On February 2, 1848, with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, America

officially won the rights to a great mass of territory in the southwestern United States. With this,

the question of slavery was again rekindled. When ruled by Mexico, this acquired land had been

free of territory, and the north wanted this to continue. However, the south believed that the

territory should be open to slavery, in part because of the 36 degree 30 parallel set forth in the

Compromise of 1820 as well as because of their war efforts in earning this territory. When

debating whether or not territories acquired in the Mexican- American war should be slave or

free Robert Toombs, a radical senator from Georgia, claimed that if the north tried to keep the

south from expanding slavery then he was “for disunion.” Shortly thereafter, arguments over this

speech would lead into fistfights among congressmen. Tensions ran higher than they had in 30

years. Never had the “Great Pacificator” been needed more.

On January 29th, 1850, Henry Clay, in his final compromise, proposed a series of 8

resolutions. These resolutions would become 5 separate bills, known as the Compromise of

1850. It included the abolishment of the slave trade in Washington D.C. as well as the creation of

territorial governments in Utah and New Mexico who would decide the issue of slavery through

popular sovereignty. The compromise also took away Texas’ land north of the 36 degree 30

parallel in exchange for the U.S. taking over Texas’ debt while also admitting California as a free

state. Most controversial, however, was the formation of a stricter Fugitive Slave law.

The South was staunchly opposed to northern efforts to contain the expansion of slavery.

They believed that the North would not stop until they had completely abolished slavery, leaving

the south in ruin and extreme poverty. Their beliefs are summed up by South Carolina Senator

John Calhoun. In the debate ensuing Clay’s proposal, Senator Calhoun wrote a speech as he was

dying that would be read by a colleague in congress. When describing how his constituents felt
Calhoun wrote, “The Southern section regards the relation [slavery] as one which can not be

destroyed without subjecting the two races to the greatest calamity, and the [South] to poverty,

desolation, and wretchedness; and accordingly they feel bound by every consideration of interest

and safety to defend it.”

In comparison, much of the north was also against the compromise, especially the hated

Fugitive Slave law. However, some of the north, specifically states not located in the New

England region, were for the compromise overall because it kept the union together. Those who

supported the preservation of the union included Daniel Webster, a senator from Massachusetts.

Daniel Webster supported the bill in his infamous seventh of March Speech, in which he opened

with the statement “ I wish to speak today, not as a Massachusetts man, nor as a Northern man,

but as an American, and a member of the Senate of the United States. . . . I speak for the

preservation of the Union.” Webster received support from many people throughout the north.

However, his speech drew high criticism from his constituent base. This criticism would

ultimately cause Webster to resign his senate seat.

One of the main reasons Webster's speech received so much criticism was because of the

fugitive slave law. The north thoroughly despised this law had disobeyed it for over 57 years.

When they made the law more strict, the north was outraged. When describing the feelings of

locals, Coopers Clarksburg, a West Virginia newspaper, wrote, “The passage of the fugitive

slave law has more than ever embittered the north against the south.” As such, the Underground

Railroad would hit an all- time high in the years from 1850-1860, and over 15,000 blacks would

emigrate out of the United States.

Overall, while tensions ran high over the Fugitive Slave Law, the compromise of 1850

would achieve its goal in preserving the union. An unforeseen effect was that it would give the
North another 10 years to industrialize, increasing its chances to win the civil war, and thus, also

preserve the union. Historian Robert Remni believes the compromise of 1850 effectively

preserved the union. In a 2010 article he writes, “The Compromise of 1850 is a prime example of

how the power brokers of that period avoided a catastrophic smash-up — just in time — and

saved the Union.” The issue of slavery in new territories would arise again in just 4 years, but

this next time, the deal struck would result in heavy violence/

In January of 1854, Stephen Douglas, who had helped to push the Compromise of 1850

through congress, introduced the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This act which would send the country

into a fury and set the nation on a crash course for disunion. Douglas, an Illinois senator best

known for his role in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, planned to build a railroad going through

Chicago, that would satisfy his constituents. However, to get this railroad built Douglas needed

the establishments of the Kansas and Nebraska territories. Douglas could not complete this

without the help of southern votes, who refused to admit Kansas and Nebraska as territories

without some type of compromise. Thus, Douglas set forth the Kansas and Nebraska Act, which

sought to repeal the Compromise of 1820 by allowing Kansas and Nebraska, territories north of

the 36 degree 30 parallel, to decide whether they wanted to be a slave or free state through

popular sovereignty.

