More handpicked essays just for you.
5 events leading up to the civil war
5 events leading up to the civil war
Events leading up to the civil war essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: 5 events leading up to the civil war
Title “The United States has been divided, North and South, from its beginning” (3, background essay). One of the standout moments that started division and conflict between the North and South was pointed out when James Hammond, in speaking to the US Senate in early 1858, brought the economic division in the country to light. Then later in 1858, during a speech for accepting a nomination for US Senator, Abraham Lincoln spoke about how slavery was splitting apart the nation. And as the final tipping point for the country, now President Lincoln and Senator John Calhoun concluded very different ideas on state secession from the constitution in 1861, solidifying the divide in the country. All of these factors added together proves that different belief systems between the North and the South, like economic division, slavery, and Southern secession, are the …show more content…
Northern Abraham Lincoln and Southerner John Calhoun expressed each of their sides’ opinions. The South believed that because a state chose to join the country by vote, they could leave the country by vote. Calhoun points out that each state is a “sovereign party,” proving that because a state is independent, it should be able to leave a group of united states and be independent, but also not bound by a “constitutional compact.” To counter, Lincoln says that, “the United States is perpetual,” and says that because there is nothing in the constitution that says states can secede, nothing should be implied to say that they can. The tipping point for the US was the disagreement on state secession and because the North said that Southern state secession was not constitutional, even though the South said it was implied in the constitution. This was the last straw, and soon after Lincoln’s inaugural address, where he addresses this problem, the country falls to violence and
Lincoln was a very smart lawyer and politician. During his “House Divided” speech he asked the question, “Can we, as a nation, continue together permanently, forever, half slave, and half free?" When he first asked this question, America was slowly gaining the knowledge and realizing that as a nation, it could not possibly exist as half-slave and half-free. It was either one way or the other. “Slavery was unconstitutional and immoral, but not simply on a practical level.” (Greenfield, 2009) Slave states and free states had significantly different and incompatible interests. In 1858, when Lincoln made his “House Divided” speech, he made people think about this question with views if what the end result in America must be.
Unlike today, there was no fast communication methods. The tensions between the "free" and "slave" states was already apparent, thus, inflamed passions now began to result regularly in violence. Under those circumstances, any proposition which restoration of peace and abandoned slavery, were slow to coming. The issue of slavery was no longer a matter which could be argued. President Lincoln and Seward, made some mistakes, by the time of Seward 's famous speech, “irrepressible conflict. " The southern states started to isolate themselves and by the time the Southern States seceded from the Union, the U.S. had virtually become two separate nations and when Lincoln became president, that was the last straw. Because the Southern states felt that President Lincoln 's election was viewed by Southerners as a blow to their well-being and honor. So, some of the wording in the speech sounded like thing were already coming at the end. Therefore, talks were no longer an option, this issues were “irrepressible conflict." war were inevitable. But that 's not absolute, the speech could have been a final call to action, to work together to resolve and complete “the unfinished
As the result, due to the difference between the north and south. They north and south viewed each other differently as two different kind of people. Stephen Douglas explained that the view of southern plantation owners (document 5). They believed the laws fit the northern, not the southern. Therefore, they made their own rules and treated themselves as individual nation which then turned into the confederacy. As a result, Abraham Lincoln gives a speech explaining that in order to succeed we need to work as a nation instead diving each other setting disputes with one in others. (document 4) Therefore, Lincoln goes on to say that two house can’t be divided because they can’t not stand by themselves, but Lincoln challenge the secession of the south because he wonders it would be erupting but he inferred because of slavery. Therefore, the north and south began to have
The seeds of secession had been sown early in American history; quite literally with the fundamental differences in agriculture and resultant adoption of slavery in the South. From early days, the thirteen states had grown up separately, and each had their own culture and beliefs, which were often incompatible with those held in other states. The geographical and cultural differences between north and south would manifest themselves at regular and alarming intervals throughout the hundred years following the drafting of the constitution. Tension reached a peak during the 1850s, over the right to hold slaves in new territories. The Wilmot Proviso of 1846, roused bitter hostilities, and vehement debate turned to physical violence during the period of 'Bleeding Kansas'. The election of Lincoln, who the South perceived to be an abolitionist, in 1860 was the final straw, and the secession of seven Southern states followed soon after.
In the years paving the way to the Civil War, both north and south were disagreeable with one another, creating the three “triggering” reasons for the war: the fanaticism on the slavery issue, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the separation of the Democratic Party. North being against the bondage of individuals and the South being for it, there was no real way to evade the clash. For the south slavery was a form of obtaining a living, without subjugation the economy might drop majorly if not disappear. In the North there were significant ethical issues with the issue of subjugation. Amazing measures to keep and dispose of subjugation were taken and there was never a genuine adjusted center for bargain. Despite the fact that there were a lot of seemingly insignificant issues, the fundamental thing that divided these two states was bondage and the flexibilities for it or against. With these significant extremes, for example, John Brown and Uncle Tom's Cabin, the south felt disdain towards the danger the Northerners were holding against their alleged flexibilities. The more hatred the South advanced, the more combative they were to anything the Northerners did. Northerners were irritated and it parted Democrats over the issue of bondage and made another Republican gathering, which included: Whigs, Free Soilers, Know Nothings and previous Democrats and brought about a split of segments and abbreviated the street to common war. Southerners loathed the insubordination of the north and started to address how they could stay with the Union.
