Cobbs-Hoffman Elizabeth, Blum Edward J., Gjerde Jon. Major Problems in American History, Volume I, 3 edition (ENG)

6. Chief Justice Roger Taney

Determines the Legal Status of Slaves, 1857

The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into

this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community

formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States,

and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities,

guarantied by [the Constitution] to the citizen? One of which rights is the privi-

lege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the

Constitution….

… We think they [negroes] are not, and that they are not included, and

were not intended to be included, under the word “citizens” in the Constitu-

tion, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which [it] … se-

cures to the citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at the time

considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated

by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to

their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the

power and the Government might choose to grant them….

In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship

which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a

member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the

rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the

United States….

The question then arises, whether the provisions of the Constitution, in re-

lation to the personal rights and privileges to which the citizen of a State should

be entitled, embraced the negro African race, at that time in this country, or who

might afterwards be imported, who had then or should afterwards be made free

in any State; and to put it in the power of a single State to make him a citizen of

the United States….

The court think the affirmative of these propositions cannot be maintained.

And if it cannot, the plaintiff in error could not be a citizen of the State of

Missouri … and consequently, was not entitled to sue in its courts….

It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to

that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions

of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the

Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. But the public his-

tory of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken.

They had for more than a century been regarded as beings of an inferior

order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or

political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white

man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be re-

duced to slavery for his benefit….

And in no nation was this opinion more firmly fixed or more uniformly

acted upon than by the English Government and English people….

Roger Taney, opinion in Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857).

CAREENING TOWARD CIVIL WAR

393

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).

Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

The opinion thus entertained and acted upon in England was naturally

impressed upon the colonies they founded on this side of the Atlantic. And accord-

ingly, a negro of the African race was regarded by them as an article of property,

and held, and bought and sold … in every one of the thirteen colonies….

[Laws passed in the thirteen colonies] show that a perpetual and impassable

barrier was intended to be erected between the white race and the one which

they had reduced to slavery, and governed as subjects with absolute and despotic

power….

[T]here are two clauses of the Constitution which point directly to the

negro race as a separate class of persons, and show clearly that they were not

regarded as a portion of the people or citizens of the Government then

formed.

One of these clauses reserves to each of the thirteen States the right to im-

port slaves until the year 1808…. And by the other provision the States pledge

themselves to each other to maintain the right of property of the master, by de-

livering up to him any slave who may have escaped from his service, and be

found within their respective territories….

The only two provisions [of the Constitution] which point to [slaves] and

include them, treat them as property, and make it the duty of the Government

to protect it; no other power, in relation to this race, is to be found in the

Constitution….

[T]he court is of the opinion, that, upon the facts stated in the plea of abate-

ment, Dred Scot was not a citizen of Missouri within the meaning of the Con-

stitution of the United States, and not entitled as such to sue in its courts.

7. Senate Candidates Abraham Lincoln

and Stephen Douglas

Debate Their Positions on Slavery, 1858

Mr. Douglas’ Opening Speech

At half past two, Mr. Douglas took the front of the platform….

M

R.DOUGLAS said—Ladies and gentlemen. I appear before you to-day for

the purpose of discussing the leading political topics which now agitate the pub-

lic mind….

… Mr. Lincoln here says that our government cannot endure permanently

in the same condition in which it was made by its framers. It was made divided

into free States and slave States. Mr. Lincoln says it has existed for near eighty

years thus divided; but he tells you that it cannot endure permanently on the

same principles and in the same conditions relatively in which your fathers

made it. [“Neither can it.”—Times] Why can’t it endure divided into free and

slave States? Washington, as the President of the Convention, Franklin, and

Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858 (New York: Oxford University Press,

1965), 45, 53–56, 59, 61–63, 77.

394 MAJOR PROBLEMS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).

Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Madison, and Hamilton, and Jay, and the patriots of that day, made this govern-

ment divided into free States and slave States, leaving each State perfectly free to

do as it pleased on that subject of slavery. [“Right, right.”—Times] Why can’tit

exist upon the same principles upon which our fathers made it. [“It can.”—Times]

Our fathers knew when they made this government that in a country as wide and

broad as this with such a variety of climate, of interests, of productions, as this that

the people necessarily required different local laws and local institutions in certain

localities from those in other localities. They knew that the laws and regulations

that would suit the granite hills of New Hampshire would be unsuited to the rice

plantations of South Carolina. [“right, right,”—Times] Hence, they provided that

each State should retain its own Legislature and its own sovereignty, with the full

and complete power to do as it pleased within its own limits in all that was local

and not national. [Applause.—Times] One of the reserved rights of the States was

that of regulating the relation between master and slave, or the slavery question….

