In response to the economic differences between the North and the South, the Civil War took place in the mid-19th century. In contribution to the Civil War, the Kansas-Nebraska Act is a significant cause that plays a vital role towards the drastic changes in America. Introduced by Senator Stephen Douglas, it was a bill that divided the land west of Missouri into two territories, Kansas and Nebraska. When the U.S. Congress passed the law in 1854, it created tensions between pro- and anti-slavery groups, dividing the nation even more. (Goldfield et. al 396). The eruption of violence and the changes in America that resulted from the Kansas-Nebraska Act would become the prelude to the Civil War. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was a crucial event that stood on the path to the Civil War and ignited sectional conflicts in America. Douglas’ proposal triggered stress between the North and the South after the Kansas-Nebraska Act repealed the Missouri Compromise. Originally, the compromise prohibited slavery in the areas north of the 36°30’ latitude (ushistory.org). However, the act permitted Southerners to bring slaves into the …show more content…
territory that was not open under the compromise. The revocation angered the northerners because they felt the Missouri Compromise was jeopardized by the Southerner’s desire to expand slavery in the northern territories which the compromise held in balance (ushistory.org). Consequently, the tensions that aroused between the North and the South which resulted from the violation of the Missouri Compromise became a leading cause of the Civil War. In addition to Douglas’ proposal, the Kansas-Nebraska Act allowed people in each territory to decide whether or not slavery will be permitted, an idea known as popular sovereignty (ushistory.org).
Popular sovereignty is a concept which the public is in power of governmental decisions for the benefit of the people (govinfo.library.unt.edu). It led to sectional conflicts between the people in Kansas and Nebraska which sparked the riots in 1854. The riots in the Kansas Territory are best known as “Bleeding Kansas.” (Goldfield et. al 397). The uproar further caused discord among Northerners and Southerners, who came to Kansas to swing the vote in their favor. In summation, the concepts that Douglas presented in the Kansas-Nebraska Act made it a major factor that began the Civil War due to the strain it placed between the Northerners and
Southerners. Not only did popular sovereignty increase friction between the North and the South, but it caused the rise of the Republican Party, since the party was created in opposition to the overturn of the Missouri Compromise (scholarworks.iu.edu). The act split the Democratic Party because it was widely seen as a concession to the proslavery southern democrats which enraged the emerging Free-Soilers, who wished to halt the advancement of slavery into new territories. The clauses in the act concerning popular sovereignty facilitated the likely expansion of slavery and bound together abolitionists and Free-Soilers together into the Republican Party with major membership of this new part from former northern Democrats (ushistory.org). In conclusion, the Kansas-Nebraska Act affected the nation politically which would become a key element to the beginning of the Civil War. The Kansas-Nebraska Act is important to the Civil War because it enabled new changes to occur in America. It has impacted the nation in political, social, and economic ways that built the country into what it is now. With the election of Abraham Lincoln and the events that led up to the Civil War, the United States may have not been united today. Therefore, the Kansas-Nebraska Act is a notable event that should be known due to its contribution to the war that helped shape America.
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.
It allowed people in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska to decide for themselves whether or not to allow slavery within their borders. The Act served to repeal the Missouri Compromise of 1820 which prohibited slavery north of latitude 36°30´. Results of the Kansas-Nebraska Act were numerous and for the most part fatal to the country. The Act caused the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 to be virtually nullified, and caused compromising between the North and the South to be nearly impossible in the future.
...ke George Washington especially had veritable fortunes personally vested in the outcome. His work makes it apparent also that this was not a localized protest comprised of a mere handful of ardent participants from what was then the extreme fringe of American civilization, but rather the dissent was in fact a wide-spread crisis, which very much had the potential to be the undoing of the new nation. Slaughter reveals the extreme sectionalism which plagued the nation throughout its first century of existence was well established prior to the dawn of the nineteenth century. He asserts also that the precedent was set regarding the question of national versus state or local authority, which has continued in effect since.
It also gave the South another slave state in Missouri and the north a free state in Maine. Although each region gained a state in the Senate, the south benefited most from the acquisition because Missouri was in such a pivotal position in the country, right on the border. Later on with the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854, Missouri had a big role in getting Kansas to vote south because many proslavery Missourians crossed the border into Kansas to vote slavery. The Missouri Compromise also helped slavery because the line that was formed to limit slavery had more land below the line than above it. Therefore, slavery was given more land to be slave and therefore more power in the Senate, when the territories became state.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act was one of the first events that demonstrated Lincoln’s disapproval yet tolerance for slavery. The Kansas-Nebraska Act, proposed by Stephen A. Douglas and signed by Franklin Pierce, divided the region into two territories. The territory north of the 40th parallel was the Kansas Territory and the south of the 40th parallel was the Nebraska Territory, the controv...
