The Crisis of the Union

The Crisis of the Union is an expression used to describe the ideological and legislative disagreements that characterized America during the initial stages of its formation (Unger & Unger, 1991). Before the clamour for independence began, the country was a British colony, and was greatly divided into smaller territories, such as the southern territory and the northern territory. One of the most controversial issues at that time was slavery (Reid, 2008). The states failed to reach a consensus on whether slave trade was right or immoral according to humane standards (Holt, 1999). The crisis of the Union helped to shape the quest for independence (the civil war) and equality in America during the period leading to independence.

During the eve of the 1950s, the campaigners for antislavery and temperance faced off against proponents of traditional rights (Reid, 2008). The ensuing conquest was especially intensive in South Carolina. The temperance activists demanded for the observance of Maine law to counter the rising sale of intoxicants. Notable figures, such as Radolph Turner were outraged by the move (Reid, 2008). They feared that such a liquor legislation would undermine his career because of portraying him as a person with a weak character.  The Caucasians and the white population were not willing to assume responsibility over the implementation of the law (Holt, 1999). Since he was a political candidate for the South Carolina legislative seat, he vowed not to participate in violent warfare, and opted for civilized means, such as agitating for both individual and state rights using the right channels (Holt, 1999).

Back in Washington, the South Carolina politician; Preston Brooks, was busy fighting for the rights of the Southerners. In a heated speech, the senator of Massachusetts; Charles Sumner (1856) denounced the proposals of the Southern congressional representative and went ahead to accuse South Carolina senator; Andrew P. Butler, of using one of the controversial female slaves as his mistress. Out of anger for the verbal attack against his relative, Brooks planned a surprise attack against the senator for openly issuing verbal attacks against his uncle (Reid, 2008). He beat him with a walking stick until he lost his consciousness (Holt, 1999). As the events continued in Washington City, a South Carolina by the name Axalla Hoole, together with other proslavery immigrants in the territory of Kansas, staged an armed attack against the forces of abolitionist settlers (Reid, 2008). Violence and passion replaced political compromise as the order of American public sphere.

The 1850s eruption of violence was triggered by a further geographic expansion, which witnessed the admission of Texas into the union during the 1945 period (Unger & Unger, 1991). In addition, the authorities had also spearheaded an expansion process to admit Mexico’s territories, into the union. The underlying causes caused great complexities, and they stemmed from the increasing cultural and economic differences between the southern and northern states (Holt, 1999). The sectional disparities started to come to the fore by the mid of the 18^th century, more so by the southern dwellers (Holt, 1999). The rapid growth of the northerners’ wealth, fortunes, political power, and moral righteousness scared their southern counterparts, as explained by John C. Calhoun (Holt, 1999). What caused more pressure was the increased agitation of the issue of slavery (which continued for a long time).

There was a massive population surge in the West (Reid, 2008). It helped to accentuate the importance of the division between the northern and southern dwellers. To the majority of the Americans, it represented the destiny of the nations- the extension of republican institutions and structures to the Pacific Ocean (Reid, 2008). Nevertheless, there was a disagreement on which republican institutions to adopt between the aristocratic cultures and norms of the slave dealers in the South and the deeply democratic traditions and customs of the North and Midwest reform oriented people (Reid, 2008). The choice made between the two helped to shape the future of the nation (Unger & Unger, 1991).

While almost all Americans welcomed the Compromise of 1850 with enthusiasm, its major provisions were designed only to enhance the visibility of the issues (Holt, 1999). The agreement was arrived at as a matter of final settlement of all the sectional issues that stirred controversy and which divided the southerners and the northerners (Holt, 1999). One outstanding initiative is the Fugitive Slave Act (1850) (Unger & Unger, 1991). The law reinforced the federal policy that strove not only to allow slavery and slave trade in the states where is was highly rampant, but to expand the institution’s reach into the capital city of the northern territory itself (Reid, 2008). As a result, the states located in the northern territory drafted and passed more stringent laws that touched on personal liberty (Reid, 2008). Concurrently, the antislavery militants opted for direct action in freeing the slaves and protecting the fugitives from the federal marshals and the slave catchers (Holt, 1999). The northern dwellers interpreted the Fugitive Slave law to illustrate the lengths to which the demand for slavery led the dealers to abuse the liberties of Americans, even those who lived in the free states (Reid, 2008). On the other hand, the white southerners believed that the northern resistance would not back down in their resistance. Their actions were interpreted as evidence that the residents who lived in the free states would not oblige to their constitutional responsibilities come what may.

Conclusion

The Fugitive Slave Act directed citizens to return slaves who had escaped back to their owners. Nevertheless, the growing antislavery and anti-slave trade sentiments in the north meant that some sections were opposed to the policy. The disagreement between the two regions threatened to tear down the Union even before its conception. In 1850, a compromise was struck that accommodated the interests of both sides (Unger & Unger, 1991). Congress came up with additional laws to satisfy the demands of both the slave proponents and opponents.

References

Top of Form

Unger, I., & Unger, D. (1991). These United States: The Questions Of Our Past. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall.

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Reid, B. H. (2008). America’s Civil War: The Operational Battlefield, 1861-1863. Amherst, N.Y: Prometheus Books.

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Holt, M. F. (1999). The Rise And Fall Of The American Whig Party: Jacksonian Politics And The Onset Of The Civil War. New York [U.A.: Oxford Univ. Press.

Bottom of Form