In 1954, the Kansas- Nebraska Act was passed. Northern Democrat Steven Douglass in an attempt to build a transcontinental railroad petitioned the Kansas-Nebraska act on the bases that the Compromise of 1850 validated popular sovereignty. In Douglass’s opinion the Compromise of 1850 made the Missouri Compromise of 1820 void. There was opposition from Northern politicians who believed that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was a sacred pact made by previous lawmakers during the union’s long history of compromises. For Southern politicians the Kansas- Nebraska Act would help the extension of slavery which most of the Northerners were against. Ignoring the wishes of the Northerners and pushing the Democratic agenda which wanted not only the continuation of slavery in the Southern states, but for the expansion of slavery to Western parts of the country, played into the fears of the Northerners that believed the power of the Slavery-holding elites was reaching into Northern states. Although Douglass’s agenda may have been to unite the North and South with his transcontinental railroad and ease the growing sectional rift within the American political arena with is idea of popular sovereignty, his bill convinced non-Democratic Northern party factions to join together and oppose the Democratic power in American politics.
The non-democratic parties that join forces were the Free-soilers, Anti- Nebraska Whigs, Anti- Nebraska Democrats, Nativist groups and Abolitionists. These groups created the Republican Party. The Republican Party unlike parties before it was a purely sectional party. The Republican Party made its first real stand during the election of 1856. During this election the Republican Party came close to winning the election by ...
... middle of paper ...
...nt Northern factions created a place for moderates and radicals on both sides to of the spectrum. They were able to sweep the North in the 1860 presidential election because they catered to Northern constitutes concerns. They were a true opposition to the Democratic Party control in the American political system during 1854-1860. The Southern Democrat’s push to extend slavery by ending the Missouri Compromise of 1820, isolated the Northern Democrats from their agenda, and the violence that surrounded the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 made sectional tension between the North and South more intense. Also these events showed that preserving the union was no longer enough to stop sectional tensions. The Republican Party winning the 1860 election as a sectional Party depicted that a house divide truly cannot stand and a great shift in the American government would occur.
Analysis of The Shattering of The Union by Eric H. Walther In Eric H. Walther’s, “The Shattering of The Union”, the question of the Kansas Nebraska Act came along during 1854. The Kansas-Nebraska Act infuriated many in the North who considered the Missouri Compromise to be a long-standing binding agreement. In the pro-slavery South it was strongly supported. On March 4, 1854, the Senate approved The Kansas-Nebraska Act with only two southerners and four northerners voting against it. On May 22, the House of Representatives approved it and by May 30, 1854, The Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed by the U.S. Congress.
Lincoln received more popular votes than the Democrats; this was an important shift in Illinois. Lincoln gained a strong reputation through out the entire north. By Douglas winning, he further alimented Presidents Buchanan’s administration and especially the south. The south soon lost its power in the Senate; the division of the Democratic Party was even more splintered. Lincoln assured the south that he would not interfere with slavery in their states where it already excited. Also, Lincoln assured the north that he was not ready for political or social equality of the races.
“I would rather be right than be President,” stated Senator Henry Clay concerning the issue of finding a resolution for the countries burning issue during the mid 1800s. Even though Clay lost the presidential election of 1849 to Zachary Taylor, he was determined to find a solution to America’s prevailing debate of whether or not to extend slavery into their new territories. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo had officially ended the war with Mexico and political warfare in the Unite States was a rising issue. Part of the treaty forced the Mexicans to give up tracts of their land including Texas, California, and all the land between. This left the Americans in a predicament of whether or not to admit California to the Union as a free state, therefore making the ratio of free to slave states imbalanced. Ever since the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the balance between slave states and free states had been maintained, but California began to petition Congress to enter the Union as a free state. Since Texas was a slave state, they claimed land north of the 36°30' demarcation line for slavery set by the 1820 Missouri Compromise. However, the Texas Annexation resolution required that if any new states were formed out of Texas land; the land north of the Missouri Compromise line would become free states. As Clay worked for months to develop a compromise to solve the nation’s issue, he received help from Stephen Douglas, a young Democrat from Illinois. On January 29, 1850, after several other people suggested ideas that failed, the two men presented a series of bills that were ushered through Congress. California’s wish was granted and they were entered as a free state, officially disrupting the equilibrium in the states. The second bill...
