The Civil War. States Rights vs Federal Rights States Rights (South) – Believes the federal...
-
Upload
dennis-patrick -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
1
Transcript of The Civil War. States Rights vs Federal Rights States Rights (South) – Believes the federal...
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 Alien and Sedition Acts get repealed by a Democratic-Republican Congress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.