Did the divergent political perspectives from the "North" and "South" lead to the American Civil War?

Name: Lucas BaronziniCandidate code: ddg648Session number: 002677-001School: 002677 Northlands School Nordelta

“Did the divergent political perspectives from the

“North” and “South” lead to the American Civil

War?”

1


Abstract

I am researching the question “Did the divergent political perspectives from the “North” and “South” lead to the American Civil War?”. The inquiry came up when I studied the USA during the 1920’s, many years after the Civil War, but I was interested on the previous history of the country, particularly on the mentioned War as it was a turning point in the country’s development.

For the investigation I used the analysis of several political events and how they influenced in the strengthening of the divergence in political perspectives during 1820 and 1861, which is the year when the war started. The Nullification Affair case in 1828, the Dred Scott case, the political effects of the Westward expansion, such as the Kansas-Nebraska act in 1853, the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and finally the election of 1861, enabled me to do a critical analysis of the events, which therefore brought about the conclusion.

The conclusion I’ve reached is that the divergent political perspectives form the North and the South did lead to the American civil war as they were incompatible. For every problem, debate, or case that was presented the results were that tension was always increasing between these sections, and therefore it was impossible to have two opposed political perspectives under a same president coexisting. Eventually, as time passed, it was more and more evident that one perspective was going to prevail over the other, and that was what finally happened during Lincoln’s election in 1860.

A further investigation that was not done could be the analysis of the social and the economic perspectives Northerners and Southerners had, and their contribution to the outbreak of the American Civil War.

2


Contents page:

Title Page 1

Abstract

2

Content’s Page

3

Introduction 4

Body 5-14

Conclusion 15

Bibliography and References 16-19

Appendices 20-21

3


Introduction

The American civil war fought between 1861-18651, was a turning point in the

US history. It was fought between southern states, which had Democratic policies and

Northern states, which were Republicans. The south seceded from the union in 1860-61,

stating that Lincoln’s election made it impossible for them to remain in a union

dominated by the Republican Party2.

Economic issues were central factors in the build up of tension to the U.S Civil

War. Southern states had an economy based on slaves that worked on plantations were

they grew especially cotton3. They relied on slave-work so they definitively needed to

keep the slaves because if not no one would do that hard job, and as a consequence the

south would become poor.

Northern states had a more commercial economy based on industry and

investments4. The fact that both economies were different led to disagreements between

both sectors. As the south grew the cotton but the north trade it5, there were accusations

of unfairness. We can clearly see that the tension caused by these economic struggles

were so great that they finally divided the nation in 1860-61.

Much has been said over the economic factors and economical issues of slavery

as the leading cause of the Civil War6. However, this essay will focus on the political

perspectives of the North and South, and it will try to find out if they should be

considered as relevant factors of the Civil War.

1 Hugh Brogan, The penguin history of the USA, (England: Penguin Group, 1999), page 3152The secession crisis, 1860-1861 http://dig.lib.niu.edu/civilwar/narrative1.html3 The Plantation in the South http://americanrevwar.homestead.com/files/civwar/plantation.html4Causes of the Civil War http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm5King Cotton in the Civil War http://www.civilwarhome.com/kingcotton.htm6 Political causes of the Civil War: why did the North and the South divided over State’s Rights, http://us-civil-war.suite101.com/article.cfm/political_causes_of_the_civil_war 18/03/10 14:17

4


Body

In the first place, the North and the South differed over the State’s Rights. From

the founding era, there was a fundamental disagreement over how much authority the

national government should have and how much sovereignty and independence the

individual states should retain7

The southern states believed that state’s rights were much more important than

having a strong federal government in Washington. They also believed that the central

government was not allowed to intervene in the state’s decisions. Each state was to

determine its own laws and customs, for example, each state was able to determine if

they were going to have or not slaves. Any attempt by the federal government to limit

slavery was seen as the central government attacking the state’s rights. Therefore each

state had to have control over its own affairs and they could even refuse to accept the

federal laws imposed by the central government in Washington, making it possible to

secede from the Union8.

