Did The Divergent Political Perspectives From The "North" and "South" Lead To The American Civil War?

Name: Lucas Baronzini
Candidate code: ddg648

Session number: 002677-001
School: 002677 Northlands School Nordelta
Did the divergent

political perspectives from
the North and South
lead to the American Civil
War?

Abstract
I am researching the question Did the divergent political perspectives from the
North and South lead to the American Civil War?. The inquiry came up when I
studied the USA during the 1920s, many years after the Civil War, but I was interested
on the previous history of the country, particularly on the mentioned War as it was a
turning point in the countrys development.
For the investigation I used the analysis of several political events and how they
influenced in the strengthening of the divergence in political perspectives during 1820
and 1861, which is the year when the war started. The Nullification Affair case in 1828,
the Dred Scott case, the political effects of the Westward expansion, such as the KansasNebraska act in 1853, the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and finally the election of 1861,
enabled me to do a critical analysis of the events, which therefore brought about the
conclusion.
The conclusion Ive reached is that the divergent political perspectives form the
North and the South did lead to the American civil war as they were incompatible. For
every problem, debate, or case that was presented the results were that tension was
always increasing between these sections, and therefore it was impossible to have two
opposed political perspectives under a same president coexisting. Eventually, as time
passed, it was more and more evident that one perspective was going to prevail over the
other, and that was what finally happened during Lincolns election in 1860.
A further investigation that was not done could be the analysis of the social and the
economic perspectives Northerners and Southerners had, and their contribution to the
outbreak of the American Civil War.

Contents page:
Title Page
Abstract
Contents Page
Introduction
Body
5-14
Conclusion
15
Bibliography and References
16-19
Appendices
20-21

Introduction
The American civil war fought between 1861-18651, was a turning point in the
US history. It was fought between southern states, which had Democratic policies and
Northern states, which were Republicans. The south seceded from the union in 1860-61,
stating that Lincolns election made it impossible for them to remain in a union
dominated by the Republican Party2.
Economic issues were central factors in the build up of tension to the U.S Civil
War. Southern states had an economy based on slaves that worked on plantations were
they grew especially cotton3. They relied on slave-work so they definitively needed to
keep the slaves because if not no one would do that hard job, and as a consequence the
south would become poor.
Northern states had a more commercial economy based on industry and
investments4. The fact that both economies were different led to disagreements between
both sectors. As the south grew the cotton but the north trade it 5, there were accusations
of unfairness. We can clearly see that the tension caused by these economic struggles
were so great that they finally divided the nation in 1860-61.
Much has been said over the economic factors and economical issues of slavery
as the leading cause of the Civil War 6. However, this essay will focus on the political
perspectives of the North and South, and it will try to find out if they should be
considered as relevant factors of the Civil War.
Hugh Brogan, The penguin history of the USA, (England: Penguin Group, 1999), page 315
The secession crisis, 1860-1861
http://dig.lib.niu.edu/civilwar/narrative1.html
3
The Plantation in the South
http://americanrevwar.homestead.com/files/civwar/plantation.html
4
Causes of the Civil War
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm
5
King Cotton in the Civil War
http://www.civilwarhome.com/kingcotton.htm
6
Political causes of the Civil War: why did the North and the South divided over States Rights,
http://us-civil-war.suite101.com/article.cfm/political_causes_of_the_civil_war 18/03/10 14:17
2

Body
In the first place, the North and the South differed over the States Rights. From
the founding era, there was a fundamental disagreement over how much authority the
national government should have and how much sovereignty and independence the
individual states should retain7
The southern states believed that states rights were much more important than
having a strong federal government in Washington. They also believed that the central
government was not allowed to intervene in the states decisions. Each state was to
determine its own laws and customs, for example, each state was able to determine if
they were going to have or not slaves. Any attempt by the federal government to limit
slavery was seen as the central government attacking the states rights. Therefore each
state had to have control over its own affairs and they could even refuse to accept the
federal laws imposed by the central government in Washington, making it possible to
secede from the Union8.
The north did not agree with the southern point of view over states rights, as
they believed that there must be a strong central government in Washington where
decisions were taken and these decisions were to be obeyed. They believed that if the
government said that slavery had to be limited, the Union had to comply with the
orders. Therefore the difference over the importance and use of the states rights
between the north and south were a long term cause of the Civil War, as the USA had
two divergent political projects, the Free states, and the slave states. The lack of
compatibility between the states policies made impossible the correct development of
the union, and the result of this was clearly seen in 1861 with the Civil War.9
The Nullification Affair10 is a second issue in which the divergent political
perspectives from the North and South are expressed. In 1828 the congress imposed
7
Causes of the civil war

