D) Before the secession of the south, the issue of slavery was dividing the Union. Since the institute of slavery was not directly mentioned in the Constitution, both the North and South claimed that the Constitution was in their favor. The North claimed it did not protect the institute of slavery, while the South said that it protected a citizen’s property, which they believed that the slaves were. From the Compromise of 1850 the Utah and New Mexico territories were left up to popular sovereignty to determine if they were slave or free. While the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 made it increasingly more difficult for escaping former slaves to hold on to freedom in the North.
The violent Civil War would never have started without the rise of political and social conflicts. Political issues such as the Dred Scott Decision and the Election of 1860 developed tensions that led to the Civil War. When Dred Scott, an African American, sued for his freedom, the Supreme Court formed the Dred Scott Decision. Scott sued based on the Missouri Compromise, and stated that he had been in free land when his owner died, therefore he should be free. This application to sue was deemed invalid by the Supreme Court it ruled that any African Americans, including Scott, would never become citizens.
As a result of him being elected, South Carolina seceded along with six southern states. Once a president took a stance against slavery, the South was quick to secede. Though the democratic US government attempted to solve the issue of slavery with compromises between the north and south, it wasn't capable of solving such a "controversial moral issue". With the nation divided equally by such a passionate issue like slavery, a national consensus was difficult and impossible to find because of the controversy. With slavery there was no middle ground, only two radically opposed sides.
In fact it merely 'papered over the crack', and did not prove, as Daniel Webster a Clay supporter had hoped, 'a finality that would give peace to a country long distracted by the quarrel over slavery'. Why did the Compromise ultimately fail, and lead to polarization, featuring a party, which had begun to establish itself in the 1820s. The conflict between the North and South stemmed back to 1846, when the U.S.A won a huge area of Mexican territory as the result of what became known as the Mexican War. The land acquired revived controversy over the extension of slavery, as many Northerners wanted the new territory to become a free state with no slavery, and many Southerners wanted slavery to expand. Numerous compromises were conceded, to try to resolve the sectional conflict, for example the Wilmot Proviso of 1846 attempted to exclude slavery from any territory gained as a result of the war.
The problem Congress had with accepting Missouri as a slave state was the new uneven count of free states and slave states. With proslavery states and antislavery states already getting into arguments, having a dominant number of either slave or free states would just ignite the flame even more. Many representatives from the north, such as James Tallmadge of New York, had already tried to pass another amendment that would abolish slavery everywhere. Along with other tries to eliminate slavery, his effort was soon shot down. The fact that people couldn’t agree on whether or not slavery should be legalized made trying to compose and pass a law nearly impossible.
Andrew Johnson, who became President of the U.S. in 1865, had his own Reconstruction plan, but it turned out to be unsuccessful largely because of the unfair ways in which blacks were treated. According to his plan, pardons would be offered to all southern whites except wealthy Confederate supporters and the main Confederate leaders. Conventions were to be held by the defeated southern states and new state governments were to be formed. These new governments had to make a vow of loyalty to the nation and abolish slavery in order to rejoin the Union. However, this plan did not offer the blacks a role in this process; he left the responsibility of determining the black people’s roles to the southern states.
Before the Civil War, the country was separating between North and South. The causes of this splitting are disagreements over tariffs and the matter of slavery, which was legal in the South but had gradually been banned by states north of the Mason-Dixon Line. As the US acquired new territories in the west, unpleasant disputes erupted over whether or not slavery would be legitimate in those newly acquired territories. Southerners became paranoid and began to believe the addition of new non-slaveholding states but no new slaveholding states would give control of the government to abolitionists, and the institution of slavery would be outlawed completely. The slave holding south increasingly felt its interests were threatened, particularly since slavery had been prohibited in much of the new territory that had been added west of the Mississippi River.
From the start of the American Civil War, 1860, until the end of the Reconstruction, 1877, the United States of America endured what can be considered a revolution. Prior to the year 1860, there was a lack of union because of central government power flourishing rather than state power. Therefore, there was a split of opposite sides, North and South, fighting for authority. One major issue that came into mind was of slavery. At first, there were enactments that were issued to limit or rather prevent conflict to erupt, such as the numerous compromises, Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850.
People often misunderstand the factors that led to one of the bloodiest wars in history, the Civil War. While many believe the question of the morality of slavery is what drove the South to secede, leading to the Civil War, that was not the main element. While main issue that led to the war was slavery, freedom and morality were not the center of this. It was a variety of political and economic aspects of slavery were what initiated the Civil War. Anti-Slavery writers such as Seward and Helper urged the country to abandon the extension of slavery in order to protect the union and the economy.
Slave trade was outlawed in Washington, D.C., but slavery was still permitted there. However, the most important and controversial provision was the Fugitive Slave Law, which proved to cause many disputes and a lot of anger by the North who opposed it, and the South who was upset that the North wouldn’t execute it. Due to the fact that slavery was not mentioned in the Constitution, there was a dispute over whether or not the states had the right to allow it and spread it to the new territories. There were abolitionists, such as William Lloyd Garrison, who claimed that because... ... middle of paper ... ...l states are equal, none having supremacy over the other. The states have the rights within the Constitution, which does not include slavery, and that they don’t have the right to secede from the Union.