After over 5 months of debate, this infamous bill was signed into law by Franklin Pierce

on May 30th, 1854. The north was outraged. They felt betrayed, as the Compromise of 1820 had

clearly set forth that slavery would not be allowed north of the 36 degree 30 parallel. This belief

is described by northern senators in the “Appeal of the Independent Democrats” which attacked

supporters of the bill for “a gross violation of a sacred pledge.”

 In complete contrast, the south was ecstatic. They had succeeded in repealing the hated

36 degree 30 parallel, which had effectively contained the expansion of slavery for over 30

years. Southern feelings are best described by Missouri senator David Atchison, who told a pro

slavery audience that he would rather “sink in hell” than watch Nebraska, one of Missouri’s

neighboring states, join the union as a free state. This belief, while describing the the feelings of

the south as a whole, would also foreshadow the events that would follow in Bleeding Kansas.

Abraham Lincoln describes the tension caused by the Kansas-Nebraska act in October of

1854, at his Peoria Speech. Lincoln states, “The South flushed with triumph and tempted to

excesses; the North, betrayed, as they believe, brooding on wrong and burning for revenge.”

These tensions would increase the chances of civil war. When asked if this law made the civil

war inevitable, George Forgie, University of Texas historian responded, “Whatever the chances

of avoiding disunion before Kansas-Nebraska, they fell dramatically as a result of it.”

After the Kansas-Nebraska act had been passed, there was still debate over whether or

not the territories of Kansas and Nebraska would become free or slave states. The time period

from 1855-1861, after the Kansas- Nebraska act up until Kansas would officially join the union

as a free state, would be known as Bleeding Kansas.

After the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the north, unwilling to give up the Kansas territory as a

slave state, began to send settlers into Kansas. The most prominent group, the New England

Emigrant Aid Company, organized by Eli Thayer, had sent up to 1200 settlers to Kansas by the

summer of 1855. Henry Ward Beecher, a prominent minister and staunch abolitionist, armed

anti-slavery settlers with rifles known as “Beecher’s Bibles.”

The news that the north was sending settlers into Kansas quickly spread throughout the

south, angering many people, in particular those from Missouri. In November of 1854, thousands
of Missouri citizens, known as border ruffians, swarmed over the border to vote for a proslavery

congress. These border ruffians, encouraged by leaders such as David Atchison, would strike

again in March of 1855 when they came over from Missouri to vote for a pro slavery legislature.

The anti-slavery settlers were outraged by this, so they set up their own state legislature.

However, the pro slavery legislature was the only one that was recognized by the national

government.

While during this time violence between proslavery and antislavery settlers occurred

occasionally, the fighting would escalate in May of 1856. It started when 5 pro slavery men

marched into Lawrence and burned the free state hotel as well as nearby homes and stores. In

response, John Brown, and a group of abolitionist, killed 5 pro slavery men. Meanwhile, in

congress, congressmen Charles Sumner verbally attacked congressman Andrew Butler in his

speech “The Crime against Kansas.” With revenge on his mind, Butler’s nephew, congressman

Preston Brooks attacked Sumner with a cane.

In september of 1856, order would be restored with the arrival of territorial governor

John Geary. The last major outbreak of violence would be in 1858 when 5 anti-slavery men were

killed by border ruffians. In 1859, Kansas would adopt a free-state constitution and in 1861,

Kansas would join the union.

