Sewell, Hannah: To what extent was the formation of the confederacy they
main reas...
sent on 30 May 2024 13:34
To what extent was the formation of the confederacy they
main reason for the outbreak of hostilities? Without the fall
of Atlanta, the north could have lost the war. To what ex-
tent was the 13 amendment due to Abraham Lincoln? To
what extent was Henry clay responsible for the 1850 com-
promise? How serious was the threat posed by Lincoln’s in-
ternal opposition? Southern politicians were responsible for
the outbreak of war 61. To what extent was the formation of
the confederacy they main reason for the outbreak of hostil-
ities?
‘By 1850, the Missouri Compromise was ineffective in sup-
pressing tensions between the North and South.’
Yeah pretty much
Point 1: Geographical factors
-Initially set up to settle the issue of a balance of congressional power between
free and slave states, 11 Free and 11 Slave
-One could argue it was still largely successful in supporting this purpose (by
1848):
-Slave states admitted afterwards: Arkansas, Texas and Florida
-Free states: Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin
-However, It has failed since the Texas issue in 1836-45. The fears that its ad-
mission would mean 5 new slave states which caused two presidents to indefi-
nitely delay the issue due to Northern pressure shows that the settlement is no
longer satisfactory.
-Although one could also argue that Texas being admitted as a single state still
showed that the compromise’ solution was sufficient
-However The issue of the Mexican War territories failed to be compromised
upon, the line was never extended to the Pacific thus leaving the new territo-
ries prone to significant tension.
-It moreover became an issue since existing territories South of the line were
all deemed unsuitable for slavery other than California, which has applied to be
a free state by 1849-50. This coupled with the Southern mindset that slavery’s
expansion was necessary for its survival led to the realisation of Henry Clay’s
idea in the 1844 Raleigh letter that Slavery’s expansion would lead to an ‘insa-
tiable and unquenchable thirst for foreign conquest’, propelling the South to
consider Central American expansion to match the North’s Louisiana territories
which would cause more tensions.
Point 2: Constitutional debates
-The Missouri compromise was a temporary solution that did not provide an an-
swer to the question regarding the fundamental constitutional position of slav-
ery in Territories.
-Thus this failed to prevent tensions arising from fundamentally different inter-
pretations of the constitution.
,-Calhoun Doctrine 1847, Limitations of slavery in territories unconstitutional
-Cass Doctrine or popular sovereignty, people in territories should decide
-Wilmot Proviso, banning of slavery in territories based on 1787 Northwest Or-
dinance was well as on Mexican law
-All could advance some historical or constitutional justifications for such posi-
tions, and all were bitterly opposed to one another. The Congressional deadlock
of 1849 where a speaker failed to be elected for a few months demonstrated
this tension.
-Could argue that the compromise did technically provide an answer to the
constitutional question. By banning slavery in a section of the country, the
compromise implies that congress had the power to limit slavery where it is.
-Moreover the 1848 Election results were not divided sectionally despite Cass
having a clear doctrine of popular sovereignty. Which demonstrates that the
constitutional issue was not as powerful yet.
-However, it is evident that the Constitutional issue is causing significant divi-
sion. Free Soil party-only party which took a strong stance on banning slavery
in territories, did only receive sectional Northern votes. Democrats split be-
tween Barnburners+Hunkers
-Missouri Compromise no longer seen as a solution, twice proposed extension
to pacific, twice voted down.
Point 3: Changing attitudes on slavery
-In 1820 slavery was not attacked strongly as most Northern states perceived it
as gradually dying due to the compromise, and little Moral argument made
against it
-1830s However saw the rise of Abolitionist movements. William Lloyd Garrison
1831, Wendell Phillips ‘No Union with Slaveholders’ 1845. Hardened positions
against slavery, not just wishing to maintain political balance, but also want to
limit its spread or even attack it in existing slave states. This made the Missouri
Compromise insufficient.
-Could disagree as Abolitionist sentiments are only marginal, a very small
Northern minority which is despised. William Lloyd Garrison almost Lynched in
1835. Pennsylvania Hall, gathering place of Abolitionists, destroyed in 1838.
-However this does not mean that the failure of the compromise to supposedly
stop the spread of slavery didn’t generate further antagonism with the North,
especially seen in the Free Soil Movement and Wilmot proviso. It was the fur-
ther ability for slavery to expand which destroyed the perceived capability of
the Missouri compromise to stop slavery’s expansion which made it fail.
1845-50
‘For the South, westward expansion was more of a threat
than an opportunity before 1850.’
Assess the validity of this view.
True
Point 1: Much more northern territory fit for statehood
-1820 Missouri compromise, all territory above 36/30 parallel was banned from
becoming slave states.
