Early American History Short essay
What were the issues behind the Missouri Compromise? What were the items of the Compromise? What did the controversy reveal about the future of the United States? In your opinion, what did the Missouri Compromise play is the Civil War?
Missouri Compromise (1820-1821) is a series of legislative measures adopted by the US Congress to end the disputes concerning the extension of slavery in territories outside the state borders. It was agreed that Maine will join the Union as a free state, and Missouri – as a slave-holding, and that slavery would be prohibited on the territory of new states after the Louisiana Purchase – to the North of 36 ° 30 north latitude, and to the Mississippi River in the West. South had a possibility to join Florida and Arkansas to the Union as slave-holding states, free North got most of uninhabited territory. Compromise of 1820 temporarily eased the tension associated with the issue of slavery, but holding clear geographical boundaries between the slave and non-slave states created new contradictions.
Fugitive Slave Act was revised: boundary was built on 36th degrees and 30 minutes north latitude dividing slave-holding and non-slave States. Crossing it, slave found freedom from the South. It was decided to continue taking 2 states to the Union, one of which should be free, and the other – slave-holding.
I believe that the Missouri Compromise played an important role in the Civil War. The thing is that the contradictions between the slave South and the industrial North in the first three decades of the USA began to grow rapidly with the economic recovery of the slave states. Huge profits that brought slave labor on the plantations that produced cotton, sugar cane and tobacco, demanded new slaves and new territories. After the adoption of Illinois to the Union, there were 11 free and 10 slave-holding states in the country. In order to maintain the existing balance between the slave and free states, in 1820 Congress passed a law according to which Union simultaneously included slave-holding Missouri and free Maine. This political deal was an attempt to maintain a balance of historical representation of slave-holding and free states in the Senate.
Describe the Transportation Revolution in the first half of the 19th century. What changes occurred in transportation? Why? How did these changes affect the American economy? What part would these changes play in the Civil War?
After gaining independence, the United States had the opportunity for a free and dynamic socio-economic and political development. However, at the end of 18th – early 19th centuries, US industry was behind leading European countries, therefore transport revolution was very appropriate. Transport Revolution (1815-1850) in the country has created a wide network of rail and steamship railways, prompted the development of trade, movement of goods and people, specialization of individual districts.
Development of the transport network was conditional due to the vast US territories and trade needs. Construction of railways and canals, connecting the hinterland to the Atlantic coast, began in the 30s. Usually, it was funded by the federal government and state governments. There also was a large share of private and foreign capital. Railway boom was accompanied by poor organization of work, deficiencies in planning, primitive technology and corruption. However, the most important task for the nation was completed. In the 60-ies of the 19th century, the United States had the longest railway among all countries of the world.
Undoubtedly, transportation revolution contributed to the colonization of the West, although modern American historians argue about its influence on these processes. Huge free space attracted settlers. That caused primarily agricultural nature of the economy of the regions. Breeding beef and dairy cattle determined their specialization, although agricultural production was also developed in the north-eastern and southern areas. The use of agricultural machinery increased productivity of agricultural labor and determined its market orientation. It all had a positive impact on the economic development of the country.
During the Civil War, new roads and railways performed critical functions. They were both strategic resources, and military installations. During the war, soldiers, supplies and food were regularly transported by rail along with civilians and raw materials needed to support the military.
3. Why did the Fugitive Slave Act arose such strong emotions in both the north and South? How did the Act strike at the heart of the Southern view of property rights and the Northern attitude about the Morality of Slavery? Why did the act radicalize many conservative northerners regarding the slave issue?
Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was adopted in September 18, 1850 by the US Congress. The Act allowed search and detention of fugitive slaves in territories where slavery was already abolished.
The Act obliged population of all states to actively participate in the capture of fugitive slaves and severe punishment for slaves, those who harbored them, and those who did not contribute to the capture of a slave. Southern and Northern states had special commissioners for catching slaves. Captured slaves were placed into a jail under armed guard and returned to the slave owner. A person was recognized a fugitive slave, if any white stated that and confirmed under oath.
