In the fifteenth and sixteenth century, reasons for colonization of the newly discovered American land ranged from religious to economic, resulting in a number of unique imperial settlements along its eastern coast. After years of salutary neglect followed by strict enforcement of unpopular taxes, vehement settlers from each individual state united against Great Britain to form an independent government, as outlined and regulated by the United States Constitution. From the beginning of the nation’s history, interpretations of the constitution, influenced by bias stimulated by people’s situations, have divided the people of the United States. As sectional specialization developed and different ways of life based on region emerged, the constitution …show more content…
With Millard Fillmore’s signing of the Compromise of 1850, California entered the union as a free state and the rest of the Mexican Cession would be able to come in with popular sovereignty. Emphasizing the power of the people, popular sovereignty meant the territory would be open to slavery based on what the majority of citizens wanted. Depicting a clear divide between Slave and Free states based on region, a map of the status of slavery in the United States in 1850 exemplifies one of the core sectional differences that led to the Civil War (Doc 1). Amplified by Enlightenment ideals, the Second Great Awakening inspired many abolitionists to discuss the immorality of slavery and the Fugitive Slave Law, a part of the Compromise of 1850 that gave slave owners the right to recapture runaway slaves. Transcendentalist Ralph Waldo Emerson held the belief in the citizens’ right and responsibility to disobey unjust laws set by a government, using a comparison of the cessation of the international slave trade to call for the end of the immoral Fugitive Slave Law. Emerson’s support for Civil Disobedience of the unjust laws involving slavery demonstrated the different feelings about slavery that split the country (Doc 3). In the North, where many runaway slaves now …show more content…
Representing the classic Southern position of the relationship between states in the union, the Georgian author of “Plain Words for the North” argued that it was the state’s right to practice slavery and ensure protection of property. Recognizing that states were independent before entering the Union, the author argues that the government and the constitution needed to protect the interests of all citizens. By addressing the disrupted balance between Slave and Free states in the Union, the author was concerned that the guarantees of the constitution, which should be protected by the federal government, would not be honored (Doc 2). A man who would go on to become the President of the Confederacy after its secession, Jefferson Davis viewed the constitution as an agreement between unique states, rather than cohesive one nation. With the Nullification Theory, the states had the right to invalidate a federal law that did not reflect their interests (Doc 6). Shortly after Abraham Lincoln’s election, secession began to actually occur in the South. Unlike the Southern view that the states could become independent of the nation, Lincoln stated that secession was not constitutional. As stated by the tenth amendment of the constitution, the federal government retained reserved powers, and
The American political notions we practice today take root from early colonial times. Our political understanding had its genesis as early as the 17th century, which stemmed from the writings of intellectuals, such as John Winthrop and William Penn. Equipped with these convictions, both Winthrop and Penn brought about visions of how their respective colonies will be structured in the New World. John Winthrop wrote The Modell of Christian Charity as a platform to lead a group of Puritan refugees in the colony of Boston, Massachusetts. Also armed with his own political philosophies, William Penn’s Frame of Government of Pennsylvania constructed a settlement, which promoted religious liberty and individual conscience. Although the two founders wrote about varying principles, there were some parallels evident between their founding visions. Furthermore, by highlighting the outward distinctions and similarities of their visions, we can recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the two political structures. Ultimately, the explorations of these very elements aid in determining which community is more appealing to call home. In my case, the principle of individual
In the book, Apostles of Disunion, author Charles B. Dew opens the first chapter with a question the Immigration and Naturalization service has on an exam they administer to prospective new American citizens: “The Civil War was fought over what important issue”(4). Dew respond by noting that “according to the INS, you are correct if you offer either of the following answers: ‘slavery or states’ rights’” (4). Although this book provides more evidence and documentation that slavery was the cause of the Civil War, there are a few places where states’ rights are specifically noted. In presenting the findings of his extensive research, Dew provides compelling documentation that would allow the reader to conclude that slavery was indeed the cause for both secession and the Civil War.
