2. U.S. Expansion
1803-1854
•
US increased its land by over
1.25 million square miles in just
10 years
Most states acquired by 1845,
most were slave states
•
The union states feared it’s
interests would be overrun by
slave state ideals
3. Atlantic Slave Trade Outlawed
•
1820: Slave trade made illegal
Southern states feared slavery
would be limited to certain states and
start the end of slavery in the US
•
North and South agreed, “The
power to decide the question of
slavery for the territories was the
power to determine the future of
slavery itself.”
4. Congress’ Power Over the States
•
Congress created doctrines to
give them control over a states
ability to have slavery
Northwest Ordinance of 1787
•
Missouri Compromise of 1820
•
The South feared they were
loosing their state rights
•
Southern states wanted their
“property”recognized when they
went to other states
5. Nationalism
•
Northerners supported
a union of all the states
•
Many Southerns
began to be loyal solely
to the Southern states
and started to form a
confederacy
6. Lincoln and the Republican Party
•
With the Democratic Party
being divided on the issue of
slavery, the anti-slavery
Republicans came to power
•
Abraham Lincoln elected in
November 1860, triggering the
secession of 7 states
7. Secession from the Union
United States map of 1861
States that seceded before April 15,
1861
States that seceded after April 15, 1861
Union states that permitted slavery
Union states that forbade slavery
Territories, unaffiliated
8. The Union’s Advantage
•
Industrial Revolution At it’s peak in the
North
Union Controlled
•
Railroads
•
Telegraphs
Mass Production Factories
•
Steamships
Immigration was seven times greater in the
North thus increasing their pool for troops
9. The Union’s War
Tactics
•
Total War
Developed by General Sherman
•
Trench Warfare
Industrial War
10. The Confederate’s Surrender
•
The Union’s supplies
were too great for the
Confederates to
overcome
•
General Lee
Surrendered to
General Grant at
Appomattox Court
House on April 9,
1865
Editor's Notes
It isn’t often that a map visually displays a moral issue facing a divided nation and then affects a President’s response. Yet nearly 150 years ago, the U.S. Coast Survey — NOAA’s predecessor organization — produced such a map that, according to historians, President Abraham Lincoln used to coordinate military operations with his emancipation policies. Created in September 1861, the map entitled “Map showing the distribution of the slave population of the southern states and the United States” is based on statistics from the eighth Census. It is included in NOAA’s new special collection of Civil War maps and charts, “ Chartin g a More Perfect Union ,” whic h contains over 400 documents gathered in one place to mark the 150th anniversary of the Civil War. “ The map was among the first to use shading to represent the human population,” explains retired NOAA Corps Capt. Albert Theberge, the chief of reference for the NOAA Central Library. “It is a prime example of how Coast Survey science aided the Union cause during the Civil War.”
Between 1803 and 1854, a vast expansion of US territory was achieved through purchase, negotiation and conquest. These acquisitions included over a million and a quarter square miles acquired in just the last decade of this period alone. [66] Of the states carved out of these territories by 1845, all had entered the union as slave states: Louisiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Florida and Texas, as well as the southern portions of Alabama and Mississippi. [67] And with the conquest of northern Mexico, including California, in 1848, slaveholding interests looked forward to the institution flourishing in these lands as well. Southerners also anticipated garnering slaves and slave states in Cuba and Central America. [67][68] Northern free soil interests vigorously sought to curtail any further expansion of slave soil. It was over these territorial disputes that the proslavery and antislavery forces collided over the future of slavery in America. [69][70]
Four doctrines, each mutually irreconcilable, emerged to provide the answer to the question of federal control in the territories. All these theories claimed to be sanctioned by, or derived from, the Constitution - either explicitly or implicitly. [79] The traditional or “conservative” position was based on Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution: “The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.” From these enumerated powers, two of the four doctrines emerged, each arguing that Congress had full authority to decide the fate of slavery in the territories. The precedents of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and the Missouri Compromise of 1820 were cited by proponents of federal control. In each of these historic compromises, the territories under consideration were divided into an explicitly designated free-soil region, as well as an undesignated region lacking a slavery exclusion clause. In other words, the legislation provided for, but did