In the Early Nineteenth Century, Americans Sought to Resolve Their Political Disputes Through Compromise, Yet by 1860 This No Longer Seemed Possible. Analyze the Reasons for This Change. Use the Documents and Your

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 4566
  • Published : January 9, 2013
Open Document
Text Preview
The North and South in the nineteenth century were different in lifestyle and morale as well as economy. The north had a booming industrial economy while in the South, cotton was king. Because of this, congress was continuously addressing controversial matters and providing answers that did not satisfy either one side or both. The early 1800s were full of the North and the South making many attempts at reconciliation that just fell short. Among those were the Missouri Compromise of 1820, and the Great Compromise of 1850. Other tempestuous attempts led to the Tariff/Nullification Controversy, anti slavery debates in congress, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Whether it was one side or the other, there was always someone to oppose - and in some cases, defy - the laws put in place, which eventually led to the succession of the southern states and the Civil War. The issue of slavery became an even greater concern when the Louisiana Purchase territories were to enter the Union as states. The question was, would new territories enter the Union as slave or free states? The South wanted a balance of power. They knew that if the North were to have more free states, then slavery in the south could be facing extinction through congress. In an attempt to conciliate with the South, the North agreed upon the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Through this, slavery was banned above the 36 degrees 30 minute line and Missouri entered as a slave state, Maine a free state. For a while, it retained the balance of power. However, tempers in the south rose again later in the 1820s over high tariffs. The tariffs benefitted the north but threatened southern cotton exports. In 1828, the tariff was around 50%. President Jackson modified it to around 33% in 1832 only to have South Carolina nullify it in the state. It raised the question of whether or not the federal government could legally impose protective tariffs and whether it was constitutional for a state to nullify a federal law. "South...
tracking img