,-Much more territory up for grab up north from the Louisiana purchase, any-
thing beyond Texas was also unfit for slavery(deserts)
-Could argue Texas presented significant opportunities, enough territories for 5
slave states
-However, the Wilmot proviso still banned slavery from all other territory
gained from the Mexican war. This included California which gained 100,000
settlers during the 1848-49 gold rush and was on its course to become a politi-
cally significant free state.
-Texas admitted as a single state, sparse population as of 1850 thus unable to
tilt electoral or congressional favour towards the South.
Point 2: Agitated significant Northern Backlash and thus strengthened antislav-
ery opinions
-The Wilmot Proviso was passed overwhelmingly through Northern support,
which Southerners such as James Hammond claimed will yield ten new free
states.
-1848 Election, Free Soil party gained 10% of the popular vote on a platform of
containing slavery, showing the fear of slavery expansion agitated significant
Northern response.
-Could say sectional tension not significant. Zachary Taylor, a Louisiana slave-
owner still won a balanced portfolio of 8 slave and 7 free states, meaning poli-
tics not completely sectionalised.
-However, sectional political tension very much present. The 1848 Congres-
sional meeting saw Northerners reaffirming the Wilmot proviso and by 1849
fistfights between congressmen were commonplace.
Point 3: could say there was presidential support for the South.
-Van Buren, Polk and Zachary Taylor were all slaveowners.
-Polk specifically ran on a platform of annexation of Texas and Oregon. While
he delivered fully on Texas, his partial annexation of Oregon demonstrated a
bias towards Southern political interests
-However Polk’s favouritism was not the norm. Previous presidents Jackson and
Van Buren deliberately delayed Texas’ annexation due to concerns over sec-
tional tensions, and while Taylor was a slaveowner he was strongly influenced
by radical New York senator William Seward and also promoted a prompt ad-
mission of California and New Mexico as free states. Therefore, presidential
support was more oftentimes unfavourable for the South.
Slavery was the most important reason for sectional tension
c.1845, assess validity of this view
True
Point 1: Longstanding issue
-Disputes over the balance of slave and free states after Missouri’s admission
in 1919 as a slave state generated furious debates along sectional lines
-In 1845 Texas’ admission and the subsequent Mexican war made many North-
erners frame the events as a ‘Southern war of aggression’
-All the issues above were results of disputes over the political balance of slave
and free states, where both sides seeked to prevent the other’s political superi-
ority and thus expansion of free/slave ideals.
, -Could say compromises somewhat mitigated tension. The Missouri compro-
mise of 1820 defined all territories above the 36’30’’ line as free, and Presi-
dents Jackson and Van Buren refused to admit Texas from 1836 to 44 due to
fears of sectional tensions.
-However, such compromises only delayed tensions over slavery without re-
solving them. The renewed disputes over Texas and Mexico in 1845 demon-
strates that the balance of power issue was not resolved either through the
Missouri compromise or delaying the Texan issue.
Point 2: Could say its not disputes over slavery, but disputes over the constitu-
tion
-Over the 5th Amendment: Rights to private property shall not be infringed
upon, slaves were property, therefore slaveowners should be able to bring
slaves to all states and territories-not just slave ones
-Over states’ rights: over the right of a state to determine its own status of
slave vs free state.
-However: constitutional disagreements were more of a means towards pro-
tecting slavery than an end in itself. The citation of the fifth amendment was
done only with a goal of protecting the property of slaves, and as shown by the
1850 Fugitive Slave Act which violated Northern states’ ability to define slavery
as illegal ad thus fugitive slaves as free, the Southern constitutional argument
has through the decades been employed in a way beneficial to the cause of
slavery. Therefore slavery was more significant.(Needs more detail)
Point 3: Economic argument
-Could say slavery disputes was fundamentally economic.
-Invention of cotton gin in 1793 allowed the South to rely on cotton as a main
cash crop export. As a result the South was producing 2 million bales of cotton
per year by the 1830s. ‘King Cotton’ made up at least half of the Nation’s to-
tal exports by mid century.
-The Nullification crisis for example emerged from a Southern grievance
against high tariffs which particularly harms their export led economy, of which
slavery was simply the institution which supported it and thus had to be pro-
tected for the South’s economic welfare.
-However, slavery itself trumps economic factors due to its social elements.
Over 75% of Southern whites did not own slaves even in 1860 and thus were
not affected by economic incentives of slavery. However even they had a
vested interest in protecting the institution since it enforces a form of social
control, keeping blacks at the bottom of the social hierarchy and prevents the
feared scenes of free blacks in Haiti from occurring in America. Slavery thus
had a universal appeal in the South that transcended economic interests and
thus was more important as a factor.
How significant were the differences between the Northern
and Southern states c1845?