The north did not agree with the southern point of view over state’s rights, as

they believed that there must be a strong central government in Washington where

decisions were taken and these decisions were to be obeyed. They believed that if the

government said that slavery had to be limited, the Union had to comply with the

orders. Therefore the difference over the importance and use of the state’s rights

between the north and south were a long term cause of the Civil War, as the USA had

two divergent political projects, the Free states, and the slave states. The lack of

compatibility between the state’s policies made impossible the correct development of

the union, and the result of this was clearly seen in 1861 with the Civil War.9

The Nullification Affair10 is a second issue in which the divergent political

perspectives from the North and South are expressed. In 1828 the congress imposed

7 Causes of the civil war http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm8 Hugh Brogan, The penguin history of the USA, (England: Penguin Group, 1999), page 3159States Rights, One of the causes of the Civil War http://www.civilwarhome.com/statesrights.htm10Causes of the Civil War – a Northern Perspective http://blueandgraytrail.com/features/northerncauses.html

5

http://americanfounding.blogspot.com/


heavy taxation on English imports11. The south was against the decision taken because

attacking English imports might provoke retaliation and import substitution. If this was

the case, the English may start buying cotton from other places. The southern wealth

depended on their ability to trade with Lancashire12; therefore this tariff could destroy

the south’s wealth. The southerners believed that it was a northern interference in their

affairs. John C. Calhoun stated that cotton was valued not just for the wealth it created,

but also because it provided work for the slaves13. The problem was that if slaves had no

work, they could organize themselves and the south might suffer a violent rebellion.

There was no place in society for the slaves, they were determined to work in

plantations and according to the southerners it was not gong to be possible to have both

races living together. Hence, the south had another political plan; the tariff was

denounced as a threat to slavery as well as southern prosperity14.

South Carolina interposed her state sovereignty to nullify the tariff15. In other

words, South Carolina was using her state’s rights to avoid the government’s decision.

This caused extreme anger within the central government so they turned violent as it

happens when there are this kind of disputes. President Jackson prepared an invasion of

South Carolina16. This is clear evidence where we can see that if there is no way around

divergent political perspectives, the use of violence and aggression is a solution to sort

out the differences.

Moreover, it was the first time that the US government planned to use military

force against a state, and for the next dispute events may start from a higher level of

violence. The possibility of using military force was now able to be used if necessary.

This event also was a cause of the Civil War as “the fragility of the American Union

had again been convincingly demonstrated17”.

11 1816-1860: The Second American Party System and the tariff http://www.taxanalysts.com/museum/1816-1860.htm12 Hugh Brogan, The penguin history of the USA, (England: Penguin Group, 1999), page 29513 Hugh Brogan, The penguin history of the USA, (England: Penguin Group, 1999), page 29514 Hugh Brogan, The penguin history of the USA, (England: Penguin Group, 1999), page 29515 1816-1860: The Second Party System and the Tariff http://www.taxanalysts.com/museum/1816-1860.htm16 United States History: Nullification Crisis http://countrystudies.us/united-states/history-50.htm17 Hugh Brogan, The penguin history of the USA, (England: Penguin Group, 1999), page 295

6


A third reason that evidences how the divergent political perspectives from the

north and south lead to the Civil War is their divergent position over slavery and the

legal methods to deal with it. While the North uses the law against slavery, the south did

it in favour of it.

The Dred Scott Case in 185718 is a case study to analyze the legal methods used.

Dred Scott was a slaver who had lived in a free state, and therefore had been a freedman

in the North. Before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, he had appealed to the

US Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom19. In 1857, the Chief of

Justice Roger Taney said that “[African Americans] had for more than a century before

been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the

white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no

rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and

lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an

ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it”20.

This is primary evidence that shows how, although having a Constitution that stated “all

men were created equal”, how the South used justice in favour of slavery.

The abolitionists were furious with the decision taken. Abraham Lincoln reacted

with disgust to the ruling and was spurred into political action, publicly speaking out

against it21. It was used as another argument against the south. Once again, we can see

how divergent political perspectives had an important role in leading to the Civil War

since their incompatibility made them impossible to coexist22, therefore sooner or later

one had to impose and prevail over the other one, and this is what happened in the

American Civil War.