The House Divided Speech was an address given by Abraham Lincoln in 1858 with the goal to make a distinction between himself and Douglas, and to openly talk about a prognostication for time to come. Unlike Douglas, who had long supported popular sovereignty, under which the settlers in each new territory determine their own place as a slave or free state, Lincoln considered that all states had to be the same in order to become a united country. Although Lincoln’s intentions seemed to be pure, the complication with the speech is that it is not absolutely probable because of the fallacies within its wording. This speech may have appeared to be powerful and even authentic in its upholding points, but the fallacies must be recognized. Among these fallacies are false dilemma, ambiguity, appeal to authority, name-calling, and sequential fallacies.
...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.
The presidential elections of 1860 was one of the nation’s most memorable one. The north and the south sections of country had a completely different vision of how they envision their home land. What made this worst was that their view was completely opposite of each other. The north, mostly republican supporters, want America to be free; free of slaves and free from bondages. While on the other hand, the south supporters, mostly democratic states, wanted slavery in the country, because this is what they earned their daily living and profit from.
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...
...om’s Cabin in 1852, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, the Dred Scott Decision of 1857, John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry in 1859, and the outcome of the Presidential Election of 1860—created conditions where Southerners felt the need to secede from the United States (they felt that their “way of life” was being threatened), as well as created conditions where the Northerners decided to go to war against the Southern Confederacy in order to maintain the Union. It is not surprising, however, that the Civil War occurred; since the Industrial Revolution, the Industrial North had always been different than the Agricultural South. If each region paid more attention to resolving the issues that separated them, instead of trying to prove themselves right, they could have stopped the bloodiest battle in American history (even though this is using hindsight knowledge).
The Southern and Northern states varied on many issues, which eventually led them to the Civil War. There were deep economic, social, and political differences between the North and the South. These differences stemmed from the interpretation of the United States Constitution on both sides. In the end, all of these disagreements about the rights of states led to the Civil War. There were reasons other than slavery for the South?s secession. The manifestations of division in America were many: utopian communities, conflicts over public space, backlash against immigrants, urban riots, black protest, and Indian resistance (Norton 234). America was a divided land in need reform with the South in the most need. The South relied heavily on agriculture, as opposed to the North, which was highly populated and an industrialized society. The South grew cotton, which was its main cash crop and many Southerners knew that heavy reliance on slave labor would hurt the South eventually, but their warnings were not heeded. The South was based on a totalitarian system.
With states from the South seceding the United States due to their major differences with the North, the Confederate States of America formed. It was a nation that was established after the Southern secession however, with this Southern secession came Civil War. The first state to secede was South Carolina on December twentieth, 1860. Four months later, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas and Louisiana seceded as well. Later Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee joined them.When Lincoln became president that was the push the South to break away form the United States because of their conflicting opinions on slavery. In document O it says “I hear with pain and anguish the word ‘secession,’ especially when it falls from the lips of those who are emminnently patriotic [...] I hold the idea of a separation of these states—those that are free to form one government and those that are slaveholding to form another—as a moral impossibility. We could not separate the states by any such line if we were to draw it” (Document O). Daniel Webster's speech explains how secession is a bad thing and that it is impossible for it to work. Webster is correct in this, as it leads to the Civil War. Contrary to Webster, John C. Calhoun said, “ ...a State, as a party to the constitutional compact, has the right to secede — acting in the same capacity in which it ratified the constitution … All
The North and the South had been sectionalized for years on many issues, yet the majority of the congressmen had still come together when necessary for the good of the Nation, up until 1854. After Lincoln won the election in 1860, the nation was divided by sectionalism. Due to the Nation being divided and the Southerners being paranoid about the slaves being freed, I believe both issues were causes that led to the Civil War. Works Cited Brands, H. W.. American Stories: A History of the United States. New York: Routledge, 1998 2nd ed.
Both sides desired a republican form of government. Each wanted a political system that would “protect the equality and liberty of the individuals from aristocratic privilege and…tyrannical power.” (404) However, the north and south differed greatly in “their perceptions of what most threatened its survival.” (404) The secession by the south was an attempt to reestablish republicanism, as they no longer found a voice in the national stage. Prior to the 1850s, this conflict had been channeled through the national political system. The collapse of the two-party system gave way to “political reorganization and realignment,” wrote Holt. The voters of the Democrats shifted their influence toward state and local elections, where they felt their concerns would be addressed. This was not exclusively an economically determined factor. It displayed the exercise of agency by individual states. Holt pointed out, “[T]he emergence of a new two-party framework in the South varied from state to state according to the conditions in them.” (406) The “Deep South” was repulsed by the “old political process,” most Southerners trusted their state to be the safeguards of republicanism. (404) They saw the presidential election of Abraham Lincoln, a member of the “the anti-Southern Republican party,” as something the old system could not