Extra Credit

I have a question about the OPVLs for the Newberry Library maps. The assignment said thorough, is there anything specific beyond what a normal OPVL is? Or is the point just to have more details pertaining to the information usually required for an OPVL?

Civil War Poem

The poem demonstrates the downfall of the cotton industry, and thus the economic downfall of the South during the Civil War. It also contrasts the agricultural boost, and thus the economic boost, the North received during the Civil War. The poem literally states how "King Cotton" has been replaced by the new "King Corn", portraying the downfall of the cotton industry and the increased export of corn and grains from the North. The poem also contrasts the politics of Lincoln of the time. The poem carries a boasting tone, in which the writer seems to taunt the South for their economic woes while the North has received a great economic boost. This demonstrates how despite Lincoln's attempts to reconcile the divided nation, the residents of both countries held great discontempt for each other. This poem provides great insight into the mindset of the common man in the Union, as well as the economic situation of the Union and the Confederacy.

The Effects ofd the Civil War Poem

After the Civil War, bitter feelings were developed between the North and the South. The North won the war and slavery was abolished. The Northern feelings were portrayed through the proud tone of a poem which stated” Wave the stars and stripes high over us” which meant that the North has come on top in the war and the mocking tone was displayed towards the South. The phrase ”Let every freedman sing” symbolizes the free slaves of the South who received their freedom because of Northern efforts. The fact that ”old King Cotton is dead” shows that the South was the biggest loser of the war and that the economy and policies were destroyed and gone forever. The fact that the economic factors such as corn and cotton were used showed the impact of the economic stance of the antebellum period. The South had the weak cotton growth that was diminished during the fighting and the total war tactics of Union generals. The North had the brave and young cotton which symbolized the new growth of foodstuffs and the boom of industry and farming in the north during the Civil War period. Not only has the North win over the South militarily speaking, they were crushed by the economy of the North as well.

LYRICS JOE

This poem goes to show the extent of the defeat inflicted on the South. Although it is definently a Northern song, it still rings true, as the South lost their main source of revenue that had existed from colonial life.
Cotton is dead. This is true, as Great Britain no longer bought cotton from the South, as Britain held the overstocks of cotton in their own warehouses. They did not approve of the measures at which the South obtained their cotton, and could even get it from Egypt and India. This arrogant Republican attitude, would manifest in reconstruction. Lincoln, the pacifier/lenient one, was no longer around, and the South would be punished quite harshly.

Lincoln: Hypocrite

Lincoln talks about how "a house divided can never stand", and the Union will never stand with slavery and without it. One or the other is his message. Yet his stance is not for the abolition of slavery. In fact it seems at times he would allow slavery in the Union, in order to bring peace. Expansion in place of abolition. Other times, like the Crittenden Amendments he would prefer to have a stronger Union in place of one with slavery and no slavery.

He seems to be continually contradicting himself.

Am I right?

Old King Cotton Is Dead

The first line of this poem: “Wave the stars and stripes high o’er us" emphasizes the Union of the United states. By waving the stars and stripes above, it can be seen that the author wants to show that the North had resulted as a victor because it now had succesfully became higher than the South. Then the second line "Let every freeman sing…" shows the impact of the Civil war on slave rights. Slaves were emancipated by the war, and thus with the last two lines "Old King Cotton’s dead and buried;/Brave young Corn is King," it can be inferred that the emancipation had caused the downfall of the southern cotton economy, whereas the north now began to prosper and successfully attained a supreme position over the south.

Lyric

The first line "wave the line and stripes high o'er us" is to exemplify the greatness of unity after the war. As the shameful cancer of slavery was sliced away, once for all north and south embrace the final peace.
The second line "let every free sing" is evidently represent the free of slave. Also "free" symbol the victory of union had providede inspiration to the champions of democracy and liberalism.

The final line " Old king cotton's dead and buried" was signifies the entire Southern economic culture would alter. No longer enable to reliance on the slavery, southern' cotton gin manufacture eventually fell into ruin. Also the confederacy financed the war through printing money adn borrow, the combination of rising money suppley and decreasing product ended in runaway inflation. The civil war appeared destroyed teh Confederacy banking system, and its recovery was handicapped by lack funds. North in opposite had a stable government and economic

Economic Impact of Civil War

These lyrics reveal a lot about the economic impact of the war. There is a sense of nationalism in the first line, showing the celebrated victory of the Union. When it is stated that "every freeman sing" about the economic crash of the South, which relied almost wholly on cotton plantations and slavery, a joyous tone is created. This further shows how a sense of pride is taken from the abolition of slavery and the death of Southern plantations. Saying King Cotton is "dead and buried" illustrates how the south will never fall back to their pre-war economic policies and will have to develop new industries and ways of efficient agriculture. The last line also shows how the War moved the nation's economic power and influence to the North, where corn and other grains were being exported to Europe. Overall these lyrics illustrate the celebratory death of slavery and therefore Southern plantations as well as the great economic successes the North experienced during and after the war.

Analyzing the Lyrics

"Wave the stars and stripes high o'er us,"- this represents the support for the Union and promotes a sense of patriotism by displaying the American flag above the "singers". By doing this it makes the flag seem like something superior, something above them that should be honored and cherished.
"Let every freeman sing ... " - could be related to the abolitionist movement. Trying to get support for black soldiers. By saying let every freeman sing, they might mean "fight", because when you fight you sing ...
The phrase "Old King Cotton's dead and buried: Brave young Corn is King" relates to the economic positions of the North and the South. In the North the harvest had been very good and Britain was importing a lot of American corn from the North, which made them dependent on American trade and kept them from interfering with the Civil War. Even though about 75% of cotton manufactured in Britain came from America, they were not as dependent on the trade, because the last coupe of years they had been stocking up cotton. The death of King Cotton represents the economic distress in the South.

Economic Impact of War

"Wave the stars and stripes high o'er us”- The reunion of the north and south, meshing the politics, social issues, and economy together,

“Let every freeman sing”- Major steps have been taken to abolish slavery and to gain the equality of all. The loss of slavery crippled the south’s economy.

“Old King Cotton's dead and buried”- Previously cotton had seemed to rule all but now slavery has been abolished and consequently the cotton industry was greatly decremented. In addition, the fact that the south could not seduce Britain to its aid with cotton shows how its power has been stripped and the past ruler of industry, cotton, has released its grip, and has faded away.

Brave young Corn is King- Corn proved to be more potent potentates the cotton. The north has ideal weather to produce bountiful amounts of corn . Britain at the same point suffered a series of bad harvests and had to import vast amounts from the North.

In general the south economy completely collapsed in on itself and affected all aspects of their region, driving them to very desperate measures to compensate, barley making it through.

While the North took over and their economy boomed with their new cash crop and novel banking system.

Lyrics

The first line, "Wave the stars and stripes high o'er us" evidently celebrates the union, that the north and south unite as one, to become the United States of America.
The second line, "let every freeman sing" seems to refer to the slaves who have been freed,
The third and fourth lines, "Old King Cotton's dead and buried; Brave young Corn is king" refers to the dethroning of the cotton king in the south, because during the war the south was depending on other countries to support them by buying their cotton; however the north threatened to cut off their food supply if they did so, and since countries such as Britain already had a surplus of cotton, the north was sending them cotton that was won from the south, and Egypt and India were increasing their cotton output, "brave young corn" was more important than cotton. Therefore, the crop of corn replaces the crop of cotton.

The Song on Pg. 452, found in a Yankee journal

"Wave the stars and stripes high o'er us,
Let every freeman sing...
Old King Cotton's dead and buried;
Brave young Corn is King."

These lyrics exemplify the greatness of unity, and how much it is binded together through liberty and justice. These stars and stripes are the flag and it represents a social unity and liberty. These freemen were the blacks and whites living together in harmony, as song and voice usually brings a people closer together (contrasted to slave songs). The cotton was looked upon by the Union and blacks to be corrupt, and that it presents more labor work for blacks, which causes more suffering. Brave young Corn was the king of Northern agriculture, and proved to be far more potent than King Cotton. During the years, the North were bountiful in using McCormick's reaper and gathering large harvests of grain. As the British suffered horrible harvests, the North were more fortunate in terms of food.

Most of this paragraph is based on my opinion, but factual beliefs still stem from this song, and this sought-America of freedom and abolition is what it is today.

Lyrics

"Wave the stars and stripes high o'er us,
Let every freeman sing...
Old King Cotton's dead and buried;
Brave young Corn is King."



"Wave the stars and stripes high o'er us": 'Us' specifically referres to a group of people, probably the re-uniting of the Northern and Southern states, showing the stars and stripes, the flag represents both sides of the UNITED States.

"Let every freeman sing...": Both blacks (previously slaves) and whites now sing together and enjoy their freedom.

"Old King Cotton's dead and buried;": Cotton, the major cash-crop of the Southern states (hence 'king'), was gathered up by masses of black slaves, and was part of the reason slavery flourished in the South (especially with the invention of the Cotton Gin). Saying that Cotton is "dead and buried" means it's no longer booming in the South without slavery to support it, and a new "king" will step up to take its place.