18 The history place: Dred Scott decision http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/dred.htm19Dred Scott http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2932.html20Martin Magnusson, blog entry “No Rights Which the White Man was Bound to Respect”, The ACSblog, entry posted March 19, 2007 http://www.acslaw.org/node/1139121 The history place: Dred Scott decision http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/dred.htm22 Hugh Brogan, The penguin history of the USA, (England: Penguin Group, 1999), page 306

7


A second case study is the Amistad mutiny in 1839 which shows the increased

political tension over slavery. In 1839 a white men bought slaves, and needed someone

to take them by boat to Puerto Principe. Ramon Ferrer was the owner of a boat, called

Amistad, which was supposed to carry the slaves23. During the trip, Joseph Cinque, the

slave leader, killed Ramon Ferrer24. Joseph Cinque was then called to court in the USA.

The court took place in a Northern, non-slaving state, so the judge and jury were against

slavery. The result of this case was that, although slavery was legal in Cuba, the

importation of slaves from Africa was not, so the Africans were within their rights to

use violence to escape from captivity25.

Taking into account the first case study and the Amistad Mutiny case in 1839

we can conclude that it made the civil war more likely as it showed how controversial

the issue over slavery were, and how the legal system worked according to the situation

in court and not in an objective way. It also expresses a major disparity in the attitudes

between the North and South as the South saw the slaves as murderers, and in the north,

the slaves were not only protected by important whites, but also were taken back to

Africa. The confronting points of views are an obvious reason to explain why the Union

could not work together and needed a strike to place things back in order.

A further reason proving how divergent their political perspectives were is the

westward expansion of the USA. They expanded westward looking for new resources

and more space.

For the north the expansion meant fortune, wealth and development of

industries, while for the south meant more land to grow cotton26. However, this arose to

conflict since for every new state they had to decide if it was going to be free of slaves

or not.27 Northern political perspectives of the expansion were different from those of

the south, and as a result more aggressive policies were used. Instead of contributing to 23 Amistad Mutiny http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASamistad.htm24 Amistad Mutiny 1839 http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/amistad_mutiny.html25 Amistad Mutiny http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASamistad.htm26 Westward Expansion and Regional Differences http://www.america.gov/st/educ-english/2008/April/20080407113634eaifas0.4282495.html27 Westward Expansion http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/westward/index.cfm

8


the Union, they disrupted society strengthening their political views. Therefore we can

clearly see how the westward expansion was a cause of the Civil War in 1861.

This factor will be analyzed in case study #1, the Missouri compromise conflict

of 1819-2028. As the north western expansion had created new Free states the balance in

congress between the north and the south could have been affected, but the south also

created slave states to balance the situation29. This raised the tension between north and

south that eventually evolved into the Civil War.

The south proposed to admit the territory of Missouri as a slave state, but the

state was only going to be admitted if it promised to gradually free its slaves. This was

done to weaken the political ascendancy in the union which the south had enjoyed since

the independence30. The south was extremely annoyed with the resolution of the

problem. As a result the Missouri compromise was discussed and both north and south

drew a line on the US map31 to state what could be considered as free land and what

couldn’t. The Missouri compromise made the south have more dominance in congress.

Therefore the Missouri compromise was a cause of the civil war as it was a

compromise, which means that no one is satisfied with the results of it. The north still

wanted to reduce the southern dominance in congress and wanted to reduce the number

of slaves, while the south was getting more and more aggressive after each attempt of

limiting slavery. The compromise strengthened the political divergence between the

north and the south that led to the Civil War in 186132.

The second case study of the effects of the Westward expansion is the

Compromise of 1850, where the congressman Henry Clay created a five-point program

28 The Missouri Compromise: “A balance For Power” http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secessioncrisis/200303.html29 Hugh Brogan, The penguin history of the USA, (England: Penguin Group, 1999), page 29430 Hugh Brogan, The penguin history of the USA, (England: Penguin Group, 1999), page 294

31 (See Appendix) A http://www.proprofs.com/flashcards/upload/a4131869.jpg32 The Missouri Compromise http://history-world.org/missouri%20Compromise.htm

9


in which he stated that33: California was to be admitted as a free state, New Mexico and

Utah were able to decide by popular sovereignty if they wanted to be slave states or free

states, the frontier between Texas and other states was settled, and slave trade was

abolished in Washington. The fifth point of the compromise was a new, stricter fugitive

slave law to be introduced34. The last two points of the compromise were critical and

caused lots of arguments and disagreements, as not everyone was satisfied.

