown, and extreme secessionism in the South, James Henry Hammond, and South Carolina Ordinance of Secession. Due to their strict ideologies regarding slavery, both parties could not compromise on the issue of the expansion of slavery. Therefore, according to Americans in the years prior to the Civil War, conflict was inevitable.
The people of the North and South each believed fiercely in their cause, one for a free people the other for life servitude. Neither group, based on the documents presented were willing to budge regarding their beliefs. They North wanted to abolish slavery completely and the South could not understand why they had to give up their way of life because the concept was so ingrained in them as a people. The two completely different ideals could not co-exist peacefully and therefore the eventual climax of this issue, the war, was an inevitable
Throughout the years, many people have been taught that the reason the Civil War happened, was to abolish slavery all through the United States. Although that is true, there were more reasons why the Civil War occurred.Referencing will be done on different articles and writers to support the findings of the authors. The article “Slavery, the Constitutional, and the Origins of the Civil War” by Paul Finkelman, discusses about the North (union) and the South (confederacy) and the disagreement of the territories following the constitutional laws regarding slavery, the article explores both sides of the territories and their beliefs of how the situation of slavery should have been dealt with. The article “The Economic Origins of the Civil War” by Marc Egnal, discusses the North’s (union) and the South’s (confederacy) economic situation that could have pushed the two territories to engage in war with one another. Finally, the last article “Politics, Ideology, and the Origins of the American Civil War” by Eric Foner, focuses on the Norths (union) and Souths (confederacy) views on politics and ideas of how each territory is ran and how they have affected the North and the South. These historians supplied specific and different explanations that explained what exactly caused the United States to enter into a Civil War. With the information provided by the authors, the evidence will lead us to the answer of what caused 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.
In the years of 1830 through 1860, a breach in the unity between the North and the South of the United States occurred. They faced an
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.
By the year of 1860, the North and the South was developed into extremely different sections. There was opposing social, economic, and political points of view, starting back into colonial periods, and it slowly drove the two regions farther in separate directions. The two sections tried to force its point of view on the nation as a whole. Even though negotiations had kept the Union together for many years, in 1860 the condition was unstable. The presidential election of Abraham Lincoln was observed by the South as a risk to slavery and many believe it initiated the war.