Southern feelings and Northern feelings were very similar in Bleeding Kansas in that

both were willing to send people to vote and live in Kansas. Northerners, such as Henry Beecher

and Eli Thayer, encouraged violence from anti-slavery settlers while southerners such as David

Atchison, encouraged violence from pro-slavery settlers and border ruffians. More important,

however, the feelings of both the north and the south were similar in that they were both willing

to fight for their beliefs. This would foreshadow the onset of the civil war. The words are best
put by historian Alice Nichols. In her book, “Bleeding Kansas,” Nichols writes, “Kansas had a

twin and its twin was the Civil War.” In his article “The Civil War began in Kansas 80 years

ago” Harold Place takes this belief to the next level when he argues that Bleeding Kansas was

really the beginning of the civil war, not Fort Sumter. While this may not necessarily be the case,

at this point, the Civil War is essentially inevitable, and clearly more so than after the Kansas-

Nebraska Act.

With the de-escalation of fighting in Kansas and the death of his son, John Brown

decided it was time to return home in 1857. However, his radical abolitionists beliefs would not

go away. Back home, he earned the support of 6 radical abolitionists, known as the “Secret Six.”

These 6 would support his new plan, a raid on a U.S. armory to help ignite a slave rebellion.

In the fall of 1859, John Brown, along with an army of over 20 men rented a farm in

Maryland near the U.S. armory of Harpers Ferry. On the night of October 16th, Brown would

easily take over the the armory as well a couple of hostages and slaves. Brown escape route,

however, was cut off by local militia, thwarting Browns original plan. News of the raid would

quickly reach the U.S. government. On October 18th, a company of U.S. marines, led by Robert

E. Lee and J.E.B. Stuart would eventually put down the rebellion. In the process, they killed ten

of Browns men and captured the rest, including Brown. The ensuing trial would foreverchange

the course of history.

On December 2nd 1859, John Brown was hanged for treason. However, his trial would

serve foreshadow the onset of the civil war as well as influence prominent southern figures

during the war. At his trial, Brown told his guard, “I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the

crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood.” This quote would anger
those in the crowd highlighted by infamous figures like actor John Wilkes Booth, Virginia

Military Institute Professor Thomas Jackson, and U.S. marine colonel Robert E. Lee.

Southerners were outraged at the attack. Many southerners began to be consumed with

the thought of large scale slave rebellions. Harvard Historian John Stauffer describes this,

writing, “The Tide of anger that flowed from Harpers Ferry traumatized Americans of all

persuasions, terrorizing southerners with the fear of massive slave rebellions.” It also contributed

to sectionalism, however, by uniting those south of the Mason-Dixon. Colonel Preston Brooks of

the Virginia Militia, in a speech given to a crowd who had gathered to see the hanging of John

Brown, stated, “So perish all such enemies of Virginia!”

Some northerners believed that what Brown did was wrong and condemned his actions

while supporting his motives. One of these was Abraham Lincoln, who stated, “Old John Brown.

Agreed with us thinking slavery is wrong. That cannot excuse violence, bloodshed, and treason.”

Many northerners supported and were further radicalized by Browns actions at Harpers Ferry.

The Newburyport Herald of Massachusetts wrote, “We shall be a thousand times more Anti-

Slavery than we ever dared to think of being before.”

Tensions again ran at an all time, and the nation was fires storm waiting to erupt. The

country had reached a point of no return. Historian Fergus Bordewhich sums it up best writing,

“Before Harpers Ferry, leading politicians believed that the widening division between North

and South would eventually yield to compromise. After it, the chasm appeared unbridgeable.”

The tensions and sectionalism evident in John Browns attack on Harpers Ferry would again arise

in the Election of 1860.

The Election of 1860 was one that was vital to the future and preservation of America.

The major issue at stake was that of slavery, and underlying that was the issue of states rights. It
was also a highly sectional election that would divide the country in two and foreshadow

secession and the ever looming civil war

The election of 1860 was headlined by frontrunner Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln and his

running mate Hannibal Hamlin were nominated for the Republican party ticket. They ran on the

platform of preventing the expansion of slavery and preserving the union.

The longtime Democratic party would have been seen as the favorite but they were

instead divided. Southern Democrats advocated for the expansion of slavery and increased state

rights while northern democrats opposed both of these platforms. When the democratic party

convened in Charleston in April of 1860, they failed to elect a presidential candidate after

southern democrats walked out on northern democrat Stephen Douglas. When the party met two

months later in Baltimore, southern democrats again left early. Thus, they formed two separate

parties.

