At this time there was a struggle between northern states(anti-slave states) and southern states(slave states). Both wanter to maintain power of government without the other trying to as well. This was shown when Tallmadge and Thomas both came up with amendments for congress’ conundrum. Tallmadge was a northerner who didn’t want slavery to exsist in the newly found state. Not because of the morality of it all but because he didn’t want the south to maintain more power.
The Civil War was a fight to defend a way of life. The issue of uniting was fundamental to the survival of American democracy. The two different opinions on how the Union should be governed shaped America in a way that would have great effect on the states, this brought about Sectionalism between the North and South. The major reason of the conflict between the North and South were their different views on slavery and the treatment of the African Americans during the Mid-19th Century. This wasn’t the only trigger to cause the Civil War another encountering component of this war was the economic, social and political differences between the North and South.
The war was due to a culmination of events ranging from the institution of slavery, its implications on society, and the economic impact slavery was having on society. The American Civil War was also due to an uneasy alliance between the Northern and Southern congressman that after many decades of compromise and conciliation, their bipartisanship failed and in their views there could be no more compromise. Arguably the North and South both believed that they were fighting a war against political oppression and the condemnation of a way of life, the North believed they were fighting for free economic expansion and later the emancipation of a people, while the South believed they were fighting for their own rights and way of life. The American Civil War was more than a war about slavery, and the extension of slavery; it was a war of states’ rights over federal, it was also a technological push for industrialization over the continuing agricultural mode of living. The war did not erupt in 1820 because a compromise was reached.
They were like children and would not survive by themselves. When President Lincoln was elected into power in 1860 as promised South Carolina seceded from the United States of America, they felt that Lincoln would try and abolish slavery completely and felt that although he did not preach to abolish slavery trying to stop it spreading was just another way of expressing his views. However this was far from correct as although yes Lincoln did want to stop spreading slavery across the USA he realised that abolishing completely in the short term was just unrealistic and lead to further divide of the USA, nevertheless it was possible that no one was surprised when the radical state of South Carolina seceded from the USA. Carolina had always been a trouble state and this was not the first rift that they had with the Federal Government, however perhaps the more surprising issue was when fellow southern states followed suit and not long after 6 other southern states seceded. This consequently led to the battle of Fort Sumner and what was described by many as the start of the Civil War.
The primary motivation for the secession of the southern states was their belief that their rights given to them under the constitution were being taken away by the northern controlled federal government and the new regionally dominated Republican Party. Many argue that the main reason the South seceded from the union was only over the issue of slavery. The South thought that the new Republican Party and the newly elected president, President Lincoln, were going to abolish slavery in the South. Although this may be, for the most part true, it is not the sole reason for the South’s decision to secede. The four states that seceded later in 1861, had at first voted against secession on the sole basis over the issue of slavery.
But this did not end slavery in the nation. This is why Lincoln then came up with the 13th amendment to abolish slavery. It was a very controversial amendment. With this other situations came up for the United States. In the south the Union wanted slavery and in the North they were against slavery.
Much of the debating was over Popular Sovereignty concerning the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Popular Sovereignty reinforced the idea of the people choosing whether or not to endorse slavery in the westward expansion. On October 15, 1858, the two politicians disputed over Popular Sovereignty, and whether or not the country could endure being united. Douglas supported this concept of Popular Sovereignty, while Lincoln, an abolitionist, did not. During the debating they differed on whether or not the Declaration of Independence supported slavery.
How accurate are they? a. Part of the regional tensions were due the northern delegates wanting to end slavery and the southern delegates wanting to increase slavery .Mason of Virginia was against slavery, he felt the government should have more power over slavery. His predictions are pretty accurate. Ellsworth from Connecticut considered in moral light, ought to free those already in the country.
“Apostles of Disunion” In Apostles of Disunion, Charles Dew attempted to explain what led to the South’s decision to secede and ultimately cause a civil war. The one reoccurring theme he brings up as the major reason for the South’s secession was their widespread pro slavery attitude held at the time. Dew believed that if slavery had not existed, then the civil war would have never occurred. Throughout his writings he showed this Southern pro slavery attitude and used several examples to support this idea. Two of his best used examples were the the popular propaganda speeches made by slave owners in attempt to gain allegiance against the North and the South’s almost hatred of the Republican Party as a whole.
The Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case negated Popular Sovereignty. It was questioned that if Congress could not exclude slaves from a territory, how could a territorial legislature do so? Until statehood was granted, slavery seemed as unprofaned as freedom of religion or speech or any other civil liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. Finally the case determined the future of slavery in America because the Dred Scott decision drew a clear line of how the government stood on the issue of slavery, and further inflamed passions surrounding an already divisive topic within American politics. While southerners were happy with the outcome, the massive abolitionist campaign to aid Scott led many southerners to claim that abolitionists were anti-southern and thus,