Sectional Issues and Its’ Impact on American Society
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
…show more content…
This fiery excerpt serves as evidence that the sectional issues were indeed not cured by a haphazard compromise. In fact, the wound that was a divided Union would never be cured by a compromise. It was time for change. Although without proposing a solution, Senator Daniel Webster also agreed it was time for change, at least in such a way that would create a balance once again, but without tearing the Union apart. He did this by writing, “I hear with pain and anguish the word ‘secession’, especially when it falls from the lips of those who are eminently patriotic, and known to the country, and known all over the world for their political services. Secession! Peaceable secession! Sir, your eyes and mine are never destined to see that miracle...I hold the idea of a separation of these states-those that are free to form one government and those that are slaveholding to form another-as a moral impossibility. We could not separate the states by any such line if we were to draw it. We could not sit down here today and draw a line of separation that would satisfy any five men in the country.”(Document 1). Again, the issue of slavery and slaveholding states was weighing a massive burden on the nation, and compromises such as the Compromise of 1850 were simply no longer going to work. There needed to be a definitive solution, and unfortunately, that solution was found through war after the era of deep rooted sectional disputes “ended”.
A major issue that caused major sectional discord was the constitutionality of slavery. In the constitution there was no mention of slavery of fears that it would divide the nation,
Debates over which powers were rightly the states and rightly the federal governments were already tense and the question of whether slavery should or shouldn’t exist in the new territories of America, added on to the already strained relationship between the two sides. Document A describes this situation as a cup on the edge of the shelf, certain things almost pushing it over the edge such as the addition of new states being free or under a slavery economy. Many compromises were formed to try and keep states’ rights as well as keep power for the government. The south wanted to assert their authority over the federal government so they could abolish federal rights they didn’t support, this was
The Antebellum period from 1800 to 1850 marked a time of sectionalism in American history. Furthermore, new territories gained during western expansion added to this conflict between different sections of America. Southern states wanted new slave territories, while the North wanted to contain the spread of slavery. While Western expansion contributed to growing sectional tensions between the North and South from 1800-1820, sectionalism intensified significantly from 1820-1850.
Webster believed the issue of slavery was settled long ago, when the regions were divided into slave and free states, and he also believed an agreement could be reached between the pro-slavery positions in the south and anti-slavery position in the north. Comparatively, Calhoun and Webster both saw the union was in danger of falling apart, they also both believed the issues of slavery between the north and the south was the major cause. Where they disagreed was on the future state of slavery. Calhoun saw the compromise as a betrayal of the south; he sought to have the northerners agree to the protection of slavery in the south so the south would remain in the union. Calhoun knew slavery pre-existed and believed it must continue to exist. Webster was more of a pacifist, he pleaded with the northerners to accept demands of the south in order to save the union, even though he did not accept the fact slavery needed to continue. Webster deeply believed that preservation of the union was more important than any other issue. In addition, William Henry Seward also opposed the proposed compromise. Seward was a New York politician and secretary of state and was one of the major political figures of the mid-nineteenth century; he became one of the most outspoken anti-slavery politicians of the period. Seward condemned Clay's resolutions on the
Correspondingly, there was the quarrel over state versus federal rights. States felt they didn’t have any say if they disliked a federal law. So when all these compromises came about concerning slavery in the West, people wanted to be able to nullify federal laws. To nullify is to cancel, and in this case to cancel a federal law. People like John C. Calhoun fought for this right along with many others. However, the federal government felt this was not necessary, therefore, some states threatened to secede.
During the 19th century slavery was a very prominent and controversial issue between the north and the southern states. In the South, most people believed that slavery was a profitable way of life and if the slavery was to be abolished it would then affect their economy. On the hand the northern had different opinions about slavery and intended to stop it. The fact that the perception were different between the two led to a very difficult situation in resolving the issue.
David M. Potter theme of Impending Crisis is the study of sectional conflict dealing primarily with political events that led up to or caused southern states to secede from the Union resulting in the Civil War. Potter contends that during the expansionist period of the 1840s the country was experiencing a growth of American nationalism, but “the emergence of the sectionalism which almost destroyed the nation was symbolized by an amendment to an appropriation bill which was never enacted.” For the next fifteen years the Wilmot Proviso (1846) and the issue of slavery would become “a catalyst of all sectional antagonisms, political, economic, and cultural…opened the floodgates of sectionalism, for now all the pent-up moral indignation which had been walled in by the constitutional inhibition could be vented into the territorial question.”
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.
One of the main topics of concern for many decades was when new territories want to enter the union, will they be free or slave states? Henry Clay, one of the great compromisers, was able to work all sorts of different compromises on several issues throughout the years. One of his most famous compromises was the Missouri compromise. This allowed Missouri to enter the Union as a slave state, and every new state following would be free North of the Mason-Dixon line. This would try to stop the expansion of slavery, and for a short while, it did. During this time period, most Americans believed in manifest destiny, so they expanded westward. As many Southern’s moved west, they brought with them their slaves. Furthermore, they moved to places where slavery made economic sense, for example
“In a government where sectional interests and feelings may come into conflict, the sole security for permanence and peace is to be found in a Constitution whose provisions are inviolable” (Document B). But, what if the answer is not found in the Constitution? At this time there was an increasing sectional conflict between the North and the South. The problems arose mainly from the issue of slavery, and came largely after the Mexican war. Although the issue of slavery had never been fully resolved, it became a very heated subject during the 1850’s. The Constitution never took a clear stand on the issue, and the people began to see it more as source of sectional discord and tension and they ultimately began to see it as a
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
There were many problems, events, and situations that led to the Civil War. One of the major reasons for the outbreak of the war was sectionalism. Once the United States was split, many of the country's fundamental issues were disputed, with slavery being at the top of the list. Some of the other major issues in dispute were representation, tariffs, and states' rights. Sectionalism is defined as, the sharp socio-economic differences that divided the Northern and the Southern states in the U.S.
As time passed the rapidly changing society in the nineteenth century, in 1820 the north and south began to have serious conflicting problems that were proved unfixable by compromise. During this time, the north underwent major social, economic, and industrial changes known as the Antebellum Period. While the south generally clung to king cotton and slavery and thus remained essentially the same. This arose a manifold of controversies with how issues such as tariffs, slavery, and land should be handled. Both the Union and the Confederacy tried to create compromises to resolve these problems, yet both sides were never completely satisfied no matter how hard they tried. This made it very close to impossible for them to completely put their
The election of Lincoln in November 1860 was the final trigger for secession.[74] Efforts at compromise, including the "Corwin Amendment" and the "Crittenden Compromise", failed. Southern leaders feared that Lincoln would stop the expansion of slavery and put it on a course toward extinction. The slave states, which had already become a minority in the House of Representatives, were now facing a future as a perpetual minority in the Senate and Electoral College against an increasingly powerful North. Before Lincoln took office in March 1861, seven slave states had declared their secession and joined together to form the Confederacy.
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).