Abraham Lincoln once stated, "A House divided against itself cannot stand. I Believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the house to fall. But I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other". More than anything else, differing interpretations about the Civil War drove the debate over the meaning of the Constitution and of the Union. These were, of course, not new issues. Indeed, as Professor Joseph Ellis has noted in Founding Brothers: the Revolutionary Generation both had been on the minds of the delegates to Philadelphia in 1787. And, significantly, they were considered so controversial that neither the word "slavery" nor the word "nation" …show more content…
Unfortunately, the court was involving itself in a highly volatile political situation when they ruled 7-2 against Scott's claim. Nevertheless, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney's decision was the one on record with him holding the majority vote against Scott. On the basic issue of Scott's freedom, the Court agreed with the lower courts' determination that Scott was neither a citizen of the state or the U.S. nation, and therefore could not bring a suit before a court ("We the People" 119). The reaction to Taney's ruling was predictable: The South celebrated, praising that the Constitutional guarantees of property (described in the 5th Amendment) were clearly defined once and for all. No governmental body had the authority to restrict the movement of slaves, who had been declared inviolable property by the highest court of the land (Irons 182). The North condemned the ruling, describing it as a politically motivated act by a Pro-Southern Supreme Court. The Court seemed to ignore that the Constitution also spoke of guarantees to freedom in the same sentence that it guaranteed property in the 5th Amendment (Ward 34). This lead to the even bigger argument on why the North and South had many different views on the issue of slavery. The Dred Scott decision was more than the Northerners could take, so they declared that they would not obey the court. This is the first instance of "Massive Resistance" to a Supreme Court decision up to that point (Oxford 454). After this
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
The name Civil War is misleading because the war was not a class struggle, but a sectional combat, having its roots in political, economic, social, and psychological elements. It has been characterized, in the words of William H. Seward, as the “irrepressible conflict.” In another judgment the Civil War was viewed as criminally stupid, an unnecessary bloodletting brought on by arrogant extremists and blundering politicians. Both views accept the fact that in 1861 there existed a situation that, rightly or wrongly, had come to be regarded as insoluble by peaceful means.
The little children are freezing to death. My people, some of them, have run away to the hills, and have no blankets, no food. No one knows where they are -- perhaps freezing to death. I want to have time to look for my children, and see how many of them I can find. Maybe I shall find them among the dead. Hear me, my chiefs! I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands I will fight no more forever."
By the 1850s sectional tension had spread across the nation. The lack of a solution to the issue of slavery that would appease both proponents and opponents of the issue increased this tension. The Constitution was written as a document to bring the nation together but was beginning to tear it apart. The Constitution was vague in terms of addressing slavery within the United States, causing arguments made by both sides of the issue to further polarize the nation. The statement, “By the 1850s the Constitution, originally framed as an instrument of national unity, had become a source of sectional discord and tension and ultimately contributed to the failure of the union it had created.” The interpretations of the Constitution about the
The Union was in a state of exceedingly high tension as it split in two on the issue of slavery. It was a question of moral integrity and whether it should be allowed to continue. Racism permeated the institution slavery. The color of a man’s skin did not keep him from fighting for freedom in the wars that took place in America, although it was a way white people sought to justify their mistreatment of them. Slaves were viewed as inferior beings by southern whites and as the abolition movement gained momentum in the north, the slave owners began to see northerners as inferior as well for sympathizing with such barbarians. The Dred Scott case only servers to further this point; slaves were by law not seen as citizens.
In 1850, a document called the Fugitive Slave Act was passed. Primarily, this document dealt with the reclaiming of runaway slaves. This law allowed southerners to call upon the federal government to capture runaway slaves who had fled the South and may be living in the North. The Fugitive Slave Act and the laws that went with it only caused controversy in the North. This split the North and South. In reaction to this, some northern states passed laws forbidding state officials to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law, which only angered the southern states. Northerners had become aware of the hypocrisy of slavery and became resolved to end slavery. Many abolitionists started to take action to help slaves escape. This major controversy over the
His original words suggested that the war was fought over state’s rights, but this was only to avoid the difficult topic of slavery, in which he tried to avoid forming an opinion on for the election. However, in 1860 Lincoln protested the infamous Dred Scott decision, or any movement that led to the expansion of slavery. During the decision, the Supreme Court mandated that it was against the constitution to give power to the states on the slavery decision, suddenly, slavery was legal everywhere. This was one of the most prominent components of tension in slave and free states, which eventually led to the secession of the
“While the Revolution of 1776-1783 created the United States, the Civil War of 1861-1865 determined what kind of nation it would be” (McPherson). Four years of American bloodshed on American soil for a wide-range of reasons. From the formation of America to 1860, the people in this country were divided. This was a result of location and personal opinions. Peace could not continue in a country filled with disagreements that affected the common American. Many believe that The American Civil War was fought only over slavery, when in fact there were a number of other reasons for why this war was fought.
In the 1850’s the United States was not so United. There had been many internal problems, that were tearing the entire country apart. Issues such as slavery, and power of the states were coming between the country. The south and north had been arguing about the issue of slavery for a very long time. The North was against it. They had set out to abolish it. But the south was growing very rich off it. It was cheap labor. Al the slave owners had to pay for was room and board, which was cheaper then paying salaries. Since the industrial revolution and the invention of things like the Cotton Gin the south had become a large producer of all things cotton.
Many developments in social life and the constitution amounted to a revolution between 1860 and 1877. Some of the major events that took place during this time period were the secession of the southern states, Civil War, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendment, and reconstruction.
War is often thought of as an act, or perhaps numerous acts of violence that are used to settle conflicts between nations. These events can be studied by breaking them up into battles, or campaigns, but other factors are also in play, such as the economic, cultural, social or military issues. All of these, and of course many more made a difference in the way the Civil War was fought, as well as the way that the post war era was handled.
In the Civil War the North had many advantages over the South. The South was outnumbered, out supplied, and pushed into a corner using military tactics. Many things changed because of the Civil War. The military tactics used by the North changed how war was fought from then on. Many changes were made politically; some were only temporary, while others were permanent. After the war was over, the country was reunited and the image of the soul and duty of our country redefined.
In the early years of the republic, when the Northern states were providing for immediate or gradual emancipation of the slaves, many leaders had supposed that slavery would die out. In 1787 the Northwest Ordinance had banned slavery in the Northwest Territory. In 1808 many southerners thought that slavery would end soon. The expectations turned out to be false.
Did you know America's bloodiest battle fought on their own soil was the Civil War? The Civil War was fought on American soil between the northern states and the southern states. Many causes provoked the war, which would affect the nation for decades to come. Slavery, the Missouri Compromise, and John Brown's attack on Harpers Ferry, Virginia, were some of the many causes. In turn hundreds of thousands of soldiers died, the South's economy was devastated, and the northern ideals flourished.
The American Civil War emanated feelings of joy, exuberance, and glory, yet it substantiated loneliness, destruction, and death. In the antebellum South, nationalism and pride forged a new path, and society saw soldiers as heroic actors and war as their stage. While these actors played out their roles, the audience, the world, could see that their stage did not make them heroes, but war deprived them of body and soul. In Cold Mountain, Charles Frazier develops this excitement and progression to hardship in both Ada and Inman’s journeys. The progression, corroborated by historical evidence, shows that while the antebellum South held a Romantic ideal of war, war itself negated the romantic opinion and became destructive, monstrous,