Can The United States Justify The Civil War

901 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Impact of the american civil war

Can the United States Justify the Civil War

The definition of Manifest Destiny reads as: "The belief in the 1840's in the inevitable territorial expansion of the United States, especially as advocated by southern slaveholders who wished to extend slavery into new territories." This explanation was transcribed from the World Book
Encyclopedia's dictionary. It is directly evident that from this unbiased statement we can trace the first uprising of a separate group of people yearning to break the newly formed bond of the great United States.

Before and during the Mexican War, the people who were pushing for the claimed land once owned by innocent native americans, were always looking for a scapegoat. They needed one way or another, a way to squirm out of taking the blame for the enslaved and murdered Mexican causalities. There was one man, though, who would not let this happen, David Wilmot. David Wilmot was a democrat from Pennsylvania, who was willing to revise the President's bill. In this revision, Wilmot proposed "...neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of the territory...". This was not well liked by the South and eventhough it was given thumbs up many times in the senate, our newly formed country was now bordered by fresh land. The Wilmot Proviso underwent quite a bit of pressure so that compromises could satisfy each side.

The Compromise of 1850 was soon to follow but the real catch of the same year was the Fugitive Slave Act. This act was invented so that the slaves of slaveowners, who took them to a slave-free state on a vacation or something, could not escape. In this act, the hardest part to understand, was that the courts were to try to give a fair trial to any runaway slaves. This enfuriated many of the Northern abolitionists who now were going to expand the tracks of the underground railroad to help extend their efforts in the rescue of the runaways. The point of no return, where many people knew for sure that the country would be devided between the north and the south was the ruling on the
Kansas Nebraska Act. This act was majorly contributed into by Stephen A.
Douglas and probably would never have passed without his consent. The whole idea behind the act that really got to the south was Popular Sovereignty. This so called "specific" rule was none to specific in stating when a territory could decide when they were pro or anti slavverry. The abolitionists were flooding the new territory with their own kind where as the southerners were just moving

Show More
Related

  • Difference Between North And South Dbq

    466 Words  | 1 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • The Compromise of 1850 Favored the North Over the South

    1369 Words  | 3 Pages

    McConnell, Eleanor H. "Compromise of 1850." In Rohrbough, Malcolm J., and Gary B. Nash, eds. Encyclopedia of American History: Expansion and Reform, 1813 to 1855, Revised Edition (Volume IV). New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2010. American History Online. Facts On File, (December 14, 2013).

    Read More

  • Essay On The Causes Of The Civil War Dbq

    848 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the spring 1861, years of building tensions between the northern states and southern states resulted in the American Civil War. In 1680 an anti-slavery Republican, Abraham Lincoln was elected president causing seven southern states to secede from the union. These seven states included--Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas--. These seven states formed the Confederate States of America. The American Civil War lasted from April 12, 1861 to May 9, 1865 and claimed more than roughly 620,000 lives. So what caused the Civil War? The three main causes of the Civil War were differences between the north and the south in economies, disagreements in abolishing slavery, and whether the State or Federal

    Read More

  • territorial expansion dbq

    669 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Compromise of 1850

    385 Words  | 1 Pages

    One item in the Compromise of 1850 was the provision for a stronger Fugitive Slave Law. This new law made it a federal crime to not return a runaway slave to the south. The law also established that any suspected runaway slave was to be tried by a single judge, not by a jury. Also, these judges were compensated by a system that provided them with more money for deciding that the slave was guilty than innocent. This law obviously encouraged people not to harbor runaway slaves, and when they were caught, it provided the judge an incentive to have them returned to the south.

    Read More

  • The Missouri Compromise

    743 Words  | 2 Pages

    In 1849 once again the Union was facing the same crises it had faced in 1820. California now wanted to be admitted as a free state. Once again Henry Clay came up with a compromise to resolve this conflict. California would indeed be admitted as free while the rest of the Southwest territories would decide the slavery issue by popular sovereignty. It would also abolish slavery altogether in Washington DC and initiate a stronger fugitive slave law to appease the South. This last concession angered people in the North however. Free blacks were concerned as now a Southerner could accuse any black person as being a runaway slave.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of The Irrepressible Conflict Between The North And South

    1061 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Greed Caused the American Civil War