"Brave young Corn is King.": Corn, a crop that was grown much more in the Northern, Western (midwest, plains states), and Border states was continued and began to flourish even more after freed slaves got their own shares of land to farm and make a living. It also showed the downfall of the South in general, and the North arising and claiming victory after the war had been won.


I believe this is what the Consider on Blog was supposed to be.

Blog question

I don't really understand the blog assignment. Are we supposed to analyze the lyrics or something, or should we just present our comments on the song? Or am I missing something completely?

Ms.Chipman and everybody else

what happens with the docs? everything goes according as planned --> being that the docs are still in effect and that we're all opvling, and we're just cramming all those docs in one day, switching groups of A - B ?

Foreign Intervention

Foreign intervention was the key ingredient in success and failure in all the wars America participated in.
In the War of 1812, without another intervener, the war reached a stalemate, and American-Anglo relations were embittered. In the Revolutionary war, French war generals with experience from previous wars, that also possessed national and democratic sentiment helped win the war. In the Civil War, foreign non-intervention helped spare a wide-spread conflict.

Foreign Intervention in American Wars

The intervention of non- warring powers in American wars has made the difference between victory and defeat. The intervention of the French in the American Revolution saved America in the war, the colonists would have fallen if not for the aid they received. The French intervention not only saved America but gave it the advantage it needed to win the war. I the War of 1812 with no European intervention, American did not fare well, and ultimately America nor Britain won the war. In the Civil War, the lack of British aid for the south damped morale and the hopes that the British could beat the Union in the seas. Foreign intervention gives America a chance to regroup and it boosts morale and fighting spirit. It also helped with weapons, food, and funds. The lack of British aid is one of the main reasons that the south was beaten and destroyed in the war and the north came out of it more prosperous than before.

Foreign Intervention

The impact of non-warring foreign intervention was greatly signifcant in the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil war. In the American Revolution, the colonies entered a battle with many shortages. They lacked unity in many areas as well as a strong and well supplied army. Although they had sentiment large enough to win the war mentally, physically, without France's great contributions of experienced army officials, supplies, and funds, Britain would not have been defeated.
Similar to the American Revolution, the War of 1812 was able to be ended with the aid of foreign intervention, only this time, the help came from Russia. Tsar Alexander I, as an attempt to save Britain's military strength for repressing Napoleon of France's devastating reign over the globe, proposed the Treaty of Ghent. In this agreement, American and Britain representatives met and decided to end fighting and to restore conquered territory. If this treaty was not proposed, Britain would have once again surely won the war, or at least have gained much territory of the United States.
In the Civil War, foreign intervention again made an appearance as an important factor. However, it was the lack of foreign aid to the South that changed the outcome of the war. The North and it's large corn and wheat supplies to Britain provided a large power over Britain which stopped European countries from interfering with the blockade of Southern ports. If the South had indeed bypassed this blockade, it would have been better supplied, better fed, and perhaps more prepared to win the war.

Foreign intervention

The intervention of foreign powers did in fact have a significant impact on the outcome of the Americas Revolution, the War of 1812 and the Civil War. In the American Revolution, the French came to the Americans aid to fight the British
in 1778 and supported America in achieving victory and independence with both materials and force. In the War of 1812, the Russian Tsar Alexander I played a vital role in the conclusion of the war. He didn’t want the British ally to lose any more in the battle with America, so he brought together American peacemakers in 1814, and the Treaty of Ghent was promptly signed, an resolution that ended the war. In the Civil War, the British in the beginning supplied the South with boats and naval supplies. The South became dependent on the British, and it quickly ceased after the North threatened to cut off food supply to the British. In conclusion the Americas Revolution, the War of 1812 and the Civil War all could have very likely had a different outcome with the absent of foreign intervention.

Foreign Power Intervention

The American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War were all significantly impacted by foreign intervention. The American Revolution had begun as a war between the colonists and Britain. The British had a large advantage over the colonists until France had joined in the war to help the colonists. Then after gaining new military reinforcements and support from France, the colonists were able to win. Then, in the War of 1812, the British were able to cause significant destruction to American holdings with the help of the Native Americans. One example of this was the destruction of Fort Dearborn by Chief Tecumseh’s men. Without the support of the natives, this war would have been strongly in favor of the Americans. Lastly, the Civil War was also strongly decided by the intervention/lack of intervention by foreign power. Foreign is defined as something (in this case someone) that exhibits different characteristics than the majority of things surrounding it. This means that the Civil War was decided because of the slave population intervention. The warring between the South and the slaves had caused an economical downfall for the south, thus disallowing the production of foodstuffs and the eventual collapse of their government. Also, the lack of British intervention on the South’s part had caused the North to be able to easily dominate the Confederate States since they lacked the necessary resources to win the war.

Intervantion of Foreign Powers: Impact on Wars' Outcomes?

In the American Revolution and the Civil War, the intervention of non-warring foreign powers has had more significant impact on the war’s outcome then the War of 1812 because in the American Revolution, France helped the Americans achieve their victory, and in the Civil War, the British helped the Confederacy in the naval base which helped them in the beginning of the war. The War of 1812 had France as the foreign power who was less significant on the impact of the war. During the American Revolution, the Americans who were fighting the Britons were much less experienced and they had much less soldiers and once they called upon France to help them, France did by sending more soldiers and supplies their way. This made the colonies win the war and because of the intervention of France, their independence was secured as well. In the Civil War, the British were helping the Southern Confederacy by shipping necessary items for the war and providing the south with a strong naval force. The introduction of British iron clad ships such as the Alabama to the South, made the South very successful at the seas in the first half of the war. Since the British intervened, the South had the strong hand at the war and the war was prolonged and the chances of the South winning were rising. The intervening power of the War of 1812 had a much less significant effect on the war’s outcome because France was one of the countries that provoked the United States to start the war along with Britain and France’s actions during the war impacted the war’s outcome much less then when France helped the Americans during the Revolution. Britain was at war with France and both countries wanted the U.S. to stop trading with the other. This way, the non-warring power, France, was the one who influenced the start but the impact was not as significant as in the American Revolution and the Civil War.

Intervention of God-Fearing, yet Non-intervening Powers, like, OMG!

In the American Revolution, the Civil War, and the War of 1812, and virtually all wars, any non-warring, yet intervening countries through supply, money, food, etc. affect both the result and war itself by either supporting or ruining a side's competition. In the American Revolution stemming way before the idea of presidency in the mid - late 1700's, the French were extremely vital to the American rebels in terms of overall supply, as they, too were also bearing an entity against the British. The war even ended with the French unloading troops that efficiently wiped out the British and won the war for the rebels. In the War of 1812, most interventions were focused on the sea, the navy, and trade. Many French ships were cut off on supply when the British blocked trade with the U.S. In the Civil War, Great Britain contributed to the Civil War by supplying munitions, they also have a role by cutting off ship supplies, but virtually, the North prevented the British from doing anything whatsoever, cutting off the vital essentials for the South, and thus, gaining efficiency in winning the war. Overall, many wars that have occurred throughout the world depend on intervening foreign powers, and even a slight help may be extremely crucial to the outcome of the war.

Foreign intervention

In the American Revolution and the Civil war, foreign intervention played key roles in the downplay of the wars, while the War of 1812 was fought and ended primarily without the invention of significant foreign powers. First of all, the Revolutionary War was not only fought between the British and the rebels, but also with the aid of allied Indian tribes and the help of German Hessians for the British. The American Revolution was decided when America was able to convince France to join its cause with the battle of Saratoga. Once the French joined the war, America was able to beat the british on the water as well as corner General Cornwallis into surrenderring at the place which the british surrendered. Also, in the civil war, British trade and supplying provided for much of the Confederate manufactured goods, yet when the Union was able to cut off this supply, the confederacy flailed and the union was able to exploit this susceptibility with many quick strategic victories. On the other hand, the War of 1812 was only truly fought between America and Great Britain. The only intervention at all was by Russia, and that was only to act as a mediator during the treaty arrangements. In no way did Russia supply trrops or major amounts of weaponry, especially considering that Russia had yet to industrailize. In conclusion, Foreign intervention played major roles in both the American revolution and the Civil War, but the war of 1812 was secluded to only the two fighting parties.

Foreign Power Intervention

In the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War, the intervention of non-warring foreign powers has had a slightly significant impact on the wars’ outcome, but mostly due to foreign impact during early stages of war. During the American Revolution, American victory over the British may not have been possible without the support of the French, who were involved in the early stages of the battle against France. In the War of 1812, the United States received minor support from France, also in the earlier stages of war. On the contrary, Britain was allied with Russia; this relation eventually led to the introduction of the Treaty of Ghent, which thus ended the war in 1814. Furthermore, the Civil War between the North and the South saw positive English relations in favor of the North. This was because Britain was strongly for abolitionism and sent foodstuffs. However, like the aforementioned wars, the intervention of foreign powers only came early, as Great Britain had to end their naval support because of the potential threat on Canadian Invasion by the North. As for the south, European support never came through, and neither region highly benefited from foreign relations in the end. Overall, in the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War, the intervention of non-warring foreign powers has had a slightly significant impact on the wars’ outcome, but only during the earlier stages of war.

