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.