Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Civil disobedience by thoreau essay
Civil disobedience by thoreau essay
Civil disobedience by thoreau essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Civil disobedience by thoreau essay
Civil disobedience by thoreau essay
Civil disobedience by thoreau essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Civil disobedience by thoreau essay
How did sectionalism contribute to the ongoing debate about the admission of states? Be sure to discuss the Missouri Compromise in your response. Sectionalism contributed to the ongoing debate about the admission of states by dividing people over the issue of slavery because different regions had different visions for the country. To begin, the north, being mainly composed of manufacturers and food farmers, favored an American economy that was based off of manufacturing. However, the south, being almost entirely composed of those who produced cash crops, favored an American economy based off of farming.
Sectionalism is an exaggerated devotion to the interests of a region; sectionalism existed between the North and South states due to their different lifestyles and views on slavery. In document 1 it shows an almost even divide between how many states were slave and free. The states were divided between slave and free which already created different ways of life between the two sides. People in the South relied on slavery for their mainly agricultural economy, while the industrious North did not. Their incredibly different ways of life led to differing views on slavery.
To start off, a major cause of sectionalism during 1815 to 1860 would be economical differences between the south and north. Their difference would divide the two regions which included industrialization and agriculture. The north would be rebuilt quickly with new transportation and manufacturing.
Texas fought in the Civil War to protect state’s rights, love of Texas(sectionalism), and to keep slavery. Texas fought in the Civil War to protect state’s rights. It states, “...the true theory of our (national) government as an association of sovereignties (independent states), and not a blended mass of people in one social compact (Document C.) State’s rights are the rights and powers that each state have that are not in the Constitution. This statement is saying that all the individual states thought that they were individual countries.
When the Mexican War began in the 1840s, it was considered an unpopular war throughout the country. Many people saw the war as a sad excuse to continue American Expansionism and felt that the government cared more about the pride of the country instead of the future of the country. Even before the war began, there was a dispute between the North and South because they were still trying to answer the question of slavery. Abolitionist like William Lloyd Garrison was against the idea of slavery because he felt that it went the deep morals that most citizens in America had. He believed going to war for land would be going against what America stood for and many people got behind him.
There was also conflict over whether two new states, Kansas and Nebraska would use slavery. State rights were also very important for the Southern states. They believed that
Isabella Cheney Grant Haroldsen DC US History 24 February 2023 The Effects of Sectionalism on Early American Society Sectionalism in the United States was a conflict that continued to grow over the history of the early States. The beginning of sectionalism in the United States was when the country was only a few colonies. It began especially with the Declaration of Independence and the rights each state would have in the new government. Among the leading causes for building sectionalism are the economic impact of the South and slavery, the southern biases of many of the American presidents, the expansion of slavery into the new western lands, and the new laws and compromises put in place to ‘keep the peace’ between the North and the South.
Prior to the 1840s and 1850s, there was a precarious balance of slave and free states in the U.S. Legislation like the Missouri Compromise helped maintain that balance, but tensions continued to build as more states petitioned to be admitted into the Union. Additionally, societal changes inspired many Northerners to take a stand against slavery, with more Northerners embracing abolitionist causes. Southerners, on the other hand, clung to the institution and remained economically dependent upon it, looking to spread it to new states. During the 1840s and 1850s, Northerners and Southerners deeply disagreed about the institution of slavery, creating a deep divide between the two that would lead to war.
“That government is best which governs least”(Thoreu). Times of struggle, times of big government, and times of disagreement often lead to religious, political, and social revolutions. Thus, bringing debate, conflict, and ultimately resolutions. Civil Disobedience can often be portrayed as criminalistic or sometimes judgement falls upon those who participate. Henry Thoreau stated “I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government.”
One of the events that increased sectionalism was when the Fugitive Slave Act was enacted. The Fugitive Slave Act gives commissioners “authority to take and remove such fugitives from service or labor ... to the State or Territory from which such persons may have escaped or fled. ”(Section 4) The North was upset since the law favored the South and people that tried to help slaves in the future would be fined and jailed and commissioners were paid more to help slaveholders. Another event that increased the sectionalism was when the Kansas-Nebraska Act was initiated which allowed areas to use by popular sovereignty to decide if it is a free or slave territory and caused “Bleeding Kansas.”.
Although peaceful resistance against laws created by the government has been recently used more frequently to express political dissent towards a government and is done entirely by civilians of their nation, it has been effective over the decades as political figures such as Martin Luther King Junior has proved. Peaceful resistance has proven effective only when there has been a truly repressive control on those protesting against their government. This truly repressive control must be something worth fighting for in order to make a reform that would improve society. For example, when women fought for their right to be included in suffrage, they succeeded and did so because their belief of the government’s restriction on them was truly something
People's justification to engage in civil disobedience rests on the unresponsiveness that their engagement to oppose an unjust law receives. People who yearn for a change in a policy might sometimes find themselves in a dead end because their “attempts to have the laws repealed have been ignored and legal protests and demonstrations have had no success” (Rawls 373). What Rawls says is that civil disobedience is a last option to oppose an unjust law; therefore, providing civil disobedients with a justification for their cause. Civil disobedience is the spark of light that people encountered at the dead end and they hope that this spark of light will illuminate to show that an unjust law should not exist at all. Martin Luther King, Jr, in his “Letter from
Manika Bhatt Ms. Choi English 11 17 April 2023 Civil Disobedience Final Paper The name of this civil disobedience is Anti-Apartheid. A key figure that fought for anti-apartheid was Nelson Mandela. The Anti-Apartheid movement started on June 26, 1959, and ended in the year of 1994. The cause of Anti-Apartheid movement, a movement that was created after the South African National Party Government won the election and made the system of racial segregation through legislation.
Civil Disobedience is a strong topic in our world today, and to me at first, I was totally against , but lately I've seen the real reason why they are protesting, and my ideas on it has changed. When I first saw what was going on I thought they were wrong because they were going against the flag, but lately I've realized that they are standing up for racism and for the comments the president made. That to me, is a good thing for they standing up for their rights and they are putting anyone in any danger. When I was watching Sunday Night Football, I was stunned to see the players in action kneeling during the national anthem. Now for the reason the were kneeling it made me kinda happy so see people fight for what they believe in, but it
“You must be the change you wish to see in the world” These astonishing words that Mahatma Gandhi said made me suppose that Civil Disobedience is a Moral Responsibility of a citizen because when breaking certain laws, a citizen perhaps incorporate a good intention or a bad intention for breaking it. Citizens break the law occasionally to have their beliefs be heard so change can be assemble. Some ways that Civil Disobedience can be a Moral Responsibility would be breaking the law for the right intentions. An example of breaking the law for the right intentions could be The Salt March that Gandhi Created or, Rosa Parks standing up for her beliefs about her actions, MLK wanting equal rights with caucasian. Illegal Immigrants coming into the