The Crittenden Compromise And Alexander H. Stephens 's Corner Stone

In “Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War,” Charles B. Dew analyzes the public letters and speeches of white, southern commissioners in order to prove that the Civil War was fought over slavery. By analyzing the public letters and speeches of the commissioners, Dew offers a compelling argument proving that slavery along with the ideology of white supremacy were primary causes of the Civil War. Dew is not only the Ephraim Williams Professor of American History at Williams College, but he is also a successful author who has received various awards including the Elloit Rudwick Prize and the Fletcher Pratt Award. In fact, two of Dew’s books, Tredegar Iron Works and Apostles of Disunion and Ironmaker to the Confederacy: Joseph R. Anderson, received the Fletcher Pratt Award for the best nonfiction book regarding the American Civil War. In his analysis, Dew argues that the fear of eliminating slavery along with the fear of racial equality were both crucial factors regarding the outbreak of the Civil War. By tracing the speeches and public letters of state-appointed commissioners, Dew effectively argues that the white, southern commissioners led the southern states into a Civil War in order to preserve the institution of slavery as well as the ideology of white supremacy.

The American Civil War has become a point of controversy and argument when discussing key events in shaping America. The arguments that arise when discussing the war tend to focus on whether the Confederate was constitutionally justified in seceding, or whether the North had the right to prevent the secession. However, when discussing the America Civil War and the idea of separation, it is important to be mindful that separation did not simply end at the state level. Letters written by Jesse Rolston, Jr. and Jedediah Hotchkiss portray two significantly different attitudes toward the war, despite the fact that the writers both fought for the Confederate States and give accounts of the same battle, one of which ended in the Confederate’s favor. When examining the documents, both writers express different viewpoints on life on and off the battlefield. This significant difference represents a division amongst the Confederate army.

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

As tensions between the North and the South rose on the issues of slavery and states’ rights, numerous compromises were proposed to ease the conflict. Such compromises included the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and the Crittenden Compromise. These compromises had intentions of defining where slavery was permitted and clarifying states’ rights. They were only temporary fixes to a more pressing issue. Between the Missouri Compromise and the Crittenden Compromise, a series of events changed the political atmosphere of the United States and prevented any more compromises on the institution of slavery from being passed.

Alexander H. Stephen, in the ‘Cornerstone Speech’, firmly stated that, the Confederacy was basically on racial inequality and slavery. He clearly outlined the existing differences between the new nation and the American United States. Stephen made it clear that, the Confederacy of the cornerstone was not primarily of chattel slavery, but the black people subordination benefited the white people. Thus, he tied slavery to race. Confederacy was the origin of the era of apartheid in South Africa. Stephen made declarations that the new government was founded on the great truth , that the negro was not equal on the side of the white people and that, slavery which was to be a subordination to the white race which was superior, was a normal and a natural condition. Stephen criticized the claims of the northern that, African enslavement was a law violation nature and that it was a wrong principle, morally, politically and socially. He clearly put across that his new government had an idea which was exactly different from the northern claims. He argued that, it was a kind of insanity to believe that the Negro will be equal between the white and black people and also that, enslaving the blacks was wrong. He made predictions that, the Confederate constitution has settled all the questions relating to the African slavery which existed among the white people. Stephen’s arguments led to the outbreak of the civil war in 1865 (The Teaching AmericanHistory.org, 2017).

The first major reason of the civil war stems from Lincoln’s “House Divided” speech. Lincoln gives warning to the growing rift between the North and the South, the Anti-Slavery and the Pro-Slavery groups, as evidence in ‘I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.’ Although the antagonism and eagerness of protecting the Union is not shown as prominently as future speeches, we can find a hint of caution in his tone. He goes on to support his claims through the hodgepodge of legislation that is the ‘Nebraska Doctrine’ and the legal crisis of the Dred Scott court case. He politely refers to this as ‘squabble’ and speak of the controversy and moral implication that they have caused. For his part, it is easy to see the insinuation of the speech- he believed slavery was immoral and was wholly incompatible with the principles of the Declaration of Independence embodied in the phrase

“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

Just as Northerners saw flaws in the Constitution, Southerners viewed it not to be perfect as well. President James Buchanan, a northern man with southern sympathies clarified, “As sovereign states, they and they alone, are responsible before God and the world for the slavery existing among them” (Document G). However, In Doc B, an anonymous writer defends the state’s rights that the constitution should protect slavery where it exists. The union will fall apart unless these rights are protected.

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 South vs. The South by William Freehling is a narrative that focuses on the civil war that affected a vast number of Southerners who opposed the Confederacy regardless of whether they were white or black. These “anti-Confederates,” as termed by Freehling comprised Slaves and Boarder state whites who together formed half the southern population and were significant to the Union victory. By weakening the Confederacy military, contributing manpower and resources to the Union and dividing the southern home front, the anti-Confederates made a critical contribution to the Union war efforts that hastened the end of the war leading to the Union’s victory. The U.S was not the only house that was divided; Divisions between pro-and anti-Confederates, white and black, and the loyalty of both upper and lower states to slavery contributed a lot to the downfall of the confederates. “Divisions within the South helped pave the path toward war. The same divisions behind army lines helped turn the war against the slaveholders.”(p.10). William Freehling argues that more than 450,000 Union troops from the South, especially southern blacks and border state whites, helped in the defeat of the confederates. Further, when the southern Border States rejected the Confederacy, more than a half of the South’s capacity swelled the North’s advantage.

After thoroughly assessing past readings and additional research on the Civil War between the North and South, it was quite apparent that the war was inevitable. Opposed views on this would have probably argued that slavery was the only reason for the Civil War. Therefore suggesting it could have been avoided if a resolution was reached on the issue of slavery. Although there is accuracy in stating slavery led to the war, it wasn’t the only factor. Along with slavery, political issues with territorial expansion, there were also economic and social differences between North and South. These differences, being more than just one or two, gradually led to a war that was bound to happened one way or another.

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.