I therefore say that uniformity in the local laws and local legislations of the differ-

ent States was neither possible nor desirable. If any uniformity had been adopted, it

must inevitably have been the uniformity of slavery everywhere, or the uniformity

of negro citizenship and negro equality everywhere.

… Now, I ask you, are you in favor of conferring upon the negro the rights

and privileges of citizenship? [ “No, no.”—Times] Do you desire to strike out of

our State Constitution that clause which keeps slaves and free negroes out of the

State, and allow the free negro to flow in [“never,”—Times] and cover our prai-

ries with his settlements. Do you desire to turn this beautiful State into a free

negro colony?… I believe that this government was made on the white basis.

[“Good,” Times] I believe it was made by white men for the benefit of white

men and their posterity forever, and I am in favor of confining the citizenship to

white men—men of European birth and European descent, instead of conferring

it upon Negroes and Indians, and other inferior races….

… I do not believe the Almighty ever intended the negro to be the equal of

the white man. [“Never, never.”—Times] If he did he has been a long time

demonstrating the fact. [Laughter.—Tribune; Cheers.—Times] For six thousand

years the negro has been a race upon the earth, and during that whole six thou-

sand years—in all latitudes and climates wherever the negro has been—he has

been inferior to whatever race adjoined him. The fact is he belongs to an inferior

race and must occupy an inferior position ….

… What shall be done for the free negro?… [W]e must leave each and

every other State to decide for itself beyond our limits….

Mr. Lincoln’sReply

… Mr. Lincoln then came forward and was greeted with loud and protracted

cheers from fully two-thirds of the audience….

… [L]et me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people.

They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist

amongst them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we

should not instantly give it up….

CAREENING TOWARD CIVIL WAR 395

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).

Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of

slavery, than we; I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution ex-

ists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can

understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing

what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me,

I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse

would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,—to their own native

land. But a moment’s reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope

(as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is

impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the

next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in

the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all,

and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their

condition?… What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our

equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well

know that those of the great mass of white people will not…. We can not,

then, make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipa-

tion might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to

judge our brethren of the south.

When they remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them,

not grudgingly, but fully, and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for

the reclaiming of their fugitives, which should not, in its stringency, be more

likely to carry a free man into slavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to

hang an innocent one.

But all this; to my judgment, furnishes no more excuse for permitting slav-

ery to go into our own free territory, than it would for reviving the African slave

trade by law. The law which forbids the bringing of slaves from Africa; and that

which has so long forbid the taking them to Nebraska, can hardly be distin-

guished on any moral principle; and the repeal of the former can find quite as

plausible excuses as that of the latter….

… I have no purpose directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution

of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so,

and I have no inclination to do so. I have no disposition to introduce political

and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical

difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid

their living together on terms of respect, social and political equality, and … I …

am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position; but I

hold that because of all this there is no reason at all furnished why the negro after

all is not entitled to all that the declaration of independence holds out, which is,

“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”…

… When he [Douglas] is saying that the negro has no share in the Declara-

tion of Independence, he is going back to the year of our revolution, and, to the

extent of his ability, he is muzzling the cannon that thunders its annual joyous

return. When he is saying, as he often does, that if any people want slavery they

have a right to have it, he is blowing out the moral lights around us. When he

says that he don’t care whether slavery is voted up or down, then, to my

396 MAJOR PROBLEMS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).

Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

thinking, he is, so far as he is able to do so, perverting the human soul and erad-

icating the light of reason and the love of liberty on the American continent.

8. Republican William Seward

Warns of an Irrepressible Conflict, 1858

Our country is a theatre, which exhibits, in full operation, two radically different

political systems; the one resting on the basis of servile or slave labor, the other

on the basis of voluntary labor of freemen.

The laborers who are enslaved are all negroes, or persons more or less purely

of African derivation. But this is only accidental. The principle of the system is,

that labor in every society, by whomsoever performed, is necessarily unintellec-

tual, groveling and base; and that the laborer, equally for his own good and for

the welfare of the state, ought to be enslaved. The white laboring man, whether

native or foreigner, is not enslaved, only because he cannot, as yet, be reduced to

bondage….

… One of the chief elements of the value of human life is freedom in the

pursuit of happiness. The slave system is not only intolerable, unjust, and inhu-

man, towards the laborer, whom, only because he is a laborer, it loads down

with chains and converts into merchandise, but is scarcely less severe upon the

freeman, to whom, only because he is a laborer from necessity, it denies facilities

for employment, and whom it expels from the community because it cannot

enslave and convert him into merchandise also…. The free-labor system con-

forms to the divine law of equality, which is written in the hearts and con-

sciences of man, and therefore is always and everywhere beneficent.

