William E. Gienapp discussed the ethnocultural origins of the Republican Party. Gienapp claimed that in 1853 and 1854 the state and local political contests revolved primarily around the ethno-cultural problems. Anti-Catholicism and temperance were examples of such ethno-cultural matters. Gienapp believed that the slavery issue was not as important to the complete collapse of the second party system as the anti-Catholicism and temperance issues were. Anti-Catholicism was the resistance of the protestant states to the Catholic Church; the objections to its rituals and Pope became a political subject matter. Temperance was the prohibition of alcohol. Catholics consumed alcohol, but the Protestants were completely against the consumption of it. …show more content…
Before the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, the issues of anti-Catholicism and temperance completely damaged the old system and proposed a political change. The Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854 granted people in Kansas and Nebraska to vote on whether or not to keep slavery. The Kansas-Nebraska Act allowed for popular sovereignty, which is the idea that the power of the state and government arose by and for the people. The main influence that contributed to the proposed political change was the growth of ethnocultural problems that crossed common partisan boundaries. The growth of ethnocultural issues had the potential of unexpectedly causing disturbance to the Democratic and Whig afflictions. Hence, ethnocultural problems demolished the party system in place when dominant parties successfully put down the Free Soil party challenge immediately after the compromise of 1850. Tyler Anbinder explained how anti-slavery was key to the success of the Know Nothings.
The Know Nothings was a political party whose members completely opposed immigrants and Catholics. The Know Nothings associated themselves with the temperance social movement that went against the consumption of alcohol. Anbinder believed that the success of the Know Nothings in the North had a connection with their view on slavery. The Know Nothings were against slavery, and that is why, according to Anbinder, they accomplished their most significant victories in the North. The voters truly believed that the Know Nothings were against the extension of slavery, and that is why the voters in the North generated the Know Nothings’ great success in 1854 and 1855. Anbinder totally acknowledged the ethno-culturalists; past historians have indeed undervalued the relevance of the anti-Catholicism and Know Nothings in the 1854 political phases. Anbinder concluded that the extension of the slavery problem was the influential factor in the second party system’s …show more content…
destruction. The political crisis of the 1850s arose mainly because of the anti-slavery dispute. Tyler Anbinder’s claims are more convincing than William Gienapp’s ethnocultural claims. Based on the excerpts discussed below, the slavery issue led to the political crisis. The destruction of the party system that was responsible for setting the Democrats against the Whigs, the non-slave states’ endorsement of the Republican Party, the Republican’s control of conventional Northern states, and the impossibility for Americans to accommodate differences on the slavery extension problem, were all four critical factors in the political crisis that eventually caused the Civil War. The excerpt from the Harrisburg Telegraph and Journal addressed nativism and slavery. The editors discussed the significance of anti-Catholicism and anti-slavery to the Know Nothings. The editors anticipated that the Know Nothings’ latest victories would ultimately weaken the political impact of immigrants. The Know Nothings used anti-Catholicism and anti-slavery in the North to persuade the Northerner voters. All the factors discussed above led to the domination and popularity of the Know Nothings over the Republicans. The Republicans, established in the Northern states in 1854, were composed of ex-Whigs, ex-Free Soilers, and anti-slavery activists. From 1854 to 1856, the Know Nothings focused solely on restraining the spread of slavery. The Know Nothings asserted anti-Catholicism and anti-slavery issues to win over many of the former Whig Party’s advocates and wreck the Whig party to complete extinction, which led to the political crisis’s first of the stages. In 1854, the New York Tribune editors convinced people that the Know Nothings Whigs were hiding behind the anti-slavery lie for the intention of taking over the North, and then later will eventually reveal their true intentions of destroying the anti-slavery sentiment. The editors used “Sam” to describe the Know Nothings, which came from the name of the Know Nothings’ founder Young Sam. The foreign Roman Catholics’ votes influenced the elections for years due to their large population. The Americans got together to prevent the Catholics from influencing their institutions and independence. The excerpt from Tyler Anbinder on Nativism and Slavery, also discussed the significance of the Republicans’ anti-Catholicism and anti-slavery reputations because it was inseparable to their great success in the North. Excerpts from the New York Tribune discussed the crime against Sumner and the emergence of the Republican Party. Senator Charles Sumner’s “The Crime against Kansas” speech in 1856, criticized Senator Andrew Butler of South Carolina. A few days after Sumner’s speech, representative Preston Brooks assaulted him. Preston Brooks was Senator Butler’s nephew. Brooks attacked Senator Sumner of Massachusetts; Sumner did not return to the senate for three whole years. Sumner spoke against slavery, which is why the South took such harsh actions against him. The violent treatment of Sumner for voicing his opinion proved the Republicans’ claim that the South did not allow any discussion that threatened the expansion of slavery, and were willing to do anything to stop anti-slavery advocates. The extreme violence taken against Sumner led many Know Nothings to the Republican Party, because it became apparent to them that the issue was more about “slave power” than Catholics and immigrants. The second