chapter 1 the origins of the - cambridge university...

History of the USA 1840–1941

6

Key questions

• How and why did the outcomes of the war with Mexico in 1846–48 add to sectional diffi culties?

• Why did the Compromise of 1850 break down so quickly?

• Why did the Republicans win the 1860 presidential election?

• Why did the Civil War begin in April 1861?

Content summary • The Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the Wilmot Proviso

of 1846.• The outcome of the US–Mexican War 1846–48 and the Treaty

of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848.• The Compromise of 1850 and the reasons for its breakdown.• The Fugitive Slave Act and the Kansas–Nebraska Act.• The political effect of Uncle Tom’s Cabin.• The formation of the Republican Party and the Republican victory

in the 1860 presidential election.• The secession of the Southern states and the outbreak of war.• The leadership of Lincoln and Jefferson.

The origins of the Civil War 1846–61

Chapter

1

TimelineJan 1820 Missouri Compromise Dec 1845 Texas annexed by the USA Apr 1846 War with Mexico beginsJun 1846 USA settles dispute with Britain over OregonFeb 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ends US–Mexican WarSep 1850 Compromise of 1850 May 1854 Kansas–Nebraska Act; Bleeding Kansas (to 1861)1854–56 Formation of the Republican Party Mar 1857 Dred Scott judgment Oct 1859 Raid on Harpers Ferry Nov 1860 Abraham Lincoln elected as president Dec 1860 South Carolina secedes from the USAJan–Feb 1861 Six other states secede from the USA; the Confederacy establishedMar 1861 Lincoln inaugurated as president Apr–May 1861 Four more states join the Confederacy

www.cambridge.org© in this web service Cambridge University Press

Cambridge University Press978-1-107-67960-3 - Cambridge International AS Level: History of the USA 1840–1941Pete Browning and Patrick Walsh-AtkinsExcerptMore information

http://www.cambridge.org/9781107679603

http://www.cambridge.org


7

1 The origins of the Civil War 1846–611 The origins of the Civil War 1846–611 The origins of the Civil War 1846–611 The origins of the Civil War 1846–611 The origins of the Civil War 1846–611 The origins of the Civil War 1846–611 The origins of the Civil War 1846–611 The origins of the Civil War 1846–611 The origins of the Civil War 1846–611 The origins of the Civil War 1846–611 The origins of the Civil War 1846–611 The origins of the Civil War 1846–611 The origins of the Civil War 1846–611 The origins of the Civil War 1846–611 The origins of the Civil War 1846–611 The origins of the Civil War 1846–611 The origins of the Civil War 1846–611 The origins of the Civil War 1846–611 The origins of the Civil War 1846–611 The origins of the Civil War 1846–611 The origins of the Civil War 1846–611 The origins of the Civil War 1846–611 The origins of the Civil War 1846–611 The origins of the Civil War 1846–611 The origins of the Civil War 1846–611 The origins of the Civil War 1846–611 The origins of the Civil War 1846–61

Introduction

The United States was formed in 1776–83 as the result of 13 colonies winning a revolutionary war against their British rulers. The USA was different to the monarchies and empires of the time, in that it was

based on the revolutionary ideas of democratic government and liberty of the individual. Furthermore, the USA was the fi rst nation with an offi cial constitution – that is, a single document containing the rules by which the country was to be governed. By agreeing this constitution, the 13 states (then all located on what is now the east coast of the USA) achieved a careful compromise between their different interests. There were several points of tension between different regions of the United States, particularly between the Northern and Southern states, and these confl icts became greater over the next 70 years. Issues such as cultural and industrial differences between North and South, the ownership of slaves and the extent of state rights versus federal rights eventually led to a four-year civil war. Political attempts to resolve the confl ict repeatedly failed, and more than 600,000 people died as a result of the war.

Figure 1.1 The signing of the US Constitution in 1787







Sectional tensions in the United StatesIn 1789, the USA consisted of 13 states based on the east coast of North America and stretching across to the Mississippi River. The rest of North America was governed – very loosely – by other European powers: Britain, Spain and Russia and, from 1800 to 1803, France. There were tensions between the new, revolutionary United States and the European powers. The colony of Louisiana, taken by France from Spain in 1800, was sold to the USA three years later for just $15 million, or 3 cents per acre. The Louisiana Purchase, as it was called, more than doubled the size of the USA.

The USA expanded westwards and gained new lands. Those lands had to be organised into federal territories before being allowed to become states. This westward expansion raised an issue that would trouble US development for the next 80 years – the issue of slavery.

The two main sections of the early USA became known as the North and the South. The 13 original states were split roughly half and half, with three main differences between the sections:

• slavery• economic differences• cultural differences.

