Essay on The Failure of James Buchanan

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

He was a strong believer in popular sovereignity. Since he felt so strongly about it, he agreed that popular sovereignity would decide whether or not Kansas and Nebraska would be free states or slave states. This decision caused a huge disagreement between the North and South because this would allow slavery north of the Mason-Dixon dividing line created in the Missouri Compromise. The president at the time, Franklin Pierce, supported Douglas’ bill and passed it on May 30th, 1854.

The Dred Scott case came at a very turbulent time in American history. It came

INTRODUCTION United States Supreme Court case Scott v. Sanford (1857), commonly known as the Dred Scott Case, is probably the most famous case of the nineteenth century (with the exception possibly of Marbury v. Madison). It is one of only four cases in U. S. history that has ever been overturned by a Constitutional amendment (overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments). It is also, along with Marbury, one of only two cases prior to the Civil War that declared a federal law unconstitutional. This case may have also been one of the most, if not the most, controversial case in American history, due simply to the fact that it dealt an explosive opinion on an issue already prepared to erupt - slavery. Thus, many scholars assert that the

During the elections of 1859, to protect the Republican party from Democratic attacks, they were forced to refer to Brown as insane. By these concepts, these affidavits are nearly useless in the question of Brown’s sanity. Brown repeatedly “demonstrated he knew the consequences of his actions; that he would be arrested and punished if caught and that large portions of American society would condemn him” (Davidson 157). Then, from the court’s standpoint, Brown was fit to stand trial and was “sane and clear headed,” even if he may seem overzealous at

Source 2: The origin of the source is of value because it is a secondary source written by James A. Rawley titled Race and Politics, 1979. Rawley, a historian who in his book questions the importance of race but the origin is also limited because it only expresses Rawley’s investigation and ideas upon the case. The purpose of the source is valuable because it further investigates the questions and issues raised by Justice Taney after reviewing the case, and James Rawley argues against each question. The purpose of this source also limited, because it does not provide eight other justices view concerning the questions that were raised by Chief Justice Taney. The content of this source is valuable because it further examines the two acts, Kansas-Nebraska Act and Missouri Compromise, that were eliminated by Taney. The content of this source is also limited, because it only expresses Rawley’s ideas and not others.

At this time it seemed that the issue of slavery was the only problem in the United States, almost as if a slave was being forced down the throats of the freesoilers (Document F). Stephen Douglas drafted the Kansas-Nebraska Acts in hopes of adding two new states: Kansas and Nebraska. Although it seemed that one would be a slave state, and the other a free state, the slavery issue would be decided by popular sovereignty. Many opposed this decision but did not know how to deal with it. The reason they did not know was because the Constitution did not mention it. William Lloyd Garrison said “the Constitution which subjects them to hopeless bondage is one that we cannot swear to support” (Document E). He was trying to say that the constitution can’t answer the question of slavery because the words “slave” and “slavery” are not in the constitution.

Even though Jackson was very successful during his presidency, there were some events in history that really showed his “weaknesses”. Jackson was classified as a lunatic. He was feared by many, especially his opponents. Due to his temper and poor decisions, Jackson did not mind to go to war for what he believed in or did not care to remove anyone against him. He was a real savage, and I feel the country at this time of period needed this type of mentality in the presidency. A negative event that took place during his term was the Trail of Tears, which was the forced removal of Native Americans from their homeland, resulting in the death of thousands of people. He also promoted slavery and he himself owned many and showed cruelty towards them. Andrew Jackson was stubborn and only cared about himself, but I do believe he

Abraham Lincoln won the election of 1860. As a president of the United States, Lincoln’s goal was to keep the Union together. The problem of slavery and the secession by the South are mainly the two issues that lead to the dissolve of the Union, in which Lincoln put all his efforts to deal with during his presidency. “He believes this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. He does not expect the Union to be dissolved; He does not expect the house to fall; but he does expect it will cease to be divided.” Lincoln claimed that it is

p. 505). Although the nation before Abraham Lincoln’s presidential win was lawfully united, its mixture of slave states, non-slave states, and the new territories with undeclared laws on slavery was filled with tension.

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).

In the third document, “Border States Are Alarmed ( 1862), a document cited by George D Prentice a South adopted Connecticut Yankee who spoke on behalf of Kentucky and his unwillingness to the emancipation proclamation who claims that the order is unjust and mischievous, that if carried out shall only be harmful, though admitted it would be helpful against the enemy [South]. Prentice speaks thoroughly on his unwillingness as a representative of Kentucky to take on such an order, he believes it is an act that shall never really be abolished, though attempted. He clings to the fact that Lincoln is just a temporary occupant of the executive chair and is of little worth, that slavery is an institution installed from the “government our fathers framed” which will withstand through the emancipation proclamation. The document ended by Prentice stating that Kentucky would resist the act.

He stated he didn’t mind if it was voted for or not. What put him in trouble, nevertheless, was the inappropriate use of his opinion of moral supremacy in Kansas Territory. The Act of 1854 repealed the Missouri Compromise’s ban on slavery. Alternatively, the immigrants of the region would decide whether it would be subject to slavery4. For the Kansas, that did not imply. He had assumed that the method of popular supremacy would remove the problem of slavery’s extension from Congress and lay it in the colonies . He presumed that he was creating an ideal concession to Southern concerns and dignity, but that the functional result of this would be to encourage free

It was the year of 1857 and a robust wind blew through the South as the air was filled with both victory and horrific disappointment. An ordinary man named Dred Scott began his journey for his rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Scott’s struggle for freedom would come to make him one of the most famous plaintiffs in American history and a worldwide symbol for emancipation. Scott happened to be of African descent which was an extremely difficult obstacle to live with in early America. The Dred Scott decision made by the supreme court in March of 1857 negatively impacted the United States by empowering the South, contributing to the secession, and expediting the Civil War.