State-of-the-nation-in-1860-History-Response-2-help

1. According to Bosley, The state of the nation at the time  was sick. This was seen in the situation where there was the split of the Democratic group. According to Foner, This was also seen when the seven states in the south walked out from supporting Douglas Lincoln (501). This was the time when there was divided interests in the party so much  that the Democrats that were in the south placed their own ticket in the field headed by John C. Breckinridge. Foner notes, “Souther democrats no longer trusted their northern counterparts”(50)

According to Brand, who was an abolitionist; In 1860 the nation was sick. HIs toughest were due to the lifestyle the slaves lived. Foner mentions, that most slaves did not know how to read or write their name. Foner discusses how it was illegal to teach a slave to write or read. Slaves did not have as much freedom as their white owners did.

According to a Republican-Cyrus, The nation was neither sick or healthy. It was somewhere in between. This can be seen in the state that the Democrats had undergone some conflicts that made them split, in terms of their supporters Between the Southern and northern Democratics. According to Foner, “The Republicans remained the way they were. Foner quotes, “During the elections Lincoln was voted in as the nation’s sixth president”(503). This proved that since the person who the Republicans voted for to become president won, they had nothing to worry about.

According to a Northern Democrat- Sudley, in the year 1860;  the nation was considered to be healthy. This was because the northern Democrats were exposed to better living conditions to live. This was seen economic growth as well as the expansion of cities. According to Foner, “many white southerners felt that the opportunity was eroding for economic independence through ownership of land and slave- liberty as they understood it. The north, secessionist charged, reaped the benefits of the cotton trade, while southerners fell deeper and deeper into debt. (500).

2. According to Bosley, there were many division that threatened to fracture the nation. One would be the division of the democrats. In effect of this division their was loss of trust between southern and northern democratics. The  different interest of the people caused this split. 

Another threat was that, many people believed slavery had to be protected in the western territories. Foner notes, “The democratic party, the last great bond of national unity, had been shattered”(502).This factor itself was very harmful because without national unity, it is dangerous.

According to brand, one of the divisions that threatened to fracture the nation was the division of the free black people. Foner discuses, “Very few free blacks (around 37,000 persons, or less than 2 percent of the area’s black population)lived in the lower south in 1860″(414). Another threat was that the republicans were against slavery and the Democrats were for it. This caused major division to the groups.

Another very important division that should not be left out was the separation from the free black and the slaves. Foner quotes, “Many free blacks in these cities acquired an education and worked as skilled craftsman such as tailors, carpenters, and mechanics. They established churches for their communities and schools for their children”(415). This was very important because it caused the socio-economic division.

According to Cyrus, One division that fractured the nation was was the development, both economically and resource abundance. Foner says, “By 1860, the north had become a complex, integrated economy, with eastern industrialist marketing manufactured goods to the commercial farmers of the West, while residents of the regions growing cities consumed the food westerners provided”(489). This caused a major threat because the people were moving to the better areas were there were more resources and would be better economically.

According to Sudley, a very important division that threatened the fracture of the nation was based on who the supporters were. Foner discusses how the votes were split in between John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky and Douglas. Foner says, “When the democratic convention met in april 1860, Douglas’s supporters commanded a majority but not the two-thirds required for a presidential nomination”(501) Federick Douglas became unacceptable to political leaders of the deep South because of his fight against Kansas’s Lecompton Constitution, as well as his refusal to support congressional laws that imposed slavery on all the territories. This was a big threat to the nations unity.

3. According to Bosley, Lincoln should be the nations leader. Foney says, “lincoln was a man “whose opinions and slavery are hostile to slavery”(504). Foner also discuses, how senator John C. Crittenden of kentucky,which was a slave state between the North and the South, looked for a plan to solve the crisis. Foner notes, ” Crittenden’s proposal would have guaranteed the future of slavery  in the states where it existed,and extended the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific Ocean”(504).