By the 19th century, slavery had become an essential component of the Southern economy. An increasing number of anti-slavery politicians and supporters of emancipation contributed to the paranoia among the Southern population. The latter believed that government support was essential for maintaining order among slaves (Locke and Wright 343). African Americans population was dense, and without a national policy supporting the institution of slavery, the Southerners feared they would be faced with race war because of a slave uprising (Locke and Wright 344). This paranoia contributed to the notion of sectionalism, which can be described as a drastic difference in cultural values and lifestyles between the South and the North.
Although this division had existed for decades, the Missouri Compromise is considered to be the turning point. When debates started on whether or not the Missouri territory should join the Union as a free state, Southerners were quick to share their distress. James Tallmadge, a congressman of New York, proposed a roadmap that would eventually banish slavery in Missouri (Locke and Wright 347). Southerners were outraged with this proposal, and the compromise was reached by admitting Maine as a free state while Missouri joined the Union as a pro-slavery state (Locke and Wright 347). It is considered the turning point because it demonstrated the extent to which sectionalism had grown.
Throughout the next several decades, the issue had only worsened. The acquisition of the Mexican territories as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 sparked controversies among both politicians and citizens (Locke and Wright 353). Anti-slavery activists believed that the expansion of borders in the South would result in the imminent expansion of slavery. The Federal government, however, attempted to balance sectional differences by allowing some of the states to decide their fate on their own. Southerners saw the expansion of slavery to other territories as the only option to maintain political power in the government. It was evident that it was not possible to rely on public support because publications like Uncle Tom’s Cabin had been encouraging citizens to participate in organized abolitionist movements (Locke and Wright 356). Some individuals, like Frederick Douglass, had their books translated to several languages, introducing pressure on the Southern institution of slavery from abroad.
Southerners’ focus on political power was a rational and practical choice. The Kansas-Nebraska Act only supports this claim – the bill served as the authorization for the expansion of slavery to the West. The bill demonstrated that the notion of sectionalism had reached the Federal government. The Whig Party was divided into Southerners and Northerners, former of which supported slavery (Locke and Wright 360). The Kansas-Nebraska Act also led to armed conflicts in Kansas territories. The bill allowed states to decide their fate based on the notion of popular sovereignty. This led to a large number of people both from the South and the North move to Kansas to vote for or against slavery. Therefore, Southern Democrats insisted on introducing Federal Slave Codes, which would allow slaveholders to enter new territories freely.
The power of slaveowners in U.S. politics had become evident, and Northerners actively used this state of American politics in their rhetoric. They opposed the Fugitive Slave Law, which allowed runaway slaves to be returned to their owners. Apart from political activism, abolitionists were slowly turning their focus from political debates to armed conflicts. For instance, the New England Emigrant Aid Company provided arms for abolitionists to help keep slavery away from Kansas legislation (Locke and Wright 359). Individuals like John Adams, who saw armed conflicts as the only way to overthrow slavery, started to emerge. Adams was one of the people leading the fights as part of the “Bleeding Kansas” (Locke and Wright 359) The actions of Adams were supported not only by the New England Emigrant Aid Company but also by some politicians like Charles Sumner, who gave the “Crime Against Kansas” speech during the times of conflict (Locke and Wright 360). The speech led to physical violence within the Senate, which depicted the division of the government into two sharply contrasted groups. Both sides lost perspective, which eventually led to the Civil War.
Work Cited
Locke, Joseph, and Ben Wright, editors. The American Yawp. Stanford University Press, 2019.