Transcript The Civil War - Wappingers Central School

The Civil War
States Rights vs Federal Rights
• States Rights (South)
– Believes the federal gov’t
works for them
– Could declare laws null and
void
– Had the right to secede
• Federal Gov’t Rights (North)
– Federal gov’t has some power
over the states (delegated
and implied powers)
– Supreme Court was the only
body to decide if laws were
unconstitutional
– No state had the right to
secede.
Senator Daniel Webster (MA), “If
a state had the right to secede,
the union would be no more
than a rope of sand.”
Origins of States Rights
• The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions
– Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 >protect the US gov’t
from anarchy (French Revolution)…meant to keep
wealthy Federalists in power
– James Madison and Thomas Jefferson convinced
Virginia and Kentucky to pass resolutions saying: 1federal gov’t works for the states, 2- declare Alien and
Sedition Acts null and void
– Jefferson becomes President in 1800 > Alien and
Sedition Acts get repealed by a DemocraticRepublican Congress
– States Rights issue is not resolved
Tariff Issue
• 1828> protective tariffs
known as Tariff of
Abominations (believed
to benefit North)
– Protested by South
Carolina (Vice President
John C. Calhoun from
South Carolina
– 1832> South Carolina
passes Ordinance of
Nullification> Declares
tariff law null and void in
South Carolina
Tariff Issue
• President Andrew
Jackson pledges to use
military to enforce Tariff
law….”nullification was
incompatible with the
existence of the Union.”
• Both sides threatened
to stand strong
Tariff Issue
• Outcome:
– Congress passes Compromise Tariff of 1833
• Significant reduction in tariff
• South Carolina withdraws Ordinance but still proclaims
power to nullify federal laws
• Issue that is still unresolved…….State’s rights
– more power Federal vs. States
Sectionalism
• Antebellum South (phrase to describe
rebellious South) support state’s rights to
protect sectional interests
• North vs. South (West mixed)
• North believed what was good for one was
good for all
– Problem= North and South are different
(industry/agriculture)
Sectional Disputes
1.
2.
3.
Protective Tariff
- good for the North and bad for the South
- fear of retaliation against exportation of cotton
Internal Improvements
- good fro the North and West and bad for the South
- more Western products shipped to the North
- but everyone pays
Cheap land in the West > $1.25 an acre
- West> good because it would lead to expansion of the West
- North> bad because it would take away workers
- South> good & bad because it would lead agriculture (expansion of
slavery) but could lead to less representation in House
Sectional Disputes
4.
Expansion of Southwest
- West> good because it would open up more cheap land to
develop
- North> bad because it would open up land to the expansion
of slavery> more power in Congress for slavery supporters
- South> good because it would allow for expansion of slavery
and growth of “King Cotton”
5.
Expansion of Slavery
- North> against because of abolitionism
- South> in favor of because of more representation in
Congress = more power to fight tariffs and more opportunity to keep
slavery around
Politics Leading to War
• 1854
– The Whig Party splits over the
Kansas-Nebraska Act
• Northern Whigs vs. Southern
Whigs
– Democrats also split over K-N
Act
• Northern Democrats rebel
against party
– Many Northern Dems and
Northern Whigs form the
Republican Party > a sectional
party with no support from
South
• Whig Party disappears
• Republicans vs. Northern
Democrats vs. Southern
Democrats
Politics Leading to War
• 1856
– The Sumner-Brooks Affair
– Charles Sumner (D-MA) spoke out
against slavery and “The Crime
Against Kansas” in a speech in the
Senate
• Remarks against the South and
specifically Senator Butler (D-SC and
co-author of K-N Act)
– 3 days later Representative Preston
Brooks (D-SC and Butler’s nephew)
enters the Senate and beats
Sumner over the head with a cane
on the Senate floor
• Said he was “upholding Southern
honor”
- Sumner in a coma for 6 months and
out of the Senate for 2 years…MA
doesn’t replace him as symbol of a
Southern brutality
Politics Leading to War
• Abe Lincoln
– He was not abolitionist
although he hated
slavery
– He believed that a black
man could never live on
equal terms in a white
society
– Propsoed that a freed
slave be colonized in
South or Central America
Politics Leading to War
• Lincoln-Douglas Debates
– Ran against each other for
the US Senate in 1858 (and
again for President in
1860)
• Douglas a Democrat and
Lincoln a Republican
• “I believe this gov’t cannot
endure, permanently half
slave and half free. I do
not expect the Union to be
dissolved; I do not expect
the House to fall; But I do
expect that it will cease to
be divided. It will become
all on thing or all the
other.” – Abe Lincoln
Politics Leading to War
•
Lincoln and Douglas hold a series of debates
throughout Illinois
–
–
Lincoln makes it known that he hopes to
confine slavery to where it exists and let it die
a slow, natural death
In the debate in Freeport Lincoln corners
Douglas
•
•
•
•
He asked, “Can people of a US territory in any
lawful way exclude slavery from its limits prior
to the formation of a state?”
They cannot because of Supreme Court
decision in Dred Scott but it was a no win for
Douglas
Douglas’ answer was careful and calculated
Becomes known as the Freeport Doctrine
–
•
•
“if voters are against slavery, they could
pass slave codes that were needed for
existence (popular sovereignty without
going against Dred Scott)
Made people of Illinois happy but he lost
support of the South (viewed as allowed
slavery to be abolished)
Douglas won the Senate election> lost 1860
Presidential election but big winner was
Lincoln.