The Topeka Constitution

Throughout the course of American History, one of the most inner conflicts held within this nation has been the conflict between sectionalism and slavery. Divided by the North and the South, the conflicts born by these two opposing sections were a result over the debate on slavery. Since the North was primarily made up of business and industry, the people had no need for the institution known as slavery. However, the South was simply an area in which the practice of slavery was used to make a profit for its agriculture based society. Slavery became a topic for debate, but not because it was just morally wrong for it was a conflict of personal gain.

If a southerner wants to get a slave all they have to is get a certificate from a southern judge saying that it is his or her slave. The northerners were outraged because slavery was outlawed in the north so they didn't want to be a part of it. Many of the northerners were abolitionists. An abolitionist is

Slavery had been a central issue in the United States since the founding of the country when the Founding Fathers As the U.S. moved closer to war, it became more divided by its attitudes, interests, and general lifestyles. Although sectionalism, the loyalty to interests of a particular region over the country, can be traced to the earliest years of the new nation, it became more of an obstacle in the 19th century as Americans began to see themselves as either Southerners or Northerners. Although sectional discord was an important factor leading to the onset of war, at its core was the division and conflicts related to slavery. This is seen with a brief examination of the election of 1860.

A portion of the North agreed with the south in that it should be a problem that will stay and will be dealt with in the southern states. The 3/5 compromise and the War of 1812 were two major factors that Mason speaks on that directly affected northerners and lead to more push for anti-slavery movements. A quote here supports this, “As Madison won reelection in 1812 and the war dragged on, New England Federalists increasingly argued that were it not for the added power of slave representation, the Republicans would never have been able to enact commercial restrictions or initiate the war” (51). Though rebutted later in the book by a southerner, this was a fair point. With this added slave representation came much more power for the southern states.

The concept of slavery being taken away as a right led to the Southern states seceding, becoming a “country” of their own. They felt the North was not listening to them, and ignoring their rights clearly listed as an amendment. This amendment was included to gain the Southern states ratification of the constitution which ultimately led to the Civil War. The state having this type of power caused the Federalists to feel a bill of rights was redundant, but Anti-Federalists did not feel that it was written clear enough. They were not reassured.

From the time of the American Revolution in 1776, to the year 1852, there has been many causes to the opposition to slavery. Some have shown the support for increased opposition while others have shown to not support this opposition. This has caused many disputes about who is in the right. There is plenty of evidence between the two groups which were either supporting the opposition to slavery or they were not supporting the opposition. Three causes exist in support of and against this opposition: Social Darwinism, increased tolerance, and the need to unite the nation.

Due to the Missouri Compromise, new states in the North were automatically free states. The Northerns started to hate slavery and wanted to push other states to become free states. The South could not let this happen because their economy depending on slavery. Since the slave masters did not have to pay their workers, everything they sold was 100% profit to the South. If slavery was abolished, they’d have to find other ways to farm their plantations and would undoubtedly make less money.

The Southern states even threatened to secede because of the differences in opinion on slavery. To prevent this, Congress passed the Missouri Compromise in 1820. Missouri joined the Union as a slave state, but in exchange, Maine was admitted as a free state. In addition, all states and lands north of the 36°30’ parallel would be free (except for Missouri). This ‘compromise’ somehow managed to hold America together, but no one was really satisfied.

The two sides had their differences in how they would weaken their opponent, with the Union agenda being cutting off supplies to the

Many delegates from the Northern states considered slavery evil and denounced it as a repugnant institution. The South on the other hand, argued that slavery was an economic reality and necessity. As Charles Cotesworth Pinckney so aptly put it, “While there remained one acre of swamp-land uncleared of South Carolina, I would raise my voice against restricting the importation of negroes. I am . . . thoroughly convinced . . .

The Southern states of the U.S. had always differed from the Northern states. Northern states were more industrial, and Southern states were more centered around agriculture. In any case, differences usually lead to arguments, especially in this case. Eventually, their differences became too great, and the South wanted to secede. The North said it could not do this and that this act was illegal.

Some owners came together and believed slaves were treated well and there is no rivalry or competition for employment of slaves and other free laborers. This opinion or belief spread across much of the continental United States and caused many individuals to jump on their side and share some of the same values and beliefs. Many of these slave owners believed that after president Lincoln implemented the Emancipation Proclamation or freeing of slaves should be a gradual process and all the slaves should not be released at once in case of a large rebellion or there was some work or jobs that still needed to be completed. As slavery started to diminish some elected officials and leaders still believed preserving the Union should be the primary war aim which is what caused the Civil War, but in all reality we know the actual events that had occurred and taken place. The people who believed slaves were treated fair and equal were obviously oblivious to the fact of how society was treating these poor African Americans and that could start to raise questions about the mental state of these people and how they value the life of other individuals

They are both hoping to find a way to end slavery and everyone will be one, not half slave and half free. The Civil War reshaped American ideas about freedom because it brought a resolution that forever altered what it means to be an American.

Southerners grew angrier, all the while the North grew with passion (OI). Documents, such as brochures, published back and forth on pro/anti slavery point of views (OI). Protests were also common, and grew to be violent (Doc. 4). Bleeding Kansas is a perfect example of the enthusiasm and drive of Americans (Doc. 4). All of the violent fighting was caused by the Kansas-Nebraska Act (Doc. 4).

After pushing for an end to slavery these groups wanted to continue in the progress made from the civil war. Radical Republicans wanted the Freedmen to have full rights. Radical Republicans in congress wanted a harsh plan for Reconstruction. Unionists wanted Black Freedmen to have the right to vote so they could have their vote for elections. Black Freedmen were also on the left because they wanted more rights now that they have