Can the united states justify the civil war

Can the United States Justify the Civil War
The definition of Manifest Destiny reads as: "The belief in the
1840's in the inevitable territorial expansion of the United States,
especially as advocated by southern slaveholders who wished to extend
slavery into new territories." This explanation was transcribed from the
World Book Encyclopedia's dictionary. It is directly evident that from
this unbiased statement we can trace the first uprising of a separate
group of people yearning to break the newly formed bond of the great
United States.
Before and during the Mexican War, the people who were pushing for
the claimed land once owned by innocent native americans, were always
looking for a scapegoat. They needed one way or another, a way to squirm
out of taking the blame for the enslaved and murdered Mexican
causalities. There was one man, though, who would not let this happen,
David Wilmot. David Wilmot was a democrat from Pennsylvania, who was
willing to revise the President's bill. In this revision, Wilmot
proposed " neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist
in any part of the territory ". This was not well liked by the South
and eventhough it was given thumbs up many times in the senate, our newly
formed country was now bordered by fresh land. The Wilmot Proviso
underwent quite a bit of pressure so that compromises could satisfy each
side.
The Compromise of 1850 was soon to follow but the real catch of the
same year was the Fugitive Slave Act. This act was invented so that the
slaves of slaveowners, who took them to a slave-free state on a vacation
or something, could not escape. In this act, the hardest part to
understand, was that the courts were to try to give a fair trial to any
runaway slaves. This enfuriated many of the Northern abolitionists who
now were going to expand the tracks of the underground railroad to help
extend their efforts in the rescue of the runaways. The point of no

return, where many people knew for sure that the country would be devided
between the north and the south was the ruling on the Kansas Nebraska
Act. This act was majorly contributed into by Stephen A. Douglas and
probably would never have passed without his consent. The whole idea
behind the act that really got to the south was Popular Sovereignty.
This so called "specific" rule was none to specific in stating when a
territory could decide when they were pro or anti slavverry. The
abolitionists were flooding the new territory with their own kind where
as the southerners were just moving next door. They were armed and ready
and knew that they would have to shed blood before the voters went to the
polls.
In the year of 1860, our most prized yet controversial president
came into office, Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln had many issues to cover in
the begining of his term and he did not want to go aabout it in the wrong
fashion. The first thing Lincoln could have done to delay the war if not
prevent it was to let the Confederates have Fort Sumter. But because of
his stubborness, the begining of the Civil War had started with no
casualities but the rifles had been fired, Union against the Confederacy.
The north and the south had it's share of loud mouths who threw
their weight around and they were not about to stop until they had their
way. Although these people were in the numbers of just a handful, their
charismatic ways received a lot of attention that was only to feed the
fire of of no compromise. One of the major contributers to this action
was John Brown. In the year 1859, John Brown led a band of twenty two
armed men into Harper's Ferry, Virginia and went on a slaying spree
starting with the slaveowners families and then freeing the slaves so
they could join in arms with his party. But there is another side of the
coin and that is where Dred Scott comes in the Civil War picture. Dred
Scott was a slave who was taken to Illinois by his master on a trip and
taking notice to the Missouri Compromise, he sued his master to be free.

The case went to Supreme Court where he was ruled against at a 7 to 2
vote. So this meant that there was no way that he could bring the case
to Federal Court and sue. There was quite an uproar on the decision and
this made it very impossible not to foresee the coming of the Civil War.
When we look to the past and see that this hunk of rock now known
as the United States was given to us to explore our frredom of religeon,
who would of thought that it would be taken this far. Brothers against
brothers, families torn apart because of one little infraction, slavery.
Who would have thought that 700,000 people would die at the hands of
their own countrymen, people that they fought with during the
Revolutionary War so that they could be free of the monarchy of British
Rule. Now in today's perspective, we, the United States are trying to
stop that from happening in other parts of our ever growing
world.ritory ". This was not well liked by the South and eventhough it
was given thumbs up ma or something, could not escape.