You See My Tears Drop Down to the Floor

Essay about U.S. History 
(Did slavery issues about the new Western territories contributed to the occurrence of the Civil War? (Time: 1840s~1861)



     American nationalism had soon led to the idea of Manifest Destiny around the 1840s: that America was destined-by God and by history-to expand its boundaries over a vast area. Enthusiasm for territorial expansion aroused in the States, and movements were on their way: Texas was annexed, then Oregon, California, Mexican Cession, and Kansas. These new areas aroused controversies over slavery on these territories-North for antislavery and South for pro-slavery-, and those controversies were the main contributing factors of Civil War’s outbreak. Their effect can be analyzed into three parts: first, discord between North and South deepened through disharmonious conventions and compromises; second, political system was damaged and replaced by sectional two parties; third, the South was alarmed with North’s defiance against federal decisions beneficial for South.
     Primarily: conflicts severed as events like Wilmot Proviso, Compromise of 1850, and Kansas-Nebraska Act happened. Wilmot Proviso in 1846 was the apparent start: it was a bill prohibiting slavery in any territory acquired from Mexico. It aroused sectional debates between the North and the South, and the debates went on for several months. This event formally initiated the nation into the hot controversies over slavery.
     Compromise of 1850 was provided to solve mainly slavery-related problems. California, Mexican Cession, and District of Columbia (DC) were the disputed areas; the compromise made California a free state, popular sovereignty in Mexican Cession, no slave trade in District of Columbia, and reinforcing the fugitive slave law. The compromise seemed to be South’s victory and the debate was to be over. However, the convention was not harmonious: William Seward, a northern Whig, said there is a “higher law than the Constitution,” which is the moral of humans, and therefore North should not ‘compromise’ with the South of pro-slavery.
     Kansas-Nebraska Act also severed the discord between the North and the South. Stephen A. Douglas, a senator from Illinois and who wanted the transcontinental railroad for his own section, introduced the bill about organizing a territory called Nebraska. The act repeals the Missouri Compromise, allows popular sovereignty in Kansas-Nebraska, and divides the area into two territories-Nebraska and Kansas. The Act seemed to be the South’s victory. Until it was declared law, there were strenuous debates between parties and even in the party itself. Conflicts and sectional debates were severe, and the nation was getting divided.
     Furthermore, slavery problem over the new western territories also intensified the sectionalism politically. Wilmot Proviso and Kansas-Nebraska Act show how the political system was changed before Civil War. At the presidential campaign in 1848-right after the Wilmot Proviso, both the Whig and the Democrats avoided the slavery problem. That could not satisfy some people, and so a new party was created-the Free-Soil Party. This new party had impressive votes-ten percent of the total-and had ten members elected to the Congress, which meant there were at least ten percent of America who thought the slavery problem was needed to be issued. This emergence of a new, notable party signaled that the primary system with parties which have mixed opinions about slavery would not be able to handle the hot problem; and thus the nation will need a new political system with new parties which share the idea of slavery, eventually leading to sectioned parties system.
     The Kansas-Nebraska Act also leads to that new system, after destructing the former system critically. The Act aroused conflicts in Democrats and Whigs, and the Anti-Nebraska Democrats and Anti-Nebraska Whigs went out of the party and created the Republican Party in 1854. Free-soilers and Know-nothings also gathered. Under so much conflict the Whig Party was destroyed, Northern Democrats were divided and many of them left the party. Moreover, the two new major parties were explicitly sectional in composition and creed: the political system was getting fatally destructed and replaced with such divided version.
     Lastly: south, before Civil War, was alarmed with North’s resistance and seeing how North ignored the federal decision; the South began to feel like they have to secede because events just like the opposed fugitive act and the “Bleeding Kansas” have shown, what they considered victory seemed to become meaningless in the face of North’s defiance. To illustrate: Compromise of 1850 included the provision of reinforcing the fugitive slave law, which was a favorable part for the South. However, in some northern cities mobs were formed to prevent the reinforcement of the new law, and several northern states passed their own laws blocking the fugitive slaves from leaving the state. This was a defiance of the North, and the federal decision was being ignored. The “Bleeding Kansas” also showed Northern resistance: Free-Staters in Kansas building a new government on their own and John Brown killing the pro-slavery settlers. It was like a mini civil war. Right after the “Bleeding Kansas”, in the United States Senate-in 1856-, Charles Sumner of Massachusetts was caned and substantially wounded by Preston Brooks from South Carolina-a member of the House of Representatives, because of Sumner’s vicious speech toward South Carolinian about slavery. North was resisting: and South became to worry about not being able to do what they want to.