Samantha Diaz

Mr. Woolsey, Period 7

AP U.S. History
November 29, 2015

Chapter 14 Half Pagers

1. The prospect of territorial acquisition from the Mexican War spurred a political
debate over the issue of extending slavery. Discuss the various "solutions" offered as
well as the impact of the issue on the election of 1848.
When the war with Mexico broke out in 1846, it seemed likely that the United
States would acquire new territories in the Southwest and with this land came the
question, would they be slave or free? Philadelphia Congressman David Wilmot added an
amendment to a war appropriations bill declaring, neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude shall ever exist in any territories acquired from Mexico. When the Mexican
American war ended, several solutions were presented to deal with this question of
slavery in the territories. The first was the free soil idea of preventing any extensions of
slavery. The Northwest Ordinance and the Missouri Compromise suggested that
Congress had the power and right to do so. Opposed to the free-soil position were the
arguments of Senator Calhoun of South Carolina, expressed in several resolutions
introduced in the Senate in 1847. Not only did Congress lack the constitutional right to
exclude slavery from the territories, Calhoun argued, but it had a positive duty to protect
it. The Wilmot Proviso therefore was unconstitutional, as was the Missouri Compromise
and any other federal act that prevented slaveholders from taking their slave property into
the territories of the United States. In contrast, James Buchanan of Pennsylvania
proposed that the Missouri Compromise line be extended through the lands acquired from
Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. This would avoid questions about the morality of slavery
and the constitutionally of congressional authority. So would popular sovereignty,
Michigan Senator Lewis Casss proposal to leave decisions about permitting slavery to
the local territorial legislature. Democrats nominated Cass for president in 1848 and
cleverly printed two campaign biographies of Cass, one for the South and one for the
North. The Whigs nominated General Zachary Taylor; southern Whigs supported Taylor
because they thought he might understand the burdens of slaveholding and the northern
Whigs were pleased he took no stand on the Wilmot Proviso. General Taylor won easily,
largely because defections from Cass to the Free-Soilers cost the Democrats New York
and Pennsylvania.
2. Although the slavery issue had been largely ignored in the election of 1848, several
problems forced political debate and a compromise in 1850. Discuss the provisions,
process, and consequences of the compromise.
Although General Taylor was a newcomer to politics, he tackled these problems
in a statesmanlike, if evasive, manner. He invited New Mexico and California to apply
immediately for statehood, presumably as free states. But soon he alienated both southern
supporters such as Calhoun and mainstream Whig leaders such as Clay and Webster.
Early in 1850, Clay sought to regain control of the Whig party by proposing solutions to
the divisive issues before the nation. With Websters support, Clay introduced a series of

resolutions in an omnibus package intended to settle these issues once and for all. Despite
some 70 speeches on behalf of the compromise, the Senate defeated Clays Omnibus Bill.
Clay left Washington, died, then in came Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois who saw
that Clays resolution had a better chance of passing if voted on individually. The
Compromise of 1850 put Clays resolutions into law. First, California entered the Union
as a free state, ending the balance between free and slave states. Second, territorial
governments were organized in New Mexico and Utah, letting local people decided
whether to permit slavery. The Texas-New Mexico border was settled, denying Texas the
disputed area. Third, the slave trade was abolished in the District of Colombia. The fourth
and most controversial part was the Fugitive Slave Act, containing many provisions that
offended northerners. The Compromise delayed more serious sectional conflict and added
two new ingredients to American politics. First, political realignment along the sectional
lines moved closer; second, although repudiated by most ordinary citizens, ideas like
succession, disunion, and a higher law than the Constitution entered political
discussions. In addition, the new fugitive slave law angered many northerners because it
brought the evils of slavery right into their midst. Other northerners, white and black,
stepped up their work for the Underground Railroad and helped runaway slaves evade
capture. Several states passed personal liberty laws that prohibited the use of state
officials and institutions in the recovery of fugitive slaves.
3. How and why did the events of 1855-1856 concerning Kansas offer a preview of the
Civil War?
Passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 opened the way for proslavery and
antislavery forces to clash over Kansas. No sooner had the bill passed Congress than the
Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Society was founded to recruit free-soil settlers for Kansas.
By the summer of 1855, about 1,200 New England colonists had migrated to Kansas.
New Englanders were not exactly welcomed in Kansas, for example, Democratic Senator
David Atchison recommended to fellow Missourians that they defend their property and
interests with the bayonet and with blood and, if need be, to kill every God-damned
abolitionist in the district. Thousands poured across the border late in 1854 to vote on
permitting slavery in the territory. In March 1855, a second election was held to select a
territorial legislature. The pattern of border crossings, intimidation, and illegal voting was
repeated. Not surprisingly, swollen numbers of illegal voters elected a proslavery tritorial
legislature. Free-Soilers created a free-soil government at Topeka and banned blacks from
the state while the proslavery legislature settled in Lecompton, giving Kansas two
governments. Congress debated the wrongs in Kansas and sent an investigating
committee, further inflaming passions. Throughout 1855, the call to arms grew more
strident. In May 1856, supported by a pro-southern federal marshal, a mob entered
Lawrence, smashed the offices and presses of free-soil newspaper, fired several
cannonballs into the Free State Hotel and destroyed homes and shops. The sack of
Lawrence, the massacre at Pottawatomie Creek, and the caning of Sumner set off a minor
civil war known as Bleeding Kansas. As the rhetoric and violence in Kansas
demonstrated, competing visions of two separate cultures for the future destiny of the
United States were at stake.