not require, a balance between free-soil and slave-soil. In all areas not placed off-limits to slavery, the institution was quickly established there. Here, the two traditional or “conservative” doctrines parted ways. The Constitutional Union Party regarded Co ngressional allocation of free-soil and, implicitly, slave-soil territory as an established method of compromise. Any dispute over slavery expansion was to end in similar apportionments. The Crittenden Compromise of 1860 was an expression of this politica l outlook. [81] The Re publican Party, which also championed federal control over territories, rejected this narrow interpretation of the precedents. They insisted that the clause conveying authority to Congress in the territories did not bind legislators to any particular policy; slavery could be constitutionally excluded altogether in a territory at their discretion. [81] The only caveat the Republicans issued was that the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment be applied in the territories to slavery: C ongress mig ht positively prohibit slavery, but they could never establish it; to do so, according to the Republicans, would amount to a federal mandate for slavery and violate the principles of the Declaration of Independence. [82][83] Illinois Senator Stephen A. Douglas and his southern Democratic Party allies devised the third of these political theories: territorial sovereignty. By this doctrine Congress would relinquish direct federal control over the internal affairs of territories regarding slavery. In this respect, territorial sovereignty (also known as “popular” or “squatter” sovereignty) diverged sharply from the two aforementioned conservative theories. [83] Douglas declared that “the people of every separate political community” – be it a state, a territory, or otherwise – “have an inalienable right to govern themselves” with respect to local concerns. Among these local concerns, Douglas included slavery. When challenged to explain how territorial sovereignty trumped the role of Congress as enumerated in Article Four, he replied this way: that Congress was empowered only to confer authority into the hands of the territorial government, but never to exercise any direct control, including the establishment of social institutions. [84] The fourth in this quartet of constitutional doctrines was that of state sovereignty (also known as states’ rights ). Among the principles of state sovereignty was that all authority regarding the institution of slavery in the territories resided in the slave states themselves. The role of the federal government was merely to enable the implementation of slave state laws when residents of the states entered the territories. [85] As early as 1847, shortly after the introduction of the Wilmot Proviso , the ideology of state sovereignty emerged as a rebuttal and antidote to free soil claims to th e Mexican Cess ion. [86][87] South Carolinian statesman John C. Calhoun asserted that the federal government in the territories was only the trustee or agent of the several soverei gn states, obli ged not to discriminate among the states and hence incapable of forbidding the bringing into any territory of anything that was legal property in any state. He concluded that citizens from every state had the right to take their property to any territory. [88] State sovereignty gave the laws of the slaveholding states extra-jurisdictional effect. The slave-owner and his property would settle in a territory much as a colonist settled in early colonial America; all rights and privileges recognized in the mother country (or sovereign slave state) would be retained by the colonists in their new home (US territory). The United States federal government would be bound by law to protect the settlers sovereign "rights" and intercede on their behalf if state statutes were threatened. [85] Essentially, “states’ rights” was an ideology formulated and applied as a means of advancing slave state interests through federal authority and thwarting free state interests, by application of the same federal authority. [89] As historian Thomas L Krannawitter points out, “[T]he Southern demand for federal slave protection represented a demand for an unprecedented expansion of federal power.” [90] By 1860, these four doctrines comprised the major ideologies presented to the American public on the matters of slavery, the territories and the US Constitution. [ 91
The causes of the Civil War were complex, and have been controversial since the war began. The issue has been further complicated by historical revisionists , who have tried to improve the image of the South by lessening the role of slavery . [5] Slavery was the central source of escalating political tension in the 1850s. The Republican Party was determined to prevent any spre ad of slavery, and many Southern leaders had threatened secession if the Republican candidate, Lincoln , won the 1860 election . Following Lincoln's victor y, many Southern whites felt t hat disunion had become their only option.
