Summary: The Caning Of Charles Sumner

Strong support from the South and the West could not hide the opposition from the Northern wing of the party. Pierce, as the current President, would have a significant source of support from the South and West as well. But with a record fit for office, James Buchanan entered the convention in Cincinnati that summer as the front-runner. Buchanan had a very attractive resume, which proved invaluable for many of the nation’s early presidents. During the year of the elections, the topic of all debate was slavery, which seemed to destroy all limitations. Kansas became a place of political desecration, and in more extreme cases murder. A young South Carolina congressman beat his elder counterpart, Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner, nearly to death with his walking cane over an insult just one week before the Cincinnati convention. The South Carolina congressman was praised in newspapers across the South as a patriot. A badly injured Sumner became the North’s fanatical hero. Two days after the beating, John Brown led a small company of terroristic abolitionist into a war-torn Kansas. After seizing men who favored the proslavery party they shot them in the head, and hacked them to bits with axes. This infuriated Southerners. Though Buchanan seemed cut out for presidency, the issue on slavery became apparently incurable. This is the situation James Buchanan found himself in coming into his presidential seat. Presidency was no easy task in the midst of the nineteenth century due to slavery. During this volatile time in American history, a strong presidential leader might have extricated the nation from civil war. Unfortunately, James Buchanan was a man of passive nature. If he had been more assertive earlier on and warned off radicals from both sides the nation may not have gone into civil war. But by refusing to choose a side on

In Charles Sumner’s speech he talks about all the wrong being done in Kansas. This incident where Charles was severely injured would have never happened if the people within Kansas weren’t fighting with the border ruffians. These people were citizens within Missouri that crossed the border to vote in Kansas for proslavery laws, abusing the right of popular sovereignty. Obviously, one of the senates of Kansas spoke in the name of the main citizens, thus causing Charles to be beaten down by Preston Brooks by a cane.

Even though slavery is supposed to be gone in the North it is still here. In a way the American economy is still reliant on the institution of slavery. The cotton being produced in the south is being transported up here so the factory workers can make goods. The argument to abolish slavery in America didn’t stop just because the Northern states were free. People now wanted the same freedom for those slaves who lived in the South. One person in particular, Fredrick Douglas, who was a former slave himself was one of the most outspoken abolitionist. He was so important in the movement because he showed that black people could be productive member of society. Not just dumb savages as a lot of white people seemed to believe. Given the chance to

The Jacksonians created a tariff that made the goods manufactured in Europe cost more than the ones from the Northern states to the outrage of the South Carolinians and other Southern states, who bought goods mostly from Europe at the time. This started the Nullification crisis, since South Carolina threatened to succeed from the union (Document F). The case of Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge is another example of this. The Massachusetts government allowed a charter of the Warren Bridge, after the Charles River Bridge had already made a bridge over the river and had tolls in place for those traveling over it. This undermined the deal with the Charles River Bridge, but still a Democratic Republican, Chief Justice Taney, ruled in favor of the Warren Bridge (Document H). While it opened up the market to competitors, it also prevented the Charles Bridge from making the revenue it would have previously, thus limiting their economic success. Also, more notably, “King” Andrew stopped out the charter of the 2nd national bank, which would have offered internal improvements and potentially more economic opportunities (Document I). The Whigs, in protest to this, started an outcry in result to Jackson’s veto, depicted Andrew Jackson as a corrupt tyrant and king. In fact, the entire Whig Party sprouted from this remonstration; the protest of King Andrew Jackson using his power to unbalance the economy and take democracy out of the hands of the

Firstly, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 established popular sovereignty which allowed the states to choose whether they were free or slave-holding (Doc 3). This led to a period of time known as Bleeding Kansas when tensions between antislavery Republicans and pro-slavery Democrats increased as border ruffians tipped the votes and violence ensued. Also, the Caning of Charles Sumner, when Northern Congressman Sumner was beat by Southern Congressman Preston Brooks, further intensified tensions (Doc 4). The event led Northerners to view Southerners as uncivilized and violent, further increasing the gap between the North and the South. Thirdly, the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision ruled that slaves were not citizens and it allowed slavery virtually everywhere (Doc 5). This angered Northerners extremely because slavery was banned in the North and most Northerners supported antislavery. It also effectively repealed the Kansas-Nebraska Act that allowed states to choose being slave-holding or free, further angering the North. Altogether these events were the reason sectionalism became such a large issue; they significantly increased mutual dislike between the North and the South and fragmented the

The South's economy greatly depended on slavery. Document 2 shows a graph that says the South barely had factories. Their economy concentration was on agriculture. The South had a warmer climate and fertile soil. These were factors that were perfect for growing tobacco. Slaves from Africa provided for the hard labor. The South began to grow other crops on plantations, which had the use of slaves. "The South thus quickly established a rural way of life supported by an agricultural economy based on slave labor" (Doc 3). The South felt if they stayed and there was a removal of slavery, it could damage their economy. Instead of risking this damage, the South had another reason for

The south for a good while was always fond of using slavery as a cheap source of work. The increase in the number of slaves was when John Rolfe became one of the first to cultivate tobacco in the so called “New World back then in the 17th century. There was good money to be made about the amount of labor that went into the tobacco cultivation was harch, hence why slaves were used. Ever since then, it is obvious to note that slaves dominated the aspect of southern life. Whether that be economically, socially or politically, slaves played an important role in each category.

John Bell was a republican senator for Tennessee. Bell pope allows the amendment warning that an repeal of the Missouri compromise would lead to a sectional strife (wikipedia.com). He was one of the two southern senators that actually voted no on the bill (wikipedia.com) . This decision on the bill caused him much grief among the southern

Slaves performed many different services, they worked in homes, factories and helped even as skilled laborers but their most common work was in the fields, “Slaves grew a variety of crops including rice, sugar, and tobacco, but the “white gold,” cotton was central to the southern and national economies” (Foner 598-600). Cotton slowly grew into a major US export, with its exportation swelling from only a few thousand bales in the late 1700s to five million bales before the start of the Civil War (Foner 587). With the cotton crop at the time rising to unprecedented levels, not only nationally but also globally, this put extra emphasis and value on the slaves shouldering the vast workload of this economy. “By 1860 the economic value of property in slaves amounted to more than the sum of all the money invested in railroads, banks, and factories in the United States” ( Foner 595). There was so much money and business invested, tied into and benefitting from the exploitation of the free labor of these slaves. Southern Planters had major political pull and a significant portion of this country’s wealth, “Planters dominated the antebellum southern society and politics and exerted enormous influence in National affairs as well. The wealthiest Americans before the Civil War were planters in the South Carolina low country (where rice was the principal crop) and the Mississippi Valley cotton region around Natchez” (Foner 621). I believe that with all the money, power and land that was reliant on the work of the slaves there was no way these southerners were just going to give that up without a

Southern economy was the center of plantation that cultivated cotton. Many the rich started to carve the plantation to earn money by exporting cotton. They needed a lot of labor and slavery was proper to use. The majority of white southerners did not own slaves because planters monopolized the best land. They could not help taking possession of the land that was not proper to cultivate cotton. Most of them earned a living by self-sufficiency even though the slave population was growing: from 697,624 in 1790 to 3,953,760 in 1860.

“Farming in the New England colonies was a challenge. Due to the cold, long, and harsh winters, the growing season was very short. The soil was also rocky, so farmers had to take all the rocks out of the ground before planting. Due to these shortcomings, the farmers in the New England colonies only farmed enough for their family, themselves, and their farm animals” (Diamond). Due to this issue, they didn’t have much need for slaves because of the lack of crops. They also couldn’t afford slaves because for one they didn’t have enough work to keep them busy and two they didn’t have enough crops to share. “At first, the south also relied on the forests and the water, but tobacco and cotton later emerged as cash crops. Initially these crops were harvested by indentured servants, but with the growth of plantations, planters started to import slaves from Africa” (Rosenzweig). So the opposite goes for The Southern Colonies; they needed slaves to help with the large lands they owned. They knew that without slaves their own family wouldn’t be able to keep up with the land/crops so therefore they hired several slaves to do

When referring to the days of slavery, it is often assumed that the south was the sole force behind its continuance. However there were many factors which lead southerners as well as some in the north to quietly accept slavery as a good thing. John Calhoun declared in 1837 “Many in the South once believed that [slavery] was a moral and political evil…That folly and delusion are gone; we see it now in its true light, and regard it as the most safe and stable basis for free institutions in the world” (p. 345). This statement was justified by various reasons. There was the fundamental belief that Africans were inferior to their white counterparts. Many saw the slave population as a labor force that

The underlying conflicts between North and South were finally fully exposed as a result of failure of compromise in the political arena. The failure of American leadership in 1846-1861was epitomised by key events such as; Douglas's Kansas Nebraska act of 1854 and the dread Scott case pronouncement of 1857. Both of these events overturned the previous Missouri compromise and thus once again brought the two opposing nations head to head. The Wilmot proviso bill which proposed to eliminate slavery in the territories was a clear signal to the South that the North was plotting against her way of life. Thus the southern mind set became increasingly locked in a persecution complex which they justified by evidence of a ‘Northern conspiracy' to destroy their economic institution, the Wilmot proviso was one such piece of evidence even though it was not passed. The election of Lincoln was the final straw with which the south believed the northern conspirators would gain the upper hand and bring about the destruction of the Southern institutions. "Most irresponsible, wanton, and disastrous of all was the decision of those southern leaders who in 1858-1860 turned to the provocative demand for Congressional protection of slavery in all the territories of the Republic." Allan Nevins. Nevins in the previous quote demonstrates the reckless extent

Where the conversation of if a slave made it north would he be considered free. But he lost of course and they said if you are a slave and moved north you are still a slave, basically making every state a possible slave state. Therefore going against the Missouri compromise where for every slave state there is a free state. There were other problems with compromises such as the compromise of 1850 which was unconstitutional but still accepted later. It was first approached and the south told the north to stop trying to abolish slavery and the bill did not make it through. Then it was split into several bills so each congressman could vote on them. Thus making it pass and put into place on the Mexican-war territory. Only fueling the fire in the south and pushing them farther towards a civil war. The final straw was the Kansas Nebraska act leaving them the choice of slavery being allowed or not. This going against the Missouri compromise. Which stopped slavery north of the latitude 36’30. Angering the north and making them feel like their laws mean nothing to the south.

     In the later 1700’s to 1863, slavery was an intricate part of the South. Slaves were needed for plantation work like planting, caring for, and harvesting crops to maintaining the land. After