8
9
States Rights, One of the causes of the Civil War
http://www.civilwarhome.com/statesrights.htm
10
Causes of the Civil War a Northern Perspective
http://blueandgraytrail.com/features/northerncauses.html

heavy taxation on English imports 11. The south was against the decision taken because
attacking English imports might provoke retaliation and import substitution. If this was
the case, the English may start buying cotton from other places. The southern wealth
depended on their ability to trade with Lancashire 12; therefore this tariff could destroy
the souths wealth. The southerners believed that it was a northern interference in their
affairs. John C. Calhoun stated that cotton was valued not just for the wealth it created,
but also because it provided work for the slaves13. The problem was that if slaves had no
work, they could organize themselves and the south might suffer a violent rebellion.
There was no place in society for the slaves, they were determined to work in
plantations and according to the southerners it was not gong to be possible to have both
races living together. Hence, the south had another political plan; the tariff was
denounced as a threat to slavery as well as southern prosperity14.
South Carolina interposed her state sovereignty to nullify the tariff15. In other
words, South Carolina was using her states rights to avoid the governments decision.
This caused extreme anger within the central government so they turned violent as it
happens when there are this kind of disputes. President Jackson prepared an invasion of
South Carolina16. This is clear evidence where we can see that if there is no way around
divergent political perspectives, the use of violence and aggression is a solution to sort
out the differences.
Moreover, it was the first time that the US government planned to use military
force against a state, and for the next dispute events may start from a higher level of
violence. The possibility of using military force was now able to be used if necessary.
This event also was a cause of the Civil War as the fragility of the American Union had
again been convincingly demonstrated17.
11
1816-1860: The Second American Party System and the tariff

http://www.taxanalysts.com/museum/1816-1860.htm
12
13
14
15
1816-1860: The Second Party System and the Tariff
http://www.taxanalysts.com/museum/1816-1860.htm
16
United States History: Nullification Crisis
http://countrystudies.us/united-states/history-50.htm
17

A third reason that evidences how the divergent political perspectives from the
north and south lead to the Civil War is their divergent position over slavery and the
legal methods to deal with it. While the North uses the law against slavery, the south did
it in favour of it.
The Dred Scott Case in 185718 is a case study to analyze the legal methods used.
Dred Scott was a slaver who had lived in a free state, and therefore had been a freedman
in the North. Before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, he had appealed to the
US Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom19. In 1857, the Chief of
Justice Roger Taney said that [African Americans] had for more than a century before
been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the
white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no
rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and
lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an
ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it20.
This is primary evidence that shows how, although having a Constitution that stated all
men were created equal, how the South used justice in favour of slavery.
The abolitionists were furious with the decision taken. Abraham Lincoln reacted
with disgust to the ruling and was spurred into political action, publicly speaking out
against it21. It was used as another argument against the south. Once again, we can see
how divergent political perspectives had an important role in leading to the Civil War
since their incompatibility made them impossible to coexist22, therefore sooner or later
one had to impose and prevail over the other one, and this is what happened in the
American Civil War.
18
The history place: Dred Scott decision

http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/dred.htm
19
Dred Scott
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2932.html
20
Martin Magnusson, blog entry No Rights Which the White Man was Bound to Respect, The ACSblog,
entry posted March 19, 2007
http://www.acslaw.org/node/11391
21
The history place: Dred Scott decision
http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/dred.htm
22

A second case study is the Amistad mutiny in 1839 which shows the increased
political tension over slavery. In 1839 a white men bought slaves, and needed someone
to take them by boat to Puerto Principe. Ramon Ferrer was the owner of a boat, called
Amistad, which was supposed to carry the slaves 23. During the trip, Joseph Cinque, the
slave leader, killed Ramon Ferrer24. Joseph Cinque was then called to court in the USA.
The court took place in a Northern, non-slaving state, so the judge and jury were against
slavery. The result of this case was that, although slavery was legal in Cuba, the
importation of slaves from Africa was not, so the Africans were within their rights to
use violence to escape from captivity25.
Taking into account the first case study and the Amistad Mutiny case in 1839
we can conclude that it made the civil war more likely as it showed how controversial
the issue over slavery were, and how the legal system worked according to the situation
in court and not in an objective way. It also expresses a major disparity in the attitudes
between the North and South as the South saw the slaves as murderers, and in the north,
the slaves were not only protected by important whites, but also were taken back to
Africa. The confronting points of views are an obvious reason to explain why the Union
could not work together and needed a strike to place things back in order.
A further reason proving how divergent their political perspectives were is the
westward expansion of the USA. They expanded westward looking for new resources
and more space.
For the north the expansion meant fortune, wealth and development of
industries, while for the south meant more land to grow cotton 26. However, this arose to
conflict since for every new state they had to decide if it was going to be free of slaves
or not.27 Northern political perspectives of the expansion were different from those of
the south, and as a result more aggressive policies were used. Instead of contributing to
23
Amistad Mutiny http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASamistad.htm

