You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Im doing this debate and its about the Civil war;?
- Thread starter Max
- Start date
The timeless debate about the civil war is what caused the south to secede from the Union. Many southern sympathizers will tell you that the southern states had withdrawn from the Union because of States Rights. You have to understand, that from the inception of our Nation until 1860, the south was for the most part an agricultural juggernaut that relied heavily on slavery for the cultivation of crops. They started with the staple crop of tobacco, but in the end it was cotton that was more profitable. Due to the fact that they were mainly agrarian and had not put much emphasis on industry, they imported the majority of their textiles and fine goods from the North and mainly from Europe (England and France mainly). The northern states, due to climate, physical geography, and urbanization, had put more focus into the manufacturing of goods. The north also had slavery, but they did not rely on it as much as southern states and by 1848, most northern states had abolished slavery, the last of it coming in 1865 at the close of the Civil War.
The first argument is the Missour Compromise. This would limit the expansion of slavery northward, but would allow for Missouri to be admitted to the Union as a slave state to balance the number of Free to slave states. It did not pass the first time around and in the meanwhile, Alabama was admitted as a slave state. This tipped the scales to even, but the south still wanted Missouri, so Congress went back to the drawing board allowing the admittance of Missouri as slave along with the admittance of Maine as free, it also would limit slavery from expanding any farther north than the southern Missouri border with the exception of Missouri itself. This, for the time being, appealed to both the pro-slave and abolishonists of the day, but it also brought worries to the southerners because it limited slavery.
The second part of the southern argument is the result of the Tariff of 1828. The U.S. government placed a 45% tax on all imported goods in an effort to boost the purchase of American made products by deterring people from the purchase of imported goods. It was a good idea in theory, but what was not accounted for was the southern states. They did not have the capability to produce goods like the north and in 1828, there weren't highways and eighteen wheelers that could transport northern goods to the south. Because it was difficult for southerners to buy northern goods, they simply bought theirs from the Brittish and French when the ships would come in for cotton export. So, when the Tarrif was passed, it put the southern states in a pickle and they were not happy about it. Then Vice President, John C. Calhoun, who was a fromer Senator from South Carolina started to voice the concerns of the south in Washington. in 1832, President Jackson, in an attempt to appease the southerners and still boost the north, passed the Tariff of 1832 which reduced the import tax to 35%. This enfuriated the south and V.P. Calhoun resigned so he could go back to the Senate, where he could effectively battle this injustice on the southern States. This is where the first talks of secession occured, and due to Mr. Calhouns vigorous efforts, in 1833 President Jackson passed the Compromise Tariff of 1833 that repealed the previos Tariffs, thus calming the south, but the scars from imposing taxes on the south for northern interests would not heal. From a southern prospective, it was like being in 1775, under Brittish rule all over again. Remember that the States had a Revolution because of "taxation without representation", and the southerners felt that this tyranny was happening all over again. While the north was simply trying to promote industry in America and end the reliance on foreign goods, but the south saw it as a violation of their rights.
After the Mexican war, the newly aquired territory from the Texas Annexation was an item of hot debate. The southerners wanted all of the territoty to be slave and obviously the north, who was trying to limit the expansion of slavery, did not want those territories to be slave states. With the second threat of civil war and secession by the south, the Compromise of 1850 was born. Texas would be admitted to the Union as a slave state and would relinquish the Utah and New Mexico territories for debt relief from the Mexican War and those two territories would have the choice of Popular Sovereignty, where the inhabitants would choose whether they would be free or slave. California was admitted to the Union as a free state to balance the number of free and slave. There was also a provision for a stronger Fugitive Slave Act, which allowed southern slave owners to go into northern states to find runaway slaves and bring them back south into slavery. The Compromise of 1850 quieted the southern talk of Civil War, but neither side was completely happy with the results.
