Prior to 1860, secession had not been viewed by many as a feasible option for America’s future; however, the precedent set in 1820 by the Missouri Compromise, that the country should engage in an endless political balancing act to perpetuate peace, became difficult to maintain long-term. Compelling sectional fears and differences, intensified by the increased popularity of the abolition movement in the 1850s, expedited the arrival of a rupture that, in retrospect, seemed almost inevitable.
Principle among these differences was the North and South’s opinions on slavery; much of the fear and bitterness that caused the realization of secession stemmed from this one issue. It embroiled almost every degree of citizen in debate; Abraham Lincoln claimed …show more content…
At its first convention in 1834 the American Anti-Slavery Society revealed a rather radical argument (at least by the view of slaveholders) that all anti-slavery laws were morally null and void, slaves should be immediately liberated, and owners should receive no compensation (Document B). Certain southern politicians took this kind of doctrine and ran with it to further their own political desires, but abolitionism did have a fire burning in the free northern states. It was fanned by public outrage over the passage of a more stringent Fugitive Slave Law as part of the Compromise of 1850. Since 1820, compromise had been extolled as the greatest possible tool of unification, but, ironically, this new agreement only strained relations to the point of breakage. Northerners did not want to have a hand in slavery almost as badly as Southerners did not want to lose their slaves. Even those living in free states who did not favor the institution’s complete destruction were so discontented by such a governmental encroachment that they were roused to fight on the side of abolitionism. In a region where the American Anti-Slavery Society had considerable traction, slavery was increasingly coming to be viewed as an immoral practice. By allowing slavery to operate in the South but prohibiting it in their own homes, Northerners were attempting to keep their hands clean …show more content…
When two sides are so bitterly set on maintaining their own way of life, and those two sides are pitted against each other in a two-party system, there is little chance for a system of compromisation to sustain much traction. By 1860, sentiment seemed to follow that secession was not “utterly impracticable,” as upheld by Henry Clay in 1833, but rather an immediate and real fact of life. It soon became clear that, whether it erred on the side of slavery or against it, a definitive decision was going to have to be made about the institution’s place in the United
Principle among these differences was the North and South’s opinions on slavery; much of the fear and bitterness that caused the realization of secession stemmed from this one issue. It embroiled almost every degree of citizen in debate; Abraham Lincoln claimed …show more content…
At its first convention in 1834 the American Anti-Slavery Society revealed a rather radical argument (at least by the view of slaveholders) that all anti-slavery laws were morally null and void, slaves should be immediately liberated, and owners should receive no compensation (Document B). Certain southern politicians took this kind of doctrine and ran with it to further their own political desires, but abolitionism did have a fire burning in the free northern states. It was fanned by public outrage over the passage of a more stringent Fugitive Slave Law as part of the Compromise of 1850. Since 1820, compromise had been extolled as the greatest possible tool of unification, but, ironically, this new agreement only strained relations to the point of breakage. Northerners did not want to have a hand in slavery almost as badly as Southerners did not want to lose their slaves. Even those living in free states who did not favor the institution’s complete destruction were so discontented by such a governmental encroachment that they were roused to fight on the side of abolitionism. In a region where the American Anti-Slavery Society had considerable traction, slavery was increasingly coming to be viewed as an immoral practice. By allowing slavery to operate in the South but prohibiting it in their own homes, Northerners were attempting to keep their hands clean …show more content…
When two sides are so bitterly set on maintaining their own way of life, and those two sides are pitted against each other in a two-party system, there is little chance for a system of compromisation to sustain much traction. By 1860, sentiment seemed to follow that secession was not “utterly impracticable,” as upheld by Henry Clay in 1833, but rather an immediate and real fact of life. It soon became clear that, whether it erred on the side of slavery or against it, a definitive decision was going to have to be made about the institution’s place in the United