Two Complex Crises that Preceded the Civil War - Assignment Example

?“What Hath God Wrought Emancipation, Economic, and Politics During the Jacksonian Era Part The Missouri Compromise The Missouri Compromise wasa complex political event that occurred in the year 1820. The conflict that eventually led to this Compromise involved the issue of whether the new territories and states joining the United States should be slave-owning or free states at the time when they joined the Union (Howe,, 152). The Missouri Compromise represented one of the first major debates that divided the country along sectarian lines designated by longitude. The issues involved in this compromise were widespread, and included political power struggles, slavery, and the intent of the Constitutional design of Congress. Northerners were not universally concerned with the humanitarian aspects of slavery, but they were almost unanimously against the growing political power of the Southern landowner. The Southern states had a disproportionate power in the House of Representatives and in the Electoral College due to the 3/5 count of slaves. By 1819, this rule boosted the membership of the Southern states in the House by 17 representatives. While this seems like backwards thinking, since of course if the slaves were to become free citizens they would receive a full count in the House of Representatives, those votes would likely fall in the same theme as those of the Northern anti-slavery states. This would help re-balance the scales in the House, the same way that admitting states in pairs between slave-owning and free states balanced the power in the Senate (Howe, 150). In order to settle this debate about the balance of power, Henry Clay helped to mediate the historical Missouri Compromise, which agreed that slavery would be prohibited in the new territory north of the line of 36 degrees 30' latitude. For the South, this compromise ensured the continuation of their ideal that there would be no end to slavery without the consent of the local white population, by majority vote. It also set as a principle what had already been the precedent, that states should be admitted into the United States in pairs, continuing the balance of power in the Senate between the two (Howe, 154). What could be considered the most important outcome of this compromise was that it solidified and clarified the viewpoint of the South toward emancipation. The situation surrounding the Missouri Compromise sHowe,d that even those Southerners who had a more moderate stance toward slavery in theory, when it came down to practice they were obviously against even gradual emancipation (Howe, 155). While the Missouri Compromise prevented the Republican party from falling apart along the lines of the Northern and Southern states, it did later result in the the further division of Congress because of the practice of admitting states in pairs (Howe, 155, 836). The political party in the South known as the Radicals was gaining political power. These Radicals feared that the Missouri Compromise might lead to further compromises on the issue of slavery, and eventually end with the outlawing of all slave-owning practices (Howe, 402-403). Part 2: The Nullification Crisis This fear linked to a later controversy, the Nullification Crisis. This crisis centered around the Tariff of 1832, as the Radicals linked such tariffs with emancipation efforts (Howe, 402-403). This nullification would result in the removal of the federal price on land sales. If the group could pressure other states into following their lead on the tariff they could use it for slavery and protect the institution (The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History). In 1832, South Carolina declared federal tariff on land sales to be void, and raised an army to defend this nullification (The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History). The bill passed that nullified the tariff also mentioned the threat of secession from the Union if the tariff was not repealed (Howe, 404). President Jackson declared nullification illegal and had Congress pass the Force Act, which allows the president to use force to defend federal laws. Due to the work of Henry Clay, the same mediator behind the Missouri Compromise, South Carolina repealed the nullification law for the tariff but then nullified the Force Act (The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History). This conflict was less about the actual tariff and more an act of rebellion against the power of the federal government (The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History). The British Parliament was beginning the process of abolishing slavery in the entire British Empire, including the West Indies. South Carolina politicians wanted the ability to nullify federal law in their arsenal should the American government ever decide to do the same thing (Howe, 404). By the time of this crisis in 1832, South Carolina's majority population was enslaved blacks. Violence was beginning to occur surrounding the issue of slavery, including slave rebellions and militant abolitionism. Relations became increasingly strained between slave and free states. Economic conditions, especially the dropping price of cotton, threatened the financial security of South Carolina. This changed their stance from one of nationalism and support for the federal government to defending slavery above all else, in order to keep the price of farming cotton low. Opposition to emancipation and economic stability became the same issue (The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History). By fighting against the tariff, they could debate the right of the federal government to make laws against the will of individual states without debating slavery. Conclusions While they took place several years apart, the Missouri Compromise and the Nullification Crisis were very connected. They both dealt with the issue of slavery in the United States and how long this practice would be allowed to continue as the nation grew and changed. However, the Missouri Compromise focused directly on the laws that would allow or disallow ownership of slaves in a given state. The Nullification Crisis was a much more subtle method of taking control of the issue, by focusing attention on a seemingly unrelated land tariff but using this controversy to gauge the reaction of the federal government to laws passed by the individual states. While the compromises reached in both situations temporarily stopped the escalation of tensions, over time the stop-gap measures used only worsened the issue. Reaching such peaceful solutions to these debates may have helped delay the start of the Civil War. However, there is also the possibility that putting off the war raised tensions to an even higher point and could have resulted in a longer, bloodier war. There is no doubt that slave ownership was the purported cause of both debates, as well as the Civil War, but deeper analysis shows that the true causes were much more complex. They spanned into the areas of economic stability, political power, state's rights against the power of the federal government, and the true intent of Congressional representation laws. Works Cited Howe,, Daniel. What Hath God Wrought : The Transformation of America, 1815-1848. Oxford [u.a.]: Oxford Univ. Press, 2007. Print. The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. “The Gilder Lehrman Institute. Modules on American History.” Introduction - Guided Readings: Jacksonian Era - Nullification 2009. Web. 27 April 2011. Read More