Calhoun
Daniel Lee
During the 1800s, the North and South became increasingly more polarized as issues came up that divided the United States. One of these issues was whether the majority of political power should rest in a federal government or in individual states. Another issue was whether it was constitutional for the government to block the spread of slavery into the new territories.1
Federalists hoped that the complex nature of federalism would be able to succeed in the areas where the Articles of Confederation failed. The number of proponents for federalism grew after the publication of The Federalist. This was a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay that challenged the sentiment that republican government had to be small-scale.2 One excerpt from The Federalist stated:
Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.3
This argument for federalism was that an extended central government would make it difficult for parties to infringe upon the rights of citizens.
The issue of slavery became apparent with the United States’ acquisitions of new territories. The government had to decide whether new territories would be Free states or slave states. In places such as Kansas, the government decided on popular sovereignty, which meant that the decision about slavery would be decided by settlers.4 In a letter written by A. Finch to Thaddeus Hyatt on December 22, 1856, Mr. Finch discusses how both pro-slavery and anti-slavery voters have been settling in Osawatomie, Kansas. He says, “I have given you all the names of the Pro-Slavery voters in this Town which is 4 in number. About 6 miles south of this on what is called South Middle
During the 1800s, the North and South became increasingly more polarized as issues came up that divided the United States. One of these issues was whether the majority of political power should rest in a federal government or in individual states. Another issue was whether it was constitutional for the government to block the spread of slavery into the new territories.1
Federalists hoped that the complex nature of federalism would be able to succeed in the areas where the Articles of Confederation failed. The number of proponents for federalism grew after the publication of The Federalist. This was a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay that challenged the sentiment that republican government had to be small-scale.2 One excerpt from The Federalist stated:
Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.3
This argument for federalism was that an extended central government would make it difficult for parties to infringe upon the rights of citizens.
The issue of slavery became apparent with the United States’ acquisitions of new territories. The government had to decide whether new territories would be Free states or slave states. In places such as Kansas, the government decided on popular sovereignty, which meant that the decision about slavery would be decided by settlers.4 In a letter written by A. Finch to Thaddeus Hyatt on December 22, 1856, Mr. Finch discusses how both pro-slavery and anti-slavery voters have been settling in Osawatomie, Kansas. He says, “I have given you all the names of the Pro-Slavery voters in this Town which is 4 in number. About 6 miles south of this on what is called South Middle