To What Extent Was The Northwest Ordinance Of 1787

Laszlo 12 of the respective states. So this is one factor that cannot be changed. The issue of slavery would still become a problem for both the North and South. Then, what about the decisions and accords made with regard to slavery and either its extension or prohibition in specific states? We mentioned the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which basically created a fair play situation by diving the states equally, 11 states each. We cannot claim that this was a bad decision for if one had gotten even one state more, the other would have had a reason to go to war. The other decision that took place, and which had a direct effect on the outcome of events in the period, was the Missouri Compromise of 1820 that once again preserved the balance

We cannot say that this decision was bad or unfair for both camps either. 1830 was the year when a Protective Tariff was enacted that wanted to protect Northern products by making British products high in price. Once it was enacted, it became a number one sectional issue for the South. They had financial interest with Britain and threatened to leave the Union. This was resolved by gradually decreasing this Tariff every year until well into the 1840s, but it created a situation that had been remembered for years to come and might have contributed to the secession in 1861. The Hartford Convention took a similar threatening turn when a set of constitutional amendments were added in order to limit and take away government rights from the Southern states. This also had its mark on later political decisions finally culminating in a total war. The Compromise of 1850, which meant the admission of California for the Union and a fugitive state law for the South, was also an acceptable and fair sacrifice on behalf of the Southern states. This claimed that it is the natural obligation of every

Those who did not comply could also be imprisoned for either hiding or helping them in their attempt escape from their masters. The list of such decisions and their consequences could further be analyzed in an attempt to find that specific point in time where we could say that once that decision or event had been changed, the Civil War could have been avoided. The problem is that there is no such point. Every decision was a reaction to needs and new circumstances that further answered to the collective idea of fair play. The problem is that the closer you get to the event, the more inevitable it becomes. Therefore, the question is not if the Civil War was inevitable, but at what point did it become inevitable? Once we find that point, it might be easier to see through the possible course of events. It is also a serious undertake since no-one can predict anything for sure. Thus, this speculation is just another way of fiddling with the idea without any hard evidence or outcome from dealing with the question. What is more important to ask: what would have happened to America if the Civil War did not happen? This question is easier to answer for the answers can be found in the positive things and series of events that have happened ever since Fort Sumter. It is essential to mention that if the Civil War did not happen, a lot of different things would have turned out differently. Slavery would have definitely died out by the 19th or early