The slave system is one of constant danger, distrust, suspicion, and watchful-

ness. It debases those whose toil alone can produce wealth and resources for de-

fense, to the lowest degree of which human nature is capable….

The free-labor system educates all alike, and by opening all the fields of in-

dustrial employment, and all the departments of authority, to the unchecked and

equal rivalry of all classes of men, at once secures universal contentment, and

brings into the highest possible activity all the physical, moral and social energies

of the whole state….

Hitherto, the two systems have existed in different states, but side by side

within the American Union. This has happened because the Union is a confed-

eration of states. But in another aspect the United States constitute only one na-

tion. Increase of population, which is filling the states out to their very borders,

together with a new and extended net-work of railroads and other avenues, and

an internal commerce which daily becomes more intimate, is rapidly bringing

the states into a higher and more perfect social unity or consolidation. Thus,

these antagonistic systems are continually coming into closer contact, and

collision results….

William Seward, “The Irrepressible Conflict,” speech given at Rochester, N.Y. (October 25, 1858), in The Works of

William H. Seward, IV (new edition), ed. George Baker (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, 1884), 289–302.

CAREENING TOWARD CIVIL WAR

397

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).

Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Shall I tell you what this collision means?… It is an irrepressible conflict

between opposing and enduring forces, and it means that the United States

must and will, sooner or later, become either entirely a slaveholding nation, or

entirely a freelabor nation….

… In the field of federal politics, slavery, deriving unlooked-for advantages

from commercial changes, and energies unforeseen from the facilities of combi-

nation between members of the slaveholding class and between that class and

other property classes, early rallied, and has at length made a stand, not merely

to retain its original defensive position, but to extend its sway throughout the

whole Union…. The plan of operation is this: By continued appliances of pa-

tronage and threats of disunion, they will keep a majority favorable to these de-

signs in the senate, where each state has an equal representation. Through that

majority they will defeat, as they best can, the admission of free states and secure

the admission of slave states. Under the protection of the judiciary, they will, on

the principle of the Dred Scott case, carry slavery into all the territories of the

United States now existing and hereafter to be organized. By the action of the

president and the senate, using the treaty-making power, they will annex foreign

slaveholding states. In a favorable conjecture they will induce congress to repeal

the act of 1808, which prohibits the foreign slave trade, and so they will import

from Africa, at the cost of only twenty dollars a head, slaves enough to fill up the

interior of the continent…. When the free states shall be sufficiently demoralized

to tolerate these designs, they reasonably conclude that slavery will be accepted

by those states themselves….

I think, fellow citizens, that I have shown you that it is high time for the

friends of freedom to rush to the rescue of the constitution, and that their very

first duty is to dismiss the democratic party from the administration of the

government.

9. Abolitionist John Brown Makes His Last

Statement to the Court Before Execution, 1859

I have, may it please the Court, a few words to say. In the first place, I deny

everything but what I have all along admitted: of a design on my part to free

slaves. I intended certainly to have made a clean thing of that matter, as I did

last winter, when I went into Missouri and there took slaves without the snap-

ping of a gun on either side, moving them through the country, and finally leav-

ing them in Canada. I designed to have done the same thing again on a larger

scale. That was all I intended. I never did intend murder, or treason, or the de-

struction of property, or to exercise or incite slaves to rebellion, or to make

insurrection.

… Had I interfered in the manner which I admit, and which I admit has

been fairly proved—for I admire the truthfulness and candor of the greater por-

tion of the witnesses who have testified in this case—Had I so interfered in

John Brown, Last Statement to the Virginia Court (1859).

398 MAJOR PROBLEMS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).

Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

behalf of the rich, the powerful, the intelligent, the so-called great, or in behalf

of any of their friends, either father, mother, brother, sister, wife or children, or

any of that class, and suffered and sacrificed what I have in this interference, it

would have been all right. Every man in this Court would have deemed it an act

worthy of reward rather than punishment.

This Court acknowledges, too, as I suppose, the validity of the law of God.

I see a book kissed, which I suppose to be the Bible, or at least the New Testa-

ment, which teaches me that all things whatsoever I would that men should do

to me, I should do even so to them. It teaches me, further, to remember them

that are in bonds as bound with them. I endeavored to act up to that instruction.

I say I am yet too young to understand that God is any respecter of persons.

I believe that to have interfered as I have done, as I have always freely admitted I

have done, in behalf of His despised poor, I did no wrong, but right. Now, if it is

deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of

justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children and with the

blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked,

cruel, and unjust enactments, I say, let it be done.

