Slavery and Manifest Destiny?
Slavery and Manifest destiny divided the United States along economic and cultural lines, right? But how did it happen? Do you think the American War was unavoidable? I'm doing this essay for my History class. Could you guys answer this question so I can understand it. No need to write the essay..lol (though that would be awesome). I just need to get an idea on what to write. Thanks.
How did the united states politically develop in the 1800s?
There was a long shift towards cities and towns, while the manifest destiny concept drove us across the country and out to what is today California, Oregon, and Washington (state). Opposing views on the issue of states rights and slavery lead to a civil war which ended slavery and settled the issue of the relationship between the states and the feds. The Industrial revolution brought about new economic principles that are still in use today. Politically, all of this translates into an America that grew bolder with state sponsored expansion and grew to be rather bitterly divided along political lines over the issue of slavery, and later, the issue of unions and labor rights.
How did the contiguous states in the United States of America get their shapes?
Each state has its own story, but the boxy states out west were mostly “A degrees to B degrees north, X degrees to Y degrees west”.Montana and Idaho had a political debate causing their border to not be straight.Michigan and Ohio fought over Toledo and Ohio got that while Michigan got the Upper Peninsula.West Virginia seceded from Virginia during the Civil War.Utah was originally a ton bigger, but it lost land to become a boxy state because of polygamy-practicing Mormons. In fact, it was not a state until polygamy was banned.Texas was also bigger, but eventually their land was given to other territories, including the final piece north of 36 degrees 30 minutes north to what is now Oklahoma so Texas could keep their slaves.I could try to go on, but I’m not certain on what I haven’t listed. I used to watch the TV series “How the States Got Their Shapes” on History Channel, and it addressed this question. It no longer runs, but it touched on many of the lower 48.
Civil War not about slavery?
Why is it so many southerners are obsessed with claimming the Civil War wasn't about Slavery? Let's face it, if those guys were crusading for State's Rights, they wouldn't have voted for the Fugitive Slave Act, or would have at least seceded from the Union right then, rather than impose slavery on northern states like that. Hard not to view it as propaganda, along the lines of today's pols that are all for state's rights or home rule till they get elected to Congress or the State house and get a taste of power and the joy of cramming their assorted pet beliefs down everyone's throat. Does this position date back to Civil War, as a way to get all the non-slave holders to show up? or is it a post-war invention, allowing descendents to distance themselves from the issue, while holding on to their reverence for their bellicose ancestors, in much the same way as most Northerners focus on the ending slavery part and ignore the "for the Union" issue.