Slavery and the Missouri CompromiseIn 1860, slavery was legal in the South of the USA, but was illegal in the North. The US Constitution had allowed slavery, and it was a fundamental feature of the Southern economy and society. However, by the 1820s all Northern states had banned slavery.

WhiteBlack and mixed race

Free Slave

North 18.42 million 0.23 million –

South 6.29 million 0.26 million 3.95 million

Table 1.1 US population by racial groups in 1860 (1860 Census, page xii)

8

Note: The difference between federal territories and states was that although both territories and states were under federal government, states had much greater freedom from federal control.

federalIf something is

described as federal, it relates to the central

government of a union of states.






9

Figure 1.2 A slave auction in Virginia, 1861

More than one-third of the people in the South were slaves, and white Southerners found themselves having to try and justify slavery in various ways: economic, political and moral. As new states joined the USA, a key issue was whether they did or did not allow slavery – whether they were ‘slave’ states or ‘free’ states. The United States relied on a careful balance between these two. If that balance was disturbed, then the political stability of the nation was at risk. In 1820, plans to admit Missouri as a slave state caused problems because it upset the equal numbers of slave and free states. There were a growing number of Northerners who thought slavery was morally wrong and wanted to abolish it throughout the USA. These people were known as abolitionists.

CongressThe legislative (law-making) branch of the US government is made up of elected members and divided into two chambers – the Senate and the House of Representatives. There must be a majority agreement in both houses inorder for legislation to be passed.

Note: The abolitionists became an increasingly important political force from the 1830s onwards. They came from a wide variety of groups and classes. Some were liberal humanitarians and some had deeply religious reasons for opposing slavery. They received a lot of support in the popular press of the day. Some abolitionists were prepared to support direct action and joined the ‘Underground Railroad’ (see page 19), helping slaves to escape to the North.

An early compromise between North and South, known as the Missouri Compromise, was eventually agreed by Congress in 1820. Missouri could join the United States as a slave state if Maine, in the north-east, joined as a free state. A second feature of the Compromise proved to be of great importance in the following 40 years: Congress agreed that in the Louisiana Territory bought from France in 1803, there would be no slavery in lands north of latitude 36° 30’ that were still awaiting statehood. The only exception to this was the state of Missouri itself.








10

Economic differencesEconomic and social differences between the North and South became more apparent over time, especially after the Northern states abolished slavery in the early 19th century. Population growth was one major difference between North and South. By 1860, the original 13 states of the USA had grown to 18 free states and 15 slave states. The North’s population was 18.65 million, the South’s 10.5 million. A higher standard of living was primarily responsible for the North’s population growth, but another important factor was that the North was the destination for the majority of immigrants to the USA.

Another major difference between North and South was the growth of industry in the North. Increasing internal and foreign trade, helped by

transport changes (canals, roads and river use), led to the growth of a range of industries such as engineering and textiles. With great support for business and enterprise from state governments, and the growth of a mobile society that respected wealth and business skills, a very different socio-economic system emerged in the North than existed in the South.

Not everyone saw industrialisation as either desirable or inevitable. The South didn’t welcome industrialisation, and largely retained its agrarian (farming-based) economy with much less industrial production – in 1860, only 8% of US factories were located in the South. A large part of the Southern workforce was involved in the production of cotton, with some tobacco and rice, and slaves were vital to the harvesting of those crops. Foreign competition had led to the lowering of cotton prices on the world market, and many of the larger farmers and slave owners were falling into debt. There was growing feeling in the South that its economic interests were being sacrifi ced in order to increase the profi ts of Northern industrialists.

Note: As production on the plantations was very labour-intensive, the plantation owners used slaves to grow and harvest the cotton and also to work in the mills to produce the raw cotton cloth. This free labour was essential to the plantation owners’ profi ts.

km0 500

0 500miles

Closed to slavery by Missouri Compromise

Open to slavery by Missouri Compromise

Free states and territories

Slave states

British North America (Canada)

UnorganizedTerritory

Michigan Territory

ArkansasTerritory

FloridaTerritory

Atlantic

Ocean

OregonCountry

SpanishPossessions

36º 30'

Missouri CompromiseLine

Tennessee

Delaware

Alabama

NorthCarolina

SouthCarolina

Pennsylvania

RhodeIsland

New Jersey

Maryland

Connecticut

Georgia

Louisiana

Missouri

Illinois Indiana

Ohio

Kentucky

Mis

siss

ippi

Massachusetts

Maine

NewHampshire

New York

Vermont

Virginia

Washington, DC

Figure 1.3 A map of the 1820 Missouri Compromise, showing free and slave states






11

Figure 1.4 A cotton gin (machine for extracting cotton fibres from their seeds) in the Southern United States

By the 1850s, more than half of US exports consisted of raw cotton, largely sent to the Lancashire cotton mills in Britain. The economic interests of the South and North began to come into conflict. The South supported free trade in order to encourage greater trade with Britain. The North wanted tariffs to protect the new industries being formed in the Northern region against competition with Britain. Some historians argue that these economic differences were more important than slavery in causing the Civil War.

