Causes of the Civil War 2 The United States, from the time of secession from the Mother Country, was a hub for exploration and discovery. Since gaining independence in 1783, the United States was growing and thriving. However, with every kind of development comes trial. The young and flourishing country faced much controversy across the board; These various disagreements between groups of people made the United States seem anything but united at the time. The American Civil War, lasting from April 12, 1861 to May 9, 1865, was a dispute between the Northern Union under President Abraham Lincoln and the Southern Confederacy formed by the American secessionist states. But how did the nation of unity become so separated? According to a number
…show more content…
John C. Calhoun mentions in his viewpoint that the North had predominance in every department of government and controlled every power of the system. He even went as far to say it was that of “Autocrat of Russia (Calhoun, 29).” He also describes how the interests of the South will be sacrificed to those of the North. He uses examples such as taxation and the restrictions on southern portions of new territory to back his opinion (28-29). This idea of Northern supremacy is also discussed in Edmund Ruffin’s viewpoint. Ruffin, who was an advocate for secession, alludes to Henry Clay’s Missouri Compromise to sustain his opinion of northern supremacy. He states that if an Abolitionist President were to take office, then the South would have no chance in preserving property or political rights unless a separation were to occur (Ruffin, 52). Daniel Webster also discusses northern supremacy in …show more content…
Daniel Webster describes the challenging of state rights during this time. In his text, he talks about one of the complaints of the South being the North holding the escaped slaves from the South, rather than returning them to their slave owners. The South believed that it was the duty of the North to return these slaves to their owners (Webster, 46). Stephen A. Douglas alludes to the power of the rights of the states with his affirmative opinion of popular sovereignty. He states, “The government was founded on that principle, and must be administered in the same sense in which it was founded (Douglas, 75).” Many people challenged the ability for the North to restrict the South from expanding west. Abraham Lincoln agreed that the states have rights in which they cannot interfere with states that have slavery, but abolitionists could intercede the new states of the United States. This questioning of state rights was one of the reasons a Civil War in
John C. Calhoun mentions in his viewpoint that the North had predominance in every department of government and controlled every power of the system. He even went as far to say it was that of “Autocrat of Russia (Calhoun, 29).” He also describes how the interests of the South will be sacrificed to those of the North. He uses examples such as taxation and the restrictions on southern portions of new territory to back his opinion (28-29). This idea of Northern supremacy is also discussed in Edmund Ruffin’s viewpoint. Ruffin, who was an advocate for secession, alludes to Henry Clay’s Missouri Compromise to sustain his opinion of northern supremacy. He states that if an Abolitionist President were to take office, then the South would have no chance in preserving property or political rights unless a separation were to occur (Ruffin, 52). Daniel Webster also discusses northern supremacy in …show more content…
Daniel Webster describes the challenging of state rights during this time. In his text, he talks about one of the complaints of the South being the North holding the escaped slaves from the South, rather than returning them to their slave owners. The South believed that it was the duty of the North to return these slaves to their owners (Webster, 46). Stephen A. Douglas alludes to the power of the rights of the states with his affirmative opinion of popular sovereignty. He states, “The government was founded on that principle, and must be administered in the same sense in which it was founded (Douglas, 75).” Many people challenged the ability for the North to restrict the South from expanding west. Abraham Lincoln agreed that the states have rights in which they cannot interfere with states that have slavery, but abolitionists could intercede the new states of the United States. This questioning of state rights was one of the reasons a Civil War in