Foreign Intervention

The intervention of foreign powers had a significant impact on the outcome of the Americam Revolution, the War of 1812 and the Civil War. In the American Revolution the aid of the French greatly influneced the outcome of the war. The rebelling colonies could not have defeated the Britian had it not been for french aid dating back to 1775 when the French, although they were not directly involved in the war yet, where supplying the colonies with gunpowder, about 90% of the rebel armies gunpowder was supplied by the French. Three years later in 1778 the French allied with the colonies formally. Eventually Spain and Holland also joined in the battle against the British. Had it not been for these foriegn interventions Britain would have eventually been able to crush the rebellion. In the War of 1812 the intervention of the Russian tsar Alexander I is what led to thepeace meetings. The tsar wanted to ensure that his ally the British was not too busy dealing with the United States to effectively fight Napoleon. The tsar then began to encourage peace meetings which resulted in the ending of the war by the Treaty of Ghent in 1814. Thus the ending of the War of 1812 is due to the intervention of Russia. Finally in the Civil War the interventions on behalf of Britain aiding the South caused the south to grow overlyt depedent on foreign aid. Once this aid was cut off by the North the South was too weak to maintain a strong front against the North. Therefore the outcomes of all three of these wars were largely due to the intervention of nations around the world.

Intervention of Foreign Powers

In the War of 1812, the American Revolution, and the Civil War, foreign intervention did have a big impact on the outcomes. The American Revolution, fought mainly by Americans and the British, was won by the young rebel nation due to the support of France. The French entered the war in 1778 and assisted in attaining the victory for the Americans seeking independence from Britain. In the War of 1812, the Russian Tsar Alexander I also played a role in the outcome of the war. He, not wanting his British ally to lose any more in the battle with America, gathered American peacemakers in 1814, and later the Treaty of Ghent was signed, an armitice that ended the war. Without foreign intervention, the war might have gone on longer. Foreign intervention was also important in the Civil War, for the British, in the beginning, supplied the South with boats. However, the South, depending on foreign intervention, didn't get it after the North threatened to cut off food supply to the British. If the South would have continued to receieve support from Britain, and perhaps other foreign countries, the south could have had a chance at winning the war.

Foreign Intervention in US Wars

In the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War, foreign intervention has been nearly non-existent and thus insignificant. In the American Revolution, the US recieved nearly no assistance from foreign powers, while Britain felt it needed none. The War of 1812 was fought exclusively between Britain and the US, despite France being involved in the tensions that led up to the war. These two wars had very little involvement from foreign powers, excluding Britain of course, and thus foreign involvement had no impact on the outcome of the war, but much on the beginning of the war. The Civil War had early involvement from foreign powers in the form of Great Britain assisting the Confederate army's navy. This involvement gave the Confederacy a naval advantage during the beginning of the war. Soon after the Confederacy established its naval power, the Union threatened to cut off Britain's food supply. Britain pulled out of the war and the naval advantage went to the North for the rest of the war. Britain's involvement would have played a significant role had it continued throughout the war, but seeing as how it only occurred briefly, it played no significant role on the outcome of the war. In all three wars, foreign involvement was scarace and thus played an insignificant role in the outcome of the wars.

Intervention of foreign powers on the war's outcome

During the Civil War it was not foreign intervention, but the lack of foreign support for the South that had a significant influence on the outcome of the war.
From the beginning of the war until the end of 1863 the South counted on and had high hopes set on obtaining support from Great Britain against the Yankees. Many of the actions taken by General Robert E. Lee were designed in order to convince England to support the Confederacy. For example when Lee was planning on invading the North through Pennsylvania, he was hoping for a “decisive blow that would add strength to the noisy peace prodders in the North and would also encourage foreign intervention – still a Southern hope” (p.472). There were many reasons why Great Britain thought it better not to interfere with the Civil War, one of them being their dependence on grain produced in the North. However, had Britain chosen to join the Confederacy in their struggle for independence the outcome might have been similar to that of the American Revolution, in which France had helped the Rebels win. That is why it was so important for northern victory that Britain and France, the two major foreign powers, stayed out of the war.

Were is A Northerner Lambastes Britain?

I can't find it. Please give me some assistance.
Cheers

How would foreign intervention effect on civil war and war of 1812

Any unwarring foreign intervention would have a immediate impact on the outcome of both civil war and war of 1812, as for the civil war, it would led to unability of north perserve the union, and war of 1812, the cripple American economic won't able to support a international conflict.

For the civil war, the most decisive campaign of the American Civil War was waged in neither Virginia, nor Pennsylvania, no along the Missippi River, but rather in Great Britian. Northern military advantages in the prosecution of the war effort would have been completely negated by serious diplomatic setback in Great Britain. In order to win the civil war, the NOrth had to provent Great Britain from entering the conflict . British intervention whether in the from of actually entering the war on the side of the south. official recognition of the confederacy, foreign mediation, or call fro an armistice , would have been a diplomatic disaster for North and a fatal blow in its attempt to re-unify the nation. Military setbacks on teh battlefield were not nearly threatening as diplomatic setbacks abroad. North had greater manpower a stronger adn more balanced economy, an industrial infrastructure , and a better equipped army;yet inorder for these advantages to translate into military victory at home, the north first needed to ensure that domestic conflict did no spread to an international war. Intervention of British would have a significant consequences on whether north can perserve the union. The intervention of foreign power also would have a significant impact on America. During the war, British navy blockade along the American coast by raiding parties almost at will, American economic life was cripple. Customs revenues were choked off, and near the end of the war the bankrupt Treasury was unable to meet its maturing obligation. If at time, any of the country became alliance of Britain, it would inevitably lead to American's defeat. Because unable to pull any of the foreign help, England was willing to compromise.

Debate

We never got to the Crittenden amendments, so that's what Im going to talk about.

The Crittenden Amendments, proposed by the senator James Crittenden in 1860, were the last proposal for compromise in the country and showed the most promise. Crittenden was the new senator from Kentucky trying to fill the shoes of Henry Clay. The requirements were that the 36 30 line reinstated and to give full protection to all of the territories that supported slavery in the south. Also, new states coming into the United States, whether north or south, could choose to become a slave states or not on their own time. This amendment was based on appeasing the South, and Bailey himself said that these amendments to the Constitution would have postponed the Civil war. And as we mentioned in class, the definition of repression is merely postponing the war. therefore, the Crittenden Amendments would have repressed the war.

Follow-up on the debate

I had a qoute that I didn't get a chance to use that demonstrates the impossibility to stop slavery early on..
"The causes of the war will be found at the foundation of our political fabric, in our complex organism, in the fundamental law, in the Constitution itself, in the conflicting constructions which it invted, and in the institution of slavery...Slavery was undoubtedly the immediate formenting cause of the woeful American conflict. It was the great political factor around which the passions of the sections had been long gathered--the tallest pine in the political forest around whose top the fiercest lightnings were to blaze and whose trunk was destined to be shivered in the earthquake shocks of war." -John B. Gordon, Maj. Gen. CSA, "Reminiscences of the Civil War."

As Gordon stated, slavery could not have been avoided or addressed, which was the one main factor in causing the war. Since the founding of America, slavery was needed and depended, especially when the cotton gin was invented.

Document OPVL and Discussion work for 12/14

yo, i cant seem to find the documents needed for tomorrow.. can anyone help me out?

Super Top Secret Debate Team Stuff

Hey guys, I tried calling everyone (or the numbers I had, I'll try to get the message around). Correct me if I'm missing anyone, but in our group we have:

Haley, David, Rodrigo, Julia, Tim, Rosette, Cait, Erin, Yue, Dan B., Dennise, Corey?, Kelly?, and others that I can't remember, I apologize.

Basically, we have our main idea for the debate, but I think we should think it over. If anyone has any more ideas, please type them here; comment.

The Civil War

The Civil War was a conflict that resulted for many reasons, some of them irrepressible, some of them not. The main conflict over slavery was an issue that could not be resolved because both sides became increasingly unwilling to compromise over it. The slavery issue had been addressed many times in the short history of the Republic but a lasting agreement was never made. As slavery became a large issue, government officials were being elected solely to defend or attack it. Thus out of this trend came the spitting of well- established parties and the emergence of purely sectional parties. The issue of the Industrial North verses the Agricultural South, was something that could have been avoided. Both areas were very reliant to the other, and this dependence for both trade and protection was most likely the main reason why the war was held off for so long, neither side would have survived it. The main cause of the war was the mistrust the South held for the North and vise versa, both side became so paranoid that they soon became unreasonable and violent and a war was destined to come after that.