stage of the political crisis came about when the Republicans became the most dominate political party in the North. In 1858, many debates took place between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas. An excerpt from Robert W. Johannsen discussed the logic behind the Lincoln-Douglas debates. In 1858, the Republicans of Illinois announced Abraham Lincoln their senior candidate for 1859 to worsen Stephen Douglas’s chances of winning. The Republicans of Illinois took such action in hope of unseating Douglas. Douglas’s popularity came about because of his refusal to endorse democratic moves seeking to make Kansas a slave state. The Democrats were pro-slavery and the earliest political party to apply popular sovereignty. Lincoln challenged Douglas in several debates, and Douglas took on the challenge. Lincoln wanted to influence voters to the republican cause. Douglas accused the Republicans and Lincoln of favoring equality of blacks and whites, and that scared the whites. Whites in 1858 did not want to be equal with the blacks, and an accusation such as that could have threatened Lincoln and the Republicans’ chances of winning. However, due to Lincoln’s fascinating capability of debating, the Republicans won the majority of the votes. Even though the Republicans won the majority of the votes, the Democrat Douglas became Senator. Douglas won because the majority of the legislators were Democrats that were not up for reelection during 1858. However, the Republicans did not lose; they gained a strong popularity, and Lincoln became President in 1860. The Expert from the New York Herald examined the Northern opinion on the eve of conflict. The North did not advocate for the Republicans and definitely not Lincoln in 1860. The North believed that the Republicans could eventually led “the nation into war by threatening the perpetuation of slavery” (258). The New York Herald editors attacked the Republicans, and that was obvious based on the words they chose to describe the Republicans in their newspaper. The Herald got the politicians of the South to believe that the Northerners actually welcomed slavery, and that the Republicans did not represent the Northerners’ true views. Editorials like in the Herald, pressed Southerners to want to split off from the North even more and neglect the thought of a compromise. In conclusion, the political crisis that occurred in the 1850s, no doubt led to the civil war.
The collapse of the second party system signified a removal of a whole structure that resembled the past. The arrival of the Republican Party as an opponent to the Democratic Party supposed slavery the next major matter for political debate. In 1858, the Republicans controlled almost all the Northern states, which meant that the possibility of “no more slave states” (226) was plausible. The Southerners did not think it was possible for the Republicans to end slavery because of the Dred Scott decision. Dred Scott ineffectively sued for his and his family’s freedom. The rejection of Scott’s case in the Missouri Supreme court led to the Dred Scott decision, which prohibited blacks whose ancestors imported to the United States to become American Citizens. The decision, also, brought about the Missouri Compromise of 1820; the compromise prohibited slavery in certain areas. Politicians failed to convey their viewpoint on the subject of slavery, which eventually led to Lincoln’s success in the presidential election of 1860. After Lincoln took power, nearly all slave states were no longer slave states, and it all resulted in the outbreak of a civil
war.
Tempers raged and arguments started because of the Missouri Compromise. The simple act caused many fatal events because of what was changed within the United States. It may not seem like a big thing now, but before slavery had been abolished, the topic of slavery was an idea that could set off fights. The Missouri Compromise all started in late in 1819 when the Missouri Territory applied to the Union to become a slave state. The problem Congress had with accepting Missouri as a slave state was the new uneven count of free states and slave states. With proslavery states and antislavery states already getting into arguments, having a dominant number of either slave or free states would just ignite the flame even more. Many representatives from the north, such as James Tallmadge of New York, had already tried to pass another amendment that would abolish slavery everywhere. Along with other tries to eliminate slavery, his effort was soon shot down. The fact that people couldn’t agree on whether or not slavery should be legalized made trying to compose and pass a law nearly impossible.
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
Paul E. Johnson’s classic, A Shopkeeper’s Millennium: Society and Revivals in Rochester, New York, 1815-1837, describes the city of Rochester, New York on the cusp of Charles Finney’s revival. Johnson sets out to “trace the social origins of revival religion”, by considering all levels of the Rochester society, including economy, domestic life and politics, the audience sees how the city functions in the face of modernization and social change (12). Toward the end of his text, Johnson depicts the revival itself and all the change it brought to Rochester. One particular consequence, as Johnson states, is the establishment of Evangelicalism in American societal structure and the eventual development of the Whig party. Johnson concludes his book having proven that there is a strong “relationship between religion and political behavior” (135). Through the Evangelical influence the Whig party developed, calling for temperance, observance of the Sabbath and overall moral reform. However, those untouched by revival began to stand at odds to such moral control. Soon differing ideologies evolved, those of the Protestants and workmen, eventually culminating into two distinct parties: the Whig and Democratic parties. This paper will look at examples from Rochester to suggest the foundations for the divisions between the parties: how they view moral concerns and their ways of governing these issues, finally, asserting that such divisions still affect American politics today.