The northern democrats elected Stephen Douglas and Herschel Johnson to their ticket.

The pair ran on the platform of popular sovereignty and preservation of the union. The southern

democrats elected John Breckinridge and Joseph Lane to its ticket. The pair ran on the

platform of the expansion of slavery as well as states rights.

Further complicating the election was the formation of a new party, the Constitutional

Union Party. This party elected John Bell and Edward Everett to its ticket. The pair ran on the

platform of defending the constitution and the union at all costs. Regarding slavery, it is believed

that Bell wanted to strike a compromise to extend the 36 degree 30 parallel westward.

Lincoln would ultimately prevail in this divided election. However, he failed to win a

majority of the vote, and only 2 percent of the vote in the south. Lincoln wasn’t even on the

ballot in the majority of southern states.

 Despite Lincoln's weak support in the south, northerners were confident he could cure the

sectional differences. These beliefs are emulated by Northern newspapers. The Daily Spy, a

Massachusetts newspaper wrote, “Mr. Lincoln will be inaugurated peacefully, and we believe

confidently that his administration will reproduce the era of good feeling.” The Morning Courier

in New York wrote, “Stretching out our hands to the South over this victory, we have no word of

taunt to utter for the threats of disunion which were raised for our defeat. Let those threats be

buried in oblivion; for through the long vista of this success we see a reign of peace from Slavery

agitation.”

In contrast, the south viewed the election of Lincoln as a highly undesirable outcome as

well as threat to the union and more importantly, a threat to the south itself. Again, beliefs of the

south would be shown by southern newspapers. The Weekly Standard, a North Carolina

newspaper wrote in 1860, “We do not overstate the fact when we say that the existence of the

Constitution will have been violated by the triumph of a geographical party, while the action of

certain Southern States will be directed towards a dissolution of the Union itself.” The Weekly

Standard showed the belief of more moderate southerners on the election of Lincoln.

However, some more radical southern newspapers tried to encouraged the idea of

secession. One of these was the Washington Constitution, which question the honor of

southerners who didn’t want to secede. The Washington Constitution wrote, “We can understand

the effect that will be produced in every Southern mind when he reads the news this morning—

that he is now called on to decide for himself, his children, and his children’s children whether

he will submit tamely to the rule of one elected on account of his hostility to him and his, or

whether he will make a struggle to defend his rights, his inheritance, and his honor.”
 Despite the hope from the north, realistically at this point in time, we are essentially on

the brink of civil war. With the election of Lincoln, a staunch unionist, the civil war is all but a

sure bet. When asked if the war was inevitable at this point, historian James McPherson

responded “Given the uncompromising stands of Lincoln and Northern Republicans favoring

restricting slavery’s expansion and opposing secession, and of Southern political leaders favoring

slavery’s right to expand and the right of states to secede, some kind of showdown in 1860–61

was unavoidable. “

This “unavoidable showdown” would begin on December 20th, 1860, when South

Carolina seceded in response to the election of Abraham Lincoln. Mississippi, Florida, Alabama,

Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas would later follow, in that order. On February 4th, 3 days after

Texas left the union, the states met in Montgomery, Alabama. Here, they created the government

of the Confederate States of America and elected Jefferson Davis as their president.

Northerners were angered by southern secession. They wanted to preserve the union and

looked to Lincoln to speak for them. At his inaugural speech, Lincoln did just that. He spoke to

why he viewed the union as still intact despite the secession of southern states. Lincoln spoke for

all unionist and the majority of northerners when he said that “no State, upon its own mere

motion, can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally

void; and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United

States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. I, therefore, consider

that, in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken.”

The South, in contrast, believed that their secession was completely legal under the

constitution. They believed that the values upon which the constitution had been established had

been compromised by northern states and thus they had the right to secede. In South Carolina’s
Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina

from the Federal Union, the people of the convention wrote, “We affirm that these ends for

which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been

made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States.”