The next item was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This Act once again established Popular Sovereignty in the Kansas and Nebraska Territories and it also violated the Missouri Compromise due to location of the two Territories being north of the southern border of Missouri. This is when, in my opinion, the Civil War began. Governor Atchison of Missouri sent Border Ruffians to Kansas to inhabit the state and vote for Slavery, while Free-Soilers did the same. The fighting that occured between the two would be known as Bleeding Kansas. John Brown, a Free-Soiler, was the figure head of the free-soiler movement in the territory. He was involved in a brutal attack and murder of 5 Pro-Slavers at their home known as the Pottawamie Massacre. He did this as retaliation for members of his Organization being murdered, but has lived in infamy ever since.
That same John Brown wound up in Virginia in 1859 in an attempt to lead a slave uprising. He led a raid on the Harper's Ferry Armory, but was unsucessful due to a brilliant U.S. Army Colonel, Robert E. Lee.
He was caught, tried and hung.
During the Election of 1860, John C. Breckinridge(D) was the souths candidate, Abraham Lincoln(R), Stephen Douglass(D) and John Bell(CU) were the northern candidates. Breckinridge controlled the south, but with Douglass running, it split the Democratic vote. John Bell, was also a slave owner, but Pro-Union, further split the election and the result was Abraham Lincoln becoming President on 39% of the vote and withouth the support of any southern states. Two days after the announcement of Lincoln being elected, South Carolina seceded and before Lincolns innaguration 6 more states would seceded.
The side that the southerners take is that the government was not properly representing their interests, while the north would suggest (besides that slavery was wrong) that the issue of slavery had been handled with compromise despite their feeling towards the institution.
The south would claim it was their States Right to Secede, while President James Buchanan and Lincoln deemed sucession illegal and treason to the Union. The South claimed it was a war of Northern aggression, yet South Carolina called for 100,000 troops and fired of Fort Sumpter unprovoked. The debate has been the causes of the war and the position of the North and the South, the causes I have mentioned above directly relate to Slavery with the Exception of the Tarrif of 1828 (which would not have been such a big deal if the South had put more emphasis on industry and hadn't relied on the crutch of Slavery). The debate in my opinion is futile, States Rights being an argument, but the States Right to What is the question. The issue has been and always will be slavery. The south essentially acted like a spoiled chiled, it would threaten Civil War and secession any time the question of slavery arose. The common misunderstanding and irony is the Emancipation Proclamation, which only freed slaves in those states that had suceded.leaving 4 states with slavery until the end of the war. The only reason Lincoln even did it was to keep the British and the French at bay from aiding the CSA to a treaty where they would become a Sovereign country.
The first argument is the Missour Compromise. This would limit the expansion of slavery northward, but would allow for Missouri to be admitted to the Union as a slave state to balance the number of Free to slave states. It did not pass the first time around and in the meanwhile, Alabama was admitted as a slave state. This tipped the scales to even, but the south still wanted Missouri, so Congress went back to the drawing board allowing the admittance of Missouri as slave along with the admittance of Maine as free, it also would limit slavery from expanding any farther north than the southern Missouri border with the exception of Missouri itself. This, for the time being, appealed to both the pro-slave and abolishonists of the day, but it also brought worries to the southerners because it limited slavery.
The second part of the southern argument is the result of the Tariff of 1828. The U.S. government placed a 45% tax on all imported goods in an effort to boost the purchase of American made products by deterring people from the purchase of imported goods. It was a good idea in theory, but what was not accounted for was the southern states. They did not have the capability to produce goods like the north and in 1828, there weren't highways and eighteen wheelers that could transport northern goods to the south. Because it was difficult for southerners to buy northern goods, they simply bought theirs from the Brittish and French when the ships would come in for cotton export. So, when the Tarrif was passed, it put the southern states in a pickle and they were not happy about it. Then Vice President, John C. Calhoun, who was a fromer Senator from South Carolina started to voice the concerns of the south in Washington. in 1832, President Jackson, in an attempt to appease the southerners and still boost the north, passed the Tariff of 1832 which reduced the import tax to 35%. This enfuriated the south and V.P. Calhoun resigned so he could go back to the Senate, where he could effectively battle this injustice on the southern States. This is where the first talks of secession occured, and due to Mr. Calhouns vigorous efforts, in 1833 President Jackson passed the Compromise Tariff of 1833 that repealed the previos Tariffs, thus calming the south, but the scars from imposing taxes on the south for northern interests would not heal. From a southern prospective, it was like being in 1775, under Brittish rule all over again. Remember that the States had a Revolution because of "taxation without representation", and the southerners felt that this tyranny was happening all over again. While the north was simply trying to promote industry in America and end the reliance on foreign goods, but the south saw it as a violation of their rights.