Throughout the 1830-1840’s the opposing governmental parties, the Jacksonian Democrats and the Whigs, undertook many issues. The Whigs were a party born out of their hatred for President Andrew Jackson, and dubbed his harsh military ways as “executive usurpation,” and generally detested everything he did while he was in office. This party was one that attracted many other groups alienated by President Jackson, and was mainly popular among urban industrial aristocrats in the North. On the other hand, the Jacksonian Democrats were a party born out of President Andrew Jackson’s anti-federalistic ideals that was extremely popular among southern agrarians. A major economic issue that the two parties disagreed on was whether or not the United States should have a National Bank. Along with the National Bank, the two parties also disagreed on the issue of the Protective tariff that was enforced to grow Northern industry. Politically, the two parties disagreed on the issues of Manifest Destiny, or expansion, and ultimately Slavery. While the two parties essentially disagreed on most issues, there are also similarities within these issues that the two parties somewhat agree on.
The election of Abraham Lincoln and the secession of the South led to the outbreak of the civil war. The civil war was the first revolutionary change in America. States' rights were a major issue during this time. Issues of power, different interpretations of the constitution, and banking issues led to many difficulties. South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union. In South Carolina's Declaration of Causes, it was stated that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states" (Document A). The 10th amendment which limited the power of the federal government had acted as a backing for the secession of the South. Nowhere in the constitution did it say that the states had no right to secede from the Union. This secession from the union forever changed the country. Another major change that occurred after the civil war was the thirteenth amendment which abolished slavery. Even though the slaves had fought for the Union in the civil war, they were unable to take any political action and were still inferior as it is stated in document C. The fifteenth amendment granted the right to vote to all men no matter the race. It was argued t...
“The connection between the revivals of the Second Great Awakening and abolition was so strong that it would hardly be an overstatement to say that the revivals were responsible for antislavery becoming a radical national movement.” During the time period, evangelical religion underlay the culture of America to such an extent that the revivals of the 1830s resulted in “tangible” structures for social reform — the revivals touched many aspects of political and social life. The revivals implicitly created political obligations and led to a demand for an activist
People attending schools before 1960’s were learning about certain “unscrupulous carpetbaggers”, “traitorous scalawags”, and the “Radical Republicans”(223). According to the historians before the event of 1960’s revision, these people are the reason that the “white community of South banded together to overthrow these “black” governments and restore home rule”(223). While this might have been true if it was not for the fact that the “carpetbaggers were former Union soldiers”, “Scalawags… emerged as “Old Line” Whig Unionists”(227). Eric Foner wrote the lines in his thesis “The New View of Reconstruction” to show us how completely of target the historians before the 1960’s revision were in their beliefs.
The seeds of secession had been sown early in American history; quite literally with the fundamental differences in agriculture and resultant adoption of slavery in the South. From early days, the thirteen states had grown up separately, and each had their own culture and beliefs, which were often incompatible with those held in other states. The geographical and cultural differences between north and south would manifest themselves at regular and alarming intervals throughout the hundred years following the drafting of the constitution. Tension reached a peak during the 1850s, over the right to hold slaves in new territories. The Wilmot Proviso of 1846, roused bitter hostilities, and vehement debate turned to physical violence during the period of 'Bleeding Kansas'. The election of Lincoln, who the South perceived to be an abolitionist, in 1860 was the final straw, and the secession of seven Southern states followed soon after.
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 turmoil between the North and South about slavery brought many issues to light. People from their respective regions would argue whether it was a moral institution and that no matter what, a decision on the topic had to be made that would bring the country to an agreement once and for all. This paper discusses the irrepressible conflict William H. Seward mentions, several politician’s different views on why they could or could not co-exist, and also discusses the possible war as a result.
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.
Roark, J.L., Johnson, M.P., Cohen, P.C., Stage, S., Lawson, A., Hartmann, S.M. (2009). The american promise: A history of the united states (4th ed.), The New West and Free North 1840-1860, The slave south, 1820-1860, The house divided 1846-1861 (Vol. 1, pp. 279-354).
...ers mobilized in 1860 behind moderate Abraham Lincoln because he was most likely to carry the doubtful western states. In 1857, the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision ended the Congressional compromise for Popular Sovereignty in Kansas. According to the court, slavery in the territories was a property right of any settler, regardless of the majority there. Chief Justice Taney's decision said that slaves were, "...so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." The decision overturned the Missouri Compromise, which banned slavery in territory north of the 36°30' parallel.
As mentioned above, Houston voted with the Whig’s on the Compromise of 1850, supported Millard Fillmore re-election bid in 1854, and voted against the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Following the demise of the Whig party after the passage of the Act, the Know-Nothing party garnered many Southern Whig’s supporters, to include moderate Unionist (Houston). Following the demise of the Know-Nothing party soon after the 1856 Presidential election, Unionist (Houston) turned to the Constitutional Unionist party. Historians contend that Houston’s association with the Know-Nothing party resulted in his loss to Hardin R. Runnels in 1857. However, during the 1859 gubernatorial election, several factors enabled Houston to win the election, mainly Runnels’
Minkema, Kenneth P., Stout, Harry S.. "The Edwardsean Tradition and the Antislavery Debate, 1740-1865." Journal of American History 1(2005):47. eLibrary. Web. 17 Jan. 2012.