The Civil War:Repressible or Irrepressible

The Civil War was largely irrepressible because of the extreme sectionalism in the country between the North and South. The North and South diverged completely on economics as well as politics and the significant differences between the regions made the Civil War irrepressible. Sectionalism had began occurring throughout the years prior to the civil war, this was demonstrated in economics as much as politics. The Northern and Southern economies became dependent on different things. The North was largely industrialized therefore it supported protective tariffs which sometimes seemed to obviously come at the expense of the Southern economy. The South was agriculture based therefore it depended on the textiles of the North significantly, yet the north did not depend largely on the South for raw material because it could also use materials from the West. Obviously there was a great deal of political divisions between the North and the South as well. The biggest of these issues was hte issie of slavery. This issue is mostly why the Civil War was irrepressible. The extreme divisions between the ideology of the North and South on this issue could not have been solved in an other manner. All attempts at compromise eventually failed, such as the Missouri Compromise in 1820. Although this temporarily subdued the issue it aggravated it as well when debates over the fairness of it began to unfold. The many attempts of compromise and agreement seemed to have beenfutile therefore some type of force would have been necessary. This demonstrates how the Civil War was not repressible because of the extreme sectionalism in the country.

Irrepressible.

The Civil War was irrepressible due to political division and the unwillingness of the north and south to further compromise with one another in regard to slavery and the balance of power. The splitting of the Democratic party during the election of 1860 created a habit of secession, as the south no longer greatly supported Douglas. Thus, the republican party was able to dominate, and Lincoln (primarily supported in the north) was elected. For years Tensions between the north and south had been growing, and by Lincoln's election, views on slavery were polarized: either it was abolished or allowed to spread. Southerners had begun to view the North as a threat and "lord", in a sense, as King George the Third had been. They believed that secession was the only way to get the north off its back, just as the colonies had done with their British King. Every compromise that had been concocted ended up a failure. For example, the Compromise of 1850. The north was unwilling to do the immoral bidding of the south, and since the Fugitive Slave Law was the Souths only real gain from the compromise, relations were further embittered. Also, the Nebraska-Kansas act destroyed the Missouri compromise and slavery would now be allowed within ALL territories, which of course, the North wouldn't put up with for long. Many presidents, including Buchanan and Lincoln, by not taking a strong stand on the issue, "sat on the pot of slavery and let it boil. Their had been no "safe" way to take a stand without upsetting one half of the economy (agricultural south or industrial north) or ruining it all together. The Bottom line was that the North was continuing to grow in wealth, land, and population, was nagging on southern mannerism, and beginning to dominate politically. Fearing their own rights and riches, and having their own distinct moral values, the south would eventually let go of the union that took so long to create.

Civil war

By the outbreak of the Civil War, conflict between the north and the south was irrepressible because of the previous tensions that had been building for almost half a century. One of the main factors, the slavery issue, was evident early on in American history, and remained unsolvable until the aftermath of the Civil War. The Missouri Compromise in 1820 did little to ease sectional tensions and did not provide a solution to the issue because of the unequal amount of land that was available to free and slave. This "compromise" was later questioned with the acquisition of new territories. The Compromise of 1850, which included the Fugitive Slave Law, ignited South-North oppositional fury to uncalmable levels. The south was running out of shances to snag slave states, and tensions were mounting. The Fugitive slave law bolstered opposition to slavery in the North, causing more divisions. Shortly afterwards, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 suggested popular sovreignty in Kansas and Nebraska, which would be in opposition to the established Missouri Compromise. South-North tensions were running high at this point, and arguments over Kansas and Nebraska added to the conflict. As the south and north clashed in many aspects-politically, economically, and socially, tensions mounted until the only outlet was the civil war.

The Civil War: Repressible or Irrepressible?

Because of the failure to completely compromise the slavery issue between the growing North and the traditional South as well as the unwillingness of both sides to accept fair compromise, the Civil war was irrepressible without a complete sectional tear in the republic. Though the Civil War was minorly infuenced by difference in economics and regionalization of political parties, the most influential cause of the war was the vigorous debates and sectional differences between the north and the South over slavery. This stems from the basic fact that there is no way a country can spend its entire existance without a common viewpoint on an issue so fierce as slavery. This internal conflict could very well have brewed under the surface for a quite a longer time, if it was not for the economic and political differences in the regions that developed over the 1800's. Examples of these occurences include the development of different economies, industrial in the north and agricultural in the south. As a result, the bases of the two regions were totally different, many in the south felt that the treatment of industry workers, paid next to nothing, were worse than that of a southern slave. Through the growing seperations of the two regions, the main piece holding them together in the mid 1800's was the political parties. The Whigs and the Democrats differentiated from each other, more so east-west than north-south and over issues such as tariffs and the national bank, rather than the age old north-south issue of slavery. However, with the development of the Republican party, the whig part split, and the Democrats became a southern party, finishing the seperation of the regions. This demonstrates the particulars about how the civil War was aggravated by the sectional differences between the North and the south over slavery.

The Civil War: Repressible or Irrepressible?

Although some historians would argue that the Civil War was repressible, it was mostly irrepressible due to the differences between the North and the South on the issue of slavery, the economic diversity between the two regions, and the threats that each region posed. Because the North was aimed at industrialism while the South was largely agricultural, each region grew apart from each other, and political intentions during the Jacksonian Period, especially with the controversy of the Tariff of 1828, were large roots in the introduction of the idea of Southern secession. In addition, the Missouri Compromise of 1820 shifted the political balance of power, which potentially was seen as a detrimental blow to the plantation aristocracy of the South. Eventually, the issue of slavery that tore the North and the South apart was a result of the threat slavery posed to Northerners, also in relation to their economic differences. As a result, the Free Soil and abolitionist movements were sparked to oppose slavery, which was thought of as either immoral or unwanted in the ever-growing U.S. territory, in the South. Overall, the factors of economic diversity, split decisions on slavery, and the potential threat of each region built up to the irrepressible Civil War.

Civil Way: Repressible or Irrepressible?

The Civil War, resulting from regional tension built up ever since colonial days, was completely irrepressible because of the inability to . Economic differences such as agriculture versus industry had been apparent in the South and North since colonial times and have only increased with the passing of years. These differences created conflicting viewpoints over slavery due to the South's increasing dependence on slave labor and the North's increasing movement away from this institution. The agricultural economy of the south also developed a class system with plantation elitists at the top, while the North's industrialization led to wide urbanization and moved away from a class system. This furthered the South's cling to slavery and the North's independence from system. The Civil War was a result of the South's continued and highly developed dependence on slavery and the North's moral issues with as well as their lack of dependence on slavery. With attempts to snuff the issue such as the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska act along with the United States' continual territorial gains came more issues and unresting resentments from both the North and South. By 1850, the only thing that would be able to settle this issue would be war due to the fact that if any drastic action were made, secession would be likely by either region. (Each region has had a history of threatening secession: NE in the War of 1812 and South Carolina's after tariffs in 1828). The Civil War was unavoidable stemming from the country's history of regional disputes and differences, and huge split over slavery.

Civil War

The road to Civil War appeared right as the nation was established, and time obviously only built up passion and tension until both factions exploded in battle. All the major aspects of a developing country played into this build up such as economy, politics, and basic social standings, and many issues played into all these. One such issue and possibly the central, was slavery. Economically it allowed the south to thrive as the north lagged behind and focused upon other subjects. This was one of the first instances that began to highlight the two side’s differences and tension rose. The economic issues raised from slavery played very largely into the political. The north focused on education building up for future prosperity while the south was at the mercy of the slave trade. As a result of this when the idea of abolition, largely accepted in the north was proposed, the south was outraged as it was the very base of their economic house of cards. Both sections fought unwaveringly for their political beliefs and truly began to tear the union apart. The differences they held in the slavery issue affected them highly socially and could not be trusted to be around one another. They started to be constantly at each others throats for no seemingly valid reason. Further more as the south relied on slavery the ignored education unlike the north, additionally dividing the two. The fact than one issue could tear apart the delicate fabric of the nation in so many aspects exudes how civil was inevitable and necessary.

The Civil War: Repressible or Irrepressible?

The Civil War was irrepressible because the issue of slavery was focused on differently in the North and the South. The North was against the expansion of slavery from the beginning of the 1800s and the formation of the Republican and Free Soil parties showed the political feelings of the North over slavery. The South always wanted slavery because it was the cornerstone of the agricultural industry of the South and it was also justifiable by God, who gave the Southerners the right to own slaves. The South Carolina Exposition of 1828 showed the feelings of the South early on before the Civil War. The South wanted to secede because they believed in the states’ rights over the people’s, which would include owning slaves. The publication of Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852) showed another northern view on slavery: the abolitionists were against slavery because they thought of it as being an immoral institution. The compromises that followed between 1830 and 1860 always addressed the issue of slavery but the issue was very debatable and remained indecisive by 1860. The South chose to secede from the North and thus making its way to the Civil War. The Civil War erupted because of the debate over slavery and the difference that the North and the South have achieved after the Revolution time period and it was definitely irrepressible.

The Civil War: Repressible or Irrepressible?

