What do you think?
Rate this book
The Shattering of the Union: America in the 1850s
The 1850s offered the last remotely feasible chance for the United States to steer clear of Civil War. Yet fundamental differences between North and South about slavery and the meaning of freedom caused political conflicts to erupt again and again throughout the decade as the country lurched toward secession and war. With their grudging acceptance of the Compromise of 1850 and the election of Franklin Pierce as president in 1852, most Americans hoped that sectional strife and political upheaval had come to an end. Extremists in both North and South, abolitionists and secessionists, testified to the prevailing air of complacency by their shared frustration over having failed to bring on some sort of conflict. Both sets of zealots wondered what it would take to convince the masses that the other side still menaced their respective visions of liberty. And, as new divisive issues emerged in national politics-with slavery still standing as the major obstacle-compromise seemed more elusive than ever. As the decade progressed, battle lines hardened. The North grew more hostile to slavery while the South seized every opportunity to spread it. "Immigrant Aid Societies" flourished in the North, raising money, men, and military supplies to secure a free soil majority in Kansas. Southerners flocked to the territory in an effort to fight off antislavery. After his stirring vilification of the institution of slavery, Massachusetts senator Charles Sumner was brutally attacked on the floor of the United States Senate. Congress, whose function was to peacefully resolve disputes, became an armed camp, with men in both houses and from both sections arming themselves within the capitol building. In October 1858, Senator William Henry Seward said that the nation was headed for an "irrepressible conflict." In spite of the progress ushered in by the decade's enormous economic growth, the country was self destructing. The Shattering of the Union: America in the 1850s is a concise, readable analysis and survey of t
240 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 2003
3 people are currently reading
56 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
May 19, 2015
Anti-slavery ideology was a movement opposing human bondage and the institution of slavery; it sought to end it legally and legitimately, through the course of law. The Free Soil Party, a political party opposing the extension of slavery, was formed in support of the Wilmot Proviso, If passed, the Proviso would have outlawed slavery in territory acquired by the United States from the Southwest and all the way to California.
The proviso didn’t pass, however it raised questions about slaves that had not been asked previously. Southerners saw slaves as property, and since their rights to property were protected under the Constitution, they believed that they could take slaves wherever they wished. This led to strong opposition to any attempts to ban slavery while the country was expanding. This was one main reason the proviso was never passed and in fact repudiated in the Compromise of 1850.
The compromise prevented further territorial expansion of slavery while strengthening the Fugitive Slave Act, a law that compelled Northerners to seize and return escaped slaves to the South. This had a number of effects, such as defying the law by Northerners who refused to aid slave catchers, the increase in the number of runaways moving into Canada, and kidnapping of free African Americans.
The fugitive slave act was the inspiration for Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, a carefully written anti-slavery argument aimed to convince a Christian audience that slavery is an evil institution and must be destroyed. The novel had a profound effect on the public; it increased the tension between the North and South that led to the Civil War. the north, became aware of the horrors of slavery on a far more personal level. the south met the book with outrage and branded an irresponsible book of overstatements and lies.
Slave power conspiracy was a reference generated by antislavery campaigners; they argued that a small group of rich southern slave owners controlled the national government through disproportionate political powers and were trying to take over the federal government in an illegitimate fashion in order to expand and protect slavery.
Seven of the nation’s eleven elected presidents prior to 1852 had owned slaved, even the Supreme Court had a strong southern majority. from 1854 on, there were a succession of pro-Southern changes to the terms of the Compromise of 1850, stirring up what had previously been considered settled issues, while the North received absolutely nothing in return. The Kansas-Nebraska Act allowed for new territories to decide determines whether or not to permit slavery by a popular vote.
Pro- and anti-slavery agitators flocked to Kansas, hoping to shift the decision by sheer weight of numbers. One of the most publicized events that occurred in Bleeding Kansas was when on May 21, 1856 Border Ruffians ransacked Lawrence, Kansas which was known to be a staunch free-state area. One day later, violence occurred on the floor of the U.S. Senate when Congressman Preston Brooks of South Carolina attacked Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts with a cane after Sumner spoke out against Southerners responsible for violence in Kansas.
The South’s obsessive need to expand slavery:
The south wanted slavery mainly because they wanted to be able to have workers but not have to pay them. Most white southerners acquisition of wealth revolved around owning land and salves to work the land through plantation farming. cultivating only cotton crops can quickly exhausted the soil which increased the need of new fertile lands. Additionally the South believed that they needed new territories for slave states just like the North needed new territories for free states. Each needed to offset the other.