The American Civil War (1861–1865), often referred to simply as The Civil War in the United States, was a civil war fought in the United St ates of America . In resp onse to the election of Abraham Lincoln as Pr esident of the Unite d States , 11 so uthern slave states declared their secession from the United States and formed the C onfedera te States of America ("the Confederacy"); the oth er 25 sta tes supported the federal government ("the Union "). After four years of warfa re, mostly within the Southern states, the Confederacy surrendered and slavery was outlawed everywhere in the natio n. Issues that led to war were partially resolved in the Reconstruction Era that followed, though others remained unresolved. Sectionalism refers to the different economies, social structure, customs and p olitical values of the North and South. [57][58] It increased steadily between 1800 and 1 860 as the N orth, which phased slavery out of existence, industrialized, urbanized and built prosperous farms, while the deep South concentrated on plantation agriculture based on slave labor, together with subsistence farming for the poor whites. The South expanded into rich new lands in the Southwest (from Alabama to Texas). [59] However, slavery declined in the border states and could barely survive in cities and industrial areas (it was fading out in cities such as Baltimore, Louisville and St. Louis), so a South based on slavery was rural and non-industrial. On the other hand, as the demand for cotton grew the price of slaves soared. Historians have debated whether economic differences between the industrial Northeast and the agricultural South helped cause the war. Most historians now disagree with the economic determinism of historian Charles Beard in the 1920s and emphasize that Northern and Southern economies were largely complementary. [60] Fears of slave revolts and abolitio nist propaganda made the South militantly hostile to a bolitionism. [ 61][62] Southerners complained that it was the North that was changing, and was prone to new "isms", while the South remained true to historic republican values of the Founding Fathers (many of whom owned slaves, including Washington, Jefferson and Madison). Lincoln said that Republicans were following the tradition of the framers of the Constitution (i ncluding the Nort hwest Ordinance and the Missouri Compromise ) by preventing expansion of slavery. [63] The issue of accepting slavery (in the guise of rejecting slave-owning bishops and missionaries) split the largest religious denominations ( the Methodist , Bapt ist and Presbyterian churche s) into separate No rthern and Southern denominations. [64] Industrialization meant that seven European immigrants out of eight settled in the North. The movement of twice as many whites leaving the South for the North as vice versa co ntributed t o the S outh's defen sive-aggress ive political behavior. [65]
Total war is a war in which a bel ligerent en gages in the complete mobilization o f fully avai lable resources and population. In the mi d-19th century, "total war" was identified by scholars as a separate class of warfare. In a total war, there is less differentiation between combatants and civilians than in other conflicts, and sometimes no such differentiation at all, as nearly every human resource, civilians and soldiers alike, can be considered to be part of the belligerent effort. [1] Trench warfare is a form of occupied fighting lines, consisting largely of trenches , in which troops are large ly immun e to the enemy's small arms fire and are substantially shelt ered from artillery . It has become a byword for attrition warfa re , for s talemate in conflict, with a slow wear ing down of oppos ing forces. [1] Trench warfare occurred when a military revolution in firepower was not matched by similar advances in mobilit y , resulting in a g rueling form of warfare in which the defense held the advantage. In World War I , both sid es constructed elaborate trench and dugout systems opposing each other along a front , protecte d from assa ult by barbed wire . The area between opposing trench lines (known as " no man's land ") was fully expo sed t o artillery fire from both sides. Attacks, e ven if successful, often sustained severe casualties as a matte r of course. Industrial warfare [1] is a period in the history of warfare ranging roughly from the early nineteenth century and the start of the Industrial Revolution to the beginning of the Atomic Age , which s aw the rise of nat ion-states , capable of creating and equipping large armies and navies through the process of industrialization . The era featured mass-conscripted armies, rap id transpo rtation (first on railroads , then by sea and ai r ), telegraph and wireless communications, and the concept of total war . In terms of technology, this era saw the rise of rifled breech-loading infan try weapons capa ble of massive amounts of fire , high-velocity breech-loa ding arti llery, chemical wea pon s , armou red warfa re , metal warships, sub marines , and aircraft .