Although the civil war conflict was greatly infuenced by difference in economics and regionalization of political parties, the war at its base, was in an irrepressible conflict based upon slavery. This stems from the basic fact that there is no way a country can spend its entire existance without a common viewpoint on an issue so fierce as slavery. This internal conflict could very well have brewed under the surface for a quite a longer time, if it was not for the economic and political differences in the regions that developed over the 1800's. Examples of these occurences include the development of different economies, industrial in the north and agricultural in the south. As a result, the bases of the two regions were totally different, many in the south felt that the treatment of industry workers, paid next to nothing, were worse than that of a southern slave. Through the growing seperations of the two regions, the main piece holding them together in the mid 1800's was the political parties. The Whigs and the Democrats differentiated from each other, more so east-west than north-south and over issues such as tariffs and the national bank, rather than the age old north-south issue of slavery. However, with the development of the Republican party, the whig part split, and the Democrats became a southern party, finishing the seperation of the regions.

The Civil War: Repressible or Irrepressible?

The Civil War was irrepressible because the vast differences between the North and South had influenced the creation of two separate nations. Since the Jacksonian period, southern states had threatened to succeed the Union. The founding of the United States had established the North into a strong economic community, whereas the south was seen as additional territory. The creation of a cotton industry in the South had created the reliance on slaves, whereas the North didn’t need slaves because their main industries were related to manufacturing. This split had caused the two sides to distance themselves from each other. The North resented southern slaves because it decreased northern wages, and the south resented the north because it feared that they would abolish slavery which would ruin their industries. Thus, both regions saw the other as an economic oppressor. These issues caused an inevitable split in 1860. This split could possibly have been suppressed with the Critenden amendments, but the identity of the northern Republican Party had forbade agreeing to such ideas. Overall, the identity of the North and South was very different, and thus Civil War was irrepressible.

Civil War Irrepressible

The Civil War was provoked by many factors in the country at the time, specifically political opposition (state/federal rights, voting rights, Lincoln's presidency) and economic divisions (Southern plantations, Northern industry). With new territories being claimed, instead of the government getting involved in states' matters, the states' independent decisions were allowed, known as popular sovereignty. With this issue in Kansas came masses of people from both Northern and Southern states, all feeling very strongly on the slavery issue, hoping to sway the votes for the North or South. Also, both North and South depended on slavery up until the Civil War, where Southern farmers would send their produce (cotton in particular) up to the North, where the Northern industry would sell the finished product to Europe. However, economic division occured when cotton became the major crop in the South, whereas the North industry was well-rounded when it came to diversity.

Civil War: Repressible or Irrepressible?

The Civil War was irrepressible due to the overwhelming power slavery had on the economy, and thus the country. The plantation owners in the South depended upon slave labor to support the plantation-centered economy of the time and saw it neccessary to sustain it. Aside from the plantation owners finding it neccessary the lower class immigrants were against the abolition of slavery because it would create more competition for jobs. Seemingly all classes in the South, minus the slaves, were for slavery. This created great conflict through the pressure created by the Abolitionists to abolish slavery while the Republicans were against the expansion of it. These ideals conflicted greatly with the South's dependency on slavery. Overall, the Civil War was irrepressible due to the South's dependency on slavery and the controversy the issue caused.

Civil War: Irrepressible or repressible

The Civil War was irrepressible because of serious economic issues and political division and deadlock. Sectionalism had been on the rise for many years before the 1960 presidential election. Protective tariffs designed to aid the Northern shipping businesses had damaged the South. Prices rose for necessary goods but the price of exports did not increase for the southern farmers and in some cases decreased. Foreign countries did not want to buy goods from a country that will not return the favor. This was essentially sectional divide number one.
The issue of slavery brought up another sectional divide. Slavery was ingrained in the South. The North did not want or practice slavery but tolerated and profited from it right up to the Civil War. With new territory the issue of extension of slavery arose. The Compromise of 1820 divided North and South, the North without slaves and the South with slaves. This legally and physically created a sectional division that developed for the 34 years of the Compromise's existence. In the Compromise of 1950 and the Fugitive Slave Law, the North was required to stomach slavery by returning escaped slaves to their owners. At this point, there was no turning back. Sectional divisions heightened and intensified unchecked. Political parties developed over the issue of slavery. The Republicans were composed of abolitionists and Free-soilers. Since slavery was a sectional issue and there were political parties that divided over the issue of slavery then the politics were sectional as well.
The Crittenden Scheme tried to amend the Constitution in order to appease the South by giving all future states south of 36 30, the original Missouri Compromise line, the right to come into the union with or without slavery. This was flatly rejected. This showed how the issue of slavery and sectional division would once and for all cause a Civil War as three separate Compromises could not solve the problem.

Obviously the Civil War Was Irrepressible otherwise it wouldn't have happened!

Anyway.

The Civil War was irrepressible from both a North and South perspective because slavery was too much of an important economic factor to let go of, but it also inevitably split the country economically.
In the North textile factories relied heavily on Southern cotton, and therefore slave labor. This was important because the North then sold the finished gross product to England, thereby boosting profit. However the North kept the majority of this profit. This led to economical strife, and the start of sectional strife. The North relied on slavery to get the necessary ingredients, and the South needed the North to make this finished product and send it to England. Both factors relied on slavery, whether directly or indirectly, and caused a split in economy.

civil war was unavoidable

The Civil War was an inevitable conflict that was bound to explode due to the differences between the North and South societies, slavery, and politics. After Independence, the complexity of the American society grew. The three components that contributed to this complexity was the shift away form small-scale, largely subsistence farming by substantial numbers of northerners; the migration of thousands of white Americans and black slaves, and the renewal of slavery as a viable economic system. Together, these triggered a sharpening conflict between economic interests, social classes and regions that were frequently manifested in party politics.

During the nineteenth century, the econonmic difference increased between the region of North and South. By 1830, cotton was the chief crop of the south. The profitability of cotton completed the South's dependence on the plantation system and its essential component of slavery. North in contrast was overflow by the factories . A realitive dense population discouraged fraing and hence made manufacturinf more attractive. Built up of the railraod particularly made the market more accessible: ease the import of south raw material and the export of the finished product. The North favor of protective tariff and central bank was deeply resentful by south.
During Tariff of 1828, southerner suffer both as consumers and as producer. They sold their cotton and other farm produce market completely unprotected by tariff and were forced to buy their manufacture good heavily protected by tariff. In contrast , the profits of the Yankee manufacturer were commensurately fatten. This accentuate economic interest would evitably led to the division. Politically, south were particular marked by argument of state's right over the federal government. Sprout from the Thomas Jefferson's Kentucky and Virginia resolution, South Carolina bluntly and explicity proposed that state's can nullify tariff of 1828 as it was a violation of the state's right. Secession of South Carolina in 1833 would eventually become first touched off a civil war. By the spring of 1861 the southern people would again it both abhorrent and dangerous to continue to live under the same government with the people of the North. So profound was this feeling among the bulk of the southern population that they were prepared to fight a long and devastating war to accomplish a separation.

The Civil War: Repressible or Irrepressible?

The Civil War was irrepressible, because of the economic differences between the North and the South and the issue over slavery, where the North wanted slavery to be abolished, but the Southerners economy was so dependent on it that they were not going to give it up without a fight.
Since the Tariff of 1828 the South had been threatening secession, because they felt that the north along with the federal government was oppressive and ignorant of their needs. This was a political conflict based on economic differences. The different needs of the manufacturing North and the agricultural South set the basis and were a major cause of the Civil War. However the trigger was the dispute over slavery. Slavery could in some ways also be considered an economic issue, because the southern economy was very dependent on it and the Northerners resented this economic advantage for the South. These growing tensions could not have been repressed or resolved in an other way at the time, because each side was so persistent in supporting their cause.

The Civil War: Repressible or Irrepressible

Interpretations of the Civil War have naturally differed according to section, and have been charged with both emotional and moral fervor. Yet despite long and keen interest in the origins of the conflict, the causes of the Civil War remain as passionately debated today as they were a century ago.

In my point-of-view, any event in the course of history can be repressible or avoided. The Civil War itself could definitely be avoided, as it stemmed from one debate and controversy: slavery. The foundation of slavery has had little or no moral effect on most of the white man's conscience. As evolution occurred, most of the people who believe in slavery has occurred in southern states, and most of the believe who believe it to be a little controversial dwell in the northern states. After a long period of time, as Abraham Lincoln in "Lincoln Denies Equality (1858)" presented to partisans his perspective of how blacks should be freed from slavery, he did not agree with how blacks should receive equality. The great Abraham Lincoln has failed to impress me. Although not perfect, the document is nonetheless a good example of America attempting to make man as "equal" as possible. Had the greed of the white man be at LEAST as less demanding than forcing/subjugating/oppressing an ENTIRE group of people to do their labor work, the American Civil War could potentially be repressible.

Civil War: Repressible or Irrepressible?

