Essay on "Civil War Timeline 1619 the Origins"

/>1787 Debating Slavery

Though the Constitutional Convention did not discuss abolishing slavery, it discusses ending importing slaves. South Carolina and Georgia threatened not to join the union without a promise that the slave trade could not be restricted for 20 years (the Civil War Home Page, 2009).

1787 a Person, but only for their Owners' sakes

The Three-Fifths Clause permitted each slave to be counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of representation in Congress, giving slaveholding states a tremendous advantage in the House of Representatives (the Civil War Home Page, 2009).

1787 No Slavery in the New Federal Territories

The Northwest Ordinance prevents slavery in the new federal territories (the Civil War Home Page, 2009).

March 1794 Cotton becomes King

Eli Whitney patents his Cotton Gin, which makes cotton profitable and increases the demand for cheap labor (the Civil War Home Page, 2009)..

March 1820 Insufficient Compromise

The Missouri Compromise is negotiated, hoping to maintain a balance between free and slave states (Brotherly Love, unk.).

1828 Abominable Tariffs?

Congress again raises tariffs with the Tariff of Abominations. Because the tariffs benefit industry rather than agriculture, they aid Free states, not slave states (the Civil War Home Page, 2009).

1833 Compromising on Tariffs

A Compromise Tariff Act is passed as a means of gradually reducing the tariffs of concern in the southern states (the Civil War Home Page, 2009).

1834 the End of Slavery in the British Empire

Slavery abolished throughout the British Empire (the Civil War Home Page, 2009).

1854 the Kansas-Nebraska Act

Congress passes the Kansas-Nebraska, opening the Northern territory to slavery for the first time since the beginning of the country (the Civil War Home Page, 2009).

1855 Bloody Kansas

Kansas becomes a battleground as it prepares for the elections that will determine whether it is a free or slave state (U.S.History.org, 2011).

March 1857 a Dreadful Decision

In a case referred to as the Dred Scott Decision, the Supreme Court rules that blacks are not U.S. citizens, and that slaveholders have the right to take existing slaves into free areas of the country without losing their property rights in those slaves. Essentially, this decision strips Free states of their right to outlaw slavery (Dred Scott v. Sanford, 1857).

1860 Abraham Lincoln Elected President

Abraham Lincoln is elected President, though he was not on the ballot in the Deep South. This triggers the beginning of states seceding from the Union, despite the fact that Lincoln did not run on an abolitionist platform.

The Inevitable American Civil War

Those who suggest that the Civil War was about anything other than slavery are revisionists, because that claim belies the dramatic history of strife over the institution of slavery that existed in the United States since well before the colonies ever became a country. While the Civil War may have been fought over the issue of states' rights, the only right over which they were truly concerned was the right to own other human beings. Anyone who questions that fact need only look at the secession documents written by each state that seceded, wherein each individual state made clear that the issue of slavery was what caused them to secede from the Union. That does not mean that the Civil War was fought because of a concern about human rights. While many abolitionists were concerned that slavery was a human rights violation, there was not the tremendous press for human rights in either the antebellum North that many imagine. Instead, for many, the question of slavery had nothing to do with civil rights and everything to do with economic and political dominance. However, the fact that many people did consider slavery a human rights violation certainly lent both weight and breadth to the issue of abolition. Looking at these struggles over slavery, one begins to see that, as time progressed, slaveholding states became unwilling to accept compromise and that a major conflict was inevitable.

The colonies began as a part of the British Empire, and slavery, as well as other imperialist practices, was an established part of empire-building. Moreover, many willing immigrants to the New World came as indentured servants, who were essentially short-term slaves working off loans, which usually consisted of the money used to pay for their transportation to the New World. However, in 1619, the practice of indentured servitude in the colonies changed (the Civil War Home Page, 2009). It was then that English settlers purchased 20 African indentured servants from a Dutch ship. Though these servants were ostensibly freed after their period of indenture, this is the first time that white Americans purchased blacks in the slave trade, a practice that would shape and define the future. As is well-known, eventually to be black in certain parts of America was to be a slave. Moreover, the question of the slave trade actually played a role in the formation of the United States. This practice did not, at the time, create any strife between North and South, but it helped establish the color-code that would eventually tear apart the nation.

By the time that the colonies revolted from Britain, this color-classification had become entrenched. While there were free men of color in the North and the South, and while many of those men played a role in the American Revolution, the issue of slavery received little moral attention in the Constitutional debates. However, the ratification of the Constitution was one of the events that can be seen as directly contributing to the eventual division between the North and the South. Although slaves were not given the rights of citizens, the Three-Fifths Clause permitted each slave to be counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of representation in Congress, giving slaveholding states a tremendous advantage in the House of Representatives (the Civil War Home Page, 2009). Not only did this give slaveholding states a tremendous advantage, by giving each of its registered voters a much weightier vote, but it also gave actual slaveholding individuals greater power. The Representatives were undoubtedly aware that their power literally came from the institution of slavery, making it even more likely that they would represent their wealthy patrons at the expense of the average citizen. This compromise helped establish a tension between the North and the South whereby the institution of slavery was directly responsible for a disparity in political power. To abolish slavery would not only threaten property rights, but also challenge the political and economic status quo. However, as the Supreme Court made clear years later, slaves might count as people, but they did not count as citizens, even partial citizens (Dred Scott v. Sanford, 1857).

The tension between the industrial North and the agricultural South was greatly exacerbated in March of 1794, when Eli Whitney patented his Cotton Gin. Prior to that time, cotton simply was not a profitable crop. However, the Cotton Gin made cotton profitable, and those profits only increased with cheap labor. While the South had always been dependent on agriculture, it would be fair to suggest that agriculture was more subsistence-based, and that the northern states were the southern states main trading partners. However, when cotton became king, the South became an economic power in its own right. By exporting cotton around the world, the South was able to assert economic independence from Northern states. The response to that independence was a series of tariffs, and the ensuing struggle over those tariffs, which aided the North but hindered the South, formed the financial backdrop for the events of the war.

All of these… READ MORE