Impending Crisis By David M. Potter

America’s transformation into the country we live in today has been formed through numerous events during its short history but the event that will split the United States into North versus South is truly one of the most defining events in American history. Through numerous events leading up to the start of the Civil War, I will attempt to show how the United States was destined for conflict and that the Civil War was inevitable. The first way I will show how the war could not be avoided will deal with the issue of slavery. Slavery should be the first mentioned because many conflicts within the United States leading up to the Civil War and the division of the United States dealt with slavery. The Missouri Compromise should also be talked

More than any other event, the American Civil War went far in defining a United States that had been imperfectly and incompletely shaped by its first 70 years. For seven decades, the presence of slavery in a republic founded on principles of human freedom increasingly confused the political system and unraveled the social fabric. (Heidler, David S. and Jeanne T. Heidler. (2015)). Although slavery in the South had given rise to antislavery movements in the North as early as the American Revolution, a fresh vigor characterized the abolition movement in the 1830s. Arguments over the western territories clouded the country into a series of disruptive crises. Each was settled with an unsatisfying compromise that left most Southerners feeling materially cheated and many Northerners morally embarrassed. (Heidler, David S. and Jeanne T. Heidler. (2015)). Efforts to organize the Midwest region called the Nebraska Territory in 1854, led to the ill-conceived Kansas-Nebraska Act. It was yet another attempt designed to secure Southern support for the organization of what by prior agreement would have been a free territory. Kansas and Nebraska were created from the region under the principal of popular sovereignty, which was to say that each territory would decide for itself whether to admit or prohibit slavery. (Heidler, David S. and Jeanne T. Heidler. (2015)). That plan

In William Barney’s article, “The Quest for Room,” he analyzes the differing opinions between the North and South regarding the expansion of slavery into the newly acquired Western territories. The author argues that the West would have been important to slaveholders as a place to expand slavery if the territories had not been free-soil. The reason for this article was to show us how prominent the sectional differences were in the nineteenth century because of the argument over slavery. This, in turn, led to the secession of the Southern states from the Union as they formed the Confederacy; this dug the nation into a deep-pitted civil war.

The Missouri Compromise, one of the most known agreements in American history, was an attempt presented by Henry Clay in calming sectional division between the Northern and Southern states over the issue of slavery. While the Missouri Compromise found a temporary solution in regards to representation resulting in twelve free states and twelve slave states(G), it also, however, ignited the strong feelings, opinions, and justifications of two opposing sides and "heralded" the future unsuccess of the Union. No longer could our forefathers postpone such an imminent issue as was done during the infancy of the United States government. The Missouri Compromise was a success in a sense, not merely

At this time it seemed that the issue of slavery was the only problem in the United States, almost as if a slave was being forced down the throats of the freesoilers (Document F). Stephen Douglas drafted the Kansas-Nebraska Acts in hopes of adding two new states: Kansas and Nebraska. Although it seemed that one would be a slave state, and the other a free state, the slavery issue would be decided by popular sovereignty. Many opposed this decision but did not know how to deal with it. The reason they did not know was because the Constitution did not mention it. William Lloyd Garrison said “the Constitution which subjects them to hopeless bondage is one that we cannot swear to support” (Document E). He was trying to say that the constitution can’t answer the question of slavery because the words “slave” and “slavery” are not in the constitution.

Finally, the social issues in the United States brought about by westward expansion really contributed to start of the Civil War. Proposed in 1846 by David Wilmot, The Wilmot Proviso was a proposition by abolitionists that proposed that there should be no slavery in any of the land included in the Mexican Secession. This was a bold move by the northern abolitionists, and though this wasn’t passed, it showed that the slavery issue was at the forefront of social issues on the western frontier. It was a

In 1820, a politician by the name of Henry Clay decided to help work out a compromise that would keep the balance the North and South. Clay suggested that Congress should admit Maine as a free state and Missouri as a slave state. The official proposal was passed in March of 1820 and prohibited slavery from any territories in the Louisiana Purchase that was North of 36°30’ latitude. (The American Journey Page 320,437, and 438) Almost thirty years later, a dispute over slavery broke out in Congress because a bill was introduced by Illinois senator Stephen Douglas. Douglas originally wanted to run for president but in order to do that he needed the support of the Southern Democrats. With Douglas trying to win over both northerners and southerners, the Kansas-Nebraska act proclaimed that Kansas and Nebraska territories would have the choice to be a free or slave state. Douglas was basically saying that “they” being Congress would repeal the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and would rely on “popular sovereignty” which is letting the people decide. He figured that because Kansas and Nebraska becoming slave

As this national pride grew, as too did the United States’s borders. In 1817, with the recent introduction of Louisiana and Indiana and the soon to be state of Mississippi, many American politicians feared that sectionalism would take over. John C. Calhoun was one of these men, as evidenced in Document B. He states that “the extent of the republic exposes us to the greatest of calamities - disunion” (B). It is clear that Calhoun believes that the growth of the US was “our price and danger, our weakness and our strength” (B).

During the 19th century, so known “peculiar institution” of slavery dominated labor systems of the American South, also dominated most production in the US and led to a boost of the economy of the New Republic. By the 1850 's, US had become a country segregated into two regional identities, known as the Slave South and the Free North. While the South maintained a pro-slavery identity that supported and protected the expansion of slavery westward, the North largely held abolitionist views and opposed the slavery’s westward expansion. Until the 1850 's the nation uncertainly balanced the slavery subject between the two opponents. However, the acquisition of the Louisiana territories in 1803 by the Jefferson administration doubled the size of the US and the victory in the Mexican-American War extended the territory to the Pacific which quadrupled the area of the US. Ultimately, the territorial expansion led to the spread of slavery. In this essay, I will describe some of the reasons for the expansion of slavery including its influence in national politics, and consequences such as political debates and crises of 1850’s.