Despite the fact that the United States government refused to recognize the Confederate

States of America, federal forts and posts in the deep south slowly switched over to confederate

control until the only significant federal post under union control was Fort Sumter. Confederate

troops blockaded Fort Sumter for months until Lincoln finally decided to send reliefs. On April

4th, Navy Capt. Gustavus Vasa Fox sailed from New York, carrying supplies and 200

reinforcements. However these reinforcements would only serve to provoke the Confederacy and

on April 12th at 4:30 a.m., the confederacy fired the first shots on John Anderson’s union troops.

Shortly thereafter, on April 13th, at 1:30 p.m., John Anderson surrendered to the confederate

troops.

The battle at Fort Sumter served to unite the union against the confederacy. With the

onset of the civil war unionist nationalism was at an all time high. Abner Doubleday, second in

command to Anderson, describes this in his diary. Doubleday describes his return home from

Sumter, writing, “With the first shot against Sumter the whole North became united. Mobs went

about New York and made every doubtful newspaper and private house display the Stars and

Stripes.”

Confederates excitement and confidence ran extremely high. The Memphis Daily Appeal

announced the news of Fort Sumter with the exclamatory headline, “Latest War News!!

Anderson Surrenders!” More importantly, however, the battle at Fort Sumter served to unite the

south. With the first shots of the civil war fired, the states of North Carolina, Virginia,
Tennessee, and Arkansas all seceded. This would be the first time the whole south was united

against the union. With the secession of more northern states, the confederate capital moved to

Richmond, Virginia.

. The significance of Fort Sumter should not be understated. Michael Ruane of the

Washington Post describes it as a “fateful moment- one of the most profound in U.S. history.”

The battle at Fort Sumter was significant in that it started the Civil War. Without a start to the

Civil War, there would have been no Civil War. Fort Sumter would trigger more important

events, such as the enlistment of union volunteers as well as the addition of states to the

confederacy. Furthermore, it would lead to more significant and strategic battles such as the

Battle of Antietam.

The Battle of Antietam was the single bloodiest day of war in American history. Robert

E. Lee aimed for a victory on union land which would convince foreign powers to recognize the

legitimacy of the confederacy. Lincoln hoped for a victory that could help republicans secure the

midterms as well as gain traction for the Emancipation Proclamation.

On September 13th of 1862, Union soldiers discovered the details of confederate troop

movements through Sharpsburg, Virginia on their way to Pennsylvania. As such, these

Confederate troops encountered resistance near Sharpsburg. They were pushed back and

regrouped at Antietam Creek. The union continued their attack. After just 8 hours of fighting,

there were already 15000 casualties at the battle of Antietam Creek.

After a couple more hours of close range fighting on Bloody Lane and Burnside Bridge,

and 8000 more casualties, Lee began to retreat. Union general McClellan allowed him to do this

without giving him chase, despite having the clear upper hand. This would ultimately lead to his

firing by Abraham Lincoln.

 From a Union perspective, this was a big strategic victory. It raised the morale of union

troops after a bad defeat at Bull Run and set the tone for later big union victories. It also led

republicans to a resounding victory in the midterms and gave Lincoln reason to issue the

Emancipation Proclamation. The tide was finally starting to turn in favor of the North. The New

York Sunday Mercury wrote, “ At no time since the first gun was fired have the hopes of the

nation seemed in such a fair way of realization as they do today.”

The confederacy viewed this is as a bad strategic law.. They missed out on a good

opportunity to win a victory on union soil and gain recognition from foreign countries, in part

because of an intelligence blunder. Confederate soldiers were extremely weak, and morale was

extremely low. The New York Times described this, writing “ the indications are that the enemy

have had pretty much all the fight whipped out of them.”

Overall, this battle completely changed the outlook of the war and shifted the balance of

power towards the Union side. Smithsonian Magazine writer David Zax writes, “The Union

victory marked a turning point.” Historian Tom Clemens from Hagerstown Community College

calls the battle a “game changer.” Anyway you look at it, the battle completely changed the

outlook of the war in favor of the Union.