Let me say one word further. I feel entirely satisfied with the treatment I

have received on my trial. Considering all the circumstances, it has been more

generous than I expected. But I feel no consciousness of guilt. I have stated from

the first what was my intention, and what was not. I never had any design

against the liberty of any person, nor any disposition to commit treason or incite

slaves to rebel or make any general insurrection. I never encouraged any man to

do so, but always discouraged any idea of that kind.

10. The Charleston Mercury Argues

That Slavery Must Be Protected, 1860

The right to have [slave] property protected in the territory is not a mere abstrac-

tion without application or practical value. In the past there are instances where

the people of the Southern States might have colonized and brought new slave

States into the Union had the principle been recognized, and the Government,

the trustee of the Southern States, exercised its appropriate powers to make good

for the slaveholder the guarantees of the Constitution…. When the gold mines

of California were discovered, slaveholders at the South saw that, with their

command of labor, it would be easy at a moderate outlay to make fortunes dig-

ging gold. The inducements to go there were great, and there was no lack of

inclination on their part. But, to make the emigration profitable, it was necessary

that the [slave] property of Southern settlers should be safe, otherwise it was

plainly a hazardous enterprise, neither wise nor feasible. Few were reckless en-

ough to stake property, the accumulation of years, in a struggle with active pre-

judices amongst a mixed population, where for them the law was a dead letter

through the hostile indifference of the General Government, whose duty it was,

“Prospects of Slavery Expansion,” Charleston Mercury, February 28, 1860.

CAREENING TOWARD CIVIL WAR

399

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).

Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

by the fundamental law of its existence, to afford adequate protection—execu-

tive, legislative, and judicial—to the property of every man, of whatever sort,

without discrimination. Had the people of the Southern States been satisfied

they would have received fair play and equal protection at the hands of the Gov-

ernment, they would have gone to California with their slaves…. California

would now have been a Slave State in the Union….

What has been the policy pursued in Kansas? Has the territory had a fair

chance of becoming a Slave State? Has the principle of equal protection to slave

property been carried out by the Government there in any of its departments?

On the contrary, has not every appliance been used to thwart the South and

expel or prohibit her sons from colonizing there?… In our opinion, had the

principle of equal protection to Southern men and Southern property been rig-

orously observed by the General Government, both California and Kansas would

undoubtedly have come into the Union as Slave States. The South lost those

States for the lack of proper assertion of this great principle….

New Mexico, it is asserted, is too barren and arid for Southern occupation

and settlement…. Now, New Mexico … teems with mineral resources…. There

is no vocation in the world in which slavery can be more useful and profitable

than in mining…. [Is] it wise, in our present condition of ignorance of the re-

sources of New Mexico, to jump to the conclusion that the South can have no

interest in its territories, and therefore shall waive or abandon her right of colo-

nizing them?…

We frequently talk of the future glories of our republican destiny on the

continent, and of the spread of our civilization and free institutions over Mexico

and the Tropics. Already we have absorbed two of her States, Texas and

California. Is it expected that our onward march is to stop here? Is it not more

probable and more philosophic to suppose that, as in the past, so in the future,

the Anglo-Saxon race will, in the course of years, occupy and absorb the whole

of that splendid [but] illpeopled country, and to remove by gradual process, be-

fore them, the worthless mongrel races that now inhabit and curse the land? And

in the accomplishment of this destiny is there a Southern man so bold as to say,

the people of the South with their slave property are to consent to total exclu-

sion…? Our people will never sit still and see themselves excluded from all

expansion, to please the North.

ESSAYS

Historians have long debated the causes of the Civil War. Some scholars have

argued that the war could have been avoided, that a generation of blundering

politicians had ineptly maneuvered the nation into war. Other historians have

agreed with William Seward, a statesman from New York who served in Presi-

dent Lincoln’s cabinet, that the war was an “irrepressible conflict.” Some focus

on political differences between the North and South, whereas others show

greater attention to economic distinctions between “free” and “slave” labor.

400 MAJOR PROBLEMS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).

Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

The following two essays reflect historical debates over the causes of the war.

Michael F. Holt, professor of history at the University of Virginia, concentrates

on the political causes of the Civil War. The divisions between the North and

South had existed for decades, Professor Holt argues, but it was only when the

political process broke down that Americans were led down the road to the Civil

War. In contrast, Bruce Levine, the J. G. Randall Professor of History at the

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, focuses upon the differing economic

systems of the North and the South and claims that the political debates make

sense in light of the economic backgrounds. Although both northern and south-

ern whites were dedicated to increasing their wealth, the different economies

created by slavery and by free labor framed the conflict between the South and

the North. Levine concludes that to understand why so many northerners and

southerners were willing to fight in the Civil War, historians must take the

socioeconomic circumstances seriously.

