The sectional crisis between the Northern and the Southern states grew to a dangerous situation between 1860 and April of 1861 when hostilities began. The newspaper articles from the Augusta county, Virginia newspapers described the events of the times in a local Southern viewpoint. The Staunton Spectator is a pro-Union newspaper. An article appearing in the January 17, 1860 editorial argues that war would be foolish and preserving the Union is the manly thing to do. The article called southern “fire-eating” gentlemen insane, and argued that abandoning rights granted by the constitution would be inglorious. It takes the position that they should fight to stay in the Union and that war is a foolish way to solve grievances. On November 13, …show more content…
The author warns the tax burden must fall on landowners to bear the brunt of taxes. He believes all of their problems can be resolved under the Constitution, and the scheme of many politicians is to break up the Union and try to reconstruct it with a Southern Confederacy. The writer is opposed to these ideas and believes, “it would be the source of incalculable evil.” An article appearing in the Spectator on March 12, 1861, tries to make the argument that states which have succeeded are experiencing huge tax increases. The writer reasons that the raised taxation from the Union is for the “defense of the State”. The author questions “As these things occur in times of peace, what may we expect in times of war?” The Staunton Vindicator is a pro-succession newspaper. On February 10, 1860, an article appeared that tried to unite Virginia on the Southern Conference issue. This conference is peaceable and for purposes of self-defense. Had its proposals been in place, it would have helped to prevent the Harper’s Ferry raid. The Southern Conference was not intended to be a “preparatory step to going out of the Union.” As a state, Virginia did not wholeheartedly support South Carolina with its decision to leave the Union and, meanwhile the Congress of the United States passed a law abolishing the slave trade in the District of Colombia. This is a direct attack …show more content…
The writer of the article wants the US Congress to stay out of territorial affairs and use “popular sovereignty” to decide territorial laws. The author argues that the only reason slavery is still illegal in the North is because of the many foreign immigrants providing cheaper labor than the slaves. “It was a matter of dollars and cents, and not conscience: and thus it never will be,” he
On the question as to whether states’ rights was the cause of the Civil War, Dew references a speech made by Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States of America, during his inaugural address as one that “remains a classic articulation of the Southern position that resistance to Northern tyranny and a defense of states’ rights were the sole reason for secession. Constitutional differences alone lay at the heart of the sectional controversy, he insisted. ‘Our present condition…illustrates the American idea that governments rest upon the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish governments whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established’”(13).
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...
In addition to a crumbling national identity, the necessities of war diminished morale among citizens of the Confederacy. Early on, the South believed that Europe would a...
Lincoln indirectly shows in the House Divided that superiority is necessary for the flourishing of a country by showing folly of a “sacred right of self-government” (2). Stephen A. Douglas, leading advocate for ‘Squatter Sovereignty,’ followed the doctrine of the Nebraska bill that s...
"The American constitution recognized slavery as a local constitution within the legal rights of the individual states. But in the North slavery was not adaptable to the local economy, and to many, it contradicted the vision of the founding fathers for a nation in which all men are to be free. The South considered slavery as a necessary institution for the plantation economy. It was linked to the local culture and society. As the United states expanded, the North worried that the South would introduce slavery into the new territories. Slavery had become both a moral issue and a question of political power." (Kral p61)
The Compromise of 1850 and Kansas-Nebraska Acts were very advantageous to the South. In both pieces of legislation the south gained things that would aid them in their campaign to expand slavery. The advantages the south included a stronger fugitive slave law, the possibility for slavery to exist in the remaining part of the Mexican Cession, the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and the eventual plan to build the Southern Pacific Railroad.
The antebellum American antislavery movement began in the 1820s and was sustained over 4 decades by organizations, publications, and small acts of resistance that challenged the legally protected and powerful institution of slavery and the more insidious enemy of black equality, racism. Abolitionists were always a radical minority even in the free states of the North, and the movement was never comprised of a single group of people with unified motivations, goals, and methods. Rather, the movement was fraught with ambiguity over who its leaders would be, how they would go about fighting the institution of slavery, and what the future would be like for black Americans.
