More handpicked essays just for you.
Disadvantages of the Missouri compromise
Fugitive slave law
Compare and contrast viewpoints about the fugitive slave act
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Disadvantages of the Missouri compromise
Thesis: The South wanted to secede because the North was trying to abolish slavery, as seen in the Fugitive Slave Act, they tried to compromise by creating the Missouri Compromise line and both sides were unhappy. Paragraph 1: Category/grouping:The Fugitive Slave Act Main argument: The south wanted to recapture runaway slaves, but the North thought that was wrong. The North wanted to help the fugitive slaves escape to Canada because they believed slavery was wrong and warned the South. The South disagreed and thought slaves were their “property” and they owned them and deserved to be returned. Documents: Resolutions in Regard to Slavery, Fugitive Slave Act, Caution Poster, Burlington Free Press Editorial Justification: The Resolutions in Regard to slavery was passed by the Vermont Senate and House of Representatives and it showed the opposition towards the Fugitive Slave Law. It made people unhappy and did not work. The Fugitive Slave Act made the North really mad because they coe slave catchers from the South could capture fugitive slaves and return them to their owners. The...
In “Antebellum Southern Exceptionalism: A New Look at an Old Question” James McPherson argues that the North and the South are two very different parts of the country in which have different ideologies, interests, and values. Mcpherson writes this to show the differences between the north and the south. He gives perspectives from other historians to show how the differently the differences were viewed. These differences included the north being more industrialized while the south was more agricultural. He gives evidence to how the differences between the north and south came together as the south produced tobacoo, rice, sugar and cotton, which was then sent to the north to be made into clothing or other fabrics. Mcpherson analyzes the differences
After the Civil War, it became evident that changes in the South had to be made. The old way had certainly not worked, and it was time for variation. Therefore, there was much political, economic, and social reforms introduced in the South between 1864 and 1877. After 1877, many of the changes stayed with the exception of Civil Rights.
Franklin, J., Moss, A. Jr. From Slavery to Freedom. Seventh edition, McGraw Hill, Inc.: 1994.
The South was fighting against a government that they thought was treating them unfairly. They believed the Federal Government was overtaxing them, with tariffs and property taxes making their lifestyles even more expensive than they already had been. The North was fighting the Civil War for two reasons, first to keep the Nation unified, and second to abolish slavery. Abraham Lincoln, the commander and chief of the Union or Northern forces, along with many other Northerners, believed that slavery was not only completely wrong, but it was a great humiliation to America. Once we can see that with these differences a conflict would surely occur, but not many had predicted that a full-blown war would breakout.
nation of mechanics…You are bound to fail.” Union officer William Tecumseh Sherman to a Southern friend.
Russell B. Nye: Fettered Freedom: Civil Liberties and the Slavery Controversy, 1830-1860. East Lansing, Mich., 1949
The people of the North and South each believed fiercely in their cause, one for a free people the other for life servitude. Neither group, based on the documents presented were willing to budge regarding their beliefs. They North wanted to abolish slavery completely and the South could not understand why they had to give up their way of life because the concept was so ingrained in them as a people. The two completely different ideals could not co-exist peacefully and therefore the eventual climax of this issue, the war, was an inevitable
Bondage and My Freedom,” were widely publicized in the north before the Civil War. People
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 Civil War was a battle between the northern states and the southern states. The southern states wanted to secede
The Fugitive Slave Act was part of the Compromise of 1850. This act required that authorities in the North had to assist southern slave catchers to retrieve and return slaves to their owners. Southerners favored this act because they saw no slavery in the territories to the west, by the passing of the Fugitive Slave Act it would help preserve slavery in the south. This act allowed southern slave owners to get their slaves back when they escaped to the North that is why this act was important and critical to southern survival. The view of this act by the North was the opposite, especially from those who were black, they feared this act. The blacks in the North were terrified that this act would make it so they could be ushered back to the south even if they were innocent. This led to the creation of resistance groups in the North.
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.
The original Fugitive Slave Act was made in 1793. One of the things this stated was that slave owners were allowed to search for their escaped slaves in states that didn’t believe in slavery. When a slave (or a person suspected of being a slave) was caught, the people (or person) went to court to get the slave returned to it’s owner. If enough evidence was provided, the slaves were returned to their owners. This act also made it so that anyone who helped slaves in anyway, such as hiding them, were to face a $500 fee. Many people, especially those from northern states, disagreed with this act. The people of the northern states felt as if their land was being used by bounty hunters. They also disliked how, with people taking free African Americans as slaves, it felt as if the act was leading up to the legalization of kidnapping. Certain people who disagreed with this act created groups to help save slaves, and even created housing for them that would be safe for them to escape to areas where slavery was illegal.
Imagine a historian, author of an award-winning dissertation and several books. He is an experienced lecturer and respected scholar; he is at the forefront of his field. His research methodology sets the bar for other academicians. He is so highly esteemed, in fact, that an article he has prepared is to be presented to and discussed by the United States’ oldest and largest society of professional historians. These are precisely the circumstances in which Ulrich B. Phillips wrote his 1928 essay, “The Central Theme of Southern History.” In this treatise he set forth a thesis which on its face is not revolutionary: that the cause behind which the South stood unified was not slavery, as such, but white supremacy. Over the course of fourteen elegantly written pages, Phillips advances his thesis with evidence from a variety of primary sources gleaned from his years of research. All of his reasoning and experience add weight to his distillation of Southern history into this one fairly simple idea, an idea so deceptively simple that it invites further study.
Knowles, H. J. (2007). The Constitution and Slavery: A Special Relationship. Slavery & Abolition, 28(3), 309-328. doi:10.1080/01440390701685514