In The article “Slavery, the Constitutional, and the Origins of the Civil War”, Paul Finkelman discusses some of the events that he believes lead the United States to have a Civil War. He discusses how both the North and the South territories of the Untied States did not see eye to eye when it came to ab...
At the time, the South depended on slavery to support their way of life. In fact, “to protect slavery the Confederate States of America would challenge the peaceful, lawful, orderly means of changing governments in the United States, even by resorting to war.” (635) Lincoln believed that slavery was morally wrong and realized that slavery was bitterly dividing the country. Not only was slavery dividing the nation, but slavery was also endangering the Union, hurting both black and white people and threatening the processes of government. At first, Lincoln’s goal was to save the Union in which “he would free none, some, or all the slaves to save that Union.” (634) However, Lincoln realized that “freeing the slaves and saving the Union were linked as one goal, not two optional goals.” (634) Therefore, Lincoln’s primary goal was to save the Union and in order to save the Union, Lincoln had to free the slaves. However, Paludan states that, “slave states understood this; that is why the seceded and why the Union needed saving.” (634) Lincoln’s presidential victory was the final sign to many Southerners that their position in the Union was
In the 1860’s the United States weren’t united because of the issue of slavery. The civil war was never just about getting the union back together, but about making it count and getting rid of slavery. The south wanted their slaves and would say they are “-the happiest, and in some, the freest people in the world”. (Doc 5) However, the north knew that was not true because of Harriet Beecher Stowe's “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”. In 1854 when the Kansas-Nebraska act was passed it caused some issues. Anti-slavery supporters were not happy because they did not want expansion of slavery, but the pro-slavery supporters weren’t happy because they wanted slavery everywhere for sure. (Doc. 7)The Kansas-Nebraska act caused trouble before it was even passed, Senator Charles Sumner argued against and attacked pro-slavery men causing Preston Brooks to beat Sumner with a cane. The south praised Brooks while the north felt for Sumner. (Doc 8) In 1858 during his acceptance speech Lincoln said his famous line, “A house divided
During the early to mid eighteen hundreds, there was great unrest across the country over territorial expansion. Half of the nation believed that it would be beneficial to the country if we expanded, while the other half were firmly opposed to expansion. Within the century, the United States managed to claim Texas, California, and the majority of Indian-owned lands. Opinions on this expansion were mixed around the country. Polls taken during the time period show that the majority of the south and west supported expansion, while northerns were opposed to it. (Document B) This was because the northerners had different values and beliefs than the southerners of westerners. Both the opponents and supporters of territorial expansion during the time period between 1800 and 1855, had a tremendous influence on shaping federal government policy. However, it can be argued that the supporters of territorial expansion had the largest impact. They were able to sway the federal government to create policies and new laws that were in favor of supporter’s beliefs.
...iduals plotting conspiracy and selling out their promises for a considerable length of time before 1860, and that they were not going to stop short of their objectives. The main thing that might have avoided war might be the acknowledgement of bondage by the United States or the surrender of the United States of every last one of states and regions it held that called itself the Confederacy. Since that might not have finished subjugation, then the response is that there was no elective however to have a clash, a war. Subjugation was the issue, it was the reason. It was an ascertained arrangement by the individuals who decided to ensure servitude by selling out their kinsmen and turning rebellious--to secure subjugation, and not a legendary thought of "state's rights" on the grounds that the main right they thought about was the right to subjugate an alternate race.
In Chapter 8 of Major Problems in American Immigration History, the topic of focus shifts from the United States proper to the expansion and creation of the so called American Empire of the late Nineteenth Century. Unlike other contemporary colonial powers, such as Britain and France, expansion beyond the coast to foreign lands was met with mixed responses. While some argued it to be a mere continuation of Manifest Destiny, others saw it as hypocritical of the democratic spirit which had come to the United States. Whatever their reasons, as United States foreign policy shifted in the direction of direct control and acquisition, it brought forth the issue of the native inhabitants of the lands which they owned and their place in American society. Despite its long history of creating states from acquired territory, the United States had no such plans for its colonies, effectively barring its native subjects from citizenship. Chapter 8’s discussion of Colonialism and Migration reveals that this new class of American, the native, was never to be the equal of its ruler, nor would they, in neither physical nor ideological terms, join in the union of states.
