Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Expansionism for the united states
20th century united states expansionism
The military strategy and political objectives of the southern states during the civil war
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Expansionism for the united states
Underneath the talk of states’ rights, expansion, tariffs, and railroads there was always slaves, toiling on southern plantations and growing in number each day. As the country entered the nineteenth century, politicians found the unanswered issue of slavery demanded attention. This attention was necessary not only because of the expanding country, welcoming new states into the fold, but because of the slaves themselves and their actions. Despite talk of other political issues crucial to politicians as the years crept toward the Civil War, slavery was constantly an undertone in each debate. The presence of slaves and free blacks throughout the United States of America influenced both northern and southern politicians to create legislation that …show more content…
“For the Slave South to deter its most potentially destructive slave resistance, potential fugitives had to dread coercion outside as well as inside their masters’ estate” and the act provided that coercion. The free blacks, at the very least inspiring images to slaves, encouraged potential runaways through their lifestyles and knowledge. Without these slaves’ attempts to gain freedom, the act would not have been necessary. The northern states would not have made laws allowing citizens not to participate in slave catching, and the southern states would not have been nervous about northern state compliance with the return of their …show more content…
While northern Democratic senator Stephen Douglas introduced the bill purely to organize the western territory to build railroads in his home state of Illinois, the South grabbed at the chance to push their expansion agenda. Knowing that Douglas needed Southern Democrats in order to pass his bill, the senators would “no longer tolerate retention of the Missouri Compromise’s declaration that slavery must be ‘forever prohibited’ from Nebraska.” They needed to cancel this “retention” since slavery would not last trapped in the South. Douglas offered them the opportunity to demand a change. The growing number of slaves pressured the politicians to take this chance to better their chances for expansion, and therefore survival of
Analysis of The Shattering of The Union by Eric H. Walther In Eric H. Walther’s, “The Shattering of The Union”, the question of the Kansas Nebraska Act came along during 1854. The Kansas-Nebraska Act infuriated many in the North who considered the Missouri Compromise to be a long-standing binding agreement. In the pro-slavery South it was strongly supported. On March 4, 1854, the Senate approved The Kansas-Nebraska Act with only two southerners and four northerners voting against it. On May 22, the House of Representatives approved it and by May 30, 1854, The Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed by the U.S. Congress.
The United States began to dissatisfy some of its citizens and so the concerns of sectionalism, or the split of the country began to arise. There was a continuous riff between the south and the north over a few issues, a major one being slavery. The south argued that the slaves were necessary to support the southern economy. According to document A, the south were angry that the north was creating taxes that hurt the southern economy, thus increasing the need for slavery since they had to make up for the expense of the taxes. The south felt that the north was able...
First, the Missouri Compromise of 1820 established the slavery line that allowed slavery below it and forbid slavery above it. 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. In effect, the north got the short end of the stick and the south was given the first hint of being able to push around the north. The interesting thing is, the north agreed to all these provisions that would clearly benefit the south.
Their main aim was not to stop slavery because it was inhumane, but the fact that white people were becoming unemployed and the south were becoming more powerful. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was a debatable decision for the north and the south. A decision on whether or not Missouri should come in as a slave state. In Congress, those on the side of the north, found out that Missouri was going to be placed as a slave state and were dramatically upset. They were upset due to the fact that it would cause an unbalance.
During a time of great brutality due to the controversial idea of Kansas being either a free or slave state, otherwise known as “Bleeding Kansas”, Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois composed the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which would repeal the Missouri Compromise and set the foundation for Kansas to solely decide its stance on slavery, an idea otherwise known as popular sovereignty (United States Senate). Charles Sumner spoke out against the Kansas-Nebraska Act in his “Crime Against Kansas” speech in which he maintained that the intention of the “Slave Power” was to “rape a virgin” and give birth to a slave state and spoke in favor of prompt affirmation of Kansas as a free state (Meade)...
This gave freed slaves a chance to fight for the freedom of slaves in the United States, to gain the Constitutional rights that every American deserves.
