Can the United States Justify the Civil War
The definition of Manifest Destiny reads as: "The belief in the 1840's in the
inevitable territorial expansion of the United States, especially as advocated by
southern slaveholders who wished to extend slavery into new territories." This
explanation was transcribed from the World Book Encyclopedia's dictionary. It is
directly evident that from this unbiased statement we can trace the first uprising of a
separate group of people yearning to break the newly formed bond of the great United
States.
Before and during the Mexican War, the people who were pushing for the claimed land once
owned by innocent native americans, were always looking for a scapegoat. They needed one
way or another, a way to squirm out of taking the blame for the enslaved and murdered
Mexican causalities. There was one man, though, who would not let this happen, David
Wilmot. David Wilmot was a democrat from Pennsylvania, who was willing to revise the
President's bill. In this revision, Wilmot proposed "...neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude shall ever exist in any part of the territory...". This was not well liked by
the South and eventhough it was given thumbs up many times in the senate, our newly
formed country was now bordered by fresh land. The Wilmot Proviso underwent quite a bit
of pressure so that compromises could satisfy each side.
The Compromise of 1850 was soon to follow but the real catch of the same year was the
Fugitive Slave Act. This act was invented so that the slaves of slaveowners, who took
them to a slave-free state on a vacation or something, could not escape. In this act,
the hardest part to understand, was that the courts were to try to give a fair trial to
any runaway slaves. This enfuriated many of the Northern abolitionists who now were
going to expand the tracks of the underground railroad to help extend their efforts in
the rescue of the runaways. The point of no return, where many people knew for sure that
the country would be devided between the north and the south was the ruling on the Kansas
Nebraska Act. This act was majorly contributed into by Stephen A. Douglas and probably
would never have passed without his consent. The whole idea behind the act that really
got to the south was Popular Sovereignty. This so called "specific" rule was none to
specific in stating when a territory could decide when they were pro or anti slavverry.
The abolitionists were flooding the new territory with their own kind where as the
southerners were just moving next door. They were armed and ready and knew that they
would have to shed blood before the voters went to the polls.
In the year of 1860, our most prized yet controversial president came into office,
Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln had many issues to cover in the begining of his term and he did
not want to go aabout it in the wrong fashion. The first thing Lincoln could have done
to delay the war if not prevent it was to let the Confederates have Fort Sumter. But
because of his stubborness, the begining of the Civil War had started with no casualities
but the rifles had been fired, Union against the Confederacy.
The north and the south had it's share of loud mouths who threw their weight around and
they were not about to stop until they had their way. Although these people were in the
numbers of just a handful, their charismatic ways received a lot of attention that was
only to feed the fire of of no compromise. One of the major contributers to this action
was John Brown. In the year 1859, John Brown led a band of twenty two armed men into
Harper's Ferry, Virginia and went on a slaying spree starting with the slaveowners
families and then freeing the slaves so they could join in arms with his party. But
there is another side of the coin and that is where Dred Scott comes in the Civil War
picture. Dred Scott was a slave who was taken to Illinois by his master on a trip and
taking notice to the Missouri Compromise, he sued his master to be free. The case went
to Supreme Court where he was ruled against at a 7 to 2 vote. So this meant that there
was no way that he could bring the case to Federal Court and sue. There was quite an
uproar on the decision and this made it very impossible not to foresee the coming of the
Civil War.
When we look to the past and see that this hunk of rock now known as the United States
was given to us to explore our frredom of religeon, who would of thought that it would be
taken this far. Brothers against brothers, families torn apart because of one little
infraction, slavery. Who would have thought that 700,000 people would die at the hands
of their own countrymen, people that they fought with during the Revolutionary War so
that they could be free of the monarchy of British Rule. Now in today's perspective, we,
the United States are trying to stop that from happening in other parts of our ever
growing world.ritory...". This was not well liked by the South and eventhough it was
given thumbs up ma or something, could not escape.
|