One week later, on September 22nd, 1862, after this strategic win for the Union at

Antietam, President Abraham Lincoln issued a statement to the nation that he would sign the

Emancipation Proclamation in just 100 days. This plan would free all slaves in states rebelling

against the union as well as allow them to join the union army. On January, 1, 1863, after

Lincoln’s New Year reception, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation in his study at the

White House. Slaves in the confederate areas would be forever free.

 The north met the signing of this historic proclamation with mixed emotions. Some of the

north were afraid of what this could mean for the union and questioned whether the proclamation

was constitutional. The Springfield Register in Lincoln’s hometown predicted the breakdown of

the republic when they wrote that the Emancipation Proclamation went against “our national

Constitution, and, in all human probability, (would cause) the permanent disruption of the

republic.” However, abolitionists regarded the signing of this as a step towards moral

righteousness. In a speech given by Frederick Douglass after the signing of the Proclamation,

Douglass congratulated Lincoln, saying “upon this amazing change—the amazing

approximation toward the sacred truth of human liberty.”

The south, as expected, were outraged over the issuance of this Proclamation. Jefferson

Davis believed that Lincoln was misguided in signing this proclamation. In his response,

Jefferson wrote, “We may well leave it to the instincts of that common humanity which a

beneficent Creator has implanted in the breasts of our fellow-men of all countries to pass

judgment on a measure by which several millions of human beings of an inferior race, peaceful

and contented laborers in their sphere, are doomed to extermination.” Jefferson shared the

viewpoint of the south that blacks would be hopeless as free men. The confederacy took this

belief a step further just a few weeks later when they announced that all Black prisoner of wars

would be killed.

The Emancipation Proclamation helped to bring an end to the war by marking a change

in the mindset of Unionists. Now, Unionists were fighting not only for the preservation of the

union, but also for the abolishment of slavery. Historian James Barber details this in an article

written for the Smithsonian. Barber writes that this “Proclamation marked the philosophical

turning point in the Union’s war efforts.” He would go on to talk about the Unions new war goal
when he wrote that this “Proclamation clothed the northern cause in a new moral imperative.”

This goal would soon change into a key on simply ending the war.

This war key was exemplified in the March to the Sea. From November 15-December 21

of 1864, 60,000 union soldiers marched from Atlanta to Savannah, Georgia. These troops

were led by general William T. Sherman and were intent on destroying anything of military

value in their path..”

On September 2nd, 1864 union troops led by Sherman captured Atlanta, an important

railroad hub and industrial center of the confederacy. And then, on November 15th, Sherman and

his troops set off for Savannah determined to make life miserable for the georgians in their path.

Sherman’s troops destroyed anything that could provide the confederate army with material

support. This included the destruction of factories, farms, and railroads as well as southern

morale. Union soldiers also took supplies from these civilians. They stole as much food as they

could get their hands on as well as livestock. Instead of trying to fight Sherman’s powerful

troops, confederate soldiers fled ahead of the union march, burning supplies before union forces

could get there. Abraham Lincoln received an early Christmas gift when Sherman overran

Savannah on December 21st. Sherman’s march to the sea was now finished. However, he would

continue to terrorize people in South Carolina and North Carolina.

The Union had mixed viewpoints on Sherman’s march to the sea. Some people saw it as

punishment to the south for seceding from the Union. Many union troops were among this group.

One soldier wrote, “It isn’t so sweet to secede, as they thought it would be.” Others, however,

saw Sherman’s march as necessary to bring the war to an end as soon as possible. Included

among these was Sherman himself. Regarding the March to the Sea, Sherman wrote, “War is

cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”
 The south was terrorized by Sherman’s March to the Sea. They were struck with horror at

the destruction of their homeland, and morale ran at an all time low. Mary Chestnut detailed this

in her diary when she wrote, “I felt… as if we are going to be wiped off the earth.” The south felt

a new sense of hatred for the union, one that would be shared by many in the years following the

war. Emma LeConte wrote in her journal, “Before they (union) came here I thought I hated them

as much as was possible — now I know there are no limits to the feeling of hatred.”

