preview

Slavery: An Indirect Cause Of The Civil War

Decent Essays

The role of slavery as an underlying cause of the civil war has been argued about for a long period of time. The many political parties that emerged had different ideologies. Slavery was considered an indirect cause based on the further disagreements and conflicts that arose. Most Northerners were not campaigning due to the treatment of slaves but were worried about the outcome it would have on the states ultimately leading to the Civil War. Although slavery was not a direct cause of the civil war, the disagreement of the topic between the states led to tensions and further conflicts, such as the controversy over Kansas, making slavery an indirect cause of the civil war.

Slavery was an indirect cause of the civil war considering it led …show more content…

Buchanan won with a narrow victory over Frémont and Fillmore, the Know-Nothing party. According to The Unfinished Nation, during his first year in office, there were already problems, “he became painfully timid and indecisive president at a critical moment in history. In the year Buchanan took office, a financial panic struck the country, followed by a depression that lasted several years.” The election further divided the United States when Frémont was elected, causing the many ideals and values of the political parties to clash. Each party had almost complete opposite views on major topics but especially the role slavery which led to conflicts between the groups. President Buchanan also attempted to resolve the issue over Kansas by supporting the admission of the state into the Union as a slave state. According to The Unfinished Nation, in response to that, the pro-slavery legislature held an election for the delegates to a constitutional convention, “The free-state residents refused to participate, claiming that the legislature had discriminated against them in drawing district lines.” Slavery was an underlying factor rather than a major player. The nation had clearly been divided by the two poltiical …show more content…

Dred Scott was a slave from Missouri, who was once owned by an army surgeon who took Scott along with him to Illinois and Wisconsin, where those states were free and any slave who came into that land, would become free. Once the surgeon had died, Scott sued his master’s widow for freedom since he was a resident which liberated him from slavery and that claim was supported by Missouri law and declared him free. John Sanford, the brother of the surgeon’s widow claimed ownership of Scott and appealed to the state supreme court, which in case reversed the earlier decision made. When Scott appealed against this to the federal courts, Sanford’s lawyers had claimed that he could not sue because Scott was not a citizen of the United States. According to The Unfinished Nation, the Supreme court had to make a decision, “The Supreme Court was so divided that it was unable to issue a single ruling on the case. The thrust of the various rulings, however, was a stunning defeat for the antislavery movement.” Both political parties were advocating for their side to be included in the ruling, although, neither of parties cared about the actual issue at hand but rather cared of the politics of the situation at large. According to The Unfinished Nation, the ruling eventually sided with the democrats leading to, “Republicans threatened that when they won control of the

Get Access