Amistad Mutiny 1839
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/amistad_mutiny.html
25
Amistad Mutiny
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASamistad.htm
26
Westward Expansion and Regional Differences
http://www.america.gov/st/educ-english/2008/April/20080407113634eaifas0.4282495.html
27
Westward Expansion
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/westward/index.cfm
24

the Union, they disrupted society strengthening their political views. Therefore we can
clearly see how the westward expansion was a cause of the Civil War in 1861.
This factor will be analyzed in case study #1, the Missouri compromise conflict
of 1819-2028. As the north western expansion had created new Free states the balance in
congress between the north and the south could have been affected, but the south also
created slave states to balance the situation29. This raised the tension between north and
south that eventually evolved into the Civil War.
The south proposed to admit the territory of Missouri as a slave state, but the
state was only going to be admitted if it promised to gradually free its slaves. This was
done to weaken the political ascendancy in the union which the south had enjoyed since
the independence30. The south was extremely annoyed with the resolution of the
problem. As a result the Missouri compromise was discussed and both north and south
drew a line on the US map 31 to state what could be considered as free land and what
couldnt. The Missouri compromise made the south have more dominance in congress.
Therefore the Missouri compromise was a cause of the civil war as it was a
compromise, which means that no one is satisfied with the results of it. The north still
wanted to reduce the southern dominance in congress and wanted to reduce the number
of slaves, while the south was getting more and more aggressive after each attempt of
limiting slavery. The compromise strengthened the political divergence between the
north and the south that led to the Civil War in 186132.
The second case study of the effects of the Westward expansion is the
Compromise of 1850, where the congressman Henry Clay created a five-point program
28
The Missouri Compromise: A balance For Power

http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secessioncrisis/200303.html
29
30
31
32
(See Appendix) A http://www.proprofs.com/flashcards/upload/a4131869.jpg

The Missouri Compromise
http://history-world.org/missouri%20Compromise.htm

in which he stated that 33: California was to be admitted as a free state, New Mexico and
Utah were able to decide by popular sovereignty if they wanted to be slave states or free
states, the frontier between Texas and other states was settled, and slave trade was
abolished in Washington. The fifth point of the compromise was a new, stricter fugitive
slave law to be introduced34. The last two points of the compromise were critical and
caused lots of arguments and disagreements, as not everyone was satisfied.
The fact that slave trade was abolished in Washington was seen by the
southerners as a direct action against slavery and set a precedent, while the fugitive
slaves law was designed to allow southern slave owners to reclaim their runaway slaves
in the north35. This caused a storm of protest in the north, where not only aggressive
southern slave owners were coming into northern states to pursue their slaves, but also
northerners had to help to catch slaves36. This deepened the disputes between the north
and the south, therefore showing how the divergence in political aspects did lead to the
Civil War, as in the north no one could ignore the issue of slavery anymore. In addition
to this it was becoming impossible to unite the nation because the new politicians had
no support on the south nor in the north.
The third and last case study of the Westward expansions effects is the Kansas
Nebraska Act. Stephen Douglas wanted to unite the Democratic Party over a neutral
issue, that of the development of the west37. However he was opposed by his own
party38 as they refused to accept the Missouri compromise of 1820 because the south
wanted equal rights in the union. Basically the south believed that it was not fair that
slavery was automatically excluded from the new states that joined the USA. They
wanted to apply the popular sovereignty39.
33
Our Documents Compromise of 1850

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=27
34
35
Compromise of 1850 and Fugitive Slave Law,
http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/ahlt_0001_0001_0/ahlt_0001_0001_0_00059.html
36
37
Kansas-Nebraska Act
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASkansas.htm
38
39
American Civil War Causes Roots of the American Civil War
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/civilwar/a/CivilWarCauses.htm
10