The fact that slave trade was abolished in Washington was seen by the

southerners as a direct action against slavery and set a precedent, while the fugitive

slave’s law was designed to allow southern slave owners to reclaim their runaway

slaves in the north35. This caused a storm of protest in the north, where not only

aggressive southern slave owners were coming into northern states to pursue their

slaves, but also northerners had to help to catch slaves36. This deepened the disputes

between the north and the south, therefore showing how the divergence in political

aspects did lead to the Civil War, as in the north no one could ignore the issue of slavery

anymore. In addition to this it was becoming impossible to unite the nation because the

new politicians had no support on the south nor in the north.

The third and last case study of the Westward expansion’s effects is the Kansas

Nebraska Act. Stephen Douglas wanted to unite the Democratic Party over a neutral

issue, that of the development of the west37. However he was opposed by his own

party38 as they refused to accept the Missouri compromise of 1820 because the south

wanted equal rights in the union. Basically the south believed that it was not fair that

slavery was automatically excluded from the new states that joined the USA. They

wanted to apply the popular sovereignty39.

33Our Documents – Compromise of 1850 http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=2734 Hugh Brogan, The penguin history of the USA, (England: Penguin Group, 1999), page 29935 Compromise of 1850 and Fugitive Slave Law, http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/ahlt_0001_0001_0/ahlt_0001_0001_0_00059.html36 Hugh Brogan, The penguin history of the USA, (England: Penguin Group, 1999), page 30037 Kansas-Nebraska Act http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASkansas.htm38 Hugh Brogan, The penguin history of the USA, (England: Penguin Group, 1999), page 30439 American Civil War Causes – Roots of the American Civil War http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/civilwar/a/CivilWarCauses.htm

10


In 1853 the Kansas Nebraska Bill was presented to congress. Douglas’s plan

made the south win, as popular sovereignty would be applied, and the north would win

also as the settlers in Kansas and Nebraska would vote for free states. Everyone would

win, but the answer from the congress was that it had too inevitable enemies for real

success to be possible40. The enemies were the abolitionists, as the Bill replaced and

removed the Missouri compromise and the south because the Bill did not explicitly

repeal the Missouri compromise41. Once Douglas explicitly repealed the Missouri

compromise in the Bill the Kansas Nebraska act was passed in May 185442.

Therefore this political debate was certainly a cause of the US Civil War as it

showed how weak the Union was. Every new state meant lots of legal and political

problems, as it was not possible to decide if the states had to be free from slaves or slave

states. It was not possible to make a law and generalize all the annexations because for

each case the north or the south were dissatisfied with the outcome, and turned more

aggressive because they felt threatened by the opponent. We can see how the union was

not in conditions to go on as the new leaders had no support in the north and south. The

incompatibility of the views between the north and the south were taken to such extent

that the civil war took place in 186143.

Assessing the conflicts generated by the westward expansion, it can be stated

that it was a major cause of the civil war in 1861 as it caused numerous problems in

USA. For each new annexed state, there were discussions over slavery issues. They

were not able to make a law that could generalize each annexation because neither the

north nor south was conform with the attempts. Instead of annexing territory for the

benefit of the whole union, the territories were annexed to defeat the opponent, and to

gain more support in congress. Each political and legal debate was getting more and

more aggressive, thus increasing the divergence of the political views to a point it was

impossible for them to coexist. Eventually one had to reign over the other, which later

on led to the American Civil War.

40 Hugh Brogan, The penguin history of the USA, (England: Penguin Group, 1999), page 30241 Hugh Brogan, The penguin history of the USA, (England: Penguin Group, 1999), page 30242 The History Place – Abraham Lincoln: Kansas Nebraska Act http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/kansas.htm43Our Documents – Kansas-Nebraska http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=28

11


The fifth reason that shows that divergent political perspectives from the north

and south lead to the civil war is the citizen’s rights as each section had different

political supporters. While in 1783 the USA achieved independence as a united nation,

by 1860 the union was at breaking point44. From the very beginning things were totally

different in the north and the south of USA. It is easy to see that the different points of

views over the state’s rights were the main conflict they had, as it is directly linked to

the possession of slaves45. The south enabled slave owning, which meant that they

developed a fictional strong economy based on slave work, which was only profitable

for some families, while the north developed much more uniformly and included the

vast majority of the society.

