Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
This paper would seek to outline two conflicting views regarding the historical development of the Civil War and in effect, and which argument could be said to have played a greater role in creating an irrevocable division between the North and South territories. The arguments which would be analyzed for the purpose of this paper would be that of David Potiers the Sectional Divisions which resulted in Civil War and the other one is that Michael Holts The Political Divisions which resulted in Civil War .
Both of these e viewpoints are strongly defended in each of the two essays and they highlight different causes which culminated in the eventuality of the Civil War. According to the arguments presented forth by Potier, sectional divisions had roots long before the major divide between the North and South conflict; these differences were issues such as taxes on imports and exports, navigational rights, taxation of slave property. The issue of slaves and their right to freedom, according to this paper, resulted in the breakout of what we now term as the Civil War. This paper highlights certain historical developments such as the Missouri sates application to become a slave state.
Over time, the political developments had shifted from the federal to the local level and hence, this issue once again ignited the issue of slaves and freedom. This resulted in the divide between the free territory in the North and the practice of slavery in the South, an issue which the federal authority was unable to resolve hence, creating a boundary between these two regions.
An important aspect which this paper presented was the concept of the Missouri compromise which eventually resulted in a conflict amongst the Northern and Southern governing parties, one wanting to extend it to other regions while the other seeking its annulment. This resulted in the Southern people revolting against any presidential candidate or party which were going to promote annulment of the slavery laws. Hence, the paper presents the issue of free soil versus the existence of the Missouri compromise.
Compared to this, the argument represented by Holt presides on the notion that the political divisions resulted in the Civil War. This was initiated by the collapse of the Two-Party system and by the time the new parties emerged, the one which won majority federal seats was the Anti-South Republican Party. Hence, resulting in a clear political divide between the two regions. Over time, the issues had become much more localized resulting in the emerging power of the local parties and the lessening influence of the Congress. The Southerners had also lost faith in the efficacy of the political parties and the emergence of the Republican Party had resulted in adding to their woes.
Over time, the growing conflict between the political parties had resulted in the end of the Two-Party system and eventually, in a mass difference of political thought between the two territories. Hence, this paper soughs to provide a link between the growing political differences and the breakup of the Nation.
However, if one was to analyze both arguments it would be seen that the argument presented by Potier seems to be stronger as the issue of slavery was in fact one of the fundamental causes behind the break-up. The issue of slavery was a fundamental part and parcel of the Southern way of living and when it was compromised by the political parties in the North and in the center, resulted in the building of anti-North sentiment in the South.
The Southerners had developed a way of life which was quite different from the North as the majority of them were land-owners and hence, slaves were a necessity for their economic survival. Hence, the argument presented by Potier makes more logical sense as this issue was the key factor behind creating a divide between the American nation. When the basic livelihood of the Southern was brought into question especially since it was a fundamental part of their way of life, it resulted in a growing sense of unrest and conflict. The greater interference of the Northern territories and the Federal authorities into this key matter of the Southern affairs resulted in a divide of thought and understanding.
As the political system, these key variations were the cause behind the collapse of the Two-Party system as well as over time, these regions thinking process was too different to find any common ground. As long as the issue of slavery and a free-soil could not be contended upon, the Southerners were never willing to back any political party which had anti-slave sentiments.
Hence, by the time the Republican Party came into power, the Southerners had lost most of their trust and confidence in a central authority which was far removed from their way of life and which clearly refused to allow the possibility of a system in which slavery could be allowed. The conflict over the Missouri compromise was a key indicator to the vast differences that had developed over time and hence, civil wars eventuality was unquestionable.
References
POTIER M, D The Sectional Divisions That Led to Civil War .
HOLT F, M The Political Divisions That Contributed to Civil War .
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.