John Hickman, a Democratic member of the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania, spoke in 1859 to the Independent Democratic Convention regarding sectional conflict in the United States. In Hickman’s famous speech supporting the war, he stated, “There is an eternal antagonism between freedom and slavery.--The constitution of the human mind and the human heart makes it inevitable; and the one or the other must eventually gain the ascendancy,” (VS). The increasingly divergent social and economic positions of the North and South eliminated the possibility of an effective compromise. The Civil War became inevitable as domestic tensions over westward expansion reached a zenith in the 19th century. As Hickman stated, two societies with opposing
…show more content…
Great politicians came together to address the struggle and successfully implemented a series of compromises in 1787, 1820 and 1850 regarding the use of new land and the abolishment of the slave trade. The compromises temporarily relieved the sectional conflict by increasing the South’s representation in the House of Representatives and abolishing the slave trade for the North. When the United States acquired new land in the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 and the Mexican War in 1848, the compromises became less effective because they did not include guidelines applicable to the new land. In an attempt to minimize sectional tension over the new land, politicians implemented a new system called popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty, an electoral process created in the 1830s that allowed individual states to rule on slavery, gained support after the Compromise of 1850. However, popular sovereignty became extremely controversial in 1854 when Kansas and Nebraska, two extremely profitable states in the cotton industry, adopted the policy. The widespread approval of popular sovereignty also resulted in a dramatic rise in the acceptability of the northern abolitionist movement. Despite the temporary reprieve provided by the compromises, the tremendous economic opportunities of western expansion …show more content…
In 1787, politicians at the Constitutional Convention created two compromises to address the population gap between the North and South (PN 187). Since representation in the House of Representatives depended on population, the Northern states received significantly more delegates due to the dramatically larger populations. In an effort to balance the representation in the House, the convention created the Three-Fifths Compromise, which counted each slave as three-fifths of a person. In exchange, the South agreed to abolish the slave trade on January 1, 1808, which signaled the progressive, gradual decline of slavery in the South. The Compromise of 1787 successfully relieved sectional conflict until 1820, when tensions arose over the land acquired from the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Henry Clay, a planter and senate representative from Kentucky known as “The Great Pacificator”, organized politicians to determine the best way to divide the new land. Clay drafted the Missouri Compromise, which determined that any state below the 36” 30’ parallel would be a slave state and any state above the demarcation would be free states. The Missouri Compromise functioned for about thirty years until 1848 when land acquired as a result of the Mexican War raised new sectional tensions (PN 240). In 1850, Clay
Great politicians came together to address the struggle and successfully implemented a series of compromises in 1787, 1820 and 1850 regarding the use of new land and the abolishment of the slave trade. The compromises temporarily relieved the sectional conflict by increasing the South’s representation in the House of Representatives and abolishing the slave trade for the North. When the United States acquired new land in the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 and the Mexican War in 1848, the compromises became less effective because they did not include guidelines applicable to the new land. In an attempt to minimize sectional tension over the new land, politicians implemented a new system called popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty, an electoral process created in the 1830s that allowed individual states to rule on slavery, gained support after the Compromise of 1850. However, popular sovereignty became extremely controversial in 1854 when Kansas and Nebraska, two extremely profitable states in the cotton industry, adopted the policy. The widespread approval of popular sovereignty also resulted in a dramatic rise in the acceptability of the northern abolitionist movement. Despite the temporary reprieve provided by the compromises, the tremendous economic opportunities of western expansion …show more content…
In 1787, politicians at the Constitutional Convention created two compromises to address the population gap between the North and South (PN 187). Since representation in the House of Representatives depended on population, the Northern states received significantly more delegates due to the dramatically larger populations. In an effort to balance the representation in the House, the convention created the Three-Fifths Compromise, which counted each slave as three-fifths of a person. In exchange, the South agreed to abolish the slave trade on January 1, 1808, which signaled the progressive, gradual decline of slavery in the South. The Compromise of 1787 successfully relieved sectional conflict until 1820, when tensions arose over the land acquired from the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Henry Clay, a planter and senate representative from Kentucky known as “The Great Pacificator”, organized politicians to determine the best way to divide the new land. Clay drafted the Missouri Compromise, which determined that any state below the 36” 30’ parallel would be a slave state and any state above the demarcation would be free states. The Missouri Compromise functioned for about thirty years until 1848 when land acquired as a result of the Mexican War raised new sectional tensions (PN 240). In 1850, Clay