The Political Divisions That Contributed to Civil War

MICHAEL F. HOLT

The Civil War represented an utter and unique breakdown of the normal dem-

ocratic political process. When one section of the country refused to accept the

decision of a presidential election, secession and the ensuing war became the

great exception to the American political tradition of compromise. The rending

of the nation was the one time that conflict seemed too irrepressible, too funda-

mental, to be contained within common consensual boundaries. Because the war

was such an anomaly, both participants and later historians have been fascinated

with its causes since the shooting started.

The literature on the causation of the Civil War is vast and requires no de-

tailed review here. Basically historians have been divided into two camps, al-

though there have been a number of variations in each. Because the war pitted

one section against another, many insist that a fundamental and intensifying con-

flict between the North and South brought it on. Members of this group have

differed about the sources of sectional division, but most have argued that irrec-

oncilable differences over Negro slavery inexorably ruptured one national insti-

tution after another between 1830 and 1860 until those differences produced

war in 1861. In reply revisionist historians have minimized the internal solidarity

of both the North and the South and the seriousness of the disputes between

them. They have blamed the war instead on the mistakes of political leaders

and the efforts of agitators such as the abolitionists and Southern fire-eaters.

Despite the variations of the debate, the central issue has always been the role of

slavery in causing the war, and recently the fundamentalists have won the larger

audience. Historians like Eugene Genovese and Eric Foner have established be-

yond cavil the reality and gravity of ideological, economic, and political conflict

Michael F. Holt, The Political Crisis of the 1850s (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1983), 1–6, 12–16.

Reprinted by permission of the author.

CAREENING TOWARD CIVIL WAR

401

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).

Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

between the free labor society of the North and the slave-based plantation

society of the South. Slavery and irreconcilable views about the desirability of

slavery’s expansion lay at the base of that sectional clash, they argue, and the

unwillingness of either section to tolerate the triumph of the other’s values pro-

duced the war. Thus we have returned to an older view that sectional conflict

over Negro slavery caused the Civil War.

Without disputing the reality of sectional conflict between North and

South, one can still point out that the sectional conflict interpretation leaves cer-

tain crucial questions about the breakup of the nation unanswered, For one

thing, to delineate the factors that divided North from South does not by itself

explain why the slave states behaved so differently from each other during the

secession crisis. When secession first occurred and the Confederacy was formed,

only seven states in the Deep South withdrew, yet eight other slave states chose

to remain in the union. True, four more states joined the Confederacy once

Abraham Lincoln called up troops after the firing on Fort Sumter, but resistance

to overt federal coercion was far different from secession in anticipation of a Re-

publican administration. If a desire to protect or extend black slavery caused

Southerners to break up the nation, why didn’t all the slave states react the

same way in the initial crisis?

More important, the argument that an escalating sectional conflict between

North and South before April 1861 produced war between them after that date

does not really explain why a conflict of long duration produced war then and

not at some other time. The problem is how a basic conflict between sectional

interests and values that had long been carried on in peaceful channels such as

politics abruptly became a shooting war after smoldering for decades, and why

it did so at one time instead of at another. What produced the sectional hostility,

in other words, was not necessarily what caused armed conflict in 1861. Ideolog-

ical differences, after all, do not always produce wars …. [T]here most certainly

was sectional conflict between North and South over slavery-related matters, yet

that conflict, or cold war, had existed at least since the Constitutional Conven-

tion of 1787. Can a conflict that lasted almost three-fourths of a century explain

why war broke out in 1861 and not earlier? If slavery or even the slavery exten-

sion issue caused the war, for example, why not in 1820 or 1832 or 1846 or

1850 or 1854? The basic problem concerning the war, in short, has less to

do with the sources of sectional conflict than with the war’s timing. The impor-

tant question is not what divided North from South, but how the nation could

contain or control that division for so long and then allow it suddenly to erupt

into war.

This [essay] argues that the answers to these questions about varying South-

ern behavior and the timing of the Civil War lie in the political crisis of the

1850s. The key to Civil War causation is to be found in the reasons why the

American political system could no longer contain the sectional conflict, not in

the conflict itself. The [essay] differs from those of the fundamentalists by focus-

ing less on the intensifying conflict than on the capacity of politicians and politi-

cal structures to confine it to normal political channels. It argues that the change

in that capacity had less to do with the explosiveness of the slavery issue per se

402 MAJOR PROBLEMS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).

Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Cobbs-Hoffman Elizabeth, Blum Edward J., Gjerde Jon. Major Problems in American History, Volume I, 3 edition (ENG)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.