Increased Sectional Tension between the Notrht and the South

Representative David Wilmot of Pennsylvania, an antislavery Democrat, introduced an amendment to the appropriation bill prohibiting slavery in any territory acquired from Mexico. The Wilmot Proviso passed the house but failed in the senate. Southern militants in the meantime contended that all Americans had equal rights in the new territories, including the right to move their slaves. The northwest sold most of its products to the residents of the northeast and was thus depended on eastern purchasing power. Eastern industry found an important market for its products in the west. STRONG ECONONOMIC RELATIONSHIP was emerging that was profitable to both-- and that was increasing the isolation of the south within the

The westward expansion of slavery was one of the most dynamic economic and social processes going on in this country. The Industrial Revolution had changed every aspect of American life and the country’s borders spread westward with the addition of the Mexican Cession—opening new cotton fields. To maintain the original Constitutional balance of lawmaking power, Congress continued to play the compromise game in 1820 and 1850 to maintain an equal number of free and slave votes in the Senate (where every state had two votes).

One of the biggest divisions between the north and south was slavery. The south needed slaves to tend to crops such as cotton, which became a major part of the south’s economy after the invention of the cotton gin. The north, meanwhile, gained an increasingly large number of abolitionists opposing slavery. The abolitionists believed that slavery was immoral and were influenced by former slaves like Frederick Douglass, as well as through literature, including Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Although the divisions over slavery would not end until later on agreements like the Missouri Compromise of 1820 reduced tensions by preventing any new states above the 36 30’ parallel from joining the union as a slave state.

During the 19th century, slavery expanded geographically and demographically in the South and Southwest of America, generating a wave of abolitionist movements. These events provoked a different response in the country’s society, since not everyone shared the same definition of slavery and freedom. These concepts started to get involved in almost every part of American sociopolitical life, creating differing points of view that would later conform the two sides in the Civil War of America: The Union in the north, and Confederacy in the south.

As a result of the Compromise of 1850, California was admitted as a free state, the territory disputed between Texas and New Mexico was surrendered to New Mexico, the slave trade was abolished in the District of Columbia, the Mexican Cession was open to popular sovereignty, and a stronger Fugitive Slave Law was enacted. In a speech to the Senate on March 7, 1850, Senator Daniel Webster stated his opinion that the North is wrong for not obeying the Fugitive Slave Law and that succession is amiss [Document D].The tone of Webster’s speech is objective as he attempts to see both sides- the North and the South. Webster is unbiased because as a Northern man, he agrees with the South. The peace was only temporary. The Fugitive Slave Law upset Northerners and the Underground Railroad became more active, peaking between 1850 and 1860. Massachusetts went so far as to making it a penal offense for a state official to enforce the act. The act also brought the issue of slavery into the limelight before the entire nation. In fact, by 1858, there was no avoiding the subject of slavery. During the Lincoln-Douglass Debates in a speech at Alton, Illinois on October 15, 1858, Abraham Lincoln stated that slavery was no longer just a political issue [Document G]. Slavery was splitting the nation and during the Second Great Awakening, even churches split over the issue. Lincoln’s speech is

Politically, slavery became one of those hot topic issues that politicians usually like to avoid speaking about because the country was divided into two different view points, pro-slavery and anti-slavery, and politicians wanted to be in everyone’s good graces to win come election time. However, when the argument came about weather or not newly inducted states could ban slavery or not, tensions rose in the government. This led to the Compromise of 1850, which allowed for stricter fugitive laws, but allowed California to be free, and New Mexico and Utah to make their decision based on popular sovereignty (the idea that the people of that state should choose). Politically, slavery left a whole mess of confusion for the new states. For example, in the Kansas- Nebraska act a railroad was to be built crossing over two new territories (Kansas and Nebraska) that allowed

After the Mexican War had ended, a Democratic congressman from PA, David Wilmot, gave a provocative speech to the House that endorsed the annexation of Texas as a slave state on August 8 of 1846. Because Mexico now forbade slavery, Wilmot declared that if any new territory were to be acquired from Mexico, there should be no slavery or involuntary servitude there. His Proviso sparked new political conflict and debate over the extension of slavery and tested the Missouri Compromise that had protected both slave states and free states and not permitting it in newly admitted states. With newly acquired territory from the Mexican War, the national debate continued and in 1846, the House of Representatives passed the Wilmot Proviso but it did not pass through the Senate. President Polk decided that the debate over slavery had nothing to do with the war in Mexico and dismissed the proviso as mischievous and foolish”. Furthermore, the president convinced Wilmot to withhold his amendment from any bill in relation with the annexation of Mexican territories. Although his proviso did not pass, his idea kept appearing in Congress years after. People who opposed his Proviso wrote a thesis to counter the proviso such as John C. Calhoun. Calhoun declared that slavery should be allowed in the Mexican territory because per the Fifth Amendment, people were granted life, liberty and property; slaves were property. Thus the topic of slavery played a prominent role in dividing

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.

Sectional issues have been dealt within American society since the colonial era, where various groups would try to out-resource one another in the hopes of not only survival but in hopes of profit. However, in the sectional issues of 1844-1860, the conflicts presented continue to exist to modern times while simultaneously changing the overall perspective of what it means to be an American. The freedom of slaves was still in question by the end of the era of turmoil, even though that was the key issue disputed. Issues over a balance of slaveholding states and abolition states was also a continuous struggle. Both of these issues had endured far too much compromise-there needed to be a

Throughout the history of mankind, slavery has existed in one form or another. Since the times of ancient civilizations to modern era subjugations, there have forces who feel strongly of its necessity and purpose, while others have devoted themselves to seeing the ideas and acts of slavery abolished. America is not an exception to the concept of slavery and during the nation’s early history, parties from both sides have been made famous for their beliefs in the continuation or the denouncement of slavery in the United States. To understand the contrasting views of pro-slavery advocates versus abolitionists in antebellum America, a comparison of the individual positions must be made to further understand the goals of each party.

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

During this time frame The United States consisted of three geographic regions, the north, south, and the west. There was a lot of competition between these regions, the question of whether slavery should be

The North turned slavery into a moral issue creating tension between the two distinct parts of the