DBQ Civil War

Scott Blain

Winter Solstice, AKA Almost Christmas, 2010

APUSH

Throughout the early 19th century the United States was in a state of constant

compromise that was, despite political debate, able to keep the nation together and in a

general state of peace. However, after half a century of national growth and

development, this era of compromise came to an end, and the north and south slowly

began to drift apart. The foundations of our nation lay in compromises, and compromises

had likewise kept the nation from crumbling for many years since. However, the

institution of political compromise finally came to an end because of tensions of the

antebellum period. It was impossible for the north and south to agree upon the issues

which essentially led to each respective region’s unique life style. There were numerous

centrifugal factors that led to the failure of compromise in the mid 19th century and

eventually the coming of the civil war; these factors leading to national collapse can be

grouped into the categories of political, social, and economic stability.

The first major issue that led to the failure of compromise was the increase in

political tensions especially concerning the nature of the federal union. As the century

lingered on, the south became more ingrained in their belief that the power rested with

the states while the north continued to express the opinion that the federal government

was the supreme ruler of the land. A huge turmoil boiled up over the nullification crisis

of the 1830’s. South Carolina declared that a state could proclaim null and void any
federal law which was not in that state’s best interests. John C. Calhoun was staunch in

his call for nullification. His position left little room for compromise, and Henry Clay

even said that it was “impracticable” for South Carolina to successfully nullify a federal

law. (Doc. A) Clay also doubted the desire of South Carolina to actually try to leave the

union. Clay won the moniker, “the great compromiser” for his uncanny ability to see

both sides of major issues and come up with workable compromises that both sides could

live with. One example of Clay’s work was the Missouri Compromise of 1820. The

nation was at an impasse, but Clay was able to bring the north and south together and

develop an agreement that kept both sides content at least temporarily. Clay’s influence

in the early 1800’s was huge, and his death in the early 1850’s left the nation without that

individual to direct the give and take necessary to preserve the union without war. Some

prominent national politicians such as Daniel Webster did work against sectionalism, but

it was to no avail. Webster presented himself as an American rather than as the

representative of a section. He said that the North had failed at enforcing or even

cooperating with the Fugitive Slave Law, and he denounced possible secession as a

“moral impossibility”. (Doc. D) The Presidential election of 1860 shows the extreme

nature of sectionalism which dominated thinking by that time. The fact that Lincoln won

a plurality but not a majority of the popular votes illustrates how split up the votes were

and in turn how split up the nation was. (Doc. H) Four different candidates: Lincoln,

Breckinridge, Douglas, and Bell, all won a considerable number of electoral votes.

Because of the ever increasing political dissonance, the nation was split wide open, and

compromise was no longer possible.

 Another issue that made compromise difficult was the ever growing social gap

between the north and south that made it hard to understand one another. As the years

went on, the struggle for power between the northern factory moguls and the southern

plantation gentry increased in intensity. The southern aristocracy poked fun at the

northern way of life, mocking their free society as a joke. The south believed that they

were above the likes of greasy northern mechanics and said that northerners were not fit

to associate with southerners. (Doc. E) The north refuted this opinion using their own

propaganda, making the south appear to be aggressive fanatics. Journalistic

interpretations of the caning of Charles Sumner by southerner Preston Brooks portrayed

the north as peaceful and diplomatic while painting the south as a ruthless hoard.

(Doc. E) This view was further expressed by in the annual report of the American Anti-

Slavery Society in 1834. The report condemns slave owners as man stealers and states

that supporting slavery goes against God’s law. In all, the report casts a dark shadow

upon southern society by condemning the institution of slavery. (Doc. B) Abraham

Lincoln also explores the negative impact of slavery on society in his speech at Alton,

Illinois in 1858, claiming that slavery touched everything from religion to literature.

(Doc. G) The social differences between the north and south were much more than subtle

variations in culture and would eventually culminate in the secession of the south and the

onslaught of the civil war.

The final major issue that led to the lack of compromises in the mid 19th century

was the differences in the economic system of the north and south, especially the issue of

slavery. The northern economic system was primarily manufacturing based and relied

upon factories producing textiles and other goods to keep the economy thriving. The
southern economy, on the other hand, was the polar opposite being comprised almost

entirely of agricultural operations. Because of the widespread use of the plantation

system, the south relied upon slaves for the majority of its labor. While the differences in

views of tariffs and other economic issues led to some dissonance, the major dividing

factor between north and south was the issue of slavery. The American Anti-Slavery

Society seemingly ignored the economic impact of slavery in the south by demanding the

immediate and uncompensated emancipation of all slaves. The report also calls for

Congress to end all interstate slave trading. These moves would have huge economic

impact if acted upon. (Doc. B) Many in the House of Representatives realized the

importance of the issue, and the Pinkney Committee even imposed a gag rule which

tabled anti-slavery petitions in the House. (Doc. C) Abraham Lincoln rejects the idea

that slavery is merely political in nature and states that the peculiar institution runs much

deeper into everything from religion to economics. Lincoln states that the difficulties

with slavery went far beyond “agitations of office seekers”. (Doc G) It is evident that

the intense debate over slavery and other economic differences between the north and

south contributed heavily to the coming of the civil war.

By the mid 19th century the United States had undergone a great transformation in

national attitudes that led to a widening gap between the societies of the north and south.

As the north continued to gain political and monetary power, the south grew in

aristocratic and foreign support. Because of the ongoing changes in politics, economics,

and social atmosphere, compromise was no longer possible. The man largely responsible

for national compromises throughout the first half of the 19th century, Henry Clay, passed

away in 1852. The compromises of 1820 and 1850, spearheaded by Clay, staved off
national crises that could have led to civil war, but no such compromise would emerge in

1860. The institution of slavery, views of the nature of the union, and states’ rights all

worked together to spark sectional discord that got beyond any workable compromise.

The bloody conflict of the American Civil War was a long time in coming. It was not an

isolated incident that just occurred in the 1860’s. It was the culmination of events which

transpired throughout the 19th century.