The Fate of Their Country: Politicians, Slavery Extension, and the Coming of the Civil War. By Michael Holt
Since the founding of the United States, the founding fathers aimed to allow the people a voice. However, in the 19th century, despite such core principles, the government began to exercise its power in a multitude of ways. With the introduction of opposing ideas and thoughts, differing political parties emerged. The core division between the parties remained one thing: slavery. In his book, Holt argues that the American people did not initiate the American Civil War; rather, politicians, with agendas, stoked the division of the nation long before the emergence of the American Civil War. Presenting his argument in four sections, Holt lays the foundation for his argument by examining specific legislative proposals—Wilmot …show more content…
Anathema to pro-slavery politicians, the Missouri Comprise enacted in 1820 introduced Maine as a free state and Missouri as a slave state. Such a comprise aided in allowing the opposing southern and northern politicians from having to much power. However, all southern politicians soon hated the Missouri Comprise. When passing the Missouri Comprise, congress also prohibited territory within the Louisiana Purchase slavery. Thus, Nebraska could not practice slavery. In an effort to save his political party, however, Stephen A. Douglas, put forth a bill directly repealing the Missouri Comprise by granting popular sovereignty. The Kansas-Nebraska act infuriated northern senators. However, congress passed the Kansa-Nebraska Act, dividing the land into two sections: Nebraska, a free state, and Kansas, a slave state. Such created serious divides within the American political parties, even decimating the Whig party. Thus, by enacting the Kansa-Nebraska Act, politicians further added tension to the growing separation between northern and southern
Since the founding of the United States, the founding fathers aimed to allow the people a voice. However, in the 19th century, despite such core principles, the government began to exercise its power in a multitude of ways. With the introduction of opposing ideas and thoughts, differing political parties emerged. The core division between the parties remained one thing: slavery. In his book, Holt argues that the American people did not initiate the American Civil War; rather, politicians, with agendas, stoked the division of the nation long before the emergence of the American Civil War. Presenting his argument in four sections, Holt lays the foundation for his argument by examining specific legislative proposals—Wilmot …show more content…
Anathema to pro-slavery politicians, the Missouri Comprise enacted in 1820 introduced Maine as a free state and Missouri as a slave state. Such a comprise aided in allowing the opposing southern and northern politicians from having to much power. However, all southern politicians soon hated the Missouri Comprise. When passing the Missouri Comprise, congress also prohibited territory within the Louisiana Purchase slavery. Thus, Nebraska could not practice slavery. In an effort to save his political party, however, Stephen A. Douglas, put forth a bill directly repealing the Missouri Comprise by granting popular sovereignty. The Kansas-Nebraska act infuriated northern senators. However, congress passed the Kansa-Nebraska Act, dividing the land into two sections: Nebraska, a free state, and Kansas, a slave state. Such created serious divides within the American political parties, even decimating the Whig party. Thus, by enacting the Kansa-Nebraska Act, politicians further added tension to the growing separation between northern and southern