Due to the course in which events unraveled in the history of the United States, the Civil War could not have been avoided or repressed. The major causes of the Civil War, as listed below, would inevitably have led to a war due to the rising tensions between the north and the south.
1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.
Especially with the invention of Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin, the south was gearing towards a one crop economy as the north became deversified in their economy.
2. States versus federal rights.
Strong supporters of states rights were the southern states, fearing that the federal government would have the power to abolish slavery. This led to the idea of nullification, which presented the idea of states having the power to rule federal acts unconstitutional. When nullification would not work the states moved towards sucession and therefore the civil war.
3. The fight between slave and non-slave states.
A constant issue, the fight over new territories to be slave or non-slave greatly increased tensions between the north and the south, as shown by "Bleeding Kansas."
4. Growth of the abolition movement.
The Second Great Awakening helped greatly to persuade many to become abolitionists. With the help of the publishing of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the Dred Scott Case, John Brown’s Raid, and the passing of the Fugitive Slave Act, the abolitionist movement gained momentum and the south began to fear this, driving them towards sucession.
5. The election of Abraham Lincoln.
This was "the final straw" as South Carolina threatened to sucede if Lincoln was elected president. As fate would have it, Lincoln won the 1960 election causing S. Caroline to declare their secession, and other southern states followed.

History Fair Meetings

All students are required to meet with Ms. Chipman before winter break. Bring the following with you to the meeting:
1. Everyone: A revised outline of your project, including where you will incorporate specific sources
2. Everyone: Completed Summary Statement Form
3. Everyone: A revised annotated bibliography. Sources should be separated into primary and secondary.
4. For exhibits: a sketch of the layout of your board including specific headings
a. For exhibits: at least five of the pictures, quotes, graphs, etc. you plan to use as visuals on your board
5. For papers: An intro paragraph and topic sentences for each paragraph of your paper.
a. At least five sources need to come with you to the meeting
6. For powerpoints: At least the first five slides of your powerpoint
a. At least five sources need to come with you to the meeting
7. For documentaries: A breakdown of how many minutes will be dedicated to each section
a. At least five sources need to come with you to the meeting
**Sign up in class!!**

Further Aggravation of the Slavery Issue

The 1850 and missouri compromise, as well as the Kansas- Nebraska act proved to aggravate the issue of slavery by either contradicting one another or by setting rules that could not be morally followed by the North or South. Henry Clay proposed the North and South make concessions provided that the North enact a sensible fugitive-slave law. Webster urged the same. Calhoun, however, rejected them on the grounds of not providing adequate safeguards and instead proposed that slavery be left alone, runaway slaves be returned, and the South be given its rights as a minority in order to restore political balance. However, as this was not in any favor to the all-powerful North, his idealism would only go so far. The Fugitive Slave Law that was included in the compromise said that any runaways caught would not be able to testify on their own behalf, were denied a jury trial, and federal commissioner that handled their case would make $5 if they were freed and $10 if not (bribe). Naturally, the law strengthened Northern resentment of the South and the South in return was further angered by Northern unwillingness to follow through with the only serious souther gain the compromise had produced. The long debate over Clay's Compromise of 1850 proved to have helped the North gain moral, population, and financial strength, which was exactly what the south had feared in the first place: inequality among sections of the union. However, the northern strength gained when directly to their will to fight for the union, which was probably why the civil war hadn't broken out that same year. Douglas's eventual proposal that Nebraska be split into two different territories with its slavery status dependent on popular sovereignty, directly conflicted with the Missouri Compromise which prohibited slavery in the Nebraska territory. This Southern attempt at gaining the upper hand proved troublesome. From then on, any compromises with the south would be immeasurably more difficult, and tensions would rise to the point where civil war was clearly inevitable. The Kansas-Nebraska act "wrecked" the Missouri Compromise, and that of 1850 was shattered by Northern morally based unwillingness. The North and South found less and less that they were willing to live with.

slavery issue

Whereas the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 were created to ameliorate the slavery issue, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was created in the hope of making a Midwestern transcontinental railroad possible. The Missouri Compromise kept the slavery issue at hold for a time until new states were added to the union that offset the sectional balance. After this, the Compromise of 1850 held off the issue for 4 or 5 years even though the north clearly won that battle. After that, the Kansas-Nebraska act was the final straw. As a reaction to this, the purely sectional Republican party was born, which was completely anti-slavery.

Slavery Issue HOO!

The Compromise of 1850 was signed by Millard Fillmore after Zachary Taylor died, and Clay, Webster, and Douglas orated on behalf of the compromise for the North, but the South hated it; they finally accepted it after much debate. Although the North got the better deal in the Compromise of 1850, and The District of Columbia could not have slave trade, slavery was still legal. Nonetheless, it ameliorated the slavery issue; and as an effect of the Compromise of 1850, a new Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 was drastic, and it stated that (1) fleeing slaves couldn’t testify on their own behalf, (2) the federal commissioner who handled the case got $5 if the slave was free and $10 if not, and (3) people who were ordered to help catch slaves had to do so, even if they didn’t want to.

Senator Stephen Douglas proposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which would let slavery in Kansas and Nebraska be decided upon by popular sovereignty. The problem was that the Missouri Compromise had banned this, so the act would have to repeal it. Southerners had not thought of Kansas as a possible slave state, and thus backed the bill, but Northerners rallied against it. Nevertheless, Douglass rammed the bill through Congress, and it was passed. The Kansas-Nebraska Act directly wrecked the Compromise of 1820 and indirectly wrecked the Compromise of 1850. Northerners no longer enforced the Fugitive Slave Law at all, and Southerners were still angry, aggravating the slavery issue.

Aggravating or Ameliorating the Slavery Issue

The Compromise of 1850 ameliorated the slavery issue because it satisfied the South by the passage of the Fugitive Slave Law, which made the abolitionist Northerners return the runaway slaves to their rightful masters. The North received the ban of slave trade in Washington DC. Both sides of the argument, North and the South, compromised on New Mexico and Utah, which did not become slave or free states. The North also received California as a free state and the South received compensation for lost Texan territory to NM and UT. This compromise provided for all the sides of the slavery issue to be happy and it set peace between the two sections for a decade. The Kansas Nebraska Act, however, aggravated the slavery issue because the sectional balance was off due to popular sovereignty, which decided that all the disputes territories would be slave states, and made the North aggravated, since popular sovereignty never worked in their favor. The Missouri Compromise of 1821 ameliorated the slavery issue because temporarily, the South was content with the sectional balance that the compromise provided, the 36’30’ division line between free and slave states. After the passage of the compromise, the sectional balance was restored since MO was added to the Union as a slave state as Maine was added as a free state.

Aggravate Hate or Ameliorate tolerate?

The Compromise of 1850, Kansas-Nebraska Act and Missouri Compromise all intended to alleviate tension over the growing slavery problem but instead of dealing with the problem (ameliorating) then and there, it was left to fester into a Civil conflict.
The Missouri Compromise, is quoted to have"ducked the question of slavery" but in fact it created more slavery by not outrightly abolishing it. Therefore sectional tension-especially economically-increased as the South attempted to gain a "one up" on the North. The Compromise of 1850, continued this theme, as the balance was upset once again economically as well as territorally. Because California was admitted as a free state, the South by default missed out on a chance to extend their slave states and boost their economy. Naturally they were annoyed, and tension increased. Both of these bills are exemplified in the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Sovereign popularity in these states allowed slavery, but it would have to be repealed because of the Missouri Compromise. In the end Northerners created the Republican party, whose main front was anti-Western slave state. Without saying this increased pre-Civil War tension.

Aggravating the Slavery Issue

The Kansas-Nebraska Act, Compromise of 1850, and Missouri Compromise intended to repair division on the slavery issue, but ended up aggravating the matter. With both the Compromise of 1850 and the Missouri Compromise, neither side was completely happy, but had the greatest impact leading up to the Civil War. The Missouri Compromise provided the South with Missouri allowed as a slave state, but besides the one exception, all states above the 36'30' line was to remain free. Maine was also allowed a free state, but neither the North nor the South was too happy. The MO Compromise was much like a Snoopy Band-Aid on a broken arm; the problem was not fixed, but covered up, and was bound to get worse. The Compromise of 1850 was more to the North's advantage, where California was declared a free state, which gave the North much more power.

Slavery issues

Despite the fact that the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the Missouri Compromise all were put into action to facilitate the settling of the slavery issue, they all ultimately simply intensified it. In the compromise of 1850 California was admitted as a free state, permanently tipping the balance. The Utah and New Mexico Territories could decide, with popular sovereignty, over slavery themselves. This imbalance struck fear into the hearts of southerners, worried for the future protection of slavery they became outraged accentuating the slavery issue. The Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Missouri Compromise together exaggerate the issue. The Kansas-Nebraska Act would let slavery in Kansas and Nebraska be decided upon by popular sovereignty. The problem was that the Missouri Compromise had banned this, so the act would have to repeal it. Southerners had not thought of Kansas as a possible slave state, and thus backed the bill, but Northerners rallied against it. As northerners and southerners debated over these issues the subject of slavery was only aggravated.