The clearest evidence is the Lincoln-Douglas debate. The differences in northern

and southern economies and societies are also reflected in the differences that appear in

the political aspects. The union was not able to work and prosper with to powerful

contradictory views46. This is the case of the Democratic Party and the Republican

Party. The Lincoln-Douglas debates are evidence of the impossibility of the union to

work as a whole. Lincoln conveyed the previous idea in his speech entitled “A House

Devided”, where “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I [Lincoln ] relieve this

government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.”47.

After the Kansas Nebraska disaster, both north and south realised that any

further compromise was impossible, so they became more intransigent. In 1858

elections took place and the debates on slavery between Lincoln and Douglas were

incessant.

Douglas believed that the declaration of independence did not apply to black

men48; slavery should be able to spread if people in a state wanted to. And as criticise to

44 University of Southern Indiana – Extended Services: Academic Serivces http://www.usi.edu/extserv/conferences/lincolncolloq.asp45 The Election of 1860 http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/The_Great_Republic_By_the_Master_Historians_Vol_III/election1_db.html46 Hugh Brogan, The penguin history of the USA, (England: Penguin Group, 1999), page 30647 Lincoln Home National Historic Site – “House Devided Speech”, extract from Lincoln’s speech, http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/housedivided.htm (for larger excerpt see Appendix B)48 History Founders: Abraham Lincoln at Indianapolis by Lewis E. Lehrman, http://www.lehrmaninstitute.org/history/essays13.html

12


Lincoln, he said that Lincoln was an abolitionist who would attack slavery in the south

as limiting its spread.

Lincoln’s said that as the Missouri compromise of 1820 was still in place,

slavery could remain in places where it was already set; but was not to be spread

through the north. For him Afro-Americans were human, and while they had right to

liberty, they were not equal to whites. Furthermore he believed that Kansas Nebraska

act was part of a conspiracy to spread slavery over the nation49.

The divergence on political perspectives is clear in this case, and obviously the

union had to adopt only one. Although Lincoln stated facts in his speeches rather than

attacking the south or defending the north, he lost the elections. However this was not a

total failure for him as it gave him national coverage and greatly helped him to become

a national politician50, which later allowed him to be the republican presidential

candidate in 1860.

The results of these elections is the sixth reason of how the political divergence

lead to Civil War in 1861 as some southern leaders swore that the south must secede

from a union dominated by anti slavery51. The south had lost ground to the north as once

a northern president was in the white house, more northerners would become supreme

court judges, so more anti slavery legislation would be passed, and even worse, non

slaveholding southern whites which were 80 percent of the total in the south might

actually listen to the republicans and rebel against the great power that the planters had

in the south52.

Therefore the Lincoln Douglas debates were a cause of the civil war as it made

the southerners rethink their views at last, and had the possibility to rebel against the

landowners. Also the south felt threatened by the north, as they were gaining more and

more participation in the congress, so eventually the southern politicians were going to

be outnumbered.

49 Civil War : Secession of the Southern states http://www.philwrites.com/H_seccession.htm50 The impending crisis- digital history http://www.philwrites.com/H_seccession.htm51 Hugh Brogan, The penguin history of the USA, (England: Penguin Group, 1999), page 30752 Hugh Brogan, The penguin history of the USA, (England: Penguin Group, 1999), page 308

13


The Lincoln’s election in 1860 is the detonator of the bomb. There was now a

national party in the USA. The republicans chose Abraham Lincoln to be their candidate

while the south didn’t agree over a candidate53. Lincoln won 39% of the popular vote,

but did not carry a single state in the south54, so the southern secession started. South

Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas seceded from

the union and became the confederated states of America which were announced to the

world in February 186155.

Southern secession was unexpected by the north so they didn’t know what to do.

The 4th march 1861 Lincoln became president and the 12 th April 1861 the confederacy

attacked Fort Summer. After the attack, the US Civil War started. Lincoln called for

troops on April 15th.

Therefore the Lincoln’s election shows how one political view finally had

predominance over the other, breaking the Union due to southern nationalism, which

caused the American Civil War. Lincoln’s election also made evident that the Union

could not continue working together as for example they could not agree on the

Democratic candidate for the election56. If they were not able to agree on something like

that, they would never recover from the social distortion and weakness they had.