The original Fugitive Slave Act was made in 1793. One of the things this stated was that slave owners were allowed to search for their escaped slaves in states that didn’t believe in slavery. When a slave (or a person suspected of being a slave) was caught, the people (or person) went to court to get the slave returned to it’s owner. If enough evidence was provided, the slaves were returned to their owners. This act also made it so that anyone who helped slaves in anyway, such as hiding them, were to face a $500 fee. Many people, especially those from northern states, disagreed with this act. The people of the northern states felt as if their land was being used by bounty hunters. They also disliked how, with people taking free African Americans as slaves, it felt as if the act was leading up to the legalization of kidnapping. Certain people who disagreed with this act created groups to help save slaves, and even created housing for them that would be safe for them to escape to areas where slavery was illegal.
In 1850, congress made the Fugitive Slave Law. The law mandated that all slaves that escaped from the South had to be returned to their rightful owner. After the Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court case the blacks were not considered citizens of the United States. In the court case of United States v. Morris, a slave named Shadrach was being held for a hearing, because he escaped from Norfolk, Virginia to Boston. The Fugitive Slave Law mandated that Shadrach needed to be sent back to Norfolk to his rightful owner. A large crowd came into the courtroom and helped Shadrach escape to Canada. Eight of the people who helped Shadrach escape were charged with violating the Fugitive Slave Act. The jurors acquitted the emancipators even though they were clearly guilty. Using the legal theories of Natural Law, Legal Realism, and Positivism I will explore the ruling of the Morris jury.
Reparations Although the talk of reparations of slavery has been in discussion for over a hundred years, it is beginning to heat up again. Within these discussions, the issue of the form of reparations has been evaluated and money has been an option several times. However, reparations in the form of money should not be obtained for several reasons. Firstly, it is not a solution to the problem, secondly monetary reparations have the ability to worsen discrimination, thirdly, who gets paid, and how is it regulated, and lastly, the money can be misused.
The presidential elections of 1860 was one of the nation’s most memorable one. The north and the south sections of country had a completely different vision of how they envision their home land. What made this worst was that their view was completely opposite of each other. The north, mostly republican supporters, want America to be free; free of slaves and free from bondages. While on the other hand, the south supporters, mostly democratic states, wanted slavery in the country, because this is what they earned their daily living and profit from.
The Fugitive Slave Act was part of the Compromise of 1850. This act required that authorities in the North had to assist southern slave catchers to retrieve and return slaves to their owners. Southerners favored this act because they saw no slavery in the territories to the west, by the passing of the Fugitive Slave Act it would help preserve slavery in the south. This act allowed southern slave owners to get their slaves back when they escaped to the North that is why this act was important and critical to southern survival. The view of this act by the North was the opposite, especially from those who were black, they feared this act. The blacks in the North were terrified that this act would make it so they could be ushered back to the south even if they were innocent. This led to the creation of resistance groups in the North.
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.
As Politicians in Washington scrambled to puttogether and pass new legislation, the South remained in upheaval, the economy now had to accommodate millions of newly emancipated blacks and battles for political power emerged. As freed slaves tried to begin a new life for themselves and take advantage of their new rights unde...
This act authorized the for the capture and return of runaway slaves causing more tension between the north and the south. It sates “required citizens to assist in the capture of fugitives” (Fonner, 2015, P. 25). It became extremely hard for them to escape and be free. It also states, “slave hunters… were lurking about the city” (Foner, 2015, P.164). Many wanted the reward that was given if they returned a runaway slave, so many African Americans would be terrorized every day. With the slave catchers on the lookout it made the fugitives be more discrete and made them have more elaborate plans to not get
We are Northern Abolitionist seeking request from all Northerners to come together and help free negroes from the atrocious acts of the Southerners. As you all may have heard, a compromise had just been passed yesterday called The Fugitive Slave Law, where the government to heavily assist slaveowners recovering runaway negroes. This has made it harder for us to free slaverunners due to government having more weapons and technology than anyone else. There will be penalties given if caught assisting or hiding negroes. We have been assisted runaway slaves back to 1786, when the first organized group, Quakers, was assembled to help assist slaves escaped. We help free negroes because Southerner slaveowners are inhumane and unfair to negroes.