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.