Q: How did the coming of the Civil War reflect citizens reckoning with the effects of Democracy? As described by Susan-Mary Grant, the Northern worldview was defined by its antipathy towards the characteristics and values of the South. It could also be argued that the South was sympathetic to liberty and democratic values except for when it came to their slaves. The Republicans were hopeful that after the Kansas-Nebraska bill became a law that the North would become stronger. Moreover, it was stated that “if the Kansas-Nebraska bill was passed, “There will be a North.” (Pg. 111) Once the bill had passed, the concept of unification in the face of the enemy was a fundamental aspect of northern nationalism in this period. Many of the newspapers, …show more content…
111) However, the Republicans believed that the best guarantee of freedom was through a process called “Northernization” (Pg. 111) The Republicans attempted to unify the country but they were unsuccessful because the “Republican ideology was derived from fear of and hostility to the South.” Moreover, the Republican critique of the South was hardly expressive of a desire “to integrate and harmonize socially, regionally, or even politically divided sections of people.” (Pg. 120) Many people believed that America had departed from its revolutionary traditions and betrayed the ideals that that defined the nation and their worldview merged most fully and to devastating effect with the anti-southern views expressed by the Republican Party. By encouraging the …show more content…
(Pg. 131) Moreover, Proslavery Christianity (like proslavery discourse in general) imparted an ideological coherence to the secession movement in antebellum South Carolina. The proslavery discourse also drew a sharp divide between a free North beset with the cankers of democracy and abolition and a conservative, God-fearing, hierarchical slave South. “The South, with the principle of subordination, gradation, and harmonious inequality pervading the social system, rests upon the law of nature, and may look with confidence to that public opinion which survives passion, prejudice, and error.” (Pg. 133) Moreover, Congressman Bonham argued that slavery was a “moral, social, and political blessing” and that it would “be preserved in or out of the Union.” Lastly, slavery was the foundation of Southern identity and was South Carolina’s official cause of secession, not fears of white slavery, and not fears of political slavery in a nebulous republican cosmology. (Pg.
As proposed by Wichita State University, “Settlers from both northern and southern states flocked to the region, in part to create pro- or anti-slavery groups large enough to shape the statehood process”(Price, Jay), which influenced the idea of sectionalism through the U.S.. Slavery became economic, and less about every man’s equal right. Stated by Wichita State University, “A community that considered itself "pro-slavery" was connected culturally to the southern United States. A community that adopted an "anti-slavery" or "Free-soil" tone connected itself to the northern United States”.(Price, Jay) Many citizens who were loyal to their section of the country, referred to as “Sectionalism”, wanted to be heard and wanted to react in other ways to bring attention among themselves.
During his two terms in office, President Jackson would not only implement a series of policies that drastically expanded slavery, but he would also create a pro-slavery sentiment in America that would reverberate for many generations after his final term in office. In the first part of this essay, I will introduce the election of 1828. In the second part of this essay, I will attempt to explain why Andrew Jackson's arrival to the presidential Mansion had such a profound effect on Southern secession. The election of 1824 was a pivotal moment in American history.
Revealing the anxieties towards this northern aggression, the speech vilifies Republicans for their coercive approach to political reform. Moreover, Republicans are presented as a single-issue party of abolitionists throughout the work, which reveals how this “horde” worried Southerners in a time of uncertainty. (58) The unconditional drive to prohibit the expansion and abolish the institution of slavery concerns Southerners, as it would
Jesslyn Sewell Professor Gautreaux 3/13/23 History of Louisiana 307-004 Civil War and Secession Palmer, one of the most prominent ministers in the south delivers a speech on thanksgiving in 1860 about the souths peril, slavery. He spoke about how slavery should end and be abolished, but if that were to happen the slaves upon being released would die before they could gain access to Africa where they would be returned to. He spoke about how freedom would ultimately be their doom because they would no longer have protection from others who wanted to gain access to slaves and slavery. “It is not too much to say that if the south should, at this moment, surrender every slave, the wisdom of the entire world, united in solemn council could not
Southerners—Democrats and Whigs alike—jumped at the opportunity to open Northern territories to slavery, but Northerners recoiled, outraged that the Missouri Compromise had been violated. Riots and protests against the Kansas-Nebraska Act erupted in Northern cities. What Douglas had failed to realize was that most Northerners regarded the Missouri Compromise to be almost sacred. The publication of Uncle Tom’s Cabin and the brutal enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act had by this time awakened hundreds of thousands in the North to the horrors of slavery.
