With the rise of sectional differences caused by conflicting views regarding slavery, Lewis Cass, a Democratic Senator from Michigan, proposed a new idea to solve this issue. He introduced the concept of popular sovereignty, in which states decide whether or not to allow slavery based on a majority vote. In 1848, Cass became the Democrat nominee for the presidential election based around his campaign of popular sovereignty, also known as “squatter”. His opponents included Mexican war hero General Zachary Taylor of the Whigs party, along with former president Martin van Buren of the Free-Soil Party, who aimed at preserving the Western land for the whites only (“Vermilya”). Taylor defeated Cass by a narrow margin, but suddenly died in 1850
…show more content…
The Republican Party simply wished for slavery to be conducted within the old Missouri Compromise rules. Meanwhile, the Know-Nothing Party was created on the foundation of nativist beliefs, viewing Catholics and foreign immigrants as threats to the economic opportunities of the Americans. Despite the rise of these two parties, the Democrats continued on to win the Election of 1856 as they remained the sole major national party. James Buchanan of Pennsylvania defeated both Republican nominee John Frémont, a California Senator, and current president Millard Fillmore, the Know-Nothing party nominee. However, Frémont gained considerable support, winning 11 out of the 16 Free states in the Electoral College, providing evidence that the Republican Party was a serious threat for future elections to the prominent, longstanding Democratic Party (“The Election of 1856”). Sectionalism continued between the Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans with the Dred Scott Decision. Dred Scott was initially a slave in Missouri, but lived in the free state of Wisconsin for two years before returning to Missouri. Claiming he was a free citizen, Scott sued a Missouri Court; the issue eventually went to the Supreme Court where Southern Democrat Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled (1) Dred Scott did not have the right to sue because he was not a …show more content…
In order to keep the four border slave states (Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland) from seceding and joining the Confederacy, Lincoln did not call for the abolition of slavery in those states because (1) the states would increase the Confederate population by over 50% and (2) the states gave the Union great strategic positioning for the Civil War (“Politics in the Civil War”). The North gained a considerable political advantage in the war with Lincoln leading a strong, centralized federal government capable of unifying the North. On the contrary, the South practiced the idea of states’ rights having more influence and power than the Confederate government. This sectionalism within the Confederacy prevented Jefferson Davis from increased executive power, causing a shortage of money and serious inflation issues. Meanwhile, the Union devised a strategic war strategy led by General Winfield Scott. Known as the Anaconda Plan, the mission was to (1) establish a blockade of the South; (2) Defeat Lee’s army in Virginia; and (3) Separate the Confederacy by capturing the Mississippi River (“Faust”). In July 1862, Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation, declaring all slaves in states of rebelling to be free. While the premise of this idea was to begin the quest of abolishing slavery, the proclamation essentially freed zero
The Republican Party simply wished for slavery to be conducted within the old Missouri Compromise rules. Meanwhile, the Know-Nothing Party was created on the foundation of nativist beliefs, viewing Catholics and foreign immigrants as threats to the economic opportunities of the Americans. Despite the rise of these two parties, the Democrats continued on to win the Election of 1856 as they remained the sole major national party. James Buchanan of Pennsylvania defeated both Republican nominee John Frémont, a California Senator, and current president Millard Fillmore, the Know-Nothing party nominee. However, Frémont gained considerable support, winning 11 out of the 16 Free states in the Electoral College, providing evidence that the Republican Party was a serious threat for future elections to the prominent, longstanding Democratic Party (“The Election of 1856”). Sectionalism continued between the Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans with the Dred Scott Decision. Dred Scott was initially a slave in Missouri, but lived in the free state of Wisconsin for two years before returning to Missouri. Claiming he was a free citizen, Scott sued a Missouri Court; the issue eventually went to the Supreme Court where Southern Democrat Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled (1) Dred Scott did not have the right to sue because he was not a …show more content…
In order to keep the four border slave states (Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland) from seceding and joining the Confederacy, Lincoln did not call for the abolition of slavery in those states because (1) the states would increase the Confederate population by over 50% and (2) the states gave the Union great strategic positioning for the Civil War (“Politics in the Civil War”). The North gained a considerable political advantage in the war with Lincoln leading a strong, centralized federal government capable of unifying the North. On the contrary, the South practiced the idea of states’ rights having more influence and power than the Confederate government. This sectionalism within the Confederacy prevented Jefferson Davis from increased executive power, causing a shortage of money and serious inflation issues. Meanwhile, the Union devised a strategic war strategy led by General Winfield Scott. Known as the Anaconda Plan, the mission was to (1) establish a blockade of the South; (2) Defeat Lee’s army in Virginia; and (3) Separate the Confederacy by capturing the Mississippi River (“Faust”). In July 1862, Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation, declaring all slaves in states of rebelling to be free. While the premise of this idea was to begin the quest of abolishing slavery, the proclamation essentially freed zero