Border States Dbq

The North was going through a period called the Antebellum period where there was industrial changes. The North consisted of industries while the South’s main purpose was farming. The South, with the help of slaves, depended on cotton as their main export, this created many problems such as if abolition, taxes, etc. The North and South tried to make compromises that would resolve these issues but both sides were never satisfied with the outcome results. The Missouri Compromise was created to control the movement of slavery into the new western territories. The Compromise of 1850 discloses that the resolution should be to admit California as a free state, while Utah and New Mexico

I agree with the idea that the North had won the Civil War before it began to the extent of Lincoln 's conservative political stands. Trying to receive the favor of the South while winning in the North would require Lincoln to take neutral stands in heated political issues like slavery. It wasn 't really wan by the North until he broke away from these stands to enact the Emancipation Proclamation and turn the tides of war in favor of the North. "This Lincoln always publicly condemned the abolitionists who fought slavery by extra constitutional means – and condemned also the mobs who deprived them of their right of free speech and free press." (Holfstadter, Lincoln and the Self-Made Myth) Other than that, the North had the upper hand in

“In time, other plantation crops, especially cotton, sugarcane, and sugar beets, were found to thrive in the South”. It also says “As a result of those and other factors, the North's economy came to depend more on trade than on agriculture”(Doc 3). This means that the North and the South had different views on how to live and how to make money . This also means that the South and the North had different opinions that could not be solved. Southern states left the Union because they had different ways of making money and living.

The North pushed for the abolition of slavery due to the immorality of it. Yet, some reports say otherwise. In the article To Forget and Forgive: Reconstructing the Nation in The Post-Civil War Classrooms, Ginsburg states, “Confederate authors explained Northern anti-slavery sentiment in economic terms once Northern businessmen found slavery unprofitable, they abolished it and turned to slavery 'Fanaticism”. These Southern authors believed that the North 's anti-slavery movement was a ploy for economic prosperity. As a result, this tension led to the fallout of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, when both northern slave territories were either free states or remained slave states by the people. This was an opportunity for the government to leave the legislative branch of slavery with poor sovereignty. The states decided on slavery in hopes that it would have ended slavery controversy and avoid racism.

“Why did the North win the Civil War?” is only half of a question by itself, for the other half is “Why did the South lose the Civil War?” To this day historians have tried to put their finger on the exact reason for the South losing the war. Some historians blame the head of the confederacy Jefferson Davis; however others believe that it was the shear numbers of the Union (North). The advantages and disadvantages are abundant on either sides of the argument, but the most dominate arguments on why the South lost the war would be the fact that state’s rights prevented unification of the South, Jefferson Davis poor leadership and his failure to work together with his generals, the South failed to gain the recognition of the European nations, North’s superior resources made the outcome inevitable, and moral of the South towards the end of the war.

Ralph Waldo Emerson said, in Document C, that “the United States will conquer Mexico, but it will be as the man swallows the arsenic.” This statement points out a key similarity between this war and the Civil War- both were tainted by slavery. The Mexican War would result in new slave states, making abolitionists angry, resulting in the conflicts that started the Civil War. Document D, written by David Wilmot of the Wilmot Proviso, reveals the tensions created by the Mexican cession, saying, “I ask not that slavery be abolished, I demand that this government preserve the integrity of free territory against the aggressions of slavery-against its wrongful usurpations.” Up until that point, there were an equal number of slave and free states. How would the balance be maintained? Wilmot suggested that slavery remain only in the current slave states and not spread to any new territories. However, his plan was rejected, showing that neither side would compromise, but, instead, that the Union would break apart. Therefore, the Compromise of 1850 was passed as a way to appease the north and the south. Document E shows the distinct separation of slave and free states resultant of this compromise. This reveals a major breakup of the Union over slavery. Document F points out the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, created by Stephen Douglas, which divided the newly gained Nebraska Territory into two states, Kansas and Nebraska, and

If the fighting was elsewhere, then it would be easy for Northerners to go along with the war; however, if there was damage or a threat to the North then the Northerners would feel as if it was time to end the war so that they can find a way out of further danger, and bring back peace. It was a last effort for a conclusive victory.