Compromises' Impact on the Slavery Issue

After the Missouri Compromise in 1820, the relationship between the Northern and Southern United States went awry with the introduction of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and Compromise of 1850. The Compromise in 1820 that admitted Missouri as a slave state, Maine as a free state, and set the boundary of slavery at the 36 30 line, was uneasy, but satisfied each region because both agreed that they had gotten what they wanted. However, with the introduction of the Compromise of 1850, Southern dissatisfaction aroused opposition to the North, who seemed to be the overall benefactor of the bill despite the sacred balance that it sought to achieve. Finally, when the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed, it let slavery in those states to be decided by popular sovereignty. The problem with this was that it violated both prior Compromises, and practically nullified the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. Eventually, Northerners and Southerners were both deeply angered, the Democratic Party was shattered, and the beginning of the Civil war was imminent.

MIssouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850, Kansas Nebraska Act

Compromise such as Kansas Nebraska Act and Compromise of 1850 demonstrated ineffectiveness of consoling both north and south, they would further aggravate the issue of slavery and tended to shatter Union more than help it. The Kansas-Nebraska Act designed to use popular sovereignty to determine the slavery status of the Kansas and Nebraska Territores. Anti-salvery northerners were angered by what they condemned as an act of bad faith by the “Nebrascal” and their “Nebrascality” because they viewed the Missouri Compromise as sacred as the constitution itself. Passing of such a act would repealed the line of 36-30. Impulsively and recklessly northerner formed the Republican Party whose main platform was a fierce opposition to the slavery in the western territories, which would make any future compromise south immeasurably more difficult. So instead trying to reduce conflict by determining a way to possibly end slavery, the Kensas-Nebraska did the exact opposite. The Compromise of 1850 also was a major point between the North and South. Due to the increasing number of runaway slaves, the south wanted a new and stricter fugitive slave law to be enacted by Congress. The new fugitive slave law proclaim that runaway were to be denied a jury trial and could not testify in court. This act made abolitionist all more resolved to put an end to slavery. The Underground Railroad became more active, reaching its peak between 1850 and 1860. The southerner in turn were embittered because the northerner would not in good faith execute the law-the only real and immediate southern ‘gain from the compromise. On some extent though Compromise increased the intense sectionalism play off in politics, it also added the immensely to the moral strength of North to its will fight for the union.The Missouri Compromise tended to preserve the union as both of the union could be satisfied, even id only temporarily. In 1818, as the Missouri Territory applied for the statehood, many of the Missourians wanted to allow slavering in their state. Faced with the north opposition, the congress came upon the Missouri Compromise in 1820 tended to preserve the balance of free state and salve states in Senate. It made any state below the 336-30 line was allowed to have slaves while anywhere above the line slavery was prohibited. Neither north and south was acutely displeased on such a concession, but the compromise only ducked on question of slavery, eventually it did not resolve it.

Document Update!!

Documents for the new calendar will not be posted until Monday. We will read Benjamin Drew in class instead of over the weekend.

Did it worsen or help the slavery issue?

Although the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas'Nesbraska Act, and the Missouri Compromise all strove to calm the bioling issue of slavery in the United States, all three had actually made things worse and drove the Union nearer to the Civil War. The Compromise of 1850 dealt with the issue whether or not California should join the Union (if it did, it would tip the political balance and destroy the equilibrium of free and slave states). The Compromise of 1850 benefitted the North more than the South, therefore setting off controversy that led the nation closer to the Civil War. The compromise stated that Califnornia joined as a free state, and what was left of the Mexican Cession were to become New Mexico and Utah, which was to be decided free or slave by popular sovereignthy. The South feared that once California entered as a free state, New Mexico and Utah would follow. It also stated that the slave trade was illegal in the District of Columbia (but slavery still legal), which was viewed as a threat to the South because it was a step towards total emancipation in the nation's capital. However, the most alarming issue was the new Fugitive Slave Law, which clearly outlined a strict policy for catching slaves and made it easier for the south to catch slaves. This inflamed the south as well as the north because this law was later to be loosely carried out. The Kansas-Nebraska Act also provoked rising tension between north and south, because it directly conflicted with the Missouri Compromise. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was strongly supported by Southerners but viciously opposed by Northerners, furthuring the divide over the issue of slavery.

Document

Could anybody find the document we are supposed to read for Monday?

The impact the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraske Act, and the Missouri Compromise had on aggravaing or ameliorating the slavery issue

The Missouri Compromise more than the Compromise of 1850 were both attempts trying to ameliorate the slavery issue and satisfy both northerners and southerners, however the Kansas-Nebraska Act disregarded both compromises and aggravated the slavery issue immensely. The Compromise of 1850 resulted from a heated discussion over the slavery issue. It made California a free state, which angered southerners, but it also created a more stringent Fugitive Slave Law. In this agreement both sides gained something they wanted, despite the fact that it threw the balance in the Senate between free and slave state off, it still preserved the union. Northerners were angered and protested the new Fugitive Slave Law, but the time the compromise gave to the North was desperately needed and enabled them to win the Civil War later on. The new Fugitive Slave Law also opened the northerners’ eyes upon the slavery issue and promoted more abolitionists to be created and fight for their cause. The Kansas-Nebraska Act sliced the Nebraska Territory, which lay over the 36°30’ line, into two States each subject to popular sovereignty. The bill was proposed by Douglass in order to gain support from the South, which he did, and president Pierce, who was under the thumb other southern influence, signed it. The compromise aggravated the slavery issue, because it angered northerners against the south and it went against the Missouri Compromise, which had kept the slavery issue in balance and under control.

Field Trip

I have a question about the field trip...on the sheet that explained what we were doing it said that the trip is on the 6th, but on the other one where the signatures are it says its on the 11th. So which date is it?

political party of John Tyler

What politcal party should we associate with Tyler? because he ran for presidency with the Whigs, yet his philosophy was more that of the Democrats Even further, the Democrats kinda left Tyler on a limb and didnt associate themselves with him.

Territorial Acquisitions

From the period of 1791-1819, nine frontier states had joined the original thirteen, which was stimulated by immigrants, acute economic distress, and Indian crushing. Although these new territories gained much economic and territorial advantages, new sectional tensions were involved between the South and the North over control of the West. This fertile and well-watered area contained sufficient population to warrant statehood, yet the South seemed persistently arrogant about inheriting the Western soil. The future of Southern slave system caused southerners profound concern. Missouri was the first state entirely west of the Mississippi River to be carved out of the Louisiana Purchase, and the Missouri emancipation amendment might set a damaging precedent for all the rest of the area. Small groups of antislavery agitators in the North seized this occasion to raise outcries against evils of slavery. They were determined that the plague of human bondage should not spread further into the virgin territories. Despite the outgrowth of the South to become entirely dependent on slavery, pacification of the frontier opened up vast virgin tracts of land. The building of highways improved the land routes to the Ohio Valley, stemming from the early colonial dated idea of "Ohio fever". The West demanded everything generally cheaper, for examples: cheap acreage, transportation, and money. Although westward expansion created more fertile land and a forced sectional unity, many interests were stirred upon problems regarding slavery between abolitionists in the North and the South.

Acquisition of new territories

The acquisition of new territories helped the country by making it larger, and pushing out European claims to the lands, and it hurt the country by causing many issues with slavery. When America acquired Florida and was able to use Oregon it grew as a country because people settled in the areas and the economy went up. As more of the land became American less became European, which made America stronger and less vulnerable. More immigrants came when America acquired new land and also advances in transportation were made like the railroads and the steamboats. The country became more diversified and was forced to be exposed to different cultures. Yet, when new lands were added, the debate of whether they would be free or slave came up. With the Louisiana Purchase and the request from Texas to be annexed, the South fought for slavery while many Northerners fought against it. The country became even more greatly divided by North and South on the slavery issue and that is how the country as a whole was weakened.

Acquisition of Territory: Help/Hurt

Acquisition of territory had both helped and hurt America because it had improved the economy and international standing, whereas it had also caused internal conflict and disunity. The expansion westward had improved the American economy. With the new supply of land in order to satiate the need for more crop producting territories, America was able to gain a new supply of agriculture and some cahs crops such as tobacco. The expansion of territory also allowed for the production of many raw goods which helped to support the New England manufacturing industries. Development also improved international standing. The United States' sharing of Oregon with Britain supported American equal standing. The control of
Texas also improved the international standing because the United States was now seen as more powerful than the lesser Mexico. The main thing that hurt America during expansion was
increased disunity. The issue of slavery had caused Americans to divide. In the Missouri Compromise, it was loosely defined what would happen with the western states, thus causing conflict between the newly founded
territories. Also, Texas was not allowed into the Union because it supported slavery. Overall, expansion was good because it improved the economy, but it hurt America by causing disunity.

Territory

The acquisition of territory in the United States helped America by enabling it to produce more raw goods, and it hurt America by causing sectional tension in regards to many issues, such as slavery. The Missouri Compromise - which added Missouri to the union as a slave state and stated that all other states added to the union were to be free - lasted for 15 years before creating major sectional issues. The west, which was economically tied to the the north, agreed with the anti-slavery cause for the most part. This contributed greatly to the eventual dissolve of the union. By acquiring the western half of the United States, the north and west were economically united. Via transportation, the west was able to produce raw goods and send them to the North, where goods were manufactured into the finished product. The acquisition of territory in the United States helped America by enabling it to produce more raw goods, and it hurt America by causing sectional tension in regards to many issues, such as slavery.

