Can the United States Justify the Civil War

Can the United States Justify the Civil War

The definition of Manifest Destiny reads as: "The belief in the 1840\'s
in the inevitable territorial expansion of the United States, especially as
advocated by southern slaveholders who wished to extend slavery into new
territories." This explanation was transcribed from the World Book
Encyclopedia\'s dictionary. It is directly evident that from this unbiased
statement we can trace the first uprising of a separate group of people yearning
to break the newly formed bond of the great United States.

Before and during the Mexican War, the people who were pushing for the
claimed land once owned by innocent native americans, were always looking for a
scapegoat. They needed one way or another, a way to squirm out of taking the
blame for the enslaved and murdered Mexican causalities. There was one man,
though, who would not let this happen, David Wilmot. David Wilmot was a
democrat from Pennsylvania, who was willing to revise the President\'s bill. In
this revision, Wilmot proposed "...neither slavery nor involuntary servitude
shall ever exist in any part of the territory...". This was not well liked by
the South and eventhough it was given thumbs up many times in the senate, our
newly formed country was now bordered by fresh land. The Wilmot Proviso
underwent quite a bit of pressure so that compromises could satisfy each side.

The Compromise of 1850 was soon to follow but the real catch of the same
year was the Fugitive Slave Act. This act was invented so that the slaves of
slaveowners, who took them to a slave-free state on a vacation or something,
could not escape. In this act, the hardest part to understand, was that the
courts were to try to give a fair trial to any runaway slaves. This enfuriated
many of the Northern abolitionists who now were going to expand the tracks of
the underground railroad to help extend their efforts in the rescue of the
runaways. The point of no return, where many people knew for sure that the
country would be devided between the north and the south was the ruling on the
Kansas Nebraska Act. This act was majorly contributed into by Stephen A.
Douglas and probably would never have passed without his consent. The whole
idea behind the act that really got to the south was Popular Sovereignty. This
so called "specific" rule was none to specific in stating when a territory could
decide when they were pro or anti slavverry. The abolitionists were flooding
the new territory with their own kind where as the southerners were just moving
next door. They were armed and ready and knew that they would have to shed
blood before the voters went to the polls.

In the year of 1860, our most prized yet controversial president came
into office, Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln had many issues to cover in the begining
of his term and he did not want to go aabout it in the wrong fashion. The first
thing Lincoln could have done to delay the war if not prevent it was to let the
Confederates have Fort Sumter. But because of his stubborness, the begining of
the Civil War had started with no casualities but the rifles had been fired,
Union against the Confederacy.

The north and the south had it\'s share of loud mouths who threw their
weight around and they were not about to stop until they had their way.
Although these people were in the numbers of just a handful, their charismatic
ways received a lot of attention that was only to feed the fire of of no
compromise. One of the major contributers to this action was John Brown. In
the year 1859, John Brown led a band of twenty two armed men into Harper\'s Ferry,
Virginia and went on a slaying spree starting with the slaveowners families and
then freeing the slaves so they could join in arms with his party. But there is
another side of the coin and that is where Dred Scott comes in the Civil War
picture. Dred Scott was a slave who was taken to Illinois by his master on a
trip and taking notice to the Missouri Compromise, he sued his master to be free.
The case went to Supreme Court where he was ruled against at a 7 to 2 vote. So
this meant that there was no way that he could bring the case to Federal Court
and sue. There was quite an uproar on the decision and this made it very
impossible not to foresee the