Cultural differencesNorth and South were divided not only socially and economically, but also culturally. Although Americans from the North and South came from the same European emigrants, by the middle of the 19th century different social values were emerging in the two regions. In particular, the importance of ‘honour’ was still central to Southern life, while it was disappearing from the North. Honour is a code of duties imposed by a social group on its members. If your honour was questioned, you had to defend it – to the death if necessary. Therefore violence was part of this ‘honour’ code, usually taking the form of duels. In the North, states began passing laws that suppressed duelling, and a formal legal code started to replace an informal social code.

Some historians argue that the cultural distinctiveness of the South was so great that it is possible to speak of an independent Southern nationalism, based on slavery, chivalry and a strong Christian faith. The North’s own regional identity was based on free labour, liberty and a more puritanical Christianity.

free tradeThis describes international trade that is left to run its course according to market forces rather than being manipulated through tariffs, quotas or other restrictions.

tariffsTariffs are taxes or duties paid on certain imported and exported goods. Tariffs mean that particular imported products or materials are more expensive to consumers. By selectively restricting foreign trade in this way, governments can encourage consumers to buy from alternate sources – often from inside the country itself.







12

From all quarters of South Carolina have come to my ears the echoes of the same voice; it may be feigned but it sounds in wonderful strength all over the country, ‘nothing on earth shall ever induce us to submit to any union with the brutal, bigoted blackguards of the New England states, who neither comprehend nor regard the feelings of gentlemen! Man, woman and child, we’ll die � rst.’

Imagine these and an in� nite variety of similar sentiments uttered by courtly, well-educated men, who set great store on a nice observance of the usages of society and who are only moved to extreme bitterness and anger when they speak of the North and you will fail to conceive the intensity of the dislike of the South Carolinians for the free states. There is nothing in the dark caves of human passion so cruel and deadly as the hatred the South Carolinians profess for the Yankees.

From Pictures of Southern Life by British author William Howard Russell, 1861.

The North is prosperous and the South is not. The one increases and multiplies by a process which freedom and civilization constantly accelerates. The South goes far backward by a process which ignorance and slavery inaugurate. The wealth, the power, the intelligence, the religion and advanced civilization are with the � rst. The last is secondary and retrograde. It is the in� rmity of semi-barbarous men to hate what they cannot imitate; hence the bitterness which marks the utterances and emphasizes the actions of the rebels. Dislike of what is above and beyond them is at the bottom of this.

From the Chicago Tribune, February 1861.

Political issuesUnderstanding the political tensions that began to develop in the 19th century requires an initial awareness of the US political system, which was founded on the 1787 Constitution:

• The USA is a republic, the head of state being an elected president. • The USA is a federal state, with powers shared between the national

government – known as the federal government – in Washington, DC, and the various states.






13

separation of powersSeparate branches of government are given separate powers that other branches have no control over (apart from overseeing fair practice with checks and balances).

checks and balancesEach branch of government is able to veto (prevent) or amend acts or decisions made by other branches.

Note: By the 1840s, two political parties had emerged: the Democrats and the Whigs. Both were national parties that attracted support across the USA. In broad terms, the Democrats identifi ed more with rural, agricultural America and were very suspicious of the federal government taking too much power from the states. The Whigs were more concerned with the growing industrial towns and cities. They wanted to use the powers of federal government to protect and develop a more integrated national economy.

• The US system of government is based on a system of checks and balances to ensure that no one part of government becomes too powerful.

• The US government is built on the idea of the separation of powers. The elected national assembly, Congress (see page 9), makes the laws. The separately elected president is in offi ce for four years, and recommends national policies. The Supreme Court decides whether the politicians’ laws and policies are within the rules of the Constitution.

• Amending the Constitution is very diffi cult. To do so, two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of the states have to agree.

Although the creators of the US Constitution had hoped to create a system of government that would prevent political parties ever being formed, this did not happen. National political parties began to emerge immediately after independence, and initially they proved to be important unifying factors in the United States. There were plenty of issues, such as expansion, on which people in both the North and the South could agree. Issues that might prove divisive, such as slavery, tended to be left to local politicians to deal with, rather than being raised at a national level. However, once slavery became a national issue, political parties became forces for disunity.

