bqtd Historians have debated whe bqtd ther economic differences between the industrial bqtd Nort bqtd heast and the agricultu bqtd ral South helped cause the war. Most hi storians now disagree with the economic deter bqtd minism of historian Charles A. Beard in the 1920s and emphasize that Northern and Sou bqtd thern economies w ere largely complementary. While socially different, the sections economically benefited each other.[27][28]Protectionism bqtd Historically, souther bqtd n slave-holding states, because of their low cost manual labor, had little perceived need for bqtd mechanizat bqtd ion, and supported havi ng the right to sell cotton and purchase manufactured goods from any nation. bqtd Northern states, which had heavily invested in their still-nascent manu bqtd facturing, could not c bqtd ompete with the full-fledged industries of Europe in offer bqtd ng high prices for bqtd cotton imported from the South and low prices fo bqtd r manufactured exports in return. Thus, northern manufacturing interests supported tariffs and protectionism while southern planters demanded free trade.[29] bqtd The Democrats in Congress, controlled by S bqtd outherners, wrote the tariff laws in the 1830s, bqtd 1840s, and 1850s, and kept reducing rates so that the 1857 rates were the lowest since 18 bqtd 16. The Whigs and Republicans complained because they favored high tariffs to stimulate industrial growth, and Republi bqtd cans called for an increase in bqtd tariffs in the 1860 election. The increases were only enacted in 1861 after Southerners resigned their seats in Congr ess.[30][31] The tariff issue was and is bqtd sometimes citedâ€"long after the wa bqtd râ€"by Lo bqtd st Cause historians and neo-Confederate apologists. In 1860â€"61 none bqtd of the groups that proposed c bqtd ompromises to head off secession raised the tariff issue.[32] Pamphelteers North and South rarely men bqtd tioned the tariff, [33] and when some did, for instance, Matthew Fontaine Maury[34] and John Lothrop Motley,[35] they were generally writing for a foreign audience. S bqtd tate's rightsTerritorial crisisFurther information: Slave and bqtd free statesBetween 1803 and 1854, the United States achieved a vast expansion of ter ritory through purchase, negotiation, and con bqtd quest. At first, the new state bqtd s carved bqtd out of these territories entering the unio bqtd n were apportioned equ bqtd ally between slave and free states. It was over bqtd territories west of the Mississippi that the prosl bqtd avery and antislavery forces c bqtd ollided.[38] With the conquest of northern Mexico west to California in 1848, slaveholding interests bqtd looked forward to expanding into these lands and perhaps Cuba bqtd and Central America as well.[39][40] Northern "free soi bqtd l" interests vigorously sought to curtail bqtd any further exp bqtd ansion of slave territory. The Compro mise of 1850 over California balanced a free soi bqtd l state with stronger fugitive slave laws for a politica bqtd l settlement af bqtd er four yea bqtd rs of strife in th bqtd e 1840s. But the states admitted following California were all free: Minnesota (1858), Oregon (1859) and Kansas (1861). In the southern states the q bqtd uestion of the territorial expansion of slavery westw bqtd rd again became explosive.[41] Both the Sout bqtd h and the North drew the same conclusion: "The pow er to decide the question of slavery for the territorie bqtd s was the power to bqtd determine the future of sla bqtd very itself."[42][43]By 1860, four doctrines ha d emerged to answer the question of federal control in the territories, an bqtd d they all claimed they were sanctioned by the Constitution, implicitly or bqtd explicitly.[44] The first of these "conservative" theories, re bqtd presented by the Constitutional Union Party, argu bqtd ed that the Missouri Compromise app bqtd ortionment of territory north for free soil and south for slavery should becom bqtd e a Constitutiona bqtd l mandate. The bqtd Crittenden Compromise of 1860 was an bqtd expression of this view.[45] The second doctrine of C bqtd ongressional bqtd preeminence, championed by Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party, insisted t hat the Constitution did not bind legislators to a policy of balance â€" that bqtd slavery could be excluded in a territory as it was done in the Northwe st O bqtd rdinance at the discretion of C bqtd ongress,[46] thus C bqtd ongress could restrict human bondage, but never establish it. The Wilmot Proviso announced t his bqtd position in 1846.[47] bqtd bqtd .
No comments:
Post a Comment