    2305 Words  | 5 Pages

    Of the seven deadly sins, the one that has plagued the United States the most throughout its history is greed.. Greed -- i.e., "the excessive desire to possess wealth or goods with the intention of keeping it for oneself." – can be seen in 1614, when Thomas Hunt sailed to Spain from his expedition in America with a ship packed with Patuxet Indians, bound to be sold into slavery. It can also be seen in 1773 as a major factor of the Boston Tea Party, where King George III was yearning for more control over colonial governments and hungry for the revenue from it. Greed can also be seen in 1830 during the Indian removal act, where President Andrew Jackson (backed by many other white Americans) signed a law that forced the five civilized tribes (Creek, Choctaw, Cherokee, Seminole, and Chickasaw) off of their land and dragged to different territories in Oklahoma. In each of those instances, greed served as the ultimate cause of behavior. Despite the many factors that played a significant role in the American Civil War, greed once again served as the catalyst and ultimate cause of the American Civil War. While anti-slavery movements, the idea of states' rights and the vision of "one union" each represented powerful arguments (or justifications for plunging the United States into civil war), the ultimate cause stemmed from fundamental differences between the "North and South" over control of economic power – i.e., modes of production, property, and money.

    Read More

  • The 1860 Presidential Election

    1204 Words  | 3 Pages

    The separation of the south and north was not the only separation the United States was going through, the Democratic Party had split. The northern and southern democrats turn on each other. After several delegates walk out of the democratic convention, Douglas, who was not supposed to be put up as a nomination for president because he would not support the idea to make all states have slaves, was nominated for president. After the fact that Douglas was nominated without the entire Democratic Party consent, the southern democrats nominated John C. Breckinridge, who believed that all the states should have slavery, thus a split in the Democratic Party. (Foner,496)

    Read More

  • The Civil War: Why Was The Civil War Inevitable?

    714 Words  | 2 Pages

    Julius Caesar is well-known for being the Roman general and statesman who turned the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire (Biography.com Editors). The Civil War in Rome was essentially inevitable. During the years 49-45B.C the Civil War began for a variety of reasons. Some issues that lead to the Civil War were government issues, crossing the Rubicon and the power of the Roman citizens. Throughout my essay I will explain in detail the reasons why the Roman Civil War was no longer an option and why it had to happen.

    Read More

  • Events Leading To The Civil War

    866 Words  | 2 Pages

    The 1850's were a turbulent time in American history. The North and South were seeing total different views on the issue of slavery. The North saw slavery as immoral and that it was unconstitutional. The south on the other hand saw slavery as their right. The South viewed African Americans as lower human beings which justified slavery. "The 1850's was a time of attempted compromise when compromise was no longer possible." This quote best describes this time period, because Americans were trying to compromise their views to prevent a large conflict, but there were many events which made a compromise impossible.

    Read More

  • Differences Between the North and South that Led to the Civil War

    1460 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850

    637 Words  | 2 Pages

    Ever since the formation of the colonies, differences stood in the way of a fundamental relationship between the north and the south. Despite these differences they were not the cause of the problems. In the 1820’s, the growth between territories and regions were increasing. This expansion went too far causing it to become a worldwide crisis. More chaos arouse since the north and the south did not agree on anything. The north strongly disagreed with the expansion of slavery, while south agreed to expand slavery throughout new territories and regions. The north's decision was based on factors such as political and economical threat instead of a moral threat, as it was depicted in the Missouri Compromise. However, the Compromise of 1850 , showed a more argument towards the morality threat, making it more united than ever.

    Read More

  • Civil War

    1646 Words  | 4 Pages

    Now, as we could see, our nation started to divide into two, the south and the

    Read More

  • Similarities Between 1850 And Missouri Compromise Of 1850

    587 Words  | 2 Pages

    The compromise of 1850 was very similar to the Missouri compromise of 1820 in that they both succeeded in bringing together the North and the South. In the early 18th century, there was division in America as result of slavery. At that particular point, the North and South were already in tension due to issue of slavery. Slavery was not widely spread in the North however, businessmen enriched themselves through slave trade in the south. Both Missouri Compromise and Compromise of 1850 both aimed at restoring peace between the North and South slave sated and between the Free and the Slave states.

    Read More

More about Can The United States Justify The Civil War

Open Document