During the mid-1850’s tensions between the north and south had increased. There was a constant battle caused by the social differences and political matters. Two essays derived from an analysis of this division are William E Gienapp’s “The Republican Party and the Slave Power” and Don E. Fehrenbacher’s “Kanas Republicanism, and the Crisis of the Union”. Gienapp’s essay focus on the fear of Slave Power for the Republicans. Republicanism supported the North’s ideology of free labor and wished to preserve and expand on it (Gienapp 74). Slave power instilled fear into Republicans "Because it united a number of diverse themes into a coherent intellectual construct, the concept of the Slave Power provides the essential key to dissect and comprehend
…show more content…
Slave owners gained political power because of the slaves they owned, their racial ties to one another made them all stand together. This was a threat to the free labor ideology which meant it was also a direct threat to Republicans (Gienapp 75). To summarize Gienapp’s argument, the tensions between the north and south was not a battle of slavery, but a political battle to stop the Souths momentous influence on the economic and political life of the country. Gienapp’s description of the Republican fear is illustrated through statistics and documentation, "Slaveowners were less than 5 percent of the southern white population, the New York Times noted, “yet in every one of these States the Slaveholders wield the whole political power, —make"”(Gienapp 76).Gienapp uses the evidence in his essay effectively to demonstrate that there is an inequality in power between the north and south. Additionally, Gienapp’s use of background information clearly shows the reader how Republicans interest conflict with Southern slave owner interest’s. The issue of slavery is not brought up as a factor in the tensions but rather as a reason that leads to a bigger outcome. Gienapp …show more content…
Fehrenbacher first introduces the idea of the South being overpowered by stating "The South accordingly appears to have benefited more from the political consequences of the Compromise of 1850 than from any of its specific provisions. For a reunited Democratic party, pledging faithful adherence to the Compromise, swept to victory in the presidential election of 1852 and also won a two-thirds majority in the House of Representatives."( 77). Here it is stated that the South has become a more unified force, increasing their political power. This use of cause and effect evidence allows for Fehrenbacher’s argument to be noted distinguishably by the audience and connects back to Gienapp argument. The Souths political power is demonstrated in various ways throughout the essay however the most eye popping piece of evidence is a quote from Alexander H Stephens, stating: “We have had a majority of the Presidents chosen from the South; as well as the control and management of most of those chosen from the North.” …and in the appointment of some 3,000 clerks, auditors, and controllers, better than a two-to-one advantage."(Fehrenbacher 77). Although a lot of information to take in, these numbers paint a clear picture showing how the South dominates the political power in every government aspect. Although Fehrenbacher and Gienapp have similar thoughts
Slave owners gained political power because of the slaves they owned, their racial ties to one another made them all stand together. This was a threat to the free labor ideology which meant it was also a direct threat to Republicans (Gienapp 75). To summarize Gienapp’s argument, the tensions between the north and south was not a battle of slavery, but a political battle to stop the Souths momentous influence on the economic and political life of the country. Gienapp’s description of the Republican fear is illustrated through statistics and documentation, "Slaveowners were less than 5 percent of the southern white population, the New York Times noted, “yet in every one of these States the Slaveholders wield the whole political power, —make"”(Gienapp 76).Gienapp uses the evidence in his essay effectively to demonstrate that there is an inequality in power between the north and south. Additionally, Gienapp’s use of background information clearly shows the reader how Republicans interest conflict with Southern slave owner interest’s. The issue of slavery is not brought up as a factor in the tensions but rather as a reason that leads to a bigger outcome. Gienapp …show more content…
Fehrenbacher first introduces the idea of the South being overpowered by stating "The South accordingly appears to have benefited more from the political consequences of the Compromise of 1850 than from any of its specific provisions. For a reunited Democratic party, pledging faithful adherence to the Compromise, swept to victory in the presidential election of 1852 and also won a two-thirds majority in the House of Representatives."( 77). Here it is stated that the South has become a more unified force, increasing their political power. This use of cause and effect evidence allows for Fehrenbacher’s argument to be noted distinguishably by the audience and connects back to Gienapp argument. The Souths political power is demonstrated in various ways throughout the essay however the most eye popping piece of evidence is a quote from Alexander H Stephens, stating: “We have had a majority of the Presidents chosen from the South; as well as the control and management of most of those chosen from the North.” …and in the appointment of some 3,000 clerks, auditors, and controllers, better than a two-to-one advantage."(Fehrenbacher 77). Although a lot of information to take in, these numbers paint a clear picture showing how the South dominates the political power in every government aspect. Although Fehrenbacher and Gienapp have similar thoughts