Nuechterlein 1

Olivia Nuechterlein

Mr. Villers

APUSH

11 January 2019

Unit 5 DBQ

Tensions between northern and southern American states started to become increasingly

evident starting in the 1820’s. As slavery boomed in the agriculturally-focused south, it declined

quickly in the industrialized north. Many northern people did not agree with slavery and they

also did not rely on slave labor, as many people in the south did. The cultural and social

differences between the two regions evoked debates focused around the controversial topic of

slavery. Political compromise did little to reduce sectional tension from 1820 to 1861. Due to the

political unrest between the northern and southern states, the final outcome of these sectional

tensions was the Civil War. The Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas

Nebraska Act of 1854 all failed in eliminating conflicts.

The Missouri Compromise was a compromise put in place to equal out the ratio of slave

states there were to free states. Missouri wanted to become a state, however, Northerners did not

like the idea, as they would be outnumbered in voting. The compromise that was made added

Maine as a free state and Missouri as a slave state, making the ratio equal again. This was a

temporary fix, as slavery and the division between the north and the south quickly became

increasingly relevant. Document 2 displays the role in state versus federal power. The

Declaration explains how although the federal government cannot ban slavery within individual

states, they can end interstate slave trade and slavery within territories. The purpose of this

document was to enhance the fact that slavery was against God’s law, and therefore, invalid; in
 Nuechterlein 2

hopes to repeal pro-slavery laws. Document 3 discusses the Gag Rule. The Gag Rule was a series

of regulations passed by the government that omitted any political conversation regarding

abolition of slavery. This took place between 1836 and 1840, shortly after the Missouri

Compromise. The document shows how the issue of slavery was set aside, and in result,

increased sectional tensions greatly. Both documents are clear evidence of how compromise did

little to reduce conflict

The compromise of 1850 was yet another compromise set in place in hopes to settle

sectional disagreements. This compromise strengthened the fugitive slave acts for the south, and

in return, the north gained California as a new free state. Slave trade was also prohibited in

Washington DC, however, slavery itself was not. The point of view of Document 4 is important

to note when examining the text. It is spoken by senator Daniel Webster. He specifically states

that he is speaking as a nationalist, not a man representing one side of the divided country. This

point of view is important because he goes on to address the wrongs of the nation, as it was at

that time. Webster did not agree with secession as he called it a “moral impossibility” as a nation

to go against each other. He also notes that the north had not fulfilled its responsibility that was

promised with the fugitive slave laws. This document shows how irrationally divided the nation

was, despite many efforts that are made to attempt to diminish sectional conflicts. Document 5 is

another example of how the (seemingly reasonable) compromises made do not please citizens.

Document 5 discusses how the fugitive slave acts are inhumane and immoral. Emerson states

that “a man’s right to liberty is as inalienable as his right to life” this proves how unjust he (as

well as many others) believes enslaving a person is. He discusses how the union could survive on

its own, however that type of plan unsustainable and will fall apart due to its lack of morality in

its legislation and the basis of its government, the constitution. This document clearly shows how
 Nuechterlein 3

individuals do not all agree on the components within the compromises. The compromise of

1850 did very little in decreasing sectional conflicts; in fact, they caused tensions to increase,

leading to civil war.

The Kansas Nebraska Act of 1854 insignificantly reduced sectional tensions. It allowed

people in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska to decide for themselves whether or not to allow

slavery within their borders this act did little to reduce sectional conflicts. Bleeding Kansas was a

result of this act. There were disagreements between proslavery and antislavery advocates for

control of the new territory of Kansas under the doctrine of popular sovereignty. These

“disagreements” were a prelude to what would eventually happen in the civil war. People on the

territory fought and killed each other over the control of the land. John Brown was one

significant abolitionist of this time period. He believed in the violent overthrow of the slavery

system. Brown and his sons led attacks during “Bleeding Kansas” on pro-slavery citizens. These

attacks were often extremely violent; however, he soon became a hero in the eyes of many

Northern extremists. Bleeding Kansas is another obvious example of how compromise was

insignificant in reducing sectional tensions. Document 6 is an image of Congressman Brooks

caning Senator Sumner in 1856. The purpose of this document is to show just how strong

tensions were at the time. People were in such great disagreements that they would use physical

violence to show their frustrations with many of the acts that were going on in this time period.

The Kansas Nebraska act was a tipping point for many people, as many people began to get

much more violent, as Brooks was with Sumner. Document 6 is clear evidence of how

compromises made, including the Kansas Nebraska Act of 1854 did little to reduce sectional

tensions. Document 7 is an excerpt from South Carolina’s Declaration of Causes of Secession in

December of 1860. This document states how it was the first state to succeed. This declaration of
 Nuechterlein 4

succession was shortly after the Kansas-Nebraska act, one of the final acts before the nation went

into civil war. This document confirms that the pressing issue of slavery was set aside, and in

result, increased sectional tensions greatly. Although there were many acts put in place to resolve

conflicts between the divided country, they all did very little in reducing sectional tensions to

unite the nation, and in result, ended in civil war.

Cultural and social differences between the north and the south produced disagreements

focused around slavery. Political compromise did little to reduce sectional tension from 1820 to

1861. The Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas Nebraska Act of 1854

all failed in prominently reducing sectional conflicts. Document 1 is yet another example of how

compromise did little to reduce conflict. This document explains how there were disagreements

on the issue of slavery, however, they also had multiple other problems that caused conflict that

compromises made by the government were unable to solve. Due to the political disorder

between the northern and southern states, the result of these sectional tensions was ultimately

Civil War.