A controversial issue during 1860 to 1877 was state’s rights and federal power. The North and South were divided over this issue. The North composed of free states and an industrial economy while the South was made up of slave states and an agricultural economy. The South did not like federal authority over the issue of slavery; therefore, they supported the radical state rights’ ideology. South Carolina seceded from the Union because it believed that since states made up the Union, it could leave when it chooses to. The government argued against the South saying that they had no right to leave the Union because the Union was not made up of just states but people. However, the South counteracted this argument with the case that the 10th amendment “declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by its states, were reserved to the states.” (Doc A) However, the government still believed that secession from the Union was unjust and decided that a new change surrounding state’s rights was necessary. As a result, when the Union won in the Civil War, a resolution was made, where the state’s lost their power and the federal government gained power. U...
During the early to mid eighteen hundreds, there was great unrest across the country over territorial expansion. Half of the nation believed that it would be beneficial to the country if we expanded, while the other half were firmly opposed to expansion. Within the century, the United States managed to claim Texas, California, and the majority of Indian-owned lands. Opinions on this expansion were mixed around the country. Polls taken during the time period show that the majority of the south and west supported expansion, while northerns were opposed to it. (Document B) This was because the northerners had different values and beliefs than the southerners of westerners. Both the opponents and supporters of territorial expansion during the time period between 1800 and 1855, had a tremendous influence on shaping federal government policy. However, it can be argued that the supporters of territorial expansion had the largest impact. They were able to sway the federal government to create policies and new laws that were in favor of supporter’s beliefs.
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 1856, a Presidential election occurred in the United States at a crucial period. Sectionalism was at an all time high and a leader was needed to unite the country. However, the man who won the election did not prove to be this leader. Instead, his platform was based on a deliberate failure to lead. Due to James Buchanan’s position that supported popular sovereignty in the expanding United States, the country divided even further over the topic of slavery to the point that the Civil War became inevitable.
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. In the early nineteenth century, most Northerners and Southerners agreed entirely that Americans should settle Western territories, and that it was God’s plan, or their “manifest destiny.”
The Kansas-Nebraska Act was a great victory for the south. The greatest benefit to the south was the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, which established the sacred 36-30 line. If the Missouri Compromise had stayed in place, there would have been no more possibility for the expansion of slavery, since there was no land left south of the 36-30 line; under the Missouri Compromise southern expansion was hampered by the existence of the Gulf of Mexico. As a result of the line being repealed, it was possible for slavery to exist in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska because of popular sovereignty.
By 1820 differences between the North and South grew eminent. The majority of the northern states were rapidly industrializing and anti-slavery. The opposite was true for most Southern states, which were pro-slavery and had more agriculture and plantations than factories and industry. Between 1820 and 1861 many compromises were introduced to America in order to reduce sectional tensions between the North and South. Compromises such as the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854 were ineffective in diffusing sectional tensions leading up to the Civil War.
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.
...h and the South wanted the territory for themselves. The North wanted to expand its industrial fingers to better their economy, but the South wanted more land for plantations to also better their economy. First, the Wilmot Proviso established popular sovereignty as the new factor that decided what side was going to obtain the land. This angered the South because they were frightened that their voice would be lost, and subsequently slavery would be demolished. However, the North felt anger after Stephen Douglass proposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and allowed any white male settler to decide if the new territory would be slave or free. With Southern white men trying to make the territories slave territories, the North were furious and started bleeding Kansas, which arguably was the spark that ignited the Civil War.
...om’s Cabin in 1852, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, the Dred Scott Decision of 1857, John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry in 1859, and the outcome of the Presidential Election of 1860—created conditions where Southerners felt the need to secede from the United States (they felt that their “way of life” was being threatened), as well as created conditions where the Northerners decided to go to war against the Southern Confederacy in order to maintain the Union. It is not surprising, however, that the Civil War occurred; since the Industrial Revolution, the Industrial North had always been different than the Agricultural South. If each region paid more attention to resolving the issues that separated them, instead of trying to prove themselves right, they could have stopped the bloodiest battle in American history (even though this is using hindsight knowledge).