sectionalism the causes of the civil war n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
SECTIONALISM & THE CAUSES OF THE CIVIL WAR PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
SECTIONALISM & THE CAUSES OF THE CIVIL WAR

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 14

SECTIONALISM & THE CAUSES OF THE CIVIL WAR - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 112 Views
  • Uploaded on

SECTIONALISM & THE CAUSES OF THE CIVIL WAR. The emergence of different societies & economies in the North and South – the south was agrarian & rural; the north was less agrarian and industry began to appear.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

SECTIONALISM & THE CAUSES OF THE CIVIL WAR


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Presentation Transcript
    1. SECTIONALISM & THE CAUSES OF THE CIVIL WAR • The emergence of different societies & economies in the North and South – the south was agrarian & rural; the north was less agrarian and industry began to appear. • The politics of westward expansion – North & South try to compromise over the admission of new states (‘slave’ or ‘free’) in order to retain political balance in Congress.

    2. North had population of 22 million in 1860. More industry and transportation. More cities. Tended to favor a highertariff (tax on imports) to protect American manufacturers from overseas competition South had a population of 9 million in 1860. Agricultural & very dependent on cotton, a cash crop. Few large cities. Tended to favor a lower tariff to make exporting cotton easier. DIFFERENCES: NORTH & SOUTH

    3. THE POLITICS OF WESTWARD EXPANSION • The Missouri Compromise (1820) – two states admitted, one slave and one free; geographic line would determine future slave/free admission. • The Compromise of 1850 – designated some territories and new states as slave or free; others would determine status by ‘popular sovereignty’ – the residents would decide if slave or free. • The Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) – repealed Missouri Compromise banning slavery in territories north of the 36-30 line; popular sovereignty would decide slave or free….”Bleeding Kansas.”

    4. THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE - 1820 • Two new states: Missouri admitted as a slave state & Maine admitted as a free state so that the Senate would remain balanced with an equal number of slave & free states. • Also, Congress drew a line west from the southern border of Missouri: new states north of the line would be free; new states south of the line would be slave. • Southerners were not very happy with the MC because most of the US territories at the time were north of the line. • The North’s population was growing faster than that of the south (immigrants & manufacturing jobs) which meant the House of Representatives was tilting even more to the north.

    5. THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE OF 1820

    6. TEXAS AND THE WAR WITH MEXICO1836 - 1848 • After Texas declared independence from Mexico in 1836, southerners viewed Texas as a potential slave state; northerners opposed the annexation of Texas for this reason & because of the threat of war with Mexico. • President Tyler (a slave owner) worked hard to annex Texas, and maneuvered Congress into annexing Texas in 1845. • President Polk started war with Mexico after Mexico refused to sell the US part of south Texas, New Mexico, and California. • The US gained all of these territories by defeating Mexico in 1847.

    7. NEW STATES: 1836 - 1848 • New states admitted in ‘pairs,’ one slave and one free. • Michigan F – Arkansas S • Iowa F – Texas S • Wisconsin F – Florida S

    8. ALL OF THIS NEW TERRITORY BROUGHT UP THE SAME QUESTION WHICH LED TO THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE:HOW COULD NEW STATES BE ADMITTED IN A WAY WHICH WOULD SATISFY BOTH NORTH & SOUTH?

    9. THE COMPROMISE OF 1850 California applied for admission as a free state. Southerners opposed upsetting the balance of 15 slave & 15 free states. Southerners finally agreed to a group of compromises: California admitted as a free state (upsets the balance) Utah & New Mexico territories organized & the settlers there woulddecide if admission would be slave or free: POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY. Abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia coupled with the guarantee of slavery there. A new, tougher, fugitive slave law which meant that Northern states would be forced to return fugitive slaves to the South.

    10. WHY THE SOUTH ACCEPTED THE COMPROMISE OF 1850 • The new fugitive slave law would require northern authorities in free states to return escaped slaves to their owners in slave states. • Popular sovereignty in the Utah and New Mexico Territories opened up the possibility of introducing slavery to a large area beyond the Louisiana Purchase. • NOTE: a large portion of the U & NM Territories is north of the 36-30 line.

    11. THE COMPROMISE OF 1850

    12. THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT (1854) • Northern senators wanted to organize the land west of Iowa & Missouri in order to promote a transcontinental railroad. • Southern senators opposed this – they wanted a railroad going west from New Orleans AND the K-N Territories were north of the 36-30 line – new states would be free. • Southerners agreed to the K-N Act when northerners agreed to let K-N settlers decide if they were to be slave or free: popular sovereignty.

    13. THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT (1854)

    14. RESULTS OF THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT • The K-N Act voided the Missouri Compromise by allowing for the possibility of slavery in land from the Louisiana Purchase north of the 36-30 line. • BLEEDING KANSAS: both pro-slavery and anti-slavery ‘settlers’ rushed into Kansas and the result was a small civil war in which several hundred people were killed before federal troops restored order. • Note that both northerners and southerners believe that they could get popular sovereignty to work in favor of their respective sides.