America: A Nation Divided - Course Overview

This AQA A-Level History course explores one of the most dramatic periods in American history. You'll discover how political compromises, economic differences, and moral debates about slavery shaped a nation heading towards conflict.

The course covers the crucial years from 1845 to 1861, when America transformed from a hopeful expanding nation into two distinct regions with completely different visions for the future. Understanding this period is essential for grasping how the American Civil War became inevitable.

Key Tip: Focus on how each event built upon previous tensions rather than treating them as isolated incidents.

The Foundations: North vs South in 1845

By 1845, America was essentially two different countries sharing one government. The North was rapidly becoming an industrial powerhouse with bustling factories, growing cities, and waves of Irish and German immigrants seeking work. Most Northerners supported the Whig Party and wanted to limit slavery's spread, though they weren't necessarily abolitionists.

Meanwhile, the South remained a rural, agricultural society built entirely on slave labour and cotton production. The wealthy Planter Elite dominated Southern politics through the Democratic Party, believing in states' rights and minimal federal government interference.

The technological gap was massive - the North had extensive railway and telegraph networks whilst the South relied heavily on Northern infrastructure to export their cotton. This economic dependence would become a major source of tension.

Remember: These weren't just political differences - they represented completely different ways of life that were becoming incompatible.

Early Attempts at Balance: The Missouri Compromise

The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was America's first major attempt to handle the slavery question peacefully. When Missouri wanted to join as a slave state, it threatened to upset the delicate balance of 11 free and 11 slave states in the Senate.

The solution seemed clever: admit Missouri as a slave state, Maine as a free state, and draw a line at latitude 36°30' - no slavery above this line except in Missouri. This temporarily solved the crisis but created a dangerous precedent of dividing the country geographically.

The compromise's major flaw became obvious later - what happens when territories like California span both sides of the line? This 'solution' essentially kicked the problem down the road for future generations to handle.

Exam Focus: The Missouri Compromise shows how early attempts to balance sectional interests only delayed inevitable conflicts.

Testing Federal Authority: The Nullification Crisis

The Nullification Crisis (1828-32) nearly broke the Union decades before the Civil War. It started with the 'Tariff of Abominations' - a tax on imported goods designed to protect Northern industry but which devastated the Southern economy.

South Carolina was furious and threatened nullification - the idea that states could simply ignore federal laws they disliked. When Congress lowered the tariff in 1832, South Carolina still wasn't satisfied and threatened to leave the Union entirely.

President Jackson's response was decisive: he passed the Force Bill (which Southerners called the 'Bloody Bill'), authorising military action to enforce federal law. Eventually, the Tariff Reduction Bill of 1833 resolved the crisis, but the precedent was set - states believed they could defy federal authority.

Key Point: This crisis established the dangerous idea that states could threaten secession to get their way politically.

Expansion and Conflict: The Mexican-American War

Manifest Destiny - the belief that God wanted America to control all of North America - drove President Polk to seek war with Mexico in 1846. When Mexican forces attacked US troops, Polk had his excuse for a conflict he'd been planning anyway.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) ended the war spectacularly in America's favour. For just $15 million, the US gained California and Texas - massive territories that would completely reshape the nation's geography and politics.

However, this territorial bonanza created a massive problem: would these new lands allow slavery? The question that the Missouri Compromise had temporarily settled was now back with a vengeance, but on a much larger scale.

Think About It: Every territorial gain made the slavery question harder to avoid - expansion meant confrontation was inevitable.

The Wilmot Proviso: Drawing Battle Lines

The Wilmot Proviso of 1846 was a game-changer that never actually became law. This proposed legislation would have banned slavery in all territories gained from the Mexican-American War - essentially guaranteeing Northern political dominance forever.

The Proviso passed the House of Representatives but failed in the Senate, where Southern states had more influence. This voting pattern revealed the stark sectional divide that was now dominating American politics.

Even though it failed, the Wilmot Proviso forced politicians to choose sides publicly. There was no more middle ground - you either supported slavery's