Territorial Acquisitions

Although new territorial acquisitions helped the United States by boosting its economy, yet it also harmed the US by causing tensions within the nation. The acquisition of new land, although it was supported by mostly all Americans led to major domestic conflicts. The bgest among these conflicts was the issue of slavery. With westward expansion the nother and the south became severely sectionalized especialy on this issue because the debate about whether these new western lands, which would eventually become states, should allow slavery or be slave free. This argument, although reached a tempory fix with the Missouri compromise in 1820, was heated and aided the north south division.Although westward expansion boosted the northern economy, it lagged the southern econnomy and caused even more divisions by doing this. The north came to depend largely on the west for raw materials to use in textiles, while hte west benefitted with the manufacturing of the industrious north. This caused less dependence of the north on the south which caused the southern economy to lag behind the northern and western economy. This was also furthered by the transportation revolution which was a lot of railroads being built to connect the north and the west which allowed for better trading. This caused the south to have even futher conflicts with the north because of these new lands to the west. The westward expansion also caused a rip in the national identity by allowing for an influx of immigrants. Although these immigrants helped the economy by bein low wage workers in the factories in the industrious north, thy cause more internal conflicts because of racism and conflicting cultures, especially religion.

Territorial Acquisitions

During the still premature ages of the United States, territorial acquisitions would mainly help the progression of the country through economic development and political compromises, whereas little of the growth hindered the republic, the only major case being the foreign political tension. In 1820, the North and South collided with the slave debate after Missouri lit the fuse with its proposal for statehood. While many would argue that this deterred the progression of the republic because it created more political tension between the North and the South, this is only half of the argument. It is more accurate to say that the Missouri Compromise following this explosion of the slave question helped to ease political tension by creating a compromise that both parties were somewhat satisfied with. From this perspective, it is evident that the Missouri Compromise helped the United States in its progression. Furthermore, the economic growth during this time period was largely because of the general growth of the country. As more land became part of the country, more immigrants came flocking to the United States to collect the oppurtunities promised to them back in their homeland. This influx in immigrants not only increased the agricultural economy of the West, but also brought forth a working class that could support the growing manufacturing demands of New England. In combination with the new transportation systems developed to allow foreigners westward, the economy of the United States experienced an entirely new economy. This entire growth was because of the growing movement for Manifest destiny and the desire to move westward.

Territorial Acquisitions

The territorial acquisitions of Americans intensified the debate over slavery within the union, helped refine and strengthen democratic idealism, and helped boost the economy. Sectional balance between slave and non slave states had always presided, however with Missouri's request to enter the union as a slave state and Texas's request to enter the union period had rattled the balance. In response to Missouri's request, congress somewhat unfairly passed the Tallmadge amendment. It provided that no more slaves be brought into the state and that children born of slave families already there be emancipated. Southerners saw the Tallmadge amendment, which they eventually managed to defeat, as a threat to the sectional balance that had loomed for so many years. nonetheless, a compromise was reached. Main was admitted as a separate state from Massachusetts and everything above the 36-30 line was non slave holding, and everything below it was. The balance between North and South was thus kept at 12 states each and remained so for fifteen years. "The Missouri compromise only the ducked the question- it did not resolve it." When Texas requested admittance into the union, the north and Jackson hesitated. Many Texans were slaveholders, and admitting Texas to the union inescapably meant the enlargement of slavery.
Although politically speaking the United States were struggling to hold together, expansion not only meant increased tension, but also an increase in immigration as well as economy. As cheaper land continuously became available, immigrants flooded into the country and with them brought diversity and work. Such an array of opinion meant the refinement of democracy, as generally all people wanted the same basic freedoms. Their work could and would replace the necessity of slavery and fill in the gaps in factories and other places where work was needed. expansion also meant prosperous land from which americans would reap the benefits in agriculture and trade. Although pioneers had exhausted the land they passed over, advancements over time and all acquired outweighed the negative. Overall, tensions did negatively affect the union in that it would eventually lead to the secession of the south but it helped develop a strong democracy that would last for many years passed.

To what extent did the territories both help and hurt the United States?

The acquisition of new territories helped the United States through increased economic expansion but hurt the country by dividing it. Increased trade between the east and west occurred as a result of the expansion, and to facilitate this trade new modes of transportation were introduced. Along with this, struggling immigrants came to the United States in hopes of receiving a share of the new land. These immigrants couldn't achieve their dream instantly and often took jobs in factories for low wages, thus benefiting the economy. Despite this economic success, expansion arose issues of slavery and how much power the federal government could hold and caused a divide within the nation. Southern states did not believe in the federal government intervening in state affairs and sought for slavery in the western territories. Both of these issues were only dealt with sparingly and most times left the country more divided. Despite the economic wealth western expansion brought the country, it created a divide that would ultimately lead to the Civil War.

Territorial Acquisition

The acquisition of new territories for the United States was beneficial due to the positive economic consequences it brought, yet left a negative impact through political tension between the North and the South. Economic growth was largely a result of immigrants who mostly came from Europe seeking new land bought after the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, freedom, and opportunity. From the inspiration of former immigrants mailing promising letters home, foreigners began to work in such places as mills in order to raise enough money to fulfill the desire to expand; this in turn increased productivity and prosperity within the U.S. economy, which was a beneficial consequence brought on by the acquisition of territory. However, political tension resulted from expansion as well, mostly from the growing internal conflicts of slavery and the division of the North and the South. Sectional tensions were revealed in 1819 and 1820 during the dispute of the Missouri Compromise, where Missouri was admitted as a slave state as a trial to maintain sectional balance. After this, uneasiness between both sections grew both politically and socially, affecting presidential elections and raising tension until the disbandment of the Union and the beginning of the Civil War. Overall, the acquisition of new territories for the United States both helped and hurt the nation, through the mix of economic prosperity and the bitterness resulting from the tension brought by slavery between the North and the South.

Acquisition of New Territories: Help/ Hurt U.S. ?

The acquisition of new territories helped the United States more then it hurt them because it increased immigration and economy of the United States while it only hurt them in creating division in the country over the issue of slavery. When the settlers moved westward, as stated by the Land Act of 1820, they were allowed to purchase virgin land which would then be used for farming which would lead to an increase in the economy. The West was also a land of opportunity for many Europeans immigrants who wanted to gain land and to live prosperously. The acquisition of new territories such as Texas stimulated immigration in the West. The original families in Texas, for example, were Scots-Irish and more German and French immigrants settled there afterwards. The only way it hurt the United States was that it created division between the North and the South and whether or not the acquired territory would be a free or a slave state. The Missouri Compromise of 1821 said that the newly annexed Missouri would be a slave state but all land above the 30’36’ line would be free. This was enacted in order to provide a sectional balance between free and slave states. This would create bigger problems in the future but for then, new states were very helpful to the Unites States.

Territorial acquisitions

The acquisition of the new territories both helped America by boosting the economy, but impeded it by causing further political tension. The addition of the western land gave farmers the ability to construct and reinforce an agricultural economy. Consequently the expanding economy brought many more immigrants to the nation, further empowering industry and economy. It stimulated exports as flourishing transportation systems allowed goods from the west to be transported to the northeast and then exported. But conflict inevitably arose as the new land had to be divided into states, and the issue of slavery was put on the table. This was only temporarily soothed by the Missouri Compromise that divided the nation at the 36-30 line in which the northern nation would abolish slavery, and southern states would retain it. This simply caused more tension in the end on account of the country being further divided causing more debate and conflict and eventually leading to the civil War.

territorial acquisitions

The acquisition of vast new territories in the United States both helped and hurt the growing nation. However, in regards to the Missouri Compromise, the acquisition of Florida, and the fight over the admittance of Texas as a U.S. state, the nation was hurt through strained domestic tensions between the North and the South. The Missouri Compromise sought to keep the balance between North and South by allowing Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state while no slaves (except in Missouri) were allowed past the line of 36 30'. This "compromise" did little to ease the North-South conflicts; they both yielded and gained something, but the slavery issue was not resolved and tensions remained. The Florida Purchase Treaty of 1819, in which Spain ceded Florida to the U.S. in exchange for America's abandonment of claims in Texas, also underlined political seperations. Previously, the bands of indians, runaway slaves, and white outcasts that had fled from Florida into American territory while Spain was fighting South American rebels had created social rifts. Texan independance and admittance into the United States, which resulted from Texas-Mexican battles in the 1830s, eventually led to an increase in North-South conflicts. The Northerners opposed annexation of Texas because they viewed it as a conspiracy to bring new slave areas into the Union whereas the Southerners were anxious to integrate with Texas and accept the vast new amounts of land it held. These many conflicting factors between the North and the South at this time period were largely due to acquisition of new states and westward expansion. Becuase the North and South states could not agree upon the balance between slave and free states, the topic was left unsolved and neither side was staisfied--which boosted tensions even more. All of these conflicts and regional tensions continued to grow until an outlet was found in the civil War.