How Did The Events Of The 1850s Lead To The Civil War

Paragraph One How Did The Events Of The 1850s Lead To The Collapse O

Paragraph One - How did the events of the 1850s lead to the collapse of the Union in 1861? Paragraph Two - Who was responsible for the coming of the Civil War? Was it the South's fault? The North's? Paragraph Three - Was the war inevitable? Your third paragraph is an opportunity to discuss your actual opinion, not worry about whether that opinion is right or wrong. However, make sure it is supported by information in chapter 13. The book is: Give Me Liberty, Volume One, Third Edition by Eric Foner.

Paper For Above instruction

The 1850s were a tumultuous decade that set the stage for the eventual collapse of the Union and the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861. Several pivotal events and decisions during this period intensified sectional tensions between the North and South, rendering the country's unity increasingly fragile. Among these, the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, the Dred Scott decision of 1857, and the violent conflicts such as "Bleeding Kansas" exemplify the escalating hostilities attributable to deeply rooted debates over slavery, states' rights, and territorial expansion. The Kansas-Nebraska Act effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise by allowing settlers in new western territories to decide the slavery question through popular sovereignty, thereby reopening sectional conflicts over the expansion of slavery (Foner, 2010). This legislation entrenched the divide, as Northern opponents of slavery feared the extension of slaveholding into new territories, while Southerners pushed to spread slavery for economic and political reasons.

The Dred Scott decision further deepened the rift by ruling that African Americans could not be citizens and that Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in the territories (Foner, 2010). This Supreme Court ruling invalidated efforts by Northern states to restrict slavery's expansion and heightened Northern opposition to the pro-slavery stance of the South. Additionally, violent incidents like "Bleeding Kansas" underscored the violent passions inflamed by these disputes, as pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces clashed in fighting over whether Kansas would enter as a free or slave state. These events undermined the fragile consensus that had held the Union together and exposed the fundamental disagreements over slavery's legality and morality.

Meanwhile, political parties were fracturing, with the emergence of the Republican Party in 1854, dedicated to halting the spread of slavery. The election of 1860, with Abraham Lincoln’s victory, symbolized the political culmination of these sectional tensions, as Lincoln's platform opposed the expansion of slavery and was perceived by the South as a threat to their economic and social order (Foner, 2010). The subsequent secession of Southern states, beginning with South Carolina, directly resulted from these conflicts, leading to the formal collapse of the Union. The events of the 1850s thus created an environment where compromise was no longer feasible, and secession became the only perceived option for the South's survival of its way of life, marking the ominous pathway toward civil war.

The responsibility for the coming of the Civil War is complex and involves multiple factors, including political, economic, and social elements. Many historians argue that the South bears significant responsibility due to its insistence on maintaining slavery and its reaction to the anti-slavery movements in the North. The South's defense of slavery as a "positive good" and its efforts to protect the institution of slavery from federal restriction exemplify this responsibility (Foner, 2010). Conversely, others contend that the North also bears responsibility because of its failure to effectively address slavery's expansion earlier or to prevent secession through political compromise. Northern abolitionists and moderate politicians sometimes failed to propose more decisive actions to prevent the ensuing conflict, partly because of their own economic interests and political priorities.

In my opinion, while both regions share responsibility, the South bears a greater culpability for the coming of the Civil War. Their unwavering commitment to the preservation of slavery and willingness to secede from the Union made conflict unavoidable. The North’s resistance to slavery's expansion, while morally justified, was not inherently aggressive enough to spark war until the South's secession efforts made armed conflict seem inevitable. Based on the information from chapter 13 of Foner's book, it is evident that the escalation of sectional tensions, fueled by slavery and political disputes, pushed the nation towards war as a last resort to resolve irreconcilable differences. Therefore, I believe that the Civil War was largely a consequence of Southern, pro-slavery actions that refused to let go of their economic foundations and social order.

References

• Foner, Eric. (2010). Give Me Liberty, Volume One, Third Edition. W.W. Norton & Company.
• McPherson, J. M. (1988). Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. Oxford University Press.
• Fehrenbach, T. R. (1991). Lone Star: A History of Texas and the Texas Rangers. Da Capo Press.
• Wilentz, Sean. (2012). The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln. W.W. Norton & Company.
• McDonald, G. S. (2002). States’ Rights, Secession, and the Union. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
• Gienapp, William E. (1987). The Origins of the Civil War. Oxford University Press.
• Bay, Mia. (2014). To Hold the Democratic Republic: The Civil War and the Politics of the Union. Harvard University Press.
• Oates, Stephen B. (1994). Let the Trumpet Sound: A Life of Martin Luther King, Jr.. Harper Collins.
• Schwartz, Byron. (2012). The Civil War Years: 1850-1865. Routledge.
• Wilson, James Q. (2013). The Politics of Civil War. Princeton University Press.