In chapter 16th “Reconstruction,” the author gives a comprehensible perspective of the historical era that made a major difference in America today. Many northerners populated the main question of how to restructure the nation as one which led to numerous complicated questions as to how, what, whom and under what circumstances would America readmit the union. In the chapter, the author introduces a variety of changes such as presidential, congressional reconstruction and most importantly the old south. Along with discontinued slavery and established constitutional amendments. Rebuilding the south economically and politically was just as difficult as on the battlefield, extremely long and very complex.
By understanding this historical context, we can better understand the motivations and perspective of De Bow and other pro-slavery advocates. We can see how they saw themselves as defending the interests of the South against perceived threats from the North, and how they used arguments about the economic benefits of slavery to justify the institution. At the same time, understanding the broader context of the Civil War helps us recognize the limitations of De Bow's perspective. It also helps us recognize the ways in which people, like De Bow, were shaped by the events, attitudes, and climate of their
The end of the Civil War presented a unique crossroads for the war torn United States. How would the North and South reunite? At the helm, there was a moderate politician and a reflective thinker – President Abraham Lincoln. One of the greatest statesmen of all time, Lincoln had advocated a lenient stance, envisioning a “restoration” whereby the southern states would pledge allegiance and reenter the Union under the Constitution.
Also, many southerners during the election were unhappy with Lincoln and wanted change. But the political powers of government were very focused on slavery. The South wanted control over the federal government so they had the power to regulate slavery. This drew a growing divide within the nation. The South relied on slave labor and was less industrialization, favored low tariffs, and opposed direct taxation.
Republican ideas on the consent of the governed were also embraced and exemplified through the limitation of the government. As seen in both Document I and the Bill of Rights, at least the idea to limit the government to prevent any abuses of power against the people was taken into account. However, on the other hand, politics, in a way, didn’t change after the war as well. Even after the war and the propagation of egalitarian ideas, only rich, protestant, land-owning, white men participated, if not dominated, politics. In the post-revolution confederacy, it was only rich, white men who could and did occupy positions of political power, and more often
The Civil War started in 1861 due to multiple disagreements over the Morality of slavery, States Rights, lack of good leadership and economic Interests. These four causes are controversial, North and South both have a different reasons to why it was started. For example North was justified on this war because they wanted to abolish slavery to end inhumane treatment, but the south wanted to defend their views. They had to determine the survival of the United States of America as it defeated the offer for independence by the breakaway of the Confederate States of America. Among the 34 states in January 1861, seven Southern slave states individually declared their secession from the U.S. and formed the Confederate States of America.
The two out four questions that I choose are to 1.) Discuss the causes of the civil war. Cite as many facts as possible to back up your analysis. And answer 2.) If the enduring vision of America is embodied in the Declaration of Independence's statements about equality and universal rights to justice, liberty, and self-fulfillment, how much progress toward those ideals had blacks and women made by 1877?
“Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and, under a just God cannot retain it.” This quote from Abraham Lincoln takes place far from the beginning of slavery and the Revolution War but illustrate how it is important for each person to respect the freedom of an other person. All the states north of the Chesapeake gradually abolished slavery after the Revolution in different way. This essay explains how people from a state as Maryland has changed their mind about slavery between before and after the Revolution War. For analyse this change of mind, we need first to have a look of the born and the beggining of the slavery, how it came up, why and for what.
After the war ended in 1865, the US government faced the major problem of re-combining confederate states into one union (Foner, 2016). Reconstruction programs between 1865 and 1877 were meant to rebuild the southern economy that had collapsed and integrate the African Americans and freed slaves into full USA citizens (Boyer, 2005). The success of the reconstruction period is however questionable because of corruption claims, a president who was incompetent and the backlash witnessed in the southern culture. Perceiving the reconstruction period in terms of culture indicates that progress was made to bring normalcy in the US. In this paper, it will be argued that the reconstruction after the civil war was a failure since little was changed.
Two fundamental questions normally surround the history of any war: whether the war was inevitable and if it was necessary. These same questions emerge any time during debates regarding the American Civil war. The most cited cause of the Civil war is the secession of certain southern states that formed the Confederate States of America in January 1861. Thomas Bonner writes "Civil War Historians and the "Needless War" Doctrine" arguing that Southern Carolina seceded in 1860, followed by six other states by January the following year. A deep analysis of the events leading to the war indicates that the Union and the Confederates had profound ideological, economic, political, and social differences.