In 1853 the Kansas Nebraska Bill was presented to congress. Douglass plan
made the south win, as popular sovereignty would be applied, and the north would win
also as the settlers in Kansas and Nebraska would vote for free states. Everyone would
win, but the answer from the congress was that it had too inevitable enemies for real
success to be possible40. The enemies were the abolitionists, as the Bill replaced and
removed the Missouri compromise and the south because the Bill did not explicitly
repeal the Missouri compromise41. Once Douglas explicitly repealed the Missouri
compromise in the Bill the Kansas Nebraska act was passed in May 185442.
Therefore this political debate was certainly a cause of the US Civil War as it
showed how weak the Union was. Every new state meant lots of legal and political
problems, as it was not possible to decide if the states had to be free from slaves or slave
states. It was not possible to make a law and generalize all the annexations because for
each case the north or the south were dissatisfied with the outcome, and turned more
aggressive because they felt threatened by the opponent. We can see how the union was
not in conditions to go on as the new leaders had no support in the north and south. The
incompatibility of the views between the north and the south were taken to such extent
that the civil war took place in 186143.
Assessing the conflicts generated by the westward expansion, it can be stated
that it was a major cause of the civil war in 1861 as it caused numerous problems in
USA. For each new annexed state, there were discussions over slavery issues. They
were not able to make a law that could generalize each annexation because neither the
north nor south was conform with the attempts. Instead of annexing territory for the
benefit of the whole union, the territories were annexed to defeat the opponent, and to
gain more support in congress. Each political and legal debate was getting more and
more aggressive, thus increasing the divergence of the political views to a point it was
impossible for them to coexist. Eventually one had to reign over the other, which later
on led to the American Civil War.
40
42
The History Place Abraham Lincoln: Kansas Nebraska Act
http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/kansas.htm
43
Our Documents Kansas-Nebraska
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=28
41
11

The fifth reason that shows that divergent political perspectives from the north
and south lead to the civil war is the citizens rights as each section had different
political supporters. While in 1783 the USA achieved independence as a united nation,
by 1860 the union was at breaking point44. From the very beginning things were totally
different in the north and the south of USA. It is easy to see that the different points of
views over the states rights were the main conflict they had, as it is directly linked to
the possession of slaves45. The south enabled slave owning, which meant that they
developed a fictional strong economy based on slave work, which was only profitable
for some families, while the north developed much more uniformly and included the
vast majority of the society.
The clearest evidence is the Lincoln-Douglas debate. The differences in northern
and southern economies and societies are also reflected in the differences that appear in
the political aspects. The union was not able to work and prosper with to powerful
contradictory views46. This is the case of the Democratic Party and the Republican
Party. The Lincoln-Douglas debates are evidence of the impossibility of the union to
work as a whole. Lincoln conveyed the previous idea in his speech entitled A House
Devided, where A house divided against itself cannot stand. I [Lincoln ] relieve this
government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.47.
After the Kansas Nebraska disaster, both north and south realised that any
further compromise was impossible, so they became more intransigent. In 1858
elections took place and the debates on slavery between Lincoln and Douglas were
incessant.
Douglas believed that the declaration of independence did not apply to black
men48; slavery should be able to spread if people in a state wanted to. And as criticise to
44
University of Southern Indiana Extended Services: Academic Serivces

http://www.usi.edu/extserv/conferences/lincolncolloq.asp
45
The Election of 1860
http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/The_Great_Republic_By_the_Master_Historians_Vol_III/e
lection1_db.html
46
47
Lincoln Home National Historic Site House Devided Speech, extract from Lincolns speech,
http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/housedivided.htm (for larger excerpt see Appendix B)
48
History Founders: Abraham Lincoln at Indianapolis by Lewis E. Lehrman,
http://www.lehrmaninstitute.org/history/essays13.html
12