Sherman’s march to the sea thoroughly destroyed the south, helping to end the Civil War

earlier than initially thought possible. Historian Christian Keller describes this stating, “The

campaign thoroughly succeeded in smashing railroads and laying waste to the Southern

agricultural economy that fed Confederate armies in Virginia, and in so doing shortened the

war.”

While Sherman’s troops were terrorizing the south, General Ulysses Grant was

relentlessly attacking exhausted confederate soldiers. By April 8th of 1865, what remained of

Confederate troops were surrounded by Union soldiers. On April 9th, Confederate troops would

mount the last offensive attack of the civil war, led by John Gordon. While initially successful,

Confederates could not endure a long battle, as they were outnumbered by nearly 2-1. Later that

morning Lee, who was receiving no supplies from the confederacy, declared that he had to go

see General Grant over the terms of a surrender. On April 9th, the two generals met at the parlor

of Wilmer McLean at 1 p.m. Grant set out the gracious terms of the surrender. Confederate

troops were all pardoned, allowed to keep their arms, horses and even given union rations. The

Civil War was, for all purposes, over.

The North was ecstatic at the thought of an end to war. The North’s main goal at this

point in the war was peace. This is detailed by General Grant himself in a discussion with Lee
over the South’s surrender. In a note sent to Lee prior to Lee’s official surrender, Grant states, “I

will state, however, that I am equally desirous for peace with yourself, and the whole North

entertains the same feeling.” While the north was excited that war was finally over, it was even

more excited that it had emerged victorious. After hear the news from Appomattox Court House

The Saint Cloud Journal exclaimed “Victory!! All Lee’s army surrendered!”

The inevitable surrender clearly hurt the prideful southerners. The feelings of the

confederacy are best exemplified by its’ general. Regarding Lee’s looming surrender to Grant,

Lee states “I would rather die a thousand deaths.” This sentiment would be shared by much of

the south.

Appomattox Court House served to help end the war because it all but did end the

war. While fighting would not officially cease nationwide until May, this surrender basically

ended the war. However, it also helps propel the United States of America. Historian Waite

Rawls see it as both a beginning and an ending. He states, “It is both an ending and a beginning.

It is certainly the metaphor for the end of the Civil War. . . . It was very much the beginning of

the modern United States of America.” With this, the Union is united.

Works Cited
Bandow, Doug. “The Battle of Antietam: The Civil War Drenches America In Blood.” Forbes, Forbes

Magazine, 17 Sept. 2012, www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2012/09/17/the-battle-of-

antietam-the-civil-war-drenches-america-in-blood/#59e7bbae3d4c.

Bordewich, Fergus M. “Fort Sumter: The Civil War Begins.” Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Institution,

1 Apr. 2011, www.smithsonianmag.com/history/fort-sumter-the-civil-war-begins-1018791/.

“Civil War Historian James McPherson.” HistoryNet, 19 Oct. 2016, www.historynet.com/interview-

with-civil-war-historian-james-mcpherson.htm.

Cooper, William. “Coopers Clarksburg.” News about Chronicling America RSS, 4 May 1853,

chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85059716/1853-05-04/ed-1/seq-1/#loclr=blogtea.

Drake, Ross. “The Law That Ripped America in Two.” Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Institution, 1

May 2004, www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-law-that-ripped-america-in-two-99723670/.

“The Election of 1860.” Omeka RSS, cwnc.omeka.chass.ncsu.edu/exhibits/show/unionist-

newspapers/election-of-1860/election-of-1860.

“The Emancipation Proclamation: Frederick Douglass Responds.” The Emancipation Proclamation:

Frederick Douglass Responds |, www.brooklynhistory.org/blog/2013/12/17/the-emancipation-

proclamation-frederick-douglass-responds/.

“Fergus M Bordewich, Author of The First Congress, The Great Debate, Washington, Bound for Canaan

the Underground Railroad.” Fergus M Bordewich, Author of The First Congress, The Great

Debate, Washington, Bound for Canaan the Underground Railroad, www.fergusbordewich.com/.