Not significant
Point 1: Economic:
-Northern economy increasingly industrialising, produced 90% of the country’s
manufactured goods by mid century.
main reas...
sent on 30 May 2024 13:34
To what extent was the formation of the confederacy they
main reason for the outbreak of hostilities? Without the fall
of Atlanta, the north could have lost the war. To what ex-
tent was the 13 amendment due to Abraham Lincoln? To
what extent was Henry clay responsible for the 1850 com-
promise? How serious was the threat posed by Lincoln’s in-
ternal opposition? Southern politicians were responsible for
the outbreak of war 61. To what extent was the formation of
the confederacy they main reason for the outbreak of hostil-
ities?
‘By 1850, the Missouri Compromise was ineffective in sup-
pressing tensions between the North and South.’
Yeah pretty much
Point 1: Geographical factors
-Initially set up to settle the issue of a balance of congressional power between
free and slave states, 11 Free and 11 Slave
-One could argue it was still largely successful in supporting this purpose (by
1848):
-Slave states admitted afterwards: Arkansas, Texas and Florida
-Free states: Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin
-However, It has failed since the Texas issue in 1836-45. The fears that its ad-
mission would mean 5 new slave states which caused two presidents to indefi-
nitely delay the issue due to Northern pressure shows that the settlement is no
longer satisfactory.
-Although one could also argue that Texas being admitted as a single state still
showed that the compromise’ solution was sufficient
-However The issue of the Mexican War territories failed to be compromised
upon, the line was never extended to the Pacific thus leaving the new territo-
ries prone to significant tension.
-It moreover became an issue since existing territories South of the line were
all deemed unsuitable for slavery other than California, which has applied to be
a free state by 1849-50. This coupled with the Southern mindset that slavery’s
expansion was necessary for its survival led to the realisation of Henry Clay’s
idea in the 1844 Raleigh letter that Slavery’s expansion would lead to an ‘insa-
tiable and unquenchable thirst for foreign conquest’, propelling the South to
consider Central American expansion to match the North’s Louisiana territories
which would cause more tensions.
Point 2: Constitutional debates
-The Missouri compromise was a temporary solution that did not provide an an-
swer to the question regarding the fundamental constitutional position of slav-
ery in Territories.
-Thus this failed to prevent tensions arising from fundamentally different inter-
pretations of the constitution.
,-Calhoun Doctrine 1847, Limitations of slavery in territories unconstitutional
-Cass Doctrine or popular sovereignty, people in territories should decide
-Wilmot Proviso, banning of slavery in territories based on 1787 Northwest Or-
dinance was well as on Mexican law
-All could advance some historical or constitutional justifications for such posi-
tions, and all were bitterly opposed to one another. The Congressional deadlock
of 1849 where a speaker failed to be elected for a few months demonstrated
this tension.
-Could argue that the compromise did technically provide an answer to the
constitutional question. By banning slavery in a section of the country, the
compromise implies that congress had the power to limit slavery where it is.
-Moreover the 1848 Election results were not divided sectionally despite Cass
having a clear doctrine of popular sovereignty. Which demonstrates that the
constitutional issue was not as powerful yet.
-However, it is evident that the Constitutional issue is causing significant divi-
sion. Free Soil party-only party which took a strong stance on banning slavery
in territories, did only receive sectional Northern votes. Democrats split be-
tween Barnburners+Hunkers
-Missouri Compromise no longer seen as a solution, twice proposed extension
to pacific, twice voted down.
Point 3: Changing attitudes on slavery
-In 1820 slavery was not attacked strongly as most Northern states perceived it
as gradually dying due to the compromise, and little Moral argument made
against it
-1830s However saw the rise of Abolitionist movements. William Lloyd Garrison
1831, Wendell Phillips ‘No Union with Slaveholders’ 1845. Hardened positions
against slavery, not just wishing to maintain political balance, but also want to
limit its spread or even attack it in existing slave states. This made the Missouri
Compromise insufficient.
-Could disagree as Abolitionist sentiments are only marginal, a very small
Northern minority which is despised. William Lloyd Garrison almost Lynched in
1835. Pennsylvania Hall, gathering place of Abolitionists, destroyed in 1838.
-However this does not mean that the failure of the compromise to supposedly
stop the spread of slavery didn’t generate further antagonism with the North,
especially seen in the Free Soil Movement and Wilmot proviso. It was the fur-
ther ability for slavery to expand which destroyed the perceived capability of
the Missouri compromise to stop slavery’s expansion which made it fail.
1845-50
‘For the South, westward expansion was more of a threat
than an opportunity before 1850.’
Assess the validity of this view.
True
Point 1: Much more northern territory fit for statehood
-1820 Missouri compromise, all territory above 36/30 parallel was banned from
becoming slave states.