President Lincoln was thinking of taking a risky step to seal victory. At this point in time he came to the realization that he needed to move in a different direction. The strategic goal to restore the Union was not a good enough reason to keep the Northern states interested and behind the war.

Historians have argued inconclusively for years over the prime reason for Confederate defeat in the Civil War. The book Why the North Won the Civil War outlines five of the most agreed upon causes of Southern defeat, each written by a highly esteemed American historian. The author of each essay does acknowledge and discuss the views of the other authors. However, each author also goes on to explain their botheration and disagreement with their opposition. The purpose of this essay is to summarize each of the five arguments presented by Richard N. Current, T. Harry Williams, Norman A. Graebner, David Herbert Donald, and David M. Potter. Each author gives his insight on one of the following five reasons:

William W. Freehling's book The South vs. The South: How Anti-Confederate Southerners Shaped the Course of the Civil War tells a unique story about the Civil War and one that is not typically discussed in history books. The book is about divisions within the southern culture, which might have led to the outcome of the war in favor of the Union. Perhaps all black southerners had a vested interest in the North's victory, but many white southerners felt the same way for many reasons. In The South vs. The South, Freehling discusses the way the Union used divisions in the south as a war strategy, such as by recruiting potentially neutral Americans living in border states. Recruiting soldiers from border states and western states with less entrenched plantation cultures versus their Dixie counterparts was one of Lincoln's key strategies and also helped General Grant secure some key military victories.

"The North won the war, but the South won the peace," is a statement to explain what happened during the process of reconstructing the country. From events and evidence the south was always restricting the power that the north gained from winning the war. The north was proudly able to keep their heads up and go in the direction they set out

Before the Civil War started, the North and the South argued on two main topics: slavery and state rights. In my opinion, it was because of slavery that state rights were argued. When Western territories were annexed from Mexico, they were admitted to the Union with the condition that that slavery be banned through the Wilmot Proviso (History.com). Because of this, slave states felt they were unfairly treated and outnumbered. The religious fervor of the Second Great Awakening also gave way to new ideology. Combined with the growing abolitionist sentiment, Northern states began taking action against Southern states. Because their rights as

     I agree with the idea that the North had won the Civil War before it began to the extent of Lincoln’s conservative political stands. Trying to receive the favor of the South while winning in the North would require Lincoln to take neutral stands in heated political issues like slavery. It wasn’t really wan by the North until he broke away from these stands to enact the Emancipation Proclamation and turn the tides of war in favor of the North. “This Lincoln always publicly condemned the abolitionists who fought slavery by extra constitutional means – and condemned also the mobs who deprived them of their right of free speech and free press.” (Holfstadter, Lincoln and the Self-Made

If the north was to succeed, they would forever be oppressed by their victory, and slaves of their achievements. The Confederates fought to promote the wellbeing of their family and the protection of their land “from Yankee outrage and atrocity”(Mc.Pherson 20) .

With no hope of bringing the South back into the United States by protecting slavery, Lincoln had a new dilemma. His own political party, the Republicans, had formed around their opposition to slavery. Many of the more radical politicians in the party saw the secession of the South as the best opportunity to abolish slavery once and for all. As the US war dead piled up, more and more Northerners began to push Lincoln to punish the states that had seceded by making abolition a major goal of the war. The problem with abolishing slavery, however, was that there were still four slave states that had not seceded from the United States: Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware. Lincoln feared that if he advocated emancipation he would provoke those states into joining the Confederacy, making the war even more difficult to win. Of the border states, Maryland was particularly worrisome, because the US capital at Washington D.C. sat on its border with Virginia. If Maryland decided to join the Confederacy, Washington D.C.