A confluence of political, economic and social factors, starting with the founding of our great nation and persisting with Congressional battles over states’ rights, led to the Civil War. Yet the ultimate strike that broke the cohesiveness of the Union was the divisive issue of slavery. Despite some nuance between positions on the issue regarding popular sovereignty and government power, the facts remained that half of the country supported the institution of slavery and the other half of the country wanted it abolished from the land. When these political, social, and economic winds swirled around Fort Sumter in April of 1861, the only outcome and only measure to preserve the Union was the Civil War. In the fifty plus years after the end of the international slave trade in the United States in 1808, there were many compromises attempted, but none of them succeeded in fixing the underlying problem.
…show more content…
The Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and many more agreements that attempted to create balance in the country only furthered tensions because they merely papered over the issue instead of addressing the root cause. As Western expansion grew our national borders through the Louisiana Purchase, the Mexican-American War, and the California gold rush, a large issue arose as to how these new territories would be divided into states with respect to slavery laws. Since the more populous North dominated the House of Representatives, Southern equality in the Senate was the only way to preserve slavery. Since each newly admitted State was automatically granted two Senate seats, it was critical to the South that new additions to the Union balance the introduction of free and slave States. The Wilmot Proviso was a major battle in Congress that would have banned slavery in territory gained from the Mexican-American War and altered the introduction of new states into the Union. With each step the United States took to acquire new land, the same questions of protections of slavery followed. The North and South shifted their proposals advocating for limited, absolute, and no prohibition of slavery in the United States. These proposals did not provide cover for the fundamental cracks within politics that made a war inevitable. When Abraham Lincoln was running for office in 1860, he wrote a very poignant letter to Alexander Stevens saying “ 'I suppose, however, this does not meet the case. You think slavery is right and ought to be extended, while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub.” When two equally strong and determined groups with opposite views have clash for decades, war was the only option. Social dynamics that surrounded slavery were equally complex and full of fireworks. The proposals for addressing the institution ranged from the practical to the more outlandish. From William Garrison’s plan to end slavery outright to Henry Clay’s plan to end slavery by sending slaves back to Africa, lasting coalitions were never formed to resolve the issue. Social dynamics were also shaped by the prominent Supreme Court case of the time: Dred Scott v Stanford ruled that slaves were not citizens of the United States and slaves did not possess basic constitutional protections. This ruling pleased the South and infuriated the North causing it to be more determined to win civil rights protections for slaves. John Brown’s assault on Harpers Ferry was horrifying to the Southerners. It was a nightmare scenario in which the North was seen as possibly supporting outside invasion as well as instigating internal rebellion among the slave population. Ever since slave uprisings occurred in Haiti and elsewhere, white Southerners, at a disadvantage in population size, realized the risk of a mobilization of slaves could form a devastating force that would cripple the whole region. Given that the South feared that the North was directing these attacks, animosity between the two sides grew in horrifying proportion. Lago perfectly describes the time as a "crisis of the Union as an epochal struggle for the new nation 's soul" . These elevated tensions added to the call for war. The economic disparities between the North and South heightened tensions with regard to
The Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and many more agreements that attempted to create balance in the country only furthered tensions because they merely papered over the issue instead of addressing the root cause. As Western expansion grew our national borders through the Louisiana Purchase, the Mexican-American War, and the California gold rush, a large issue arose as to how these new territories would be divided into states with respect to slavery laws. Since the more populous North dominated the House of Representatives, Southern equality in the Senate was the only way to preserve slavery. Since each newly admitted State was automatically granted two Senate seats, it was critical to the South that new additions to the Union balance the introduction of free and slave States. The Wilmot Proviso was a major battle in Congress that would have banned slavery in territory gained from the Mexican-American War and altered the introduction of new states into the Union. With each step the United States took to acquire new land, the same questions of protections of slavery followed. The North and South shifted their proposals advocating for limited, absolute, and no prohibition of slavery in the United States. These proposals did not provide cover for the fundamental cracks within politics that made a war inevitable. When Abraham Lincoln was running for office in 1860, he wrote a very poignant letter to Alexander Stevens saying “ 'I suppose, however, this does not meet the case. You think slavery is right and ought to be extended, while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub.” When two equally strong and determined groups with opposite views have clash for decades, war was the only option. Social dynamics that surrounded slavery were equally complex and full of fireworks. The proposals for addressing the institution ranged from the practical to the more outlandish. From William Garrison’s plan to end slavery outright to Henry Clay’s plan to end slavery by sending slaves back to Africa, lasting coalitions were never formed to resolve the issue. Social dynamics were also shaped by the prominent Supreme Court case of the time: Dred Scott v Stanford ruled that slaves were not citizens of the United States and slaves did not possess basic constitutional protections. This ruling pleased the South and infuriated the North causing it to be more determined to win civil rights protections for slaves. John Brown’s assault on Harpers Ferry was horrifying to the Southerners. It was a nightmare scenario in which the North was seen as possibly supporting outside invasion as well as instigating internal rebellion among the slave population. Ever since slave uprisings occurred in Haiti and elsewhere, white Southerners, at a disadvantage in population size, realized the risk of a mobilization of slaves could form a devastating force that would cripple the whole region. Given that the South feared that the North was directing these attacks, animosity between the two sides grew in horrifying proportion. Lago perfectly describes the time as a "crisis of the Union as an epochal struggle for the new nation 's soul" . These elevated tensions added to the call for war. The economic disparities between the North and South heightened tensions with regard to