Michael Holt The Fate Of Their Country Summary

An uncharacteristic take on rural black politics, Steven Hahn’s A Nation under Our Feet: Black Political Struggles in the Rural South from Slavery to the Great Migration transports readers into a world of faith, power, and family across the rural South. Diving into a period that spans nearly one hundred years, Hahn, an author, specialist, and professor, addresses the political culture of newly freed slaves as they maneuvered through challenges of freedom, Jim Crow laws, and religion. Hahn pens, “ [A Nation under Our Feet] is a book about extraordinary people who did extraordinary things under the most difficult…” (1). The author successfully presents such book in this sequential timeline and geographical mapping from Texas to Virginia. Through his synthesis of vast primary literature on slavery, Civil War South, and the Great Migration, Hahn supports his arguments and presents readers with a new look into the past.

During his two terms in office, President Jackson would not only implement a series of policies that drastically expanded slavery, but he would also create a pro-slavery sentiment in America that would reverberate for many generations after his final term in office. In the first part of this essay, I will introduce the election of 1828. In the second part of this essay, I will attempt to explain why Andrew Jackson's arrival to the presidential Mansion had such a profound effect on Southern secession. The election of 1824 was a pivotal moment in American history.

CH 18 notes • The Mexican American war ended making Mexicans give up texas, California, and all the areas inbetween. The antislaveryites liked the Wilmot proviso because it prohibiterd slavery in any territory gained from the Mexican American war, but southern senators didn’t use the proviso. The debate of slavery in the Mexican territories caused problems between whigs and democrats along the north and south sectional lines. Popular sovereignty panacea • General Lewis Cass took over from President Polk and created popular sovereignty that appealed to the public because it was a compromise between free soilers who wanted to ban slavery and the territories who wanted to keep it. Popular sovereignty could spread the blight of slavery.

(Palmer) The south in 1860 palmer describes as being the selected victims of being bound by oaths and covenants and slavery as their continuous issue. Lincolns election was seen by Palmer as a move by the republican party which in previous years has not been the best choice. Palmer ponders why they didn’t continue with the democrats and see how things could have changed or

With reference to the sources and your understanding of the historical context, which of these two sources is more valuable in assessing the response of northern opinion to the Dred Scott decision? The argument of Extract 1 is that the Dred Scott decision was constitutional, Unionist and fully ‘rebuked’ Northern abolitionism. Although this Extract is of some value, this value is significantly limited in terms of assessing the response of northern opinion to the Dred Scott decision. The Richmond Enquirer notes that the question of slavery had been ‘decided emphatically.’

Due to the fact that these parts of the nation were so strongly divided, the country was drawn into sectionalism. When this happened, many Americans identified with their section, over their country. In addition, because of their differing views on slavery and what the nation’s future should be like, it was crucial that one region’s opponent not gain more supporting states, or that one region would surely lose every battle in Congress. So, when Missouri wanted to enter the union, there was much debate because it had applied as a slave state.

The issue of popular sovereignty, rights of self-government, moral justification of slavery and economic freedom led to the emergence of Abraham Lincoln as an outspoken leader in the Republican Party. He began to be a larger voice to the spread of slavery in the West and other new territories. His skeptical belief in the Democrat’s justification of the spread of slavery led to his renewed interest in national

It was clear that during Lincoln’s presidency, the American political system had failed. The South wanted to cede from the Union, and this was only one of the problems going on during this period of time. The division between the North and the South was extremely prominent; they were both passive enemies. The South wanted the right to own slaves and induce slavery, while the North thought slavery was immoral and unjust while referring to the Constitution for argumentative backup.

In the early 19th century, the United States was relatively calm towards slavery as compared to the mid-1800’s. During this stage, agreements, such as the Missouri Compromise, satisfied both the northern and southern US and kept them at peace, but only for a brief period of time. As the years passed by, the belief in abolitionism grew, mainly in the North, as figures like William Lloyd Garrison increased the popularity of the movement. The South only felt anger towards the rise of the abolition movement and hence, conflict between the two sides developed over the next few decades, which eventually climaxed with the Civil War. Although the North and the South were able to compromise in the early 1800’s, the tension and violence caused by the

This paper will look at two very important issues framing the antebellum period, “Was the abolition of slavery constitutional” and “Was secession constitutional.” I believe that the abolition of slavery was not constitutional. When the Constitution was written in 1787, specific issues pertaining to slavery were mentioned in the document. This is an important point because although the word slavery is not stated, it is clear by the language and the specificity used, the architectures of the Constitution were referring to slaves.

At the start of the 19th century the United States was beginning to grow in size and by the 1850’s the nation had tripled. Many factors accounted for this great wave of expansion, upon the most important were the hopes and aspirations of many white American men moving westward and acquiring new territories. Initially the plan to move westward seemed to boost national unity, but the advancement and industrialization of the north seemed to leave the south at a disadvantage, and the issue of slavery between states rose, ultimately creating extreme sectionalism between the north and south, forcing the nation into the Civil War. In the early 1800’s

Slavery & Politics in the Early American Republic by Matthew Mason, gives a detailed analysis on the role slavery and slave representation played on sectionalism and politics in the Early American Republic. Mason writes about the growth in anti-slave efforts after the Quakers were the first and only organized anti-slave groups in colonial America. There had been no discontinuation in discussion about slavery from the revolution to the Civil War. Mason’s thesis states that the argument that the Missouri Crisis started the fight between the North and South on the issue of slavery. Mason believes that it started much longer before this with events like the American Revolution, the War of 1812, Constitutional Contentions, along with the Missouri

When Congress issued tariffs on foreign goods, Southerners believed that Congress favored the North since this tariff would benefit them. John Randolph spoke of this issue, arguing that Congress was being unfair since the South was not benefiting from the actions of Congress at all while the North benefited (Doc A). As for political conflict, there was a clear case of factionalism and political rivalry in 1824 (Doc I). With these conflicts amongst the varying factions and political parties, the political tension and sectionalism within America continued to grow. Accusations and anger from the South further separated them from the North, which did not contribute “good feelings” to the country at

After the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and the rise of the Republican party, Southerners feared the tipping of the balance of political power against them; their need for self-determination parallel the colonists’ belief of rebelling against the oppressive government of Great Britain. However, the Civil War represented something more: the clash of the feudalistic, agrarian South with the industrialized, capitalistic North. These two powers differed socially, politically, and economically, and were especially conflicted over slavery. These two sections of the United States were divided against one another, and could not survive this way. Therefore, it is more accurate to state that though the Civil War resembled some aspects of the American Revolution, it was a clash between two forces who could not exist with one another in their current state, leading inevitably to conflict between the

However, these differences show that the North and South were actually two distinct countries held together by one constitution. The North felt that decisions regarding slavery and its legality were entrenched in the central government while the South felt that such decision belonged to the individual states. In the times preceding the war, both sides could not reach a compromise. Bonner mentions, “Because secession and war were permitted to come, warned Russel, "We are not entitled to lay the flattering unction to our souls that the Civil War was an inevitable conflict (Bonner, 195).” Hence, these differences could only be addressed through war.