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 Proviso, the Comprise of 1850, and the Kanas-Nebraska Act—, which contributed to the inception of the American Civil War. In the first chapter, Holt corrects a misunderstanding regarding the thrust of the Civil War. Parties against slavery did not seek its eradication; rather, they sought to keep slavery from entering free states. In the years leading up to the civil war, Northern and Southern politicians fought over the slavery expansion issue. For instance, Missouri proved a point of contention. If Northerners could not persuade Missouri to become a free state, Southerners gained considerable power. Additionally, Northern and Southern politicians fought over the presidents’ appeal for adding Texas, a pre-existing slave state into the union. Thus, the crux of the northern and southern conflict lay in the extension of slavery, not in its dismal. Additionally, Holt, in chapter two, explores the genesis of the Wilmot Proviso and its implications on slavery extension. President Polk desired to obtain funds from congress in order to pay for Mexican territories. Southern Democrats immediately saw the influence of obtaining Mexican slave holding states meant for slavery extension. Worried about slavery extension, Northern Democrat, David Wilmot, proposed a controversial idea: territory received from Mexico could not continuing practicing slavery, unless as an act of punishment for one’s crimes. For years, the Wilmot Proviso garnered similar responses when proposed to congress. Northerners ardently supported the non-extension of the slavery, whereas Southern politicians opposed it. Due to the overwhelming number of southern politicians within Congress, Congress never passed Wilmot’s Proviso. In …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