“General Sherman on the ‘March to the Sea," 1865.” The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History,

28 Aug. 2012, wwww.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/american-civil-war/resources/general-

sherman-%E2%80%9Cmarch-sea%E2%80%9D-1865.
“The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History.” Appeal of the Independent Democrats in

Congress, to the People of the United States. Shall Slavery Be Permitted in Nebraska? | Gilder

Lehrman Institute of American History, www.gilderlehrman.org/content/appeal-independent-

democrats-congress-people-united-states-shall-slavery-be-permitted.

Golia, Julie. “The Emancipation Proclamation: Frederick Douglass Responds.” The Emancipation

Proclamation: Frederick Douglass Responds |, 16 Dec. 2013,

www.brooklynhistory.org/blog/2013/12/17/the-emancipation-proclamation-frederick-douglass-

responds/.

History.com Staff. “Appomattox Court House.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 2009,

www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/appomattox-court-house.

History.com Staff. “Compromise of 1850.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 2009,

www.history.com/topics/compromise-of-1850.

History.com Staff. “Sherman’s March.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 2010,

www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/shermans-march.

“The Kansas-Nebraska Act.” Ushistory.org, Independence Hall Association,

www.ushistory.org/us/31a.asp.

Klein, Christopher. “7 Ways the Battle of Antietam Changed America.” History.com, A&E Television

Networks, 14 Sept. 2012, www.history.com/news/7-ways-the-battle-of-antietam-changed-

america.

“March to the Sea Monday.” Princeton University, The Trustees of Princeton University, 21 Nov. 2016,

blog.press.princeton.edu/2016/11/21/march-to-the-sea-monday-3/.
Masur, Louis. “How the Emancipation Proclamation Came to Be Signed.” Smithsonian.com,

Smithsonian Institution, 1 Jan. 2013, www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-the-emancipation-

proclamation-came-to-be-signed-165533991/.

Mitchell, Robert B. “Sherman's March to the Sea: A Military Triumph Left a Bitter Legacy.” The

Washington Post, WP Company, 13 Sept. 2014,

www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/shermans-march-to-the-sea-a-military-triumph-left-a-

bitter-legacy/2014/09/11/9f3f7826-3391-11e4-a723-

fa3895a25d02_story.html?utm_term=.434ffdf27407.

The New York Times, The New York Times, 15 Sept. 1862,

www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0917.html#article.

“Newspapers React to Abraham Lincoln's 1860 Presidential Win.” The Washington Post, WP Company,

7 Nov. 2010, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/content/article/2010/11/05/AR2010110502719_2.html?sid=ST2010110503528.

Nichols, Alice. Bleeding Kansas. Oxford University Press, 1954.

PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2952.html.

Place, Harold. “The Civil War Began in Kansas 80 Years Ago.” Progress in Kansas Magazine: "The

Civil War....", www.kancoll.org/articles/progress/civil.htm.

Ruane, Michael E. “Lee's Surrender Sword, and Echoes of the Lost Cause, at New Appomattox

Museum.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 30 Mar. 2012,

www.washingtonpost.com/local/lees-surrender-sword-and-echoes-of-the-lost-cause-at-new-

appomattox-museum/2012/03/28/gIQAwedVlS_story.html?utm_term=.b2b8f3eaa130.
Rubenstein, Harry R. “The Gentleman’s Agreement That Ended the Civil War.” Smithsonian.com,

Smithsonian Institution, 6 Apr. 2015, www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-

institution/gentlemans-agreement-ended-civil-war-180954810/.

“Secession Is Unlawful.” National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,

www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/secunlawful.htm.

“Sherman’s March to the Sea.” The Environmental Impact of the Civil War, fighting-the-

earth.leadr.msu.edu/shermans-march-to-the-sea-wasting-natural-resources/.

“Speech Costs Senator His Seat.” U.S. Senate: Speech Costs Senator His Seat, 14 Dec. 2017,

www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Speech_Costs_Senator_His_Seat.htm.

A Spotlight on a Primary Source by Robert E. Lee. “The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American

History.” The Surrender of Robert E. Lee, 1865 | Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History,

www.gilderlehrman.org/content/surrender-robert-e-lee-1865.

PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, “The Compromise of 1850

www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2951.html.