The Civil War

States Rights vs Federal Rights

• States Rights (South)– Believes the federal gov’t

works for them– Could declare laws null and

void– Had the right to secede

• Federal Gov’t Rights (North)– Federal gov’t has some power

over the states (delegated and implied powers)

– Supreme Court was the only body to decide if laws were unconstitutional

– No state had the right to secede.

Senator Daniel Webster (MA), “If a state had the right to secede, the union would be no more than a rope of sand.”

Origins of States Rights

• The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions– Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 >protect the US gov’t

from anarchy (French Revolution)…meant to keep wealthy Federalists in power

– James Madison and Thomas Jefferson convinced Virginia and Kentucky to pass resolutions saying: 1- federal gov’t works for the states, 2- declare Alien and Sedition Acts null and void

– Jefferson becomes President in 1800 > Alien and Sedition Acts get repealed by a Democratic-Republican Congress

– States Rights issue is not resolved

Tariff Issue

• 1828> protective tariffs known as Tariff of Abominations (believed to benefit North)– Protested by South Carolina

(Vice President John C. Calhoun from South Carolina

– 1832> South Carolina passes Ordinance of Nullification> Declares tariff law null and void in South Carolina

Tariff Issue

• President Andrew Jackson pledges to use military to enforce Tariff law….”nullification was incompatible with the existence of the Union.”

• Both sides threatened to stand strong

Tariff Issue

• Outcome:– Congress passes Compromise Tariff of 1833• Significant reduction in tariff• South Carolina withdraws Ordinance but still proclaims

power to nullify federal laws• Issue that is still unresolved…….State’s rights

– more power Federal vs. States

Sectionalism

• Antebellum South (phrase to describe rebellious South) support state’s rights to protect sectional interests

• North vs. South (West mixed)• North believed what was good for one was

good for all – Problem= North and South are different

(industry/agriculture)

Sectional Disputes

1. Protective Tariff- good for the North and bad for the South- fear of retaliation against exportation of cotton

2. Internal Improvements- good fro the North and West and bad for the South- more Western products shipped to the North- but everyone pays

3. Cheap land in the West > $1.25 an acre- West> good because it would lead to expansion of the West- North> bad because it would take away workers- South> good & bad because it would lead agriculture (expansion of

slavery) but could lead to less representation in House

Sectional Disputes4. Expansion of Southwest

- West> good because it would open up more cheap land to develop

- North> bad because it would open up land to the expansion of slavery> more power in Congress for slavery supporters

- South> good because it would allow for expansion of slavery and growth of “King Cotton”

5. Expansion of Slavery- North> against because of abolitionism- South> in favor of because of more representation in Congress =

more power to fight tariffs and more opportunity to keep slavery around

Politics Leading to War• 1854

– The Whig Party splits over the Kansas-Nebraska Act • Northern Whigs vs. Southern Whigs

– Democrats also split over K-N Act• Northern Democrats rebel against

party

– Many Northern Dems and Northern Whigs form the Republican Party > a sectional party with no support from South• Whig Party disappears• Republicans vs. Northern Democrats

vs. Southern Democrats

Politics Leading to War• 1856

– The Sumner-Brooks Affair– Charles Sumner (D-MA) spoke out

against slavery and “The Crime Against Kansas” in a speech in the Senate• Remarks against the South and specifically

Senator Butler (D-SC and co-author of K-N Act)

– 3 days later Representative Preston Brooks (D-SC and Butler’s nephew) enters the Senate and beats Sumner over the head with a cane on the Senate floor• Said he was “upholding Southern honor”

- Sumner in a coma for 6 months and out of the Senate for 2 years…MA doesn’t replace him as symbol of a Southern brutality

Politics Leading to War

• Abe Lincoln– He was not abolitionist

although he hated slavery

– He believed that a black man could never live on equal terms in a white society

– Propsoed that a freed slave be colonized in South or Central America

Politics Leading to War

• Lincoln-Douglas Debates– Ran against each other for

the US Senate in 1858 (and again for President in 1860)• Douglas a Democrat and

Lincoln a Republican• “I believe this gov’t cannot

endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the House to fall; But I do expect that it will cease to be divided. It will become all on thing or all the other.” – Abe Lincoln

Politics Leading to War• Lincoln and Douglas hold a series of debates

throughout Illinois– Lincoln makes it known that he hopes to

confine slavery to where it exists and let it die a slow, natural death

– In the debate in Freeport Lincoln corners Douglas • He asked, “Can people of a US territory in any

lawful way exclude slavery from its limits prior to the formation of a state?”

• They cannot because of Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott but it was a no win for Douglas

• Douglas’ answer was careful and calculated• Becomes known as the Freeport Doctrine

– “if voters are against slavery, they could pass slave codes that were needed for existence (popular sovereignty without going against Dred Scott)

• Made people of Illinois happy but he lost support of the South (viewed as allowed slavery to be abolished)

• Douglas won the Senate election> lost 1860 Presidential election but big winner was Lincoln.