,-Much more territory up for grab up north from the Louisiana purchase, any-
thing beyond Texas was also unfit for slavery(deserts)
-Could argue Texas presented significant opportunities, enough territories for 5
slave states
-However, the Wilmot proviso still banned slavery from all other territory
gained from the Mexican war. This included California which gained 100,000
settlers during the 1848-49 gold rush and was on its course to become a politi-
cally significant free state.
-Texas admitted as a single state, sparse population as of 1850 thus unable to
tilt electoral or congressional favour towards the South.
Point 2: Agitated significant Northern Backlash and thus strengthened antislav-
ery opinions
-The Wilmot Proviso was passed overwhelmingly through Northern support,
which Southerners such as James Hammond claimed will yield ten new free
states.
-1848 Election, Free Soil party gained 10% of the popular vote on a platform of
containing slavery, showing the fear of slavery expansion agitated significant
Northern response.
-Could say sectional tension not significant. Zachary Taylor, a Louisiana slave-
owner still won a balanced portfolio of 8 slave and 7 free states, meaning poli-
tics not completely sectionalised.
-However, sectional political tension very much present. The 1848 Congres-
sional meeting saw Northerners reaffirming the Wilmot proviso and by 1849
fistfights between congressmen were commonplace.
Point 3: could say there was presidential support for the South.
-Van Buren, Polk and Zachary Taylor were all slaveowners.
-Polk specifically ran on a platform of annexation of Texas and Oregon. While
he delivered fully on Texas, his partial annexation of Oregon demonstrated a
bias towards Southern political interests
-However Polk’s favouritism was not the norm. Previous presidents Jackson and
Van Buren deliberately delayed Texas’ annexation due to concerns over sec-
tional tensions, and while Taylor was a slaveowner he was strongly influenced
by radical New York senator William Seward and also promoted a prompt ad-
mission of California and New Mexico as free states. Therefore, presidential
support was more oftentimes unfavourable for the South.
Slavery was the most important reason for sectional tension
c.1845, assess validity of this view
True
Point 1: Longstanding issue
-Disputes over the balance of slave and free states after Missouri’s admission
in 1919 as a slave state generated furious debates along sectional lines
-In 1845 Texas’ admission and the subsequent Mexican war made many North-
erners frame the events as a ‘Southern war of aggression’
-All the issues above were results of disputes over the political balance of slave
and free states, where both sides seeked to prevent the other’s political superi-
ority and thus expansion of free/slave ideals.
, -Could say compromises somewhat mitigated tension. The Missouri compro-
mise of 1820 defined all territories above the 36’30’’ line as free, and Presi-
dents Jackson and Van Buren refused to admit Texas from 1836 to 44 due to
fears of sectional tensions.
-However, such compromises only delayed tensions over slavery without re-
solving them. The renewed disputes over Texas and Mexico in 1845 demon-
strates that the balance of power issue was not resolved either through the
Missouri compromise or delaying the Texan issue.
Point 2: Could say its not disputes over slavery, but disputes over the constitu-
tion
-Over the 5th Amendment: Rights to private property shall not be infringed
upon, slaves were property, therefore slaveowners should be able to bring
slaves to all states and territories-not just slave ones
-Over states’ rights: over the right of a state to determine its own status of
slave vs free state.
-However: constitutional disagreements were more of a means towards pro-
tecting slavery than an end in itself. The citation of the fifth amendment was
done only with a goal of protecting the property of slaves, and as shown by the
1850 Fugitive Slave Act which violated Northern states’ ability to define slavery
as illegal ad thus fugitive slaves as free, the Southern constitutional argument
has through the decades been employed in a way beneficial to the cause of
slavery. Therefore slavery was more significant.(Needs more detail)
Point 3: Economic argument
-Could say slavery disputes was fundamentally economic.
-Invention of cotton gin in 1793 allowed the South to rely on cotton as a main
cash crop export. As a result the South was producing 2 million bales of cotton
per year by the 1830s. ‘King Cotton’ made up at least half of the Nation’s to-
tal exports by mid century.
-The Nullification crisis for example emerged from a Southern grievance
against high tariffs which particularly harms their export led economy, of which
slavery was simply the institution which supported it and thus had to be pro-
tected for the South’s economic welfare.
-However, slavery itself trumps economic factors due to its social elements.
Over 75% of Southern whites did not own slaves even in 1860 and thus were
not affected by economic incentives of slavery. However even they had a
vested interest in protecting the institution since it enforces a form of social
control, keeping blacks at the bottom of the social hierarchy and prevents the
feared scenes of free blacks in Haiti from occurring in America. Slavery thus
had a universal appeal in the South that transcended economic interests and
thus was more important as a factor.
How significant were the differences between the Northern
and Southern states c1845?
Not significant
Point 1: Economic:
-Northern economy increasingly industrialising, produced 90% of the country’s
manufactured goods by mid century.
