d4sx Historians have debated whe d4sx ther economic differences between the industrial d4sx Nort d4sx heast and the agricultu d4sx ral South helped cause the war. Most hi storians now disagree with the economic deter d4sx minism of historian Charles A. Beard in the 1920s and emphasize that Northern and Sou d4sx thern economies w ere largely complementary. While socially different, the sections economically benefited each other.[27][28]Protectionism d4sx Historically, souther d4sx n slave-holding states, because of their low cost manual labor, had little perceived need for d4sx mechanizat d4sx ion, and supported havi ng the right to sell cotton and purchase manufactured goods from any nation. d4sx Northern states, which had heavily invested in their still-nascent manu d4sx facturing, could not c d4sx ompete with the full-fledged industries of Europe in offer d4sx ng high prices for d4sx cotton imported from the South and low prices fo d4sx r manufactured exports in return. Thus, northern manufacturing interests supported tariffs and protectionism while southern planters demanded free trade.[29] d4sx The Democrats in Congress, controlled by S d4sx outherners, wrote the tariff laws in the 1830s, d4sx 1840s, and 1850s, and kept reducing rates so that the 1857 rates were the lowest since 18 d4sx 16. The Whigs and Republicans complained because they favored high tariffs to stimulate industrial growth, and Republi d4sx cans called for an increase in d4sx 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 d4sx sometimes citedâ€"long after the wa d4sx râ€"by Lo d4sx st Cause historians and neo-Confederate apologists. In 1860â€"61 none d4sx of the groups that proposed c d4sx ompromises to head off secession raised the tariff issue.[32] Pamphelteers North and South rarely men d4sx 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 d4sx tate's rightsTerritorial crisisFurther information: Slave and d4sx free statesBetween 1803 and 1854, the United States achieved a vast expansion of ter ritory through purchase, negotiation, and con d4sx quest. At first, the new state d4sx s carved d4sx out of these territories entering the unio d4sx n were apportioned equ d4sx ally between slave and free states. It was over d4sx territories west of the Mississippi that the prosl d4sx avery and antislavery forces c d4sx ollided.[38] With the conquest of northern Mexico west to California in 1848, slaveholding interests d4sx looked forward to expanding into these lands and perhaps Cuba d4sx and Central America as well.[39][40] Northern "free soi d4sx l" interests vigorously sought to curtail d4sx any further exp d4sx ansion of slave territory. The Compro mise of 1850 over California balanced a free soi d4sx l state with stronger fugitive slave laws for a politica d4sx l settlement af d4sx er four yea d4sx rs of strife in th d4sx e 1840s. But the states admitted following California were all free: Minnesota (1858), Oregon (1859) and Kansas (1861). In the southern states the q d4sx uestion of the territorial expansion of slavery westw d4sx rd again became explosive.[41] Both the Sout d4sx h and the North drew the same conclusion: "The pow er to decide the question of slavery for the territorie d4sx s was the power to d4sx determine the future of sla d4sx very itself."[42][43]By 1860, four doctrines ha d emerged to answer the question of federal control in the territories, an d4sx d they all claimed they were sanctioned by the Constitution, implicitly or d4sx explicitly.[44] The first of these "conservative" theories, re d4sx presented by the Constitutional Union Party, argu d4sx ed that the Missouri Compromise app d4sx ortionment of territory north for free soil and south for slavery should becom d4sx e a Constitutiona d4sx l mandate. The d4sx Crittenden Compromise of 1860 was an d4sx expression of this view.[45] The second doctrine of C d4sx ongressional d4sx 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 d4sx slavery could be excluded in a territory as it was done in the Northwe st O d4sx rdinance at the discretion of C d4sx ongress,[46] thus C d4sx ongress could restrict human bondage, but never establish it. The Wilmot Proviso announced t his d4sx position in 1846.[47] d4sx d4sx .
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário
Deixe seu comentário aqui