Download Natasha Harvey, History 1700, Section 72 Unit 3 Response

Natasha Harvey, History 1700, Section 72
Unit 3 Response Assignment- Expansion and Breakup of the Union
I.
II.
Lecture: “Expansion, Divide, & the Breakup”
Film: Slavery and the Making of America: Seeds of Destruction (Episode 3)
Lecture & Film Question: “Why did the Union break up and go to war?”
To even begin answering this question, you have to realize that America was
going through what we call an “Age of Expansion.” This expansion was highlighted best
in three different categories: economic, population growth and territorial expansion. The
“Northwest Ordinance,” put in place by the Confederation Congress in 1787, established
a land policy that was based on population; for a state, the requirement was 60,000
people and for a territory just 5,000. This land policy was needed because we were
expanding westward so rapidly and attaining large amounts of land and there had to be
some kind of system in place to classify the different regions. For example, the
“Louisiana Purchase” of 1803, when Thomas Jefferson purchased an amount of land that
doubled the size of the United States from the French or when Texas applied for
Statehood and declared themselves independent from Mexico. In cases like these, where
States were joining the Union, the biggest controversy was figuring out which states
would enter the Union as “slave states,” and which would not. Texas entered the Union
as the 15th slave State, which was infuriating to the North, as they were trying so hard to
abolish slavery. The “Gold Rush” that took place in California from 1848-1849 increased
their population by tens of thousands and as a result of this huge population increase;
California was now to become a state as well. California entered the Union as a free state
as outlined in the Compromise of 1850.
It quickly became apparent that the expansion that the Union was experiencing
was only creating a larger divide between the North and the South. The North at this time
was doing well in industry, while the South was profiting hugely from agriculture,
specifically from the growth of cotton. The South had developed a new way of
processing cotton using the “cotton gin” which, in short, made this crop extremely
profitable and efficient. The South needed slave labor to support the growth of this “cash
crop” and because Congress abolished slave importation from Africa in 1808, the South
had to turn to domestic slave trade. The domestic slave trade was at large and had its’
greatest expansion following the Louisiana Purchase.
As time went on, this divide between the North and South was rapidly growing
larger and larger. This is demonstrated by some of the “Anti-Slavery” movements made
by the abolitionists who sought to rid the US not only of the spread of slavery, but also of
slavery’s existence period. The abolitionists took it upon themselves to boycott products
that came from slavery; they also gave speeches and held rallies as well as spread their
ideas in Newspapers and other written materials. The abolitionists really angered the
Southerners and things only got more heated between the two. This is demonstrated in
1854, when the “Act of Nebraska and Kansas” took place. This act opened up these states
to slavery and an event called “Bleeding Kansas” took place. Kansas actually had a
“Civil War” over slavery, which only makes it clearer that a peaceful resolution to the
debate on slavery was not going to happen.
As you can see, these events that I’ve mentioned leading up to the war, really
played a significant role in the breakup of the Union, and in some cases, you could even
say they were its’ direct cause. Westward expansion, for example, or the invention of the
cotton gin was absolutely momentous in this time period. You could say this desire for
slavery in the Southern States, and the distaste for slavery in the North, ultimately lead up
to the breakup and to the war.
III. Primary Document Readings
A. Experience History, Volume 1: Chapter 15, page 405
“Dueling Documents: Slavery & Secession.”
Two Questions:
1. How do Davis and Stephens differ in discussing the underlying causes of
the Civil War?
Alexander Stephens’ opinion on the underlying causes of the Civil War differs
greatly from that of Jefferson Davis. Stephens basically says that African Slavery was the
immediate cause for the Revolution. He goes on to say that the “New Government” is
founded upon the belief that the white man is superior and that the natural role for the
Negro is subordination. Jefferson, on the other hand, states that, “It was the offspring of
sectional rivalry and political ambition. It would have manifested itself just as certainly if
slavery had existed in all the States, or if there had not been a Negro in America…”
(Experience history, pg. 405) Jefferson believed that slavery was not the cause, but
merely an incident and refuses to acknowledge that slavery played a role in the cause of
the Civil War in any form.
2. Do you think the date when each man delivered his opinion suggests a
reason for the attitudes toward slavery and the reasons for secession?
The date when these men delivered their opinions absolutely explains why their
attitudes toward slavery and the secession were the way they were. When Stephens
delivered his opinion, it was immediately following the secession of the Southern States
from the Union. At that time, he thought he was helping to form a new slave-holding
government that was separate from the Union, and he fully acknowledged the role of
slavery in the Revolution. When Davis published his reflections on the causes of the war,
it was after the war took place and the South had lost. This fact alone explains why he
rejects the idea that slavery had anything to do with the war, he blames it rather on
“sectional rivalry” and “political ambition.” This may be due to the fact that Davis did
not want to admit that slavery could have caused the war, he was probably embarrassed
that the South had lost the war and he no longer wanted to accept that slavery had
something to do with it; especially because he was living in a free United States at the
time he gave this opinion. He probably wanted to point to a more honorable cause for the
war, rather than the promotion of human inequality. In any case, the time that these
opinions were delivered, in my opinion, absolutely had an effect on what was said.