American abolitionists met the Act with criticism, organizing protests. Northern states with their Morality of Slavery were against this Law and tried to help slaves as much as possible. Even after its adoption, there was arranged a secret convey of slaves to the free North. Initiative was taken by some religious communities. Prominent role in the movement was played by free blacks. The movement was called the Underground Railroad. Although there were not so many agents, they released tens of thousands of slaves. Their selfless bravery boosted sentiment against slavery in the North. Such a reaction and resistance of northerners to the Fugitive Slave Act 1850 convinced many white Southerners that the North would not agree to leave the country half slave permanently.
In 1861, President Lincoln asserted that he had no intention of interfering with slavery where it already existed. Two years later, he changed his position and issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Why? What were the practical and ideological considerations? What did the Proclamation do, and what did it not do? Why was it significant?
Initially Civil War between North and South was conducted by northerners who sought to prevent the secession of the South and preserve the Union. The abolition of slavery was not the goal of their struggle. That changed on Sept. 22, 1862, when President Abraham Lincoln issued the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, which declared that all slaves in states or regions of the state, in which on January 1, 1863 they would still continue to revolt, would get freedom. Hundred days later, Lincoln issued the Manifesto of the Emancipation Proclamation, which stated that all persons held in slavery in the territory of the breakaway regions are now and forever declared free. It is known that in 1861, President Lincoln asserted that he had no intention of interfering with slavery where it already existed, but then he changed his position. Lincoln’s bold move was a war measure, by which he hoped to inspire slaves of Confederation to support Union. Since the measure of freeing the slaves was a military proclamation by nature, it was limited in many ways. It was applied only to those states that seceded from the Union, but did not change the status of slaves in the border states. Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not put an end to slavery, it radically affected the nature of the war. Manifesto proclaimed the admission of blacks into the ranks of the Union army and navy. By the end of the war, almost 200,000 black soldiers and sailors fought on the side of northerners in the interests of the Union and their freedom.
Historians have long agued over why the Civil War was fought. Some believe it was fought to protect the Union, while others believe it was fought to end slavery. Discuss which theory you believe his historically accurate (this should be an argument). Support your argument by discussing how the events leading up to the Civil War substantiate your argument. If appropriate, you can discuss
American Civil War (1861 – 1865) was the war between the abolitionist Northern states and eleven slaveholding states of the South. The main cause of the Civil War was acute contradictions between different socio-economic systems that existed in one country – bourgeois North and slave-holding South.
I believe that from the very beginning, the Civil war was fought to protect the Union and only then it was fought to end slavery. The main purpose of the northerners in the war was preservation of the integrity of the country, southerners declared recognition of the independence and sovereignty of the Confederacy. Strategic plans of the parties were similar: attack on the capital of the enemy and dismemberment of its territory.
Thinking about causes of the war, it is worth recalling that in the first half of the XIX century in the United States, there were two systems – slavery in the south and capitalism in the north. These two very different socio- economic systems coexisted in the same country. The situation was aggravated by the fact that despite the steady increase in population growth and economic development, the United States was a federal country. Each state lived its own political and economic life, integration process was slow. Therefore, slavery South with agrarian economic system, and industrial North stood in two separate economic regions.
The North of the United States attracted entrepreneurs and most immigrants. That region had machine building, metalworking, and light industry. The main labor force was many immigrants from other countries who worked in factories, plants and other enterprises. The North had enough labor force and high standard of living, the demographic situation was stable. The opposite situation existed in the South. During the Mexican-American War, the USA got a huge loss in the south, where there was a large amount of vacant land. Planters settled on these lands and received huge land holdings. That is why, in contrast to the North, the South became an agrarian region. However, the South had not enough workers. The majority of emigrants went to the North, so slaves were imported there from Africa since the 17th century. 1/4 of the white population of the South was slave owners.
It is also worth mentioning that the number of people resisting slavery was increasing in the 50s, struggle against slavery intensified. The need for the abolition of slavery became inevitable. Republican Party was formed during the armed struggle against the slavery in Kansas, in order to unite the bourgeoisie and farmers-the opponents of slavery. Cause of the war between North and South was the election of Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) in 1860 to the post of US President, one of the most talented leaders of the Republican Party and a supporter of the abolition of slavery. Thus, it becomes clear that the main reason for the war was to protect the Union, and secondary goal was – to fight to end slavery.
Do you like this essay?
Our writers can write a paper like this for you!
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...