Another issue that divided the North and South and further split the national parties was the nature and extent of the powers of the president and Congress. Many Southern states and Democrats from the South were anxious to prevent a president or Congress from harming their interests – particularly in the case of slavery. They wanted to ensure that a state could retain the right to legislate for itself and not be dictated to by a president or Congress in Washington, DC. Northern Democrats were less hostile to growth in the power of federal government, so ‘states’ rights’ (the right of a state to decide its own destiny) became an issue that divided parties, as well as North and South.








QuestionsWhat picture do Sources A, B and C below paint of Southern society?

What arguments do Sources B and C give for and against slavery?

Read through all three sources. Which source is more useful for a historian? Which is more reliable? Explain your answers.

1

2

3 Read through all three sources. Which source is more useful Read through all three sources. Which source is more useful for a historian? Which is more reliable? Explain your answers.for a historian? Which is more reliable? Explain your answers.

333333

Source A

Each bank [of the Ohio River] forms the frontier of a vast state: the one on the left is called Kentucky, the other [on the right] takes its name from the river itself. The two states differ in only one respect: Kentucky has accepted slaves but Ohio has rejected them.

On the left bank of the river, the population is sparse; occasionally a troop of slaves can be seen loitering in half-deserted � elds; society seems to be asleep; man looks idle while nature looks active and alive.

On the right bank, a confused hum announces from a long way off the presence of industrial activity; the � elds are covered by abundant harvests; elegant dwellings proclaim the taste and industry of the workers; in every direction there is evidence of comfort; men appear wealthy and content; they are at work.

Alexis de Tocqueville (a French writer), Democracy in America, 1835.

Source B

I appeal to facts. The black race of central Africa came to us in a low, degraded and savage condition. In the course of a few generations it has grown up under the fostering care of our institutions to its present comparatively civilized condition. This, with the rapid increase of numbers, is conclusive proof of the general happiness of the black race, in spite of all the exaggerated tales to the contrary.

In the meantime, the white race [in the South] has not degenerated. It has kept pace with its brethren in other parts of the Union where slavery does not exist. Have we not contributed our full share of talents and political wisdom in forming and sustaining this political system? Have we not constantly inclined more strongly to the side of liberty and been the � rst to resist the encroachments of power?

An extract from a speech to the US Senate by the senator for South Carolina, John Calhoun, 1837.

Alexis de Tocqueville (a French writer), Alexis de Tocqueville (a French writer), Democracy in America,Democracy in America, 1835 1835. . senator for South Carolina, John Calhoun, 1837.senator for South Carolina, John Calhoun, 1837.

Source C

The question of slavery is undeniably, for this country at least, the great question of the age. On the right decision of it depend interests too vast to be � tly set forth in words. Here are three millions of slaves in a land calling itself free; three millions of human beings robbed of every right, and, by statute and custom, among a people self-styled Christian, held as brutes.

Knowledge is forbidden, and religious worship, if allowed, is clogged with fetters; the sanctity of marriage is denied; and home and family and all the sacred names of kindred, which form the dialect of domestic love, are made unmeaning words. The soul is crushed, that the body may be safely coined into dollars.

Charles Burleigh, ‘Slavery and the North’ (an abolitionist tract), 1855.14






15

The outcomes of the war with Mexico

Up until the Mexican war, there were committed abolitionists, men who carried their hostility to slavery into all elections. They were noisy but not numerous … Opposition was not a creed of either political party. In some sections, more anti-slavery men belonged to the Democratic Party and in others to the Whigs. But with the inauguration of the Mexican war, in fact with the annexation of Texas, the ‘inevitable’ con� ict commenced.

Ulysses S. Grant, Personal Memoirs, 1885–86.

The extract above is from a book by Ulysses S. Grant, military leader of the Union (Northern) armies in 1864–65 and US president between 1869 and 1877. Grant’s perception of when the Civil War commenced provides a useful starting point for explaining how events unfolded from the annexation of Texas in 1845 to the outbreak of the war 16 years later.

Figure 1.5 The attack over Chapultepec (1846) during the US–Mexican War

Key figure

Ulysses S. Grant (1822–85)Grant was a career soldier who, despite a diffi cult start at his military academy, was an excellent horseman and a keen fi ghter. Not content with his responsibilities as a quartermaster in the US–Mexican War, he went to the frontlines to engage in combat. He had much success as a general during the Civil War, and went on to become US president in 1869.







chapter 1 the origins of the - cambridge university...

Documents