More handpicked essays just for you.
Effects of the reconstruction period
Effects of the reconstruction period
Effects of the reconstruction period
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Summary of Source The editorial discloses the power that the Court adheres to and whether it should be accountable for the decision making of fugitive slaves. The writer had discussed that in no way did the verdict of the Dred Scott case follow an act of law, but was merely “nullity.” During the settlement, they decided that since Dred Scott’s master had brought him on free land in Missouri or of the United States without having a citizenship, which resulted in him having no case. It continues on to say that the jurisdiction of the case was influenced by opinion, which did not involve any legalities.
For Northerners, empathy was easier to practice. As the notion of emancipation became more widely discussed by politicians during the abolitionist movement tensions between the North and the South rose. The idea that the nation could eradicate the lifeblood of the southern plantations was deemed unacceptable and the southern states felt helpless. The South fought for state’s rights which is synonymous with slavery as that was the most important right they were fighting for, and the North fought to keep the South from seceding, largely due to South’s interest in maintaining slavery as
“The lack of… nationality, I believe, is one of the great evils of the times…” Senator John Sherman stated on February 10, 1863. The United States had been split into sections from the beginning, and it created a lack of unity and togetherness. In Document A, the reader can acquire from the reading that South Carolina (and later many other states) seceded from the Union because of states’ rights. Document A states that an amendment (specifically the
This theme of sacrifice and determination found in the Confederate’s letters are also seen abundantly in the Union’s letters. In fact, 67% of Unionists expressed patriotic convictions while only 66% of Confederate soldiers did the same. The northerners were convinced that if they left the South alone, it would result in the representative government coming to an end. To them, secession was a deadly challenge to the foundation of the United States of law and order. If this was destroyed, anarchy and despotism were sure to ensue.
When Congress issued tariffs on foreign goods, Southerners believed that Congress favored the North since this tariff would benefit them. John Randolph spoke of this issue, arguing that Congress was being unfair since the South was not benefiting from the actions of Congress at all while the North benefited (Doc A). As for political conflict, there was a clear case of factionalism and political rivalry in 1824 (Doc I). With these conflicts amongst the varying factions and political parties, the political tension and sectionalism within America continued to grow. Accusations and anger from the South further separated them from the North, which did not contribute “good feelings” to the country at
Toombs believes that the South has the right to secede from the union. Toombs makes it clear in his speech that the Confederate states are pro slavery and the Union States are against slavery. In his speech Toombs states that “In 1820, the Northern party, endeavored to exclude the State of Missouri from admission into the Union, because she chose to protect African slavery in the new state.” When Toombs states this he is telling the people that the North made a bad decision when it came to Missouri wanting to be a part of the Union over slavery beliefs. Toombs also states in his speech that “Another one of our guarantees of the Constitution was, that fugitives from justice, committing crimes in one state and fleeing to another, should be delivered up by the State into which they might flee to the authorities of the State from whence they fled and where the crime was committed.”
Constitutionally the North preferred a loose understanding of the United States Constitution, and they sought to grant the federal government amplified powers. The South desired to reserve all vague powers to the separate states themselves. The South trusted upon slave labor on behalf of their economic wellbeing, and the economy for the North was not
The Constitution promised to protect the rights of everyone in the country, but neglected to protect nearly three million held as slaves. The North did not want to be a part of a Union with Slaveholders, while the South did not want to be a part
The utter contempt and loathing for the venerated Stars and Stripes, the abhorrence of the very words United States, the intense hatred of the Yankee on the part of these people.” The South perceived the North as a tyrannical power, and South Carolina’s secession emphasizes the relationship between the right to revolution and separation from the Union paying homage to the American Revolution. The Union’s defeat furthered the
However, these differences show that the North and South were actually two distinct countries held together by one constitution. The North felt that decisions regarding slavery and its legality were entrenched in the central government while the South felt that such decision belonged to the individual states. In the times preceding the war, both sides could not reach a compromise. Bonner mentions, “Because secession and war were permitted to come, warned Russel, "We are not entitled to lay the flattering unction to our souls that the Civil War was an inevitable conflict (Bonner, 195).” Hence, these differences could only be addressed through war.
Before, during and after the Mexican War, notherners argued that a “slave power conspiracy” existed in government. What evidence is there to support that charge? The northerners argued that a “slave power conspiracry” existed in the government for many reasons. One of these many reasons would be the argument of, “Was not Polk a slaveholder?
All of the Southern states dragged new constitutions. Because of the reconstruction era, the United States was now a nation, not just a country.
So the South had no reason to stay. It was lawful for the Southern states to secede and they had the right to do
It is eerily personal, as we complete this course reading about the civil war and living through today’s adversarial climate of protesters, division of social, economic and political parties. As Abraham Lincoln said in the Gettysburg Address “and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from this earth” (Lincoln 428). The Civil War, while largely believed to be largely about slavery it appears to me that state’s right played just as an important role in the actual cause and continuance of the war. The division of the states and their prosperity, industry, education and representation in Congress divided this country, much as it is today.
We see the contradictions arise for the South beginning in 1764 with the passage of the Sugar Act and the effective end of England’s salutary neglect on its colonies. By this time, the colonies had already established their own forms of government which were run by ‘the people’ (as evidenced by the Mayflower Compact and House of Burgesses) and had grown content governing themselves with little to no interference from mother England. So, when she did try to finally exert authority over the colonies it was met with resistance. In resisting England’s attempts to regain control over its colonies, the colonies found that if they worked together, they could stand up to England and even win, as evidenced by the non-importation movement in 1764 and parliaments revision of the Grenville Acts as a response to the colonists united boycott. This unity would continue all the way through to the American Revolution.8