North and South The United States of America, the great democratic experiment, was just that. Not since the great Greek culture had a government of, for, and by the people existed. The entire world felt, that on a large scale, democracy would inevitably lead to anarchy; our founding fathers were determined to prove them wrong. But as the political stand off with the British became a secession issue, a great issue split the future nation. Slavery, a southern necessity, both social and economic, threatened the unity of our nation. A nation that would one day be the greatest the world had ever known. During the development of the thirteen colonies, diversity set in early. In the south the temperate climate made the growth of tobacco a suitable and very profitable business. Cultivation of this crop required a lot of land, and therefore settlers lived far apart. Northern Colonies, though, were much more dependent on small farms, with closely knit communities. These differences were the seed of a sectional division that would plague the nation for a century. During the late seventeenth century, this fissure in the ideals of the colonies became apparent. Following the constant political irreverence from Britain, a majority of colonial representatives felt the need for independence. The Declaration of Independence was the document written to do this. It called for an abolition of slavery as well as freedom from British rule. Unfortunately, the South would hear nothing of it. Being strong defenders of states rights, most of the Southern states adhered to their believe in a government less like a supreme authority and more like a dominion of independent states. They would rather stay loyal to their oppressive government than participate in one that shunned their way of life. In order to keep their dreams of independence, they North was forced to make the one cession they did not wish to make. In order to keep a unified nation, the slavery issue was deliberately absent from the Declaration. Some of the Northern delegates were outraged, but none more than John Adams. A renowned proponent of equal rights, he was one of few that saw the irony in establishing a free society without freeing those in bondage. John Adams seems now more like Nostrodamus when he voiced his concern about the slavery issue for future generations. He did not know it, but the couldn’t have been more right.
I will investigate the question of whether the national tariff policy between 1816 and 1832 impacted the development and acceptance of the nullification doctrine in South Carolina? I will evaluate the national tariff policy during the early 1800's and analyze how these tariffs may have impacted the acceptance and support of nullification in South Carolina. I will examine the economic conditions of South Carolina during this period and compare these conditions with the development of nullification as a political tool. I will also review the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions to look at early examples of state sovereignty.
The Civil War began on April 12, 1861 at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor when the Confederate army attacked Union soldier and ended on May 9, 1865 with a Union Victory. There are many events, laws, and people that provoked the Civil War. The two most important causes are slavery and the expansion of the United States causing an unbalance of free and slave states. This essay examines major events that initiated the war starting from the Compromise of 1820 to the election of 1860 and proves how the Civil War was inevitable.
During the 1830s the issue on whether if the national government should have limited power and if the states should have rights to have power have been highly debated between two senators, Robert Hayne and Daniel Webster. Both senators have given political speeches about their judgement of the federal government limited power and the states’ rights. “The crowded senate galleries thrilled to the eloquence of the two parliamentary gladiator,” said in Document 2. Senator Hayne and Webster both have spoken in the house of the senators about national government and states having power. Furthermore, both senators address the use of taxation. “The South is acting on a principle she has always held scared- resistance to unauthorized taxation,” says
After the American Revolution, slavery began to decrease in the North, just as it was becoming more popular in the South. By the turn of the century, seven of the most Northern states had abolished slavery. During this time, a surge of democratic reform swept the North to the West, and there were demands for political equality, economic and social advances for all Americans. Northerners said that slavery revoked the human right of being a free person and when new territories became available i...
By the year of 1860, the North and the South was developed into extremely different sections. There was opposing social, economic, and political points of view, starting back into colonial periods, and it slowly drove the two regions farther in separate directions. The two sections tried to force its point of view on the nation as a whole. Even though negotiations had kept the Union together for many years, in 1860 the condition was unstable. The presidential election of Abraham Lincoln was observed by the South as a risk to slavery and many believe it initiated the war.
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.
More confederates than unions were illiterate due to the fact that most held professional or white-collard jobs (36). To make the Union soldiers sample fair sense most blacks couldn’t read or write, 2 who could were included in the sample (36). The levels of patriotism differed from the upper and lower south given to the fact that the upper south were mainly cotton states. The confederates felt as if it was a “rich mans woar but the poor man has to do the fifting” (16). The confederates were mainly fighting for “independence, property and way of life” (27). Some characteristics the soldiers had in common were McPherson’s calculations for the Union. He came to seeing that out of 562 Union soldier’s letters read only 67 percent voice strong patriotic motives. This is the same as the two-thirds of Confederates. As a result from reading McPherson’s book, research showed that the Union and Confederate soldiers expressed about the same degree of patriotic and ideological convictions. Even though they both had different reasons for fighting the levels of sincerity and dedication in their notes were