The Republican Party attracted more of the common people while the Federalist Party drew support from the aristocracy. Although neither side was willing to admit to it, these institutions were known as the "first party system." Both parties stance on who should have more power in the government contributed to the largely divers views of the common man and the wealthy man.
...eadership of the democrats, believed in popular sovereignty ie the population of a state choosing for itself on the matter of slavery. The other member also aiming to rule the democrats was Breckinbridge, who believed in slavery being permitted in all states. The democrat party split into the northern and southern democrats. Because of the split Lincoln was able to win the election, upon which the southern states succeeded from the union.
... The cause was forfeited not by Republicans, who welcomed the African-American votes, but to the elite North who had concluded that the formal end of slavery was all the freed man needed and their unpreparedness for the ex-slaves to participate in the Southern commonwealth was evident. Racism, severe economic depression, an exhausted North and troubled South, and a campaign of organized violence toward the freed man, overturned Reconstruction. The North withdrew the last of the federal troops with the passing of The Compromise of 1877. The freed slaves continued to practice few voting rights until 1890, but they were soon stripped of all political, social and economic powers. Not until the civil rights movement in the 1950’s and 1960’s were the freedoms that were fought for by our Republican forefathers nearly 100 years before, finally seen through to fruition.
Since the beginning of the Market Revolution, the institution of slavery became the leading factor that intensified the relations between the North and the South. Regarding the geographic differences between the North and South, the South was primarily agrarian and the North was mainly urban. Therefore, the North rapidly industrialized while the South remained relatively rural and cotton-slave based. As a result, the Market Revolution economically separated the North and the South and created a second party system. Thus, the issues of pro-slavery and anti-slavery arose between the Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans in the 1850s. The North desired to halt the expansion of slavery into western territories while the South strongly opposed. These two opposing parties led to radical abolitionism in the North, William Henry Seward and John Brown, and extreme secessionism in the South, James Henry Hammond, and South Carolina Ordinance of Secession. Due to their strict ideologies regarding slavery, both parties could not compromise on the issue of the expansion of slavery. Therefore, according to Americans in the years prior to the Civil War, conflict was inevitable.
The 1860 presidential election was one of the nation’s most memorable. The north and the south sections of the country had a completely different vision of how they envisioned their home land. What made this worse was that their views were 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 southern supporters, mostly democratic states, wanted slavery in the country, because this is what they earned their daily living and profit from.
After winning the Mexican-American War in 1848, the United States gained the western territories, which included modern-day California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, as well as parts of Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma. However, controversial topics, that helped cause the Civil War, arouse with the addition of these new territories. Primarily, the people of the United States wanted to know whether the new territories would be admitted as free states or slave states. In order to avoid fighting between the slave states of the South and the free states of the North, Henry Clay (Whig) and Stephen Douglas (Democrat) drafted the Compromise of 1850. Although the compromise was created to stop conflict ...
Between the period of 1820-1861 there was a number of political compromises done in order reduce the sectional tension between the North and the South. While each of the compromises created helped the issue that the country was facing at that time, they did not help overall. The compromises were only a temporary fix to the country’s problem of sectionalism. Therefore, while political compromises were effective in reducing the tension between the North and the South, it did not help in preventing the civil war. The North and the South had a vast amount of political differences, one of the major ones was slavery.
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.
...0s and 1840s Democrats and Whigs built the most completely national twoparty system that Americans have ever hadboth parties relied on support from all sections of the country, and both were evenly matched in most states. Within that system, politicians knew that arguments between the North and South must be avoided. Such arguments would, first of all, split the Whig and Democratic parties in which politicians were making their careers. Second, and more dangerous, the breakdown of the national twoparty system could realign the parties along NorthSouth lines and focus national politics on the differences between the North and South. Political leaders feared that such a breakdown could lead ultimately to disunion and perhaps civil war. Most historians agree that the national party system's eventual breakdown was a crucial cause of the American Civil War (1861-1865).
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.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act was one of the first events that demonstrated Lincoln’s disapproval yet tolerance for slavery. The Kansas-Nebraska Act, proposed by Stephen A. Douglas and signed by Franklin Pierce, divided the region into two territories. The territory north of the 40th parallel was the Kansas Territory and the south of the 40th parallel was the Nebraska Territory, the controv...
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