When the first American settlement on Roanoke Island was established in 1585 it’s primary force, Sir Walter Raleigh, had no idea that this “New World” would evolve into one of the most powerful voices in the modern world. But before it developed it would have to shaped by it’s founders from the Western world. Two of the largest voices in America’s early development are John Smith, who with a group of English merchants, hoped to get rich in this new land, and William Bradford, a puritan farmer who was one of the most influential men involved with the Mayflower compact. In their two pieces they both convey America as a place to escape but fail to reach many other similar conclusions on what America was like at this time.
...ited States.” Lincoln passed on his belief that the nation must be united and that a “new birth of freedom” would be created, or the nation would “perish from the world,” should the Union failed.
Tensions between the North and South had grown steadily since the anti slavery movement in 1830. Several compromises between the North and South regarding slavery had been passed such as the Nebraska-Kansas and the Missouri act; but this did little to relieve the strain. The election of President Lincoln in 1861 proved to be the boiling point for the South, and secession followed. This eventually sparked the civil war; which was viewed differently by the North and the South. The Northern goal was to keep the Union intact while the Southern goal was to separate from the Union. Southern leaders gave convincing arguments to justify secession. Exploring documents from South Carolina’s secession ordinance and a speech from the Georgia assembly speech will explain how the Southern leaders justify the secession from the United States.
Nullification is a precursor to secession in the United States as it is also for civil wars. However, in contrast, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions did not suggest that states should secede from the union. Under the direct vigilance and radical views of Calhoun, he suggested that states should and could secede from the union if they deem a law was unconstitutional. Calhoun’s reputation as a “Cast Iron” proved fittingly as compromises were reached for the proposed Tariffs. The southern states contribution to the financial welfare of the union as a result of slavery was undoubtedly substantial, but as history unfolded, it was not a just means to financial stability. His views of constitutional propriety was for the “privileges of minority” rather than for the “rights of the minority.” [2]
A controversial issue during 1860 to 1877 was state’s rights and federal power. The North and South were divided over this issue. The North composed of free states and an industrial economy while the South was made up of slave states and an agricultural economy. The South did not like federal authority over the issue of slavery; therefore, they supported the radical state rights’ ideology. South Carolina seceded from the Union because it believed that since states made up the Union, it could leave when it chooses to. The government argued against the South saying that they had no right to leave the Union because the Union was not made up of just states but people. However, the South counteracted this argument with the case that the 10th amendment “declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by its states, were reserved to the states.” (Doc A) However, the government still believed that secession from the Union was unjust and decided that a new change surrounding state’s rights was necessary. As a result, when the Union won in the Civil War, a resolution was made, where the state’s lost their power and the federal government gained power. U...
Often when looking at American history, people tend to lump all the characters and actors involved as similar. This is especially the case in regards to Early American Colonial history. Because the Puritan communities that grew rapidly after John Winthrop’s arrival in 1630 often overshadow the earlier colony at Plymouth, many are lead to assume that all settlers acted in similar ways with regard to land use, religion, and law. By analyzing the writings of William Bradford and John Winthrop, one begins to see differing pictures of colonization in New England.
After winning the Revolutionary War and sovereign control of their home country from the British, Americans now had to deal with a new authoritative issue: who was to rule at home? In the wake of this massive authoritative usurpation, there were two primary views of how the new American government should function. Whereas part of the nation believed that a strong, central government would be the most beneficial for the preservation of the Union, others saw a Confederation of sovereign state governments as an option more supportive of the liberties American’s fought so hard for in the Revolution. Those in favor of a central government, the Federalists, thought this form of government was necessary to ensure national stability, unity and influence concerning foreign perception. Contrastingly, Anti-Federalists saw this stronger form of government as potentially oppressive and eerily similar to the authority’s tendencies of the British government they had just fought to remove. However, through the final ratification of the Constitution, new laws favoring state’s rights and the election at the turn of the century, one can say that the Anti-Federalist view of America prevails despite making some concessions in an effort to preserve the Union.