After the Mexican war, the newly aquired territory from the Texas Annexation was an item of hot debate. The southerners wanted all of the territoty to be slave and obviously the north, who was trying to limit the expansion of slavery, did not want those territories to be slave states. With the second threat of civil war and secession by the south, the Compromise of 1850 was born. Texas would be admitted to the Union as a slave state and would relinquish the Utah and New Mexico territories for debt relief from the Mexican War and those two territories would have the choice of Popular Sovereignty, where the inhabitants would choose whether they would be free or slave. California was admitted to the Union as a free state to balance the number of free and slave. There was also a provision for a stronger Fugitive Slave Act, which allowed southern slave owners to go into northern states to find runaway slaves and bring them back south into slavery. The Compromise of 1850 quieted the southern talk of Civil War, but neither side was completely happy with the results.
The next item was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This Act once again established Popular Sovereignty in the Kansas and Nebraska Territories and it also violated the Missouri Compromise due to location of the two Territories being north of the southern border of Missouri. This is when, in my opinion, the Civil War began. Governor Atchison of Missouri sent Border Ruffians to Kansas to inhabit the state and vote for Slavery, while Free-Soilers did the same. The fighting that occured between the two would be known as Bleeding Kansas. John Brown, a Free-Soiler, was the figure head of the free-soiler movement in the territory. He was involved in a brutal attack and murder of 5 Pro-Slavers at their home known as the Pottawamie Massacre. He did this as retaliation for members of his Organization being murdered, but has lived in infamy ever since.
That same John Brown wound up in Virginia in 1859 in an attempt to lead a slave uprising. He led a raid on the Harper's Ferry Armory, but was unsucessful due to a brilliant U.S. Army Colonel, Robert E. Lee.
He was caught, tried and hung.
During the Election of 1860, John C. Breckinridge(D) was the souths candidate, Abraham Lincoln(R), Stephen Douglass(D) and John Bell(CU) were the northern candidates. Breckinridge controlled the south, but with Douglass running, it split the Democratic vote. John Bell, was also a slave owner, but Pro-Union, further split the election and the result was Abraham Lincoln becoming President on 39% of the vote and withouth the support of any southern states. Two days after the announcement of Lincoln being elected, South Carolina seceded and before Lincolns innaguration 6 more states would seceded.
The side that the southerners take is that the government was not properly representing their interests, while the north would suggest (besides that slavery was wrong) that the issue of slavery had been handled with compromise despite their feeling towards the institution.
The south would claim it was their States Right to Secede, while President James Buchanan and Lincoln deemed sucession illegal and treason to the Union. The South claimed it was a war of Northern aggression, yet South Carolina called for 100,000 troops and fired of Fort Sumpter unprovoked. The debate has been the causes of the war and the position of the North and the South, the causes I have mentioned above directly relate to Slavery with the Exception of the Tarrif of 1828 (which would not have been such a big deal if the South had put more emphasis on industry and hadn't relied on the crutch of Slavery). The debate in my opinion is futile, States Rights being an argument, but the States Right to What is the question. The issue has been and always will be slavery. The south essentially acted like a spoiled chiled, it would threaten Civil War and secession any time the question of slavery arose. The common misunderstanding and irony is the Emancipation Proclamation, which only freed slaves in those states that had suceded.leaving 4 states with slavery until the end of the war. The only reason Lincoln even did it was to keep the British and the French at bay from aiding the CSA to a treaty where they would become a Sovereign country.