4. Contrast the views of Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas as expressed in the
Illinois debates of 1858 concerning slavery, abolitionism, and racial equality. Discuss
the political impact of these debates.
Lincoln and Douglass views concerning slavery, abolitionism and racial equality
couldnt have been any different, for example, Lincoln believed that everyone, of every
color, should be allowed their natural rights while Douglas believed in white superiority.
Although far from being a radical abolitionist, in the Illinois debates Lincoln skillfully
staked out a moral position not only in advance of Douglas but well ahead of his time.
Douglas believed in white superiority, opposed granting specific equal civil rights to free
blacks, and said that physical and moral differences between whites and blacks would
forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political
equality. He recommended separation and colonization in Liberia or Central America as
the best solution to racial differences. Lincoln, however, differed from most
contemporaries in his deep commitment to the equality and dignity of all human beings.
Countering Douglass racial slurs, Lincoln said that he believed not only that blacks were
entitled to all the natural rights in the Declaration of Independence but also that they
had many specific economic rights as well. Unlike Douglas, Lincoln hated slavery.
Douglass moral indifference to slavery was clear in his admission that he did not care if
a territorial legislature voted it up or down. Although barred by the Constitution from
interfering with slavery where it already existed, Lincoln said that because Republicans
believed slavery was wrong, we propose a course of policy that shall deal with is as a
wrong. What Lincoln meant by policy was not clear but he did succeed in affirming
that the Republican party was the only moral and political force capable of stopping the
slave power.

Samantha Diaz
Mr. Woolsey
AP US History, Period 7
November 29, 2015

Chapter 14: The Civil War Half Pagers

1. How did economic and political factors help cause the south to lose the Civil
War?
The Souths economic and political inferiority compared to the North, caused it to
lose the American Civil War. The North had superior manpower and resources. The
Northern Union had a population of 22,000,000 compared to the 9,000,000 of the South.
Furthermore, of those nine million, 3,500,000 were slaves whom the South would not
arm due to the fear of slave revolt. The greater population of the North allowed them to
have a greater body from which to draw their armies (despite the fact that enlistment
percentage was lower in the North than the South). In addition, the Union controlled most
the resources of the United States. Northern monopolized industries allowed the Union to
become fully self-sufficient and manufacture its own supplies. The Confederacy, on the
other hand, had few industrial outputs and had to therefore rely on foreign imports. The
transportation systems within the North also surpassed those of the South. There was two
times more railroad track, more canals, and better roads in the North. The lack of efficient
transportation within the South hampered the Confederate armys ability to mobilize
quickly and obtain supplies. The fewer shipyards of the South also hindered its ability to
transport and receive goods. Economic factors also worked against the South. The
Confederacy worked off the doctrine of individual States Rights, which often times
interfered with the greater good of the Confederacy. Other examples include Davis
inability to impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus, and conscription. President
Daviss leadership was also somewhat lacking. Although he was an able administrator he
rarely provided genuinely national leadership. Such economic and political factors lead to
the inevitable defeat of the South.
2. Lincoln was one of the most democratic and also one of the most autocratic
of the president. Explain what is meant by this statement and then give
reasons for either agreeing or disagreeing with it.
Although Lincoln successfully led his country through its greatest internal crisis, the
American Civil War, he was one of the most democratic and also one of the most
autocratic of presidents. Being the democratic president he was, he believed in a
government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Lincoln fought a war that
nearly tore the country apart in order to end slavery and give black people the same rights
that all citizens have: liberty and freedom, the right to vote, the right to own property, and
so on. There were many times President Lincoln was acting like a very democratic leader.
His leniency towards the slaves was portrayed through the emancipation Proclamation
and the 10% Plan. After the Unions victory at the Battle of Antietam, President Lincoln
had been given the opportunity he needed to issue the crucial Emancipation