The Ostend Manifesto was yet another thing that helped to push the North and the South apart before the Civil War. In this case, it made the North more suspicious of the South's desire to expand slavery. The Ostend Manifesto stated that the US should take Cuba away from Spain. This was controversial in the US at the time (1854), because it was clear that Cuba, if taken by the US, would become a slave territory. This made the North feel as if the South was going to try to push the US into war for the purpose of expanding slave territory
The south didn’t seek to compromise when Abraham Lincoln was elected by a considerable margin in 1860 despite not being included on many Southern ballots. As a Republican, his party’s anti-slavery outlook struck fear into many Southerners. That believed the right to own slaves should be just that, "A states right," and that the federal government should have no influence on what they did. the South's fear that the Federal government would remove a state's rights to determine how they chose to deal with the idea of slavery along with many other issues. Large landowners believed they had no alternative but to break away from the Union and secede into their own nation where the idea of States Rights would be preserved which led to he civil war.
The proviso didn’t pass, however it raised questions about slaves that had not been asked previously. Southerners saw slaves as property, and since their rights to property were protected under the Constitution, they believed that they could take slaves wherever they wished. This led to strong opposition to any attempts to ban slavery while the country was expanding. This was one main reason the proviso was never passed and in fact repudiated in the Compromise of 1850.
The compromise prevented further territorial expansion of slavery while strengthening the Fugitive Slave Act, a law that compelled Northerners to seize and return escaped slaves to the South. This had a number of effects, such as defying the law by Northerners who refused to aid slave catchers, the increase in the number of runaways moving into Canada, and kidnapping of free African Americans.
The fugitive slave act was the inspiration for Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, a carefully written anti-slavery argument aimed to convince a Christian audience that slavery is an evil institution and must be destroyed. The novel had a profound effect on the public; it increased the tension between the North and South that led to the Civil War. the north, became aware of the horrors of slavery on a far more personal level. the south met the book with outrage and branded an irresponsible book of overstatements and lies.
Slave power conspiracy was a reference generated by antislavery campaigners; they argued that a small group of rich southern slave owners controlled the national government through disproportionate political powers and were trying to take over the federal government in an illegitimate fashion in order to expand and protect slavery.
Seven of the nation’s eleven elected presidents prior to 1852 had owned slaved, even the Supreme Court had a strong southern majority. from 1854 on, there were a succession of pro-Southern changes to the terms of the Compromise of 1850, stirring up what had previously been considered settled issues, while the North received absolutely nothing in return. The Kansas-Nebraska Act allowed for new territories to decide determines whether or not to permit slavery by a popular vote.
Pro- and anti-slavery agitators flocked to Kansas, hoping to shift the decision by sheer weight of numbers. One of the most publicized events that occurred in Bleeding Kansas was when on May 21, 1856 Border Ruffians ransacked Lawrence, Kansas which was known to be a staunch free-state area. One day later, violence occurred on the floor of the U.S. Senate when Congressman Preston Brooks of South Carolina attacked Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts with a cane after Sumner spoke out against Southerners responsible for violence in Kansas.
The South’s obsessive need to expand slavery:
The south wanted slavery mainly because they wanted to be able to have workers but not have to pay them. Most white southerners acquisition of wealth revolved around owning land and salves to work the land through plantation farming. cultivating only cotton crops can quickly exhausted the soil which increased the need of new fertile lands. Additionally the South believed that they needed new territories for slave states just like the North needed new territories for free states. Each needed to offset the other.
The Ostend Manifesto was yet another thing that helped to push the North and the South apart before the Civil War. In this case, it made the North more suspicious of the South's desire to expand slavery. The Ostend Manifesto stated that the US should take Cuba away from Spain. This was controversial in the US at the time (1854), because it was clear that Cuba, if taken by the US, would become a slave territory. This made the North feel as if the South was going to try to push the US into war for the purpose of expanding slave territory
The south didn’t seek to compromise when Abraham Lincoln was elected by a considerable margin in 1860 despite not being included on many Southern ballots. As a Republican, his party’s anti-slavery outlook struck fear into many Southerners. That believed the right to own slaves should be just that, "A states right," and that the federal government should have no influence on what they did. the South's fear that the Federal government would remove a state's rights to determine how they chose to deal with the idea of slavery along with many other issues. Large landowners believed they had no alternative but to break away from the Union and secede into their own nation where the idea of States Rights would be preserved which led to he civil war.
May 12, 2021
This is a great book covering the 1850s and everything that led up to the Civil War. It’s a historical book and it gets dry at times depending on the interest of the topic. For me it was a great introduction to the class. I don’t know if there is a better book covering 10 yearsish that can be read in a few nights. Perfect for college and book review assignment.
December 22, 2022
Excellent. Highly recommend to anyone interested in American History.
March 9, 2016
This text provides a good, concise overview of one of the most important decades in American history. I used it for my online US history course and it was the right combination of length and depth. Students generally enjoyed it too and it encouraged their interest in further study of the period.
December 4, 2013
No bias, but a bit disjointed.
Some problems with chronology.
Some problems with chronology.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews