Crash! Boom! Terrified screams and rifle shots filled the air as Margaret snatched up her baby sister into her arms as she ran around frantically in search of shelter. Finally finding a safe hiding spot behind a large rock, Margaret and her little sister watched in desperation as their small shack was ransacked by John Brown and his raiders. As the sky grew black with smoke, angry tears began streaming down Margaret’s face. Why can’t the anti-slavery settlers just leave us alone? Why are they being so violent? What have we done to them? All we want is land to settle on! Margaret wondered in disheartenment. For settlers who had rushed to claim land in Kansas and Nebraska in the stormy 1850’s, facing violent clashes had become a daily routine. Right on the verge of a national split, the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act led to increased friction between the North and South, led to a national split of the Whig party, and led to violence in Kansas and the Civil War. This significant act resulted in numerous accouterments that left both immediate and progressive effects on America and its political system. The Great Plains area, west of Missouri offered countless opportunities for farming and ranching. In the early 1850’s, settlers and entrepreneurs alike wanted to move into the area we now refer to as present-day Nebraska. However, since Nebraska was organized as a territory, nobody could settle into it as they couldn’t legally claim any land. The southern states' representatives in Congress were reluctant about permitting a Nebraska territory as the land was north of the 36°30' parallel (where slavery had been outlawed by the Missouri Compromise of 1820). The Kansas-Nebraska Act made it possible for the Kansas and Nebraska terri... ... middle of paper ... ... that the worst of her troubles were yet to come. After all, I’m just a lowly settler, climbing the rocky mountain of despair that is life. I will never stop climbing, in hopes of being able to catch a sweet taste of freedom at the top. This view better be worth it. Spawning thoughts of rebellion in the minds of Northerners and Southerners alike, the ratification of the Kansas-Nebraska Act not only fanned the flames of the already smoldering tension in the Union, but it quickly separated the largest political party in America. It resulted in brutal violence in Kansas, portending the beginning of the Civil War. This act left extremely compelling changes to America’s political system, many of which continually affect us today. America changed tremendously with the passage of this act. But did our country transition for better or for worse? It’s up to you to decide.
In the book, Apostles of Disunion, author Charles B. Dew opens the first chapter with a question the Immigration and Naturalization service has on an exam they administer to prospective new American citizens: “The Civil War was fought over what important issue”(4). Dew respond by noting that “according to the INS, you are correct if you offer either of the following answers: ‘slavery or states’ rights’” (4). Although this book provides more evidence and documentation that slavery was the cause of the Civil War, there are a few places where states’ rights are specifically noted. In presenting the findings of his extensive research, Dew provides compelling documentation that would allow the reader to conclude that slavery was indeed the cause for both secession and the Civil War.
John Brown could be many things: a heroic leader, a violent troublemaker, a deranged madman. We would not know which or why if historians did not know to look into Brown’s past in order to find the motives behind his radical actions. By divulging into the history of John Brown, historians are able to better understand how Brown forced the entire country to make the decision to support or go against slavery in the United States. Brown made America take a good, hard look at itself in order to both confront Brown’s own views and the internal cultural problems that have been building up throughout the decades.
The Oklahoma Land Rush of 1889 is one of the most pivotal points in American History. The massive event entailed: American settlers performing their best bull impression. They made Oklahoma seem as if it were painted in the color red. A jaw-dropping amount of land settled in a day. Finally, to a victimized community that was on the verge of drowning in a sea of unwanted roommates. Oklahoma’s great land rush gave America the space to stretch out their territory, even though it nearly wiped out the Native Americans' land.
“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...
During a time of great brutality due to the controversial idea of Kansas being either a free or slave state, otherwise known as “Bleeding Kansas”, Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois composed the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which would repeal the Missouri Compromise and set the foundation for Kansas to solely decide its stance on slavery, an idea otherwise known as popular sovereignty (United States Senate). Charles Sumner spoke out against the Kansas-Nebraska Act in his “Crime Against Kansas” speech in which he maintained that the intention of the “Slave Power” was to “rape a virgin” and give birth to a slave state and spoke in favor of prompt affirmation of Kansas as a free state (Meade)...
It was a dark time in the history of the United States. A crisis was shadowing the country and had locked the North and the South at each other’s throats. Tensions were escalating and civil war seemed imminent. One brave man stood up to the challenge of resolving the conflict – Congressman Henry Clay of Kentucky. Despite his old age and illness, he managed to develop a set of compromise measures and convinced both sides to agree to it. This compromise, the Compromise of 1850, may have held off the Civil War for a decade, giving the North ample time to prepare (Remini). But, it wasn’t the only compromise Clay played a part in. Clay is well-known for developing the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the Compromise Tariff of 1833, as well as the aforementioned Compromise of 1850. These compromises earned Clay the name of the “Great Compromiser” (Van Deusen), and saved the Union from falling into discord.
