Liberty Challenged in Nineteenth-Century America

Liberty Challenged in Nineteenth-Century America

When the Treaty of Paris got signed in 1783, many Americans, especially the slaves, may have thought that a significant change had arrived. The nation had participated in the slave trade for more than a century. It had directly witnessed both the advantages and disadvantages of the institution. Others may have thought that for the first time, the nation was ready to embrace peace and unity, moving away from divisive politics and creating a healthy economy for all. However, the treaty failed to end slavery and set into motion a crisis on the institution that would eventually divide the young nation into two, as evidenced by the secession and the eventuality of the Civil war that pitted the Union against the Confederacy. Additionally, the Missouri compromise, the Dred Scott decision, and the three-fifths compromise challenged the need to abolish slavery as an institution and only created space for a divided nation.

The

Missouri compromise of 1820 failed to address the state of slaves amicably since many stakeholders viewed it as unconstitutional. Both the North and the South believed that it was unfair and unjust as indicated by how it contributed to the infamous Bleeding Kansas

Massacre (Forbes, 2007). However, its repeal impacted the civil war and

eventually led to the division between the North and South. Accordingly, the

repeal initiated several processes that would ultimately create sectarian

conflicts. These conflicts between the North and the South had disastrous

consequences, as exemplified by the Bleeding Kansas Massacre between the pro

and anti-slave forces. The outcome was a divided nation with pro and anti-slave

supporters that could not coexist, leading to the emergence of the civil war.

The

three-fifths compromise of 1787 supported slavery as an institution and used it

to give the southern states more power than they had initially. According to

Bardes, Shelley, and Schmidt (2010), the compromise allowed for slavery to

spread more in the southern states. It also led to the inflation of the

representation of southerners in the Electoral College and the Senate. This

allowed the southerners to feel protected and to continue with slavery as they

had incommensurable representation in congress. The result was discontentment

by the northerners and the antislavery advocates. Besides, the clause ensured

the difficulty of securing the congressional approval of the necessary

antislavery amendment leading to resentment and division between the two parties.

Eventually, the North’s continued support of antislavery and the South’s

proslavery sentiments created more rifts in the country and effectively making

the clause a vital contributor to the civil war.

Dred

Scot Decision emerged in 1857 when Dred Scott, a slave, petitioned the courts

to set him free for staying in a slave-free state for long. The decision

affirmed that Dred Scott was a slave as the Supreme Court ascertained that the

Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional for prohibiting slavery north of

thirty-six degrees thirty minutes. It then emerged that all the laws that

prohibited slavery in various territories were unconstitutional as interpreted

by those who supported the institution, more so the southern states.

Furthermore, the power of the congress got dragged into the arguments as

political leaders, and their constituents grew weary of the loss of power that

congress faced. Many individuals got to question the decision, thereby creating

more tension between the North and South on their stand on slavery. Eventually,

the civil war became a momentous event that Americans viewed as a platform for

deciding on the issue of slavery. Hence, the decision became a valuable player

for the beginning of the civil war.

As

a catalyst for the civil war, the Kansas Nebraska Act played a critical role in

repealing the Missouri Compromise that Americans adopted in 1820. It allowed

slavery to continue in the regions within the Louisiana Purchase, thereby

providing a balance of power within the government (Wunder & Ross, 2008).

More importantly, the move created a political panic as those who were against

it thought that it would allow the South to dominate the new states that had

emerged in the west. Such an eventuality would ensure that the Southern

states dominated the government, thereby forcing the Northern states into a

minority. Besides, the Kansas Nebraska act allowed the territories to use

popular sovereignty to decide on the issue of slavery (Wunder & Ross,

2008). With the possible shift in government majority, each party developed a

fear of losing positions in congress. Therefore, more tensions developed

between the Northern and Southern states as a result of the enactment of the

Kansas Nebraska Act, further damaging their relationship, worsening the situation, and the eventual civil war.

Why Slavery Was and Is

Incompatible With Our Political and Economic System

As

an institution, slavery was capital equipment that was a repulsive

financial cost. The treatment of slaves was an important issue that made their

use for human labor a detestable act as perceived by most Northerners.

According to the theories of most modern economists such as Adam Smith and the

the exploitation of slave labor witnessed most of the income being expropriated by

their owners. Such expropriation meant that the profits derived from the

the industry was mismanaged and did not play a significant role in advancing the

the capitalist economy and this made it incompatible with the highly industrialized American economic

the system, especially in the North.

Slavery

posed financial inconsistencies that put economies at a disadvantage. According

to Adam Smith’s arguments, slaves were generally forced to work and did not

have any interest in what they did. The outcome of such work was a disaster and failed to meet the criteria of productivity. Besides, financial inconsistencies arose from the aspect of maintaining slaves and their families. Most

economists like Adam Smith thought that it was too expensive to keep a slave

than to employ a worker for agriculture and industry. In most of the arguments,

a paid worker would perform much better than the slaves who could only be seen

as very lazy and needed a push to work. Hence, free labor was viewed to be

superior and more productive than slave labor and was, therefore, a better

option for American capitalism.

Slavery

hindered the growth of southern capitalism as it failed to provide any benefit

or venture to most southerners who were more interested in showing immeasurable

estates and slave stores. With the increase in the slave trade and related

activities in the South, the emerging slave lords, and the existing ones got

into a competition on who would have the most significant number of slaves as

well as the healthiest ones. One consequence of such a perception was that not

much got done in terms of development and wealth generation. With the failure of

these slavers to initiate appropriate income-generating activities, the

southern capitalism continued to dwindle as compared to the Northern industrial

an economy that was booming as a result of paid labor and the use of machines for

production.

Conclusion

To conclude, the Treaty of Paris played a crucial role in shaping the future of slavery and the division of the United States of America. By filing to address the institution of slavery effectively, the treaty allowed the new nation to create several compromises and Acts of Congress that severely impacted slaves and the various states. Therefore, the emergence of the civil war was a failure of the nation to hold itself together, unite its people, and move forward for the common good.

References List

Bardes, B. A., Shelley, M. C., & Schmidt, S. W. (2010). American government and politics today: The essentials. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Forbes, R. P. (2007). The Missouri Compromise and its aftermath: Slavery & the meaning of America. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

Wunder, J. R., & Ross, J. M. (2008). The Nebraska-Kansas Act of 1854. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.