Make out like a bandit. Study Criminal Justice.

If you having! botheration to viewing this offers ! Be-sure to click me.

Make out like a bandit. Study Criminal Justice.

[n leaders had threatened ujn secession if the Republican ujn candidate, Lincoln, won the ujn ujn 1860 election. ujn After Lincoln won without carrying a sin ujn gle Southern state, many ujn Southern whites felt that disunion had become their only option, because they thought that they were ujn losing repre ujn entation, which would ujn hamper their ability to ujn promote pro-slavery acts and ujn policies.[19]Contemporary actors, the Union and Confederate le a ujn dership and fighting soldiers on both side ujn s believed that slavery caused ujn the Civil War. Union men mainly believed the war was to ujn erspecti ve, the issue was primarily about whether the system of slavery was an a ujn nachronistic evil that was incompatible with Republicanism in ujn the United ujn States. The strategy of the anti-slavery forces was ujn containment â€" to stop the ujn expansion and thus put slavery on a path to gradual e ujn xtinction.[21] The slave-holding interests in the South ujn denounced this strategy as ujn infringing upon their Constitutional rights.[ ujn 22 ujn ] Souther n whites believed that the emancipation of slaves would destroy the South's eco ujn nomy because of the alleged laziness of blacks under free l ujn abor.[23] Sla ujn very was illegal in the North, having been outlawed in the late 18th and early 19th ujn century. It was fading in the border states and in Sou t ujn hern cities, but was expanding in the highly ujn profitable cotton ujn districts of the South and Southwest. Subsequent writers on the ujn American Civil ujn War looked to ujn several factors ujn explaining ujn the geographic divide, including sectionalism, protectionism, and state's rights. ujn Sectionalism ujn Sectionalism refers to the different ujn economies, social structure, customs and ujn political values of the North and South.[24][25] It ujn increased st ujn eadily between 1800 and 1860 as the North ujn , which ujn phased slavery out of existence, industrialized, urbanized, and built prosperous farms, while ujn the deep South c ujn oncentrated on pl ujn antatio ujn agric ujn ulture based on ujn slave labor, together with subsistence farming for poor ujn freedmen. In the 1840s ujn and 50s, the issue of accepting slavery (in the guise of rejecting slave-owning bishops and missionaries) split the nation's largest religiou s ujn denomination ujn s (the Methodis ujn t, Bapt ujn ist and ujn Presbyterian ujn churches) into ujn separate ujn Northern and Southern denominations.[26] hujn Historians have debated whe hujn ther economic differences between the industrial hujn Nort hujn heast and the agricultu hujn ral South helped cause the war. Most hi storians now disagree with the economic deter hujn minism of historian Charles A. Beard in the 1920s and emphasize that Northern and Sou hujn thern economies w ere largely complementary. While socially different, the sections economically benefited each other.[27][28]Protectionism hujn Historically, souther hujn n slave-holding states, because of their low cost manual labor, had little perceived need for hujn mechanizat hujn ion, and supported havi ng the right to sell cotton and purchase manufactured goods from any nation. hujn Northern states, which had heavily invested in their still-nascent manu hujn facturing, could not c hujn ompete with the full-fledged industries of Europe in offer hujn ng high prices for hujn cotton imported from the South and low prices fo hujn r manufactured exports in return. Thus, northern manufacturing interests supported tariffs and protectionism while southern planters demanded free trade.[29] hujn The Democrats in Congress, controlled by S hujn outherners, wrote the tariff laws in the 1830s, hujn 1840s, and 1850s, and kept reducing rates so that the 1857 rates were the lowest since 18 hujn 16. The Whigs and Republicans complained because they favored high tariffs to stimulate industrial growth, and Republi hujn cans called for an increase in hujn tariffs in the 1860 election. The increases were only enacted in 1861 after Southerners resigned their seats in Congr ess.[30][31] The tariff issue was and is hujn sometimes citedâ€"long after the wa hujn râ€"by Lo hujn st Cause historians and neo-Confederate apologists. In 1860â€"61 none hujn of the groups that proposed c hujn ompromises to head off secession raised the tariff issue.[32] Pamphelteers North and South rarely men hujn tioned the tariff, [33] and when some did, for instance, Matthew Fontaine Maury[34] and John Lothrop Motley,[35] they were generally writing for a foreign audience. S hujn tate's rightsTerritorial crisisFurther information: Slave and hujn free statesBetween 1803 and 1854, the United States achieved a vast expansion of ter ritory through purchase, negotiation, and con hujn quest. At first, the new state hujn s carved hujn out of these territories entering the unio hujn n were apportioned equ hujn ally between slave and free states. It was over hujn territories west of the Mississippi that the prosl hujn avery and antislavery forces c hujn ollided.[38] With the conquest of northern Mexico west to California in 1848, slaveholding interests hujn looked forward to expanding into these lands and perhaps Cuba hujn and Central America as well.[39][40] Northern "free soi hujn l" interests vigorously sought to curtail hujn any further exp hujn ansion of slave territory. The Compro mise of 1850 over California balanced a free soi hujn l state with stronger fugitive slave laws for a politica hujn l settlement af hujn er four yea hujn rs of strife in th hujn e 1840s. But the states admitted following California were all free: Minnesota (1858), Oregon (1859) and Kansas (1861). In the southern states the q hujn uestion of the territorial expansion of slavery westw hujn rd again became explosive.[41] Both the Sout hujn h and the North drew the same conclusion: "The pow er to decide the question of slavery for the territorie hujn s was the power to hujn determine the future of sla hujn very itself."[42][43]By 1860, four doctrines ha d emerged to answer the question of federal control in the territories, an hujn d they all claimed they were sanctioned by the Constitution, implicitly or hujn explicitly.[44] The first of these "conservative" theories, re hujn presented by the Constitutional Union Party, argu hujn ed that the Missouri Compromise app hujn ortionment of territory north for free soil and south for slavery should becom hujn e a Constitutiona hujn l mandate. The hujn Crittenden Compromise of 1860 was an hujn expression of this view.[45] The second doctrine of C hujn ongressional hujn preeminence, championed by Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party, insisted t hat the Constitution did not bind legislators to a policy of balance â€" that hujn slavery could be excluded in a territory as it was done in the Northwe st O hujn rdinance at the discretion of C hujn ongress,[46] thus C hujn ongress could restrict human bondage, but never establish it. The Wilmot Proviso announced t his hujn position in 1846.[47] hujn hujn .