Lincoln, he said that Lincoln was an abolitionist who would attack slavery in the south
as limiting its spread.
Lincolns said that as the Missouri compromise of 1820 was still in place,
slavery could remain in places where it was already set; but was not to be spread
through the north. For him Afro-Americans were human, and while they had right to
liberty, they were not equal to whites. Furthermore he believed that Kansas Nebraska
act was part of a conspiracy to spread slavery over the nation49.
The divergence on political perspectives is clear in this case, and obviously the
union had to adopt only one. Although Lincoln stated facts in his speeches rather than
attacking the south or defending the north, he lost the elections. However this was not a
total failure for him as it gave him national coverage and greatly helped him to become
a national politician50, which later allowed him to be the republican presidential
candidate in 1860.
The results of these elections is the sixth reason of how the political divergence
lead to Civil War in 1861 as some southern leaders swore that the south must secede
from a union dominated by anti slavery51. The south had lost ground to the north as once
a northern president was in the white house, more northerners would become supreme
court judges, so more anti slavery legislation would be passed, and even worse, non
slaveholding southern whites which were 80 percent of the total in the south might
actually listen to the republicans and rebel against the great power that the planters had
in the south52.
Therefore the Lincoln Douglas debates were a cause of the civil war as it made
the southerners rethink their views at last, and had the possibility to rebel against the
landowners. Also the south felt threatened by the north, as they were gaining more and
more participation in the congress, so eventually the southern politicians were going to
be outnumbered.
49
Civil War : Secession of the Southern states

http://www.philwrites.com/H_seccession.htm
50
The impending crisis- digital history
http://www.philwrites.com/H_seccession.htm
51
52
13

The Lincolns election in 1860 is the detonator of the bomb. There was now a
national party in the USA. The republicans chose Abraham Lincoln to be their candidate
while the south didnt agree over a candidate53. Lincoln won 39% of the popular vote,
but did not carry a single state in the south54, so the southern secession started. South
Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas seceded from the
union and became the confederated states of America which were announced to the
world in February 186155.
Southern secession was unexpected by the north so they didnt know what to do.
The 4th march 1861 Lincoln became president and the 12 th April 1861 the confederacy
attacked Fort Summer. After the attack, the US Civil War started. Lincoln called for
troops on April 15th.
Therefore the Lincolns election shows how one political view finally had
predominance over the other, breaking the Union due to southern nationalism, which
caused the American Civil War. Lincolns election also made evident that the Union
could not continue working together as for example they could not agree on the
Democratic candidate for the election56. If they were not able to agree on something like
that, they would never recover from the social distortion and weakness they had.
53
55
The secession of The Southern States:
http://www.civilwarhome.com/southernseccession.htm
56
The secession of The Southern States:
http://www.civilwarhome.com/southernseccession.htm
54
14

Conclusion
To conclude, the divergent political perspective from the north and south did
lead to the American Civil War in 1861. The first reason is the Nullification affair that
showed how fragile the Union was as states were able to avoid laws imposed by the
central government57, and it also had set a precedent, as it was the first time that the
central government used military force against a single state. A second reason that
shows the political divergence that caused the war is the legal issues over slavery, as the
north and south had differences in the legal methods used to deal with it. The Dred Scott
case study58 and the Amistad mutiny case study showed that laws were applied in
different ways to be able to take a better profit of the situation. They clearly expose the
divergent and incompatible political point of views that made evident that the north and
south could not work together.
The compromises and the Kansas and Nebraska act, all show the divergent
political perspectives which represented sever problems for both sides of the USA as
instead of trying to cope with each other and find a long term solution to the problems,
both northerners and southerners looked for short term solutions to long term problems.
Moreover it can be stated that the union of the states was fragile from the beginning due
to their opposing political plans. Therefore the divergent political perspective from the
north and south lead to misunderstandings and hostility between the two sections that
ended up on the Civil War in 1861.
Word count: 3763
57
The Nullification Crisis

http://mgagnon.myweb.uga.edu/students/4070/04SP4070-Hickey.htm
58
Dred Scott: Impact of Dred Scott
http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/scott/impact.html
15

Bibliography and references:
Books:
1) Brogan, Hugh. The Penguin History of the US. England: Penguin Group, Second
edition,1991.
2) Gary W. Gallagher, Stephen D. Engle, Robert K. Krick, Joseph T. Glatthaar, The
American Civil War: This Mighty Scourge Of War. Great Britain: Osprey
Publishing, 2003
Internet:
1) 1816-1860: The Second American Party System and the tariff,
http://www.taxanalysts.com/museum/1816-1860.htm (accessed June 10, 2009)
2) American Civil War Causes Roots of the American Civil War
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/civilwar/a/CivilWarCauses.htm (accessed
June 15, 2009)
3) Amistad Mutiny,
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASamistad.htm (accessed August 24,
2009)
4) Amistad Mutiny 1839,
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/amistad_mutiny.html (accessed June 6,
2009)
5) Causes of the Civil War a Northern Perspective,
http://blueandgraytrail.com/features/northerncauses.html (accessed August 28,
2009)
6) Causes of the Civil War,
16