Proclamation. The Emancipation Proclamation granted freedom to all slaves in all areas
of the Confederacy still in rebellion. But during the American Civil War, as president,
Abraham Lincoln overstepped the constitutional limits of his office. He believed that at
times of crisis, he was allowed to break the rules and do whatever he needed to do, which
displayed a part of his autocratic side as president. For example, he suspended habeas
corpus and took away Southerners property, with the Emancipation Proclamation.
Habeas Corpus protects people from harming themselves, or from being harmed by the
judicial system, but Lincoln still suspends it in parts of Maryland and parts of midwestern
states around 1862. Also, no one is allowed to be arrested or detained under the
suspension of Habeas Corpus unless aided by Judicial power. Yet, Lincoln went through
with his plan and suspended Habeas Corpus. His purpose towards this unconstitutional
action was because he wanted to show the Confederates that he was the Boss.
3. Assess the effectiveness of the military leadership, strategies, and tactics of
the North and South during the Civil War.
In one respect, the Union and Confederacy has the same goal to preserve a way of
life, but in order to preserve that way of life the South and North developed different
tactics and strategies under different leadership. The Union originally adopted four
strategies: invade the Confederacy and destroy its will to resist, obtain the loyalty of the
border states, construct and maintain a naval blockade, and to prevent European powers
from extending recognition and giving assistance to the Confederacy. To obtain the
loyalty of the border states was essential because each state was geographically strategic
for the Union. Although Lincoln succeeded in obtaining their loyalty and they decided to
remain in the union, pro-Confederate sympathizers existed in each state and men fought
for the Confederacy in all four. While the Union had this sort of complex plan the
Confederacy knew it did not need to invade the North to be victorious, instead their
strategy was to defend Confederate land, prevent the North from destroying its army, and
break the Unions will to fight. The Norths offensive strategy proved to be victorious
over the Confederacys defensive strategy as problems at home caused their demise.
These issues included the loss of border states, absence of a centralized/unified political
power and goals, southern belief in aristocratic privilege, failure to provide enough
services to meet wartime demands and inability to raise enough finances to support the
war. Because the Confederacy relied on a stable south to provide for its army, once the
south collapsed the Confederacy as a whole did as well.
4. Analyze the impact of any two of the following on the ending of slavery
during the Civil War: President Lincoln, U.S. Congress, slaves and former
slaves
Slaves were freed during the Civil War as a result of governmental policy passed by
Congress and their own actions. Even though Lincoln in the 1850s spoke out against
slavery as an unqualified evil, as president he seemed hesitant to take action against
slavery as advocated by many of his Republican supporters. Early in the war (May 1861),
Union General Benjamin Butler refused to return captured slaves to their Confederate
owners, arguing that they were contraband of war. The power to seize enemy property

used to wage war against the United States was the legal basis for the first Confiscation
Act passed by Congress in 1861. Soon after the passage of this act, thousands of
contrabands were using their feet to escape slavery by finding their way into Union
camps. In July 1862 a second Confiscation Act was passed that freed the slaves of
persons engaged in rebellion against the U.S. After Lincolns warning of the
Emancipation Proclamation, Union armies were fighting against slavery, not merely
against succession and rebellion. The proclamation added weight to the Confiscation acts,
increasing the number of slaves who sought freedom by fleeing to Union lines. Thus,
with each advance of northern troops into the South, more slaves were liberated. To free
the slaves in the border states, a constitutional amendment was needed. By December
1865 Congress passed the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery.
5. To what extent is it correct to say that the Civil War represented a second
American Revolution?
From the perspective of the South, the Civil War was a second American Revolution;
in their eyes they were fighting the same fight the Americans once fought against Britain.
In this case obviously the South is the Americans and the North is Britain, the South has
finally gained the power and voice to fight against this foreign power. The South is
fighting for the right to govern themselves because they dont necessarily agree with the
policies of the government, in this case especially with the want to end slavery. Similarly
to the Americans, Southerners felt they did not have a voice in how they were being
governed as a whole. So instead of a compromise, like the Americans, the South broke
away, formed their own government (that wanted to keep the institution of slavery). In
contrast to the American Revolution, the Southerners were not fighting for independence
and liberty for all but for the right to limit those rights for some. It is only correct to say
that the Civil War represented a second American Revolution if seen from the perspective
of the South and their search for a voice in government.