In the later half of nineteenth century America, the new nation’s original ability to resolve conflict through means of peaceful compromise had vanished. Various spans of conflict such as Westward Expansion, the Market Revolution, Sectionalism, Mexican American War, the succession of the southern states and ultimately the failure of the Compromise of 1850 that made compromise between the North and the South unattainable. It was the uncompromising differences amongst the free and slave states over the power of the national government that created a divide that would result in divisional violence. From the industrialized North, the agricultural South, Jackson’s Presidency to Lincoln’s and the rise in America 's involvement in politics that followed, slavery was merely one pawn on the board during America’s transforming years that would later reveal itself to have been the vehicle for the Civil War.

In the early years of the 19th century, slavery was more than ever turning into a sectional concern, such that the nation had essentially become divided along regional lines. Based on economic or moral reasoning, people of the Northern states were increasingly in support of opposition to slavery, all the while Southerners became united to defend the institution of slavery. Brought on by profound changes including regional differences in the pattern of slavery in the upper and lower South, as well as the movement of abolitionism in the North, slavery in America had transformed from an issue of politics into a moral campaign during the period of 1815-1860, ultimately polarizing the North and the South to the point in which threats of a Southern disunion would mark the beginning of the Civil War in 1861 (Goldfield et. al, The American Journey, p. 281).

One of the most, if not the most, controversial and heated debates following the United States independence was regarding the institution of slavery. In the introduction to his book Half Slave and Half Free, Bruce Levine quotes Carl Schurzs’ observation as the “slave question not being a mere occasional quarrel between two sections of the country divided by a geographic line, but a great struggle between two antagonistic systems of social organization (p.15)”. The Nouthern states that allowed slavery benefited from the agricultural labor that those slaves provided. The Northern states that prohibited slavery did so for moral and pragmatic reasons; they felt it was morally wrong to deny another human any form of rights, and did not like the economic advantage it gave to the Southern states. With the use of slavery largely concentrated in the South, the movement against it came from the North and was led by abolitionists; those who were committed to bringing an end to the practice. In this course we have defined “Practice” as the conduct of policy, such as opinion, election, parties and law-making (Lecture). We define Policy as the goals of politics, those being sovereignty, defense, and a collective well-being (Lecture). The following analytical essay will examine antislavery sentiment and practices in the Northern states and the reaction of Southern states. Additionally how the pressures from both sides influenced the Policy of the United States following independence then

In efforts to better understand the Civil War most historians examine the Sectional Crisis and the Compromise of 1850 in the decades leading up to the worst years in American History. Some historians prefer to focus on the underlying theme of the war, others tightly examine individual leaders, events, and political parties, connecting them all together like puzzle pieces to define the years prior to the war. Despite the contrasting views, it is clear to realize the constant prevailing issues of the Antebellum Period, the Sectional Crisis and the Compromise of 1850. In particular, the Compromise of 1850 is deceivingly taught as only establishing 3 pivotal elements: the status of slavery in future territories (popular sovereignty), California statehood, and the fugitive slave law. Granted these elements of the compromise provide a great amount of controversy long after their birth, but one element of the compromise perceives to fail in obtaining recognition. The Texas-New Mexico boundary resolution seems to find itself fading away from its relevancy to the civil war, shadowed by more prominent issues regarding the stability of the Union. Abandoning the traditional teaching of the compromise, the Texas-New Mexico border decision figuratively and literally changed the identity of Texas. This was the long awaited result caused by deep rooted social and political issues dating back to the Texas Revolution.

As America began to expand, first with the lands gained from the Louisiana Purchase and later with the Mexican War, the question of whether new states admitted to the union would be slave or free. The Missouri Compromise passed in 1820 made a rule that prohibited slavery in states from the former Louisiana Purchase the latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes north except in Missouri. During the Mexican War, conflict started about what would happen with the new territories that the US expected to gain upon victory. David Wilmot proposed the Wilmot Proviso in 1846 which would ban slavery in the new lands. However, this was shot down to much debate. The Compromise of 1850 was created by Henry Clay and others to deal with the balance between slave and free states, northern and southern interests. One of the provisions was the fugitive slave act that was discussed in number one above. Another issue that further increased tensions was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. It created two new territories that would allow the states to use popular sovereignty to determine whether they would be free or slave. The real issue occurred in Kansas where proslavery Missourians

In an effort to keep slavery alive with the Atlantic slave trade, the south threatened disunion immediately should the slave trade in the Atlantic be banned. The reason that the Atlantic slave trade would have been banished was the high amount of native-born slaves in New England and Virginia were demanding it so. The threats of disunion swayed many of the delegates’ minds, one in particular, Foner notes, is Governor Morris, one of Pennsylvania’s delegates. Morris said he was being forced to decide between offending the southern states and doing injustice to “human nature.” For the sake of unity amongst the nation, he chose the latter. The two laws demonstrated here shows that while as a nation we were expanding and making as accessible a nation as humanly possible, the slaves were still held back into slavery, yet making up for part of the population with the three fifths clause and having a more official return to their owners