Everyone agrees that there was a sequence of major events from 1850 to 1861 that led to the out break of the civil war. It can also be referred to as the break up of the union. One might notice that these factors have one common trait: the conflict over slavery. But the four that convey this message the most strongly are the conflict over states of territories, the compromise of 1850, agitation over slavery, and lastly the national parties in crisis and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Southerners met the Wilmot Proviso with hostility and that they in turn developed the Compromise of 1850. This would quell tempers as well as thoughts of secession until the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed and changed the course of history. First of all, the conflicts over both states and territories were gaining momentum. Even though these conflicts had been going on for a while, it was because of their juxtaposition with the other factors that they managed to accomplish what they did.
The issue of slavery in the territories really brought in the Mexican War because of its sectional focus in the late 1840’s. There was the Wilmot Proviso. The Wilmot Proviso excluded slavery from the new territories. Southerners met the Wilmot Proviso with hostility. This would have upset the Compromise of 1820 and the balance of the fifteen free states and the fifteen slave states. The defeat of the war only intensified sectional feelings. On the issue of how to deal with these new western territories, there were essentially three conflicting positions. The Southern position viewed any attempt at restricting the expansion of slavery as a violation of their constitutional right to take and use their property as they pleased. Lewis Cass was a Senator from Michigan and he came up with a compromise that won a considerable amount of approval from both the south and north. He proposed that instead of Congress determining whether to allow slavery in a new western state, that the matter should be settled by a vote of the people. Lastly there was the election of 1848 when the democrats nominated Senator Cass. The Whigs nominated Mexican war hero Zachary Taylor who had never been involved in politics. Taylor had absolutely no view on slavery, the most important topic of that time.
The Essay on Missouri Compromise Slavery North State
The forefathers of our country had many ideals on the inherent inalienable rights of man, although this did not hold true for all peoples. Our country practiced slavery of the African. The agricultural economy of the south required the labor of slaves to complete their work. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 outlawed slavery of the current territory of the United States, but after the purchase of ...
Southern politicians in retaliation to the Wilmot Proviso developed the compromise of 1850 and that it calmed down heated debate over slavery until the Kansa-Nebraska Act was passed. Henry Clay, U.S. senator from Kentucky, was determined to find a solution. In 1820 he had resolved a fiery debate over the spread of slavery with his Missouri Compromise. Now, thirty years later, the matter surfaced again within the walls of the Capitol. But these times the stakes were higher; nothing less than keeping the Union together. On January 29, 1850, the 70-year-old Clay presented a compromise. For eight months members of Congress, led by Clay, Daniel Webster, Senator from Massachusetts, and John C. Calhoun, senator from South Carolina, debated the compromise. With the help of Stephen Douglas, a young Democrat from Illinois, a series of bills that would make up the compromise were ushered through Congress. According to the compromise, Texas would relinquish the land in dispute but, in compensation, be given 10 million dollars. They would use this money to pay their debt to Mexico. Also, the territories of New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah would be organized without mention of slavery. Regarding Washington, the slave trade would be abolished in the District of Columbia, although slavery would still be permitted. Finally, California would be admitted as a free state. To pacify slave-state politicians, who would have objected to the imbalance created by adding another free state, the Fugitive Slave Act was passed. Northerners were still angry because they felt that passing the FSA was “forcing slavery down the throat of a freesoiler.”
The Essay on Slavery Abolitionist vs. Slave Holders
Slavery. This was the cause of major debates in American history that contributed greatly to the differences developing between the northern and southern states of America during the 1800’s. These differences would eventually lead to the Civil War, which would cause the still newly formed America to diverge. During the debates over slavery, both the abolitionist and the slave holders fought ...
Of all the bills that made up the Compromise of 1850, the Fugitive Slave Act was the most controversial. It required citizens to assist in the recovery of fugitive slaves. It denied a fugitive’s right to a jury trial. The act called for changes in filing for a claim, making the process easier for slave owners. Also, according to the act, there would be more federal officials responsible for enforcing the law. Those against slavery bitterly and sometimes forcibly resisted the enforcement of this law in the North. Some northerners just completely ignored it and others went as far to help escaping slaves. In effect, the enforcement of this law added to the feelings of agitation on both sides. The Kansas- Nebraska Act that was to come only intensified this. It would be during that time that people saw the clouds of war looming on the horizon.
Although the Kansas-Nebraska Act itself did not cause anger, it inflamed many when it introduced popular sovereignty into the equation. In the mid-1850’s two things occurred simultaneously. The first was the weakening of the two major parties, being the Democrats and the Whigs. The second was the disastrous application of popular sovereignty in the western territories of Kansas. There were early signs of trouble for the Whig party in the 1852 election for president. They foolishly nominated another war hero who had no stance on the most pressing issue in the country, being slavery. On the other hand, the democrats nominated a politician from New Hampshire, Franklin Pierce. Pierce quickly proved himself to be an inept president, unable to resuscitate Democratic unity. In the absence of effective political leadership, Senator Stephen A. Douglas, representing the “Young America” wing of the Democratic Party, took it upon himself to reassert his party’s basic political tenets and, in the bargain, reinvigorate the democracy. To that end, his Kansas Nebraska bill, which sought to organize the lands west of Iowa and Missouri, combined the ideas of westward expansion, internal improvements, and popular sovereignty. Douglas, in need of Southerners’ support and believing that the Compromise of 1850 embraced a policy of government nonintervention into the practice of slavery in the territories, wrote the principle of popular sovereignty into the bill. The Kansas-Nebraska Act the act divided the nation by basically nullifying both the Compromises of 1850 and 1820 and nudged it towards civil war.
The Essay on Slave Power As The Cause Of The Civil War
In the Gettysburg address, Lincoln quotes the declaration of independence in saying that the United States government was a creation by and for the people who inhabited these shores. In the context of the civil war, this is important because the collapse of the union signified the end of popular sovereignty, even though that particular expression had just been coined. In Russel B. Nyes essay, the ...
This all led to the breakup of the union and yet more. Slavery was the crucifix in it all no matter which reasons one uses to support it. These were the main events and they all occurred one right after the other.
