During James K.

Polk presidency (1845-1849) he acquired a vast amount of land including—

the Mexican cession, California and Oregon, and annexation of Texas. This new land lead to a
not so new problem: Where should slavery be allowed? Although there were agreements in
place such as the Missouri compromise, they did not fit the new demands of the north or south
side. As a result the major fight over slavery expansion began. As expansion into Western
territories grew, (during the time period 1845-1861) so did tensions between abolitionists and
slave holders, this tension lead to many pivotal events, such as: the compromise of 1850,
bleeding Kansas and harpers ferry, which all together contributed to the start of the civil war.
The compromise of 1850 played a role in contributing to the civil war because it did not
solve the real issue. It did not stop war but rather postponed it. In this compromise Henry Clay
and Steven Douglas were trying to find a compromise that would allow California to come in as
a free state. But if that happened the balance between free and slave would be upset. While the
initial problem was solved and California was admitted as free, it didn't solve the real issue:
where should slavery be allowed in the new land?
Next was Bleeding Kansas, which played a major role in starting the civil war as it was
nicknamed a miniature civil war. This event occurred when Kansas was to be declared free or
slave, by popular sovereignty. Masses of abolitionists and and slave owners flocked into Kansas
to vote, hoping to sway it in their favor. Although elections were held, more often than not they
were rigged. The idea backfired and the immense tension among these people erupted in
violence. Many people were killed and injured. It was a battle to see who would win this new
land. All rules and judgment went out the door when people wanted to gain this land. This kind
of tension over land is what drove the civil war.
Finally Harpers Ferry occurred, which was an event that pushed the civil war. It was lead
by radical abolitionist John Brown. He encouraged slave revolts and violent acts. In his attempt
to immediately end slavery he took over an arsenal. Although his ideas were good, his ways of
carrying them out ultimately brought him failure. In fact, it had the exact opposite effect he was
trying to achieve. It created more tension between the North and the South. It even influenced
many neutral southerners to join the confederate army. Because of Browns actions southerners
felt they were not just fighting for slavery but fighting for their own safety.
I contrast these events to that of the Missouri compromise. Why did these events lead to
a civil war that the Missouri compromise time period had not seen. It is because of abolitionism.
This idea directly opposes that of slavery. When the Missouri compromise was signed in 1820,
abolitionism was a new and not very strong movement. The slave holders had no direct
opposition and a compromise was possible. But when abolitionism becomes stronger and more
people start supporting the cause it directly clashes with slave holders. These two ideas cannot
exist together. It had to be one or the other. When expansion occurred it created the ultimate
tension that may have been solvable before, but now with abolitionist, the compromise proved
all the more impossible. Ultimately abolitionists vs. slave holders were the cause of the civil war,
the events that occurred because of this tension (over expansion) and where slavery should be
allowed had the greatest impact on pushing towards war.