(accessed October 17, 2009)
7) Civil War : Secession of the Southern states,
http://www.philwrites.com/H_seccession.htm (accessed August 21, 2009)
8) Compromise of 1850 and Fugitive Slave Law,
http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/ahlt_0001_0001_0/ahlt_0001_0001_0_0
0059.html (accessed June 6, 2009)
9) Dred Scott,
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2932.html (accessed March 15 , 2010)
10) Dred Scott: Impact of Dred Scott
http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/scott/impact.html (accessed March 15,
2010)
11) History Founders: Abraham Lincoln at Indianapolis by Lewis E. Lehrman,
http://www.lehrmaninstitute.org/history/essays13.html (accessed September 17,
2009)
12) Kansas-Nebraska Act,
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASkansas.htm (accessed June 27,
2009)
13) King Cotton in the Civil War,
http://www.civilwarhome.com/kingcotton.htm (accessed March 10, 2009)
14) Lincoln Home National Historic Site House Devided Speech, extract from
Lincolns speech, http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/housedivided.html
(accessed April 25, 2010)
15) Martin Magnusson, blog entry No Rights Which the White Man was Bound to
Respect, The ACSblog, entry posted March 19, 2007,
17

http://www.acslaw.org/node/11391 (accessed April 28, 2010)
16) Our Documents Compromise of 1850, http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?
flash=true&doc=27 (accessed May 29, 2010)
17) Our Documents Kansas-Nebraska
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=28 (accessed June 10,
2010)
18) Political causes of the Civil War: why did the North and the South divided over
States Rights, http://us-civilwar.suite101.com/article.cfm/political_causes_of_the_civil_war (Accessed
March 3, 2010)
19) States Rights, One of the causes of the Civil War,
http://www.civilwarhome.com/statesrights.htm (accessed June 13, 2010)
20) The Election of 1860
http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/The_Great_Republic_By_the_Ma
ster_Historians_Vol_III/election1_db.html (accessed May 9, 2010)
21) The History Place Abraham Lincoln: Kansas Nebraska Act
http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/kansas.htm (accessed March 5 , 2010)
22) The history place: Dred Scott decision,
http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/dred.htm (accessed February 28, 2010)
23) The Missouri Compromise,
http://history-world.org/missouri%20Compromise.htm (accessed July 30, 2009)
24) The Missouri Compromise: A balance For Power,
http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secessioncrisis/200303.html (accessed August 4,
18

2009)
25) The Nullification Crisis
http://mgagnon.myweb.uga.edu/students/4070/04SP4070-Hickey.htm (accessed
December 1, 2009)
26) The Plantation in the South,
http://americanrevwar.homestead.com/files/civwar/plantation.html (accessed
December 2, 2009)
27) The secession crisis, 1860-1861,
http://dig.lib.niu.edu/civilwar/narrative1.html (accessed October 12, 2009)
28) The secession of The Southern States:
http://www.civilwarhome.com/southernseccession.htm (accessed November 29,
2009)
29) United States History: Nullification Crisis,
http://countrystudies.us/united-states/history-50.html (accessed November 13,
2009)
30) University of Southern Indiana Extended Services: Academic Serivces
http://www.usi.edu/extserv/conferences/lincolncolloq.asp (accessed November
14, 2009)
31) Westward Expansion ,
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/westward/index.cfm (accessed
October 28, 2009)
32) Westward Expansion and Regional Differences
http://www.america.gov/st/educenglish/2008/April/20080407113634eaifas0.4282495.htm (accessed October 2,
2009)
19

Appendices
Appendix A: Missouri Compromise Line
http://www.proprofs.com/flashcards/upload/a4131869.jpg (Accessed May 20, 2010)

Appendix B:
House Divided Speech by Abraham Lincoln.
Illinois Republican State Convention, Springfield, Illinois June 16, 1858
Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention. If we could first know where we are,
and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it.
We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object,
and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation.
Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not ceased, but has
constantly augmented.
In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.
20

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do
expect it will cease to be divided.
It will become all one thing, or all the other.
Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the
public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction; or its
advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as
well as new-North as well as South.
http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/housedivided.htm (accessed January 10, 2010)
21

Did The Divergent Political Perspectives From The "North" and "South" Lead To The American Civil War?

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Did The Divergent Political Perspectives From The "North" and "South" Lead To The American Civil War?

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Name: Lucas Baronzini

Candidate code: ddg648