53 Hugh Brogan, The penguin history of the USA, (England: Penguin Group, 1999), page 30954 Hugh Brogan, The penguin history of the USA, (England: Penguin Group, 1999), page 31155 The secession of The Southern States: http://www.civilwarhome.com/southernseccession.htm56 The secession of The Southern States: http://www.civilwarhome.com/southernseccession.htm

14


Conclusion

To conclude, the divergent political perspective from the north and south did

lead to the American Civil War in 1861. The first reason is the Nullification affair that

showed how fragile the Union was as states were able to avoid laws imposed by the

central government57, and it also had set a precedent, as it was the first time that the

central government used military force against a single state. A second reason that

shows the political divergence that caused the war is the legal issues over slavery, as the

north and south had differences in the legal methods used to deal with it. The Dred Scott

case study58 and the Amistad mutiny case study showed that laws were applied in

different ways to be able to take a better profit of the situation. They clearly expose the

divergent and incompatible political point of views that made evident that the north and

south could not work together.

The compromises and the Kansas and Nebraska act, all show the divergent

political perspectives which represented sever problems for both sides of the USA as

instead of trying to cope with each other and find a long term solution to the problems,

both northerners and southerners looked for short term solutions to long term problems.

Moreover it can be stated that the union of the states was fragile from the beginning due

to their opposing political plans. Therefore the divergent political perspective from the

north and south lead to misunderstandings and hostility between the two sections that

ended up on the Civil War in 1861.

Word count: 3763

57 The Nullification Crisis http://mgagnon.myweb.uga.edu/students/4070/04SP4070-Hickey.htm58 Dred Scott: Impact of Dred Scott http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/scott/impact.html

15


Bibliography and references:

Books:

1) Brogan, Hugh. The Penguin History of the US. England: Penguin Group, Second

edition,1991.

2) Gary W. Gallagher, Stephen D. Engle, Robert K. Krick, Joseph T. Glatthaar,

The American Civil War: This Mighty Scourge Of War. Great Britain: Osprey

Publishing, 2003

Internet:

1) 1816-1860: The Second American Party System and the tariff,

http://www.taxanalysts.com/museum/1816-1860.htm (accessed June 10, 2009)

2) American Civil War Causes – Roots of the American Civil War

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/civilwar/a/CivilWarCauses.htm (accessed

June 15, 2009)

3) Amistad Mutiny,

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASamistad.htm (accessed August 24,

2009)

4) Amistad Mutiny 1839,

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/amistad_mutiny.html (accessed June 6,

2009)

5) Causes of the Civil War – a Northern Perspective,

http://blueandgraytrail.com/features/northerncauses.html (accessed August 28,

2009)

6) Causes of the Civil War,

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm

16

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm

http://blueandgraytrail.com/features/northerncauses.html

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/amistad_mutiny.html

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASamistad.htm

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/civilwar/a/CivilWarCauses.htm

http://www.taxanalysts.com/museum/1816-1860.htm


(accessed October 17, 2009)

7) Civil War : Secession of the Southern states,

http://www.philwrites.com/H_seccession.htm (accessed August 21, 2009)

8) Compromise of 1850 and Fugitive Slave Law,

http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/ahlt_0001_0001_0/ahlt_0001_0001_0_0

0059.html (accessed June 6, 2009)

9) Dred Scott,

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2932.html (accessed March 15 , 2010)

10) Dred Scott: Impact of Dred Scott

http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/scott/impact.html (accessed March 15,

2010)

11) History Founders: Abraham Lincoln at Indianapolis by Lewis E. Lehrman,

http://www.lehrmaninstitute.org/history/essays13.html (accessed September 17,

2009)

12) Kansas-Nebraska Act,

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASkansas.htm (accessed June 27,

2009)

13) King Cotton in the Civil War,

http://www.civilwarhome.com/kingcotton.htm (accessed March 10, 2009)

14) Lincoln Home National Historic Site – “House Devided Speech”, extract from

Lincoln’s speech, http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/housedivided.html

(accessed April 25, 2010)

15) Martin Magnusson, blog entry “No Rights Which the White Man was Bound to

Respect”, The ACSblog, entry posted March 19, 2007,

17

http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/housedivided.html

http://www.civilwarhome.com/kingcotton.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASkansas.htm

http://www.lehrmaninstitute.org/history/essays13.html

http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/scott/impact.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2932.html

http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/ahlt_0001_0001_0/ahlt_0001_0001_0_00059.html

http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/ahlt_0001_0001_0/ahlt_0001_0001_0_00059.html

http://www.philwrites.com/H_seccession.htm


http://www.acslaw.org/node/11391 (accessed April 28, 2010)

