Popular sovereignty in 19 th century America emerged as a compromise strategy for determining whether a Western territory would permit or prohibit slavery. First promoted in the s in response to debates over western expansion, popular sovereignty argued that in a democracy, residents of a territory, and not the federal government, should be allowed to decide on slavery within their borders. In , Stephen Douglas most famously attempted to implement the measure with the Kansas-Nebraska Act. In , the Wilmot Proviso, which sought to forbid slavery in the territories acquired following the Mexican-American War, died on the floor of the Senate. In an effort to prevent future prohibitive measures against slavery in the West, Democratic Senator Lewis Cass of Michigan, offered up the idea of popular sovereignty. In theory, as Cass and his supporters reasoned, in a democratic society free citizens determined the future.
Civil War North Vs South Analysis
Civil War North South Slavery, Sample of Essays
The atttitude of the South concerning slavery remained constant from early colonial days to the beginning of the Civil War whereas the attitude of the North underwent various alterations. The majority of Southerners supported the institution of slavery, and continued to support it when the North decided to condemn it. On the other hand, the North was indifferent to slavery when it was first instituted. Through a gradual process, the Northern people were persuaded to believe that it was evil. It was not until nearer the war that the entirety of the North had rallied behind the abolitionist cause.
Southern Arguments For Slavery
In many cases. The Fugitive Slave Act of , The Kansas—Nebraska Act of , and the Wilmot Proviso would represent a longstanding struggle between Southern and Northern political opposition to equal rights for slaves. However, a majority of these legislative compromises would be contained within the jurisdiction of the federalist oversight, which was increasingly being viewed as a threat to Southern sovereignty. In the South, the values of racial purity were a major threat to the plantation aristocracy, which defined on the inequality of blacks and whites as part of the southern economy.
Northern Republicans and Southern Democrats attempted to cure their complete opposition on the regulation of slavery by using federal power to coerce an end to the feud, yet the movement increased tension between the divided nation. By invoking both legislative and judicial power, politicians used laws which included slave codes and freedom laws as well as court decisions like Dred Scott v Sandford to convince or force the population into acceptance of stances on slavery. Each party viewed. The s were believed to be a period of compromise to prevent Southern secession from the Union. Instead, it brought more divisions along sectional lines, Northern Democrats and Northern Whigs free-states against the Southern Democrats and Southern Whigs slave states.