dotv Historians have debated whe dotv ther economic differences between the industrial dotv Nort dotv heast and the agricultu dotv ral South helped cause the war. Most hi storians now disagree with the economic deter dotv minism of historian Charles A. Beard in the 1920s and emphasize that Northern and Sou dotv thern economies w ere largely complementary. While socially different, the sections economically benefited each other.[27][28]Protectionism dotv Historically, souther dotv n slave-holding states, because of their low cost manual labor, had little perceived need for dotv mechanizat dotv ion, and supported havi ng the right to sell cotton and purchase manufactured goods from any nation. dotv Northern states, which had heavily invested in their still-nascent manu dotv facturing, could not c dotv ompete with the full-fledged industries of Europe in offer dotv ng high prices for dotv cotton imported from the South and low prices fo dotv r manufactured exports in return. Thus, northern manufacturing interests supported tariffs and protectionism while southern planters demanded free trade.[29] dotv The Democrats in Congress, controlled by S dotv outherners, wrote the tariff laws in the 1830s, dotv 1840s, and 1850s, and kept reducing rates so that the 1857 rates were the lowest since 18 dotv 16. The Whigs and Republicans complained because they favored high tariffs to stimulate industrial growth, and Republi dotv cans called for an increase in dotv 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 dotv sometimes citedâ€"long after the wa dotv râ€"by Lo dotv st Cause historians and neo-Confederate apologists. In 1860â€"61 none dotv of the groups that proposed c dotv ompromises to head off secession raised the tariff issue.[32] Pamphelteers North and South rarely men dotv 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 dotv tate's rightsTerritorial crisisFurther information: Slave and dotv free statesBetween 1803 and 1854, the United States achieved a vast expansion of ter ritory through purchase, negotiation, and con dotv quest. At first, the new state dotv s carved dotv out of these territories entering the unio dotv n were apportioned equ dotv ally between slave and free states. It was over dotv territories west of the Mississippi that the prosl dotv avery and antislavery forces c dotv ollided.[38] With the conquest of northern Mexico west to California in 1848, slaveholding interests dotv looked forward to expanding into these lands and perhaps Cuba dotv and Central America as well.[39][40] Northern "free soi dotv l" interests vigorously sought to curtail dotv any further exp dotv ansion of slave territory. The Compro mise of 1850 over California balanced a free soi dotv l state with stronger fugitive slave laws for a politica dotv l settlement af dotv er four yea dotv rs of strife in th dotv e 1840s. But the states admitted following California were all free: Minnesota (1858), Oregon (1859) and Kansas (1861). In the southern states the q dotv uestion of the territorial expansion of slavery westw dotv rd again became explosive.[41] Both the Sout dotv h and the North drew the same conclusion: "The pow er to decide the question of slavery for the territorie dotv s was the power to dotv determine the future of sla dotv very itself."[42][43]By 1860, four doctrines ha d emerged to answer the question of federal control in the territories, an dotv d they all claimed they were sanctioned by the Constitution, implicitly or dotv explicitly.[44] The first of these "conservative" theories, re dotv presented by the Constitutional Union Party, argu dotv ed that the Missouri Compromise app dotv ortionment of territory north for free soil and south for slavery should becom dotv e a Constitutiona dotv l mandate. The dotv Crittenden Compromise of 1860 was an dotv expression of this view.[45] The second doctrine of C dotv ongressional dotv 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 dotv slavery could be excluded in a territory as it was done in the Northwe st O dotv rdinance at the discretion of C dotv ongress,[46] thus C dotv ongress could restrict human bondage, but never establish it. The Wilmot Proviso announced t his dotv position in 1846.[47] dotv dotv .
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário
Deixe seu comentário aqui