• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

By the 1850’s attitudes towards the union had become so divergent as to make compromise, in practice, impossible. Discuss.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

By the 1850's attitudes towards the union had become so divergent as to make compromise, in practice, impossible. Discuss. When answering this question we must consider the way that attitudes towards the union had evolved over time in the United States, and how these changes affected the possibility of compromise. Firstly, one must point out the ideas of the union and the original views expressed at the time of the time the union was conceived. The union had been created amongst a wave of patriotic fervour in America, and at the time it was set up, the 'Founding Fathers' of the constitution had organised a system, which, while providing a largely democratic (for its time) government, was most importantly, federal. This system provided government on two levels, and this was supposed to satisfy the sections that even then were becoming very apparent - North and South. As the US grew in population, gained more wealth, and expanded massively in territory, it became clear that there were some very potent differences between the two sections. This idea of sectionalism existed on two levels: the first was cultural and the second economic. It is this movement that changed attitudes to the union and as such, I will be considering the impact this movement had on attitudes to the union. The development of the US had, by the early 1800's led to two clear systems being set up. ...read more.

Middle

The now famous "Missouri Compromise" satisfied both sides, but the issues raised during its conception filled many of the 'old guard' with fear - such as Thomas Jefferson: "This momentous question, like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror"1. Slowly but surely, the Union began to represent different things to the sections. The South began to look upon it as an oppressive state that was attempting to wipe out its way of life, while the North continued to look upon the union as the basis of government by the people. However, the question of the extension of slavery into new territories came back in 1836-1837, with the Texan fight for independence from Mexico. Once the army that had gathered from the South and West defeated General Santa Anna and Texas had effectively gained independence, its citizens hoped that it would be allowed to join the union. However, this is where the flames of mistrust were rekindled. Some Northerners feared that slave owners had orchestrated the Texas rebellion against Mexico, in order to allow the South to gain control of government. It was the sheer size of Texas that frightened them: it would be perfectly possible for it to be split in to 3 or 4 slave states, which would severely change the balance of power. It became clear that the problem would not stop at Texas. ...read more.

Conclusion

Any such deal would have to placate both the abolitionists, by ensuring that, at the very least, slavery would no longer expand; the slave owners, by ensuring that they no longer felt threatened by the North; and all the groups in between, by offering a solution that would not only save the honour of the South, but also the union from the internal tensions that are threatening to tear it apart. The problem is that, as with every compromise, not everyone will be completely pleased, and even if they could be convinced to accept the terms as the best on the table, there is no way to allow for future practical problems (such as the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Bill which the South viewed as a key failure in the attitude of the North). The compromise of 1850 did indeed seem to offer a solution, but the problem remained that there was no way to erase the memories of the sections, and as such, any incident against the compromise could cause all the old demons to return. In conclusion, I believe that, due to the nature of the sectional conflict, and because the views towards the union had changed so dramatically, by 1850, it had become impossible to work out a long-term compromise. A conflict was needed, because, as Lincoln put it: "A house divided against itself cannot stand...this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free", and possibly war proved to be the ultimate kind of compromise - the compromise of loss of life versus loss of government. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level European Union section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level European Union essays

  1. C1 Analyse the factor, which contribute towards an effective team.

    At last we met our target in selling the tickets for another week and took the draw the following first day.

  2. Is it possible to talk of civil society beyond the nation-state? Although a clich, ...

    - does not resemble a 'global community'.9 However, it ought to constitute a culture of self-awareness about the 'hybridity and complexity of the world.'10 And importantly, "civil society is not the market: it is a non-commercial realm. Civil society bodies are not companies or parts of firms; nor do they seek to make profits.

  1. The Institution of the European Union and Theories.

    A description of EU the treaties, including a clear explanation of how this has generated opportunities and treats for UK businesses. The EU treaties are international laws which are written by the nations in the European Union. All countries in the European Union must adhere to them in good faith.

  2. European Union

    need for 'integration yet pluralism, more and, at the same time, less centralisation, external homogeneity and internal heterogeneity, supremacy of EU law and principle of subsidiarity, economic development and social equality'5. There are many EU institutions involved in the European law making process which includes executive, legislative and judicial institutions.

  1. To what extent was the fall of Olivares due to the Union of Arms?The ...

    European influence relied on domestic unity and Spain's reputacion on the European stage was his central objective. Olivares did not stand alone with his ambition for Spain's unity. Castilian Arbitristras had long-lamented the fact that Castile shouldered the financial burden for the rest of the empire The Finance Minister wrote

  2. The EU's CFSP and the Iraq Crisis: A Catalyst for Change?

    The Iraq Crisis serves as a useful case study because the EU members did not reach an agreement. The fact that member states may or may not arrive at a common position within the CFSP makes it difficult for the EU to project itself into global politics as a single actor.

  1. The Importance of the Cyprus Issue in terms of the Accomplishment of the ESDP

    If we look at the EU's position on the Cyprus issue during the Cold War years, we see that its role was rather insignificant, as it was not yet speaking with one voice in the international arena, and, an important party on the issue, the United Kingdom, who is also

  2. Blockade runners enabled the Confederacy to survive for as long as it did.

    Return cargoes were transshipped in the same way. This had a double advantage. It made the continuity of the transaction much more difficult of proof, and it enabled the capitalists engaged in the trade to employ two different classes of vessels, for the service for which each was specially adapted.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work