16) Our Documents – Compromise of 1850,

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=27 (accessed May 29,

2010)

17) Our Documents – Kansas-Nebraska

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=28 (accessed June 10,

2010)

18) Political causes of the Civil War: why did the North and the South divided over

State’s Rights,

http://us-civil-war.suite101.com/article.cfm/political_causes_of_the_civil_war

(Accessed March 3, 2010)

19) States Rights, One of the causes of the Civil War,

http://www.civilwarhome.com/statesrights.htm (accessed June 13, 2010)

20) The Election of 1860

http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/The_Great_Republic_By_the_Ma

ster_Historians_Vol_III/election1_db.html (accessed May 9, 2010)

21) The History Place – Abraham Lincoln: Kansas Nebraska Act

http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/kansas.htm (accessed March 5 , 2010)

22) The history place: Dred Scott decision,

http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/dred.htm (accessed February 28, 2010)

23) The Missouri Compromise,

http://history-world.org/missouri%20Compromise.htm (accessed July 30, 2009)

24) The Missouri Compromise: “A balance For Power”,

http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secessioncrisis/200303.html (accessed August 4,

18

http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secessioncrisis/200303.html

http://history-world.org/missouri%20Compromise.htm

http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/dred.htm

http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/kansas.htm

http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/The_Great_Republic_By_the_Master_Historians_Vol_III/election1_db.html

http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/The_Great_Republic_By_the_Master_Historians_Vol_III/election1_db.html

http://www.civilwarhome.com/statesrights.htm

http://us-civil-war.suite101.com/article.cfm/political_causes_of_the_civil_war

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=28

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=27

http://www.acslaw.org/node/11391


2009)

25) The Nullification Crisis

http://mgagnon.myweb.uga.edu/students/4070/04SP4070-Hickey.htm (accessed

December 1, 2009)

26) The Plantation in the South,

http://americanrevwar.homestead.com/files/civwar/plantation.html (accessed

December 2, 2009)

27) The secession crisis, 1860-1861,

http://dig.lib.niu.edu/civilwar/narrative1.html (accessed October 12, 2009)

28) The secession of The Southern States:

http://www.civilwarhome.com/southernseccession.htm (accessed November 29,

2009)

29) United States History: Nullification Crisis,

http://countrystudies.us/united-states/history-50.html (accessed November 13,

2009)

30) University of Southern Indiana – Extended Services: Academic Serivces

http://www.usi.edu/extserv/conferences/lincolncolloq.asp (accessed November

14, 2009)

31) Westward Expansion ,

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/westward/index.cfm (accessed

October 28, 2009)

32) Westward Expansion and Regional Differences

http://www.america.gov/st/educ-english/2008/April/20080407113634eaifas0.42

82495.htm (accessed October 2, 2009)

19

http://www.america.gov/st/educ-english/2008/April/20080407113634eaifas0.4282495.htm

http://www.america.gov/st/educ-english/2008/April/20080407113634eaifas0.4282495.htm

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/westward/index.cfm

http://www.usi.edu/extserv/conferences/lincolncolloq.asp

http://countrystudies.us/united-states/history-50.html

http://www.civilwarhome.com/southernseccession.htm

http://dig.lib.niu.edu/civilwar/narrative1.html

http://americanrevwar.homestead.com/files/civwar/plantation.html

http://mgagnon.myweb.uga.edu/students/4070/04SP4070-Hickey.htm


Appendices

Appendix A: Missouri Compromise Line

http://www.proprofs.com/flashcards/upload/a4131869.jpg (Accessed May 20, 2010)

Appendix B:

“House Divided Speech” by Abraham Lincoln.

Illinois Republican State Convention, Springfield, Illinois June 16, 1858

“Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention. If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it.

We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation.

Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not ceased, but has constantly augmented.

In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed -

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.

20

http://www.proprofs.com/flashcards/upload/a4131869.jpg


I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing, or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new-North as well as South.”

http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/housedivided.htm (accessed January 10, 2010)

21

http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/housedivided.htm