The civil war was probably one of the most deadliest battles in American history, but what could of brought people to such hatred towards each other? Many things have been accused of causing the civil war like Uncle Tom 's Cabin or the Dred Scott decision, but at the top of the list is slavery, which effected economic, social, and political stability of the country.
The North is more industrialized than the south, hence why they wanted higher tariffs so that they could compete with foreign nations. While the South was more agricultural and many owned plantation growing cotton. They preferred lower tariffs so that they could buy and sell to foreign nations. Congress passed the Tariff of 1828 which protected northern industries, but the southerners …show more content…
gained territory the question of slavery would arise. Both North and South wanted the balance in government to favor them, but not lean towards the other to much. The Mexican secession is a great example because majority of people who fought the Mexican War were southerners hoping to spread westward with slavery. With the fear that slavery might spread a antislavery democrat David Wilmot proposed a bill saying that slavery wouldn’t be allowed in new acquired territory. The bill passed in the house but couldn’t make it through the senate. Later the disputed territory would be determined slave or free states by popular sovereignty. Keeping the balance between slave and free state wasn’t the only thing slavery influenced in politics. With the rise of abolitionist (people who were antislavery) two major figures emerged William Lloyd Garrison and Fredrick Douglas. They appealed to many people by questioning little things that most people did think about like Fredrick Douglas 's famous quote "What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July?". When that didn’t get the effect they hoped for the turned more towards political most notably with Prigg vs. Pennsylvania, …show more content…
Douglas and it called for new territory west of Mississippi and Iowa, but it would have many replications afterword 's. First thing was that it had the possibility of tipping the balance of slave and free states. Second it lead to "Bleeding Kansas". The new territory Kansas was large enough to apply for statehood and was using popular sovereignty to determine either it would be a free or slave state, but the problem was the "border ruffians" from Missouri who would swing to vote. Outraged with the outcome John Brown an abolitionist in Kansas took things in his own hands. The North saw him as a martyr for standing up against slavery, but the South not only hated John Brown but he did exactly what they feared; a slave rebellion. In the Missouri Articles of Secession they describe John Brown as "It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives." The Kansas-Nebraska act also destroyed the Whig party and gave birth to a new more powerful party the Republican Party. At the core of this new party was the Free Soil ideology; the belief that slavery was dangerous and they had the support of many white
The North is more industrialized than the south, hence why they wanted higher tariffs so that they could compete with foreign nations. While the South was more agricultural and many owned plantation growing cotton. They preferred lower tariffs so that they could buy and sell to foreign nations. Congress passed the Tariff of 1828 which protected northern industries, but the southerners …show more content…
gained territory the question of slavery would arise. Both North and South wanted the balance in government to favor them, but not lean towards the other to much. The Mexican secession is a great example because majority of people who fought the Mexican War were southerners hoping to spread westward with slavery. With the fear that slavery might spread a antislavery democrat David Wilmot proposed a bill saying that slavery wouldn’t be allowed in new acquired territory. The bill passed in the house but couldn’t make it through the senate. Later the disputed territory would be determined slave or free states by popular sovereignty. Keeping the balance between slave and free state wasn’t the only thing slavery influenced in politics. With the rise of abolitionist (people who were antislavery) two major figures emerged William Lloyd Garrison and Fredrick Douglas. They appealed to many people by questioning little things that most people did think about like Fredrick Douglas 's famous quote "What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July?". When that didn’t get the effect they hoped for the turned more towards political most notably with Prigg vs. Pennsylvania, …show more content…
Douglas and it called for new territory west of Mississippi and Iowa, but it would have many replications afterword 's. First thing was that it had the possibility of tipping the balance of slave and free states. Second it lead to "Bleeding Kansas". The new territory Kansas was large enough to apply for statehood and was using popular sovereignty to determine either it would be a free or slave state, but the problem was the "border ruffians" from Missouri who would swing to vote. Outraged with the outcome John Brown an abolitionist in Kansas took things in his own hands. The North saw him as a martyr for standing up against slavery, but the South not only hated John Brown but he did exactly what they feared; a slave rebellion. In the Missouri Articles of Secession they describe John Brown as "It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives." The Kansas-Nebraska act also destroyed the Whig party and gave birth to a new more powerful party the Republican Party. At the core of this new party was the Free Soil ideology; the belief that slavery was dangerous and they had the support of many white