Examples Of Regional Differences In The 1800s

Regional Differences in the 1800s

The Election of 1800 realigned America with Jefferson’s Republican platform after a continuous stretch of Federalist control. Although he was an advocate for states’ rights, his saying, “We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists,” reflected an equally strong desire to unite the country, despite internal political divisions. Jefferson’s acquisition of the Louisiana Territory greatly extended the borders of the nation, a clear invitation for settlers to look west. The implications of such movement showed no pity for the indigenous people and further forced Indians beyond the limits of their native lands. Relentless settlers submerged themselves in the idea of manifest destiny and were therefore largely

The rebirth of Christianity reminded many that slavery was a sin, providing the basic moral reasoning as to why the institution required reform. The long-standing tradition, which many believed would eventually dissipate, continued its stretch from the early 17th century. The country grew in a considerably divisive manner, the south even taking pride in their heavily-established slavery system. When Missouri wanted admission into the Union, increasing friction dictated it necessary for the proposal of the Missouri Compromise by Henry Clay, in which Missouri would be admitted into the Union as a slave state and Maine as a free state. Slavery would also be prohibited in all states above the Mason Dixon line. Previous to the compromise, the northern states held a majority in the House of Representatives and an equal count in the Senate. The south feared that the addition of Missouri as a free state would give northern states the power to outlaw slavery. Ultimately, the south was able to maintain the former political balance in the Congress. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 temporarily settled differences between the regions but could not prevent the inevitable outbreak of the Civil War. An unintentional consequence of another act, the Louisiana Purchase,

Throughout Jackson’s presidency, he was particularly insistent on the removal of Indians from American territory. Jackson’s Indian Removal Act of 1830 garnered support from both northern and southern regions with economic incentives in mind that prioritized expansion over preservation of Indian homelands. The law established Indians as foreign people who were subject to treaties with the United States. Therefore, the act allowed Jackson to withdraw Indians east of the Mississippi and coerce them westward. The brutality of Jackson’s policy was revealed in his opinions on the possible assimilation of Indians. These tribes had established schools, developed their own constitution, and had a written language. The Indian population even comprised of several who dressed according to white fashion and became slaveholders. Although the white culture had exhibited its influence on traditional Indian culture, Jackson continued to deny Indian hopes of coexistence in American land. He saw them unfit for the likes of whites and as a hindrance to the rapidly progressing frontier. Their savage practices would set them up for failure, Jackson claimed. Underestimating their resistance, he believed that the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole tribes would voluntarily emigrate. Most tribes did relocate, as they saw no other means to survival than to submit to Jackson’s orders. The brutal migration eventually