The seeds of secession had been sown early in American history; quite literally with the fundamental differences in agriculture and resultant adoption of slavery in the South. From early days, the thirteen states had grown up separately, and each had their own culture and beliefs, which were often incompatible with those held in other states. The geographical and cultural differences between north and south would manifest themselves at regular and alarming intervals throughout the hundred years following the drafting of the constitution. Tension reached a peak during the 1850s, over the right to hold slaves in new territories. The Wilmot Proviso of 1846, roused bitter hostilities, and vehement debate turned to physical violence during the period of 'Bleeding Kansas'. The election of Lincoln, who the South perceived to be an abolitionist, in 1860 was the final straw, and the secession of seven Southern states followed soon after.
After the Turner revolt, the topic of slavery took over American politics (3,91). Congressman David Wilmot suggested that legislation prohibit slavery in new territories that were conquered from the victory in a war with Mexico (3,91). Wilmot acted in hopes of stopping slavery’s expansion westward but his movement did not pass with the Senate and was therefore disregarded (3,91). The South’s population was slowly becoming overshadowed by the North’s, leaving little room to stop anti-slavery legislation (3,91). When California was admitted as a free state in 1850, the US was left with no slave state to balance this addition and some southerners desired a separation of slave states from the union (3,92). Congressmen and senators started to fear their political opponents tremendously; tension was slowly building up (3,92). The Compromise of 1850 admitted California as a free state but also passed a law making it painless for slave-owners to recover their escaped slaves from free states (3,92). Congress then passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act which allowed inhabitants to decide whether Kansas would be a free state or a slave state (3,92). In hopes of victory, the opposing sides invaded the territory which was after nick-named “Bleeding Kansas” by the easterners (3,92). This unsettled region would be the perfect setting to launch a crusade against slavery (3, 92). This scheme was exactly what John Brown had in mind (3,92).
With hope that they could even out an agreement with the Government during the progressive era Indian continued to practice their religious beliefs and peacefully protest while waiting for their propositions to be respected. During Roosevelt’s presidency, a tribe leader who went by as No Shirt traveled to the capital to confront them about the mistreatment government had been doing to his people. Roosevelt refused to see him but instead wrote a letter implying his philosophical theory on the approach the natives should take “if the red people would prosper, they must follow the mode of life which has made the white people so strong, and that is only right that the white people should show the red people what to do and how to live right”.1 Roosevelt continued to dismiss his policies with the Indians and encouraged them to just conform into the white’s life style. The destruction of their acres of land kept being taken over by the whites, which also meant the destruction of their cultural backgrounds. Natives attempted to strain from the white’s ideology of living, they continued to attempt with the idea of making acts with the government to protect their land however they never seemed successfully. As their land later became white’s new territory, Indians were “forced to accept an ‘agreement’” by complying to change their approach on life style.2 Oklahoma was one of last places Natives had still identity of their own, it wasn’t shortly after that they were taken over and “broken by whites”, the union at the time didn’t see the destruction of Indian tribes as a “product of broken promises but as a triumph for American civilization”.3 The anger and disrespect that Native tribes felt has yet been forgotten, white supremacy was growing during the time of their invasion and the governments corruption only aid their ego doing absolutely nothing for the Indians.
The turmoil between the North and South about slavery brought many issues to light. People from their respective regions would argue whether it was a moral institution and that no matter what, a decision on the topic had to be made that would bring the country to an agreement once and for all. This paper discusses the irrepressible conflict William H. Seward mentions, several politician’s different views on why they could or could not co-exist, and also discusses the possible war as a result.
People attending schools before 1960’s were learning about certain “unscrupulous carpetbaggers”, “traitorous scalawags”, and the “Radical Republicans”(223). According to the historians before the event of 1960’s revision, these people are the reason that the “white community of South banded together to overthrow these “black” governments and restore home rule”(223). While this might have been true if it was not for the fact that the “carpetbaggers were former Union soldiers”, “Scalawags… emerged as “Old Line” Whig Unionists”(227). Eric Foner wrote the lines in his thesis “The New View of Reconstruction” to show us how completely of target the historians before the 1960’s revision were in their beliefs.
Roark, J.L., Johnson, M.P., Cohen, P.C., Stage, S., Lawson, A., Hartmann, S.M. (2009). The american promise: A history of the united states (4th ed.), The New West and Free North 1840-1860, The slave south, 1820-1860, The house divided 1846-1861 (Vol. 1, pp. 279-354).
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...
The Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 were two acts that tried to solve the problems between the note and the south. However, the political action that the north took caused the creation of the “personal liberty” laws, which oddly changed north’s perspective towards slavery. The disagreement on the extension of slavery was not only the eyes of the north anymore. Although, the Compromise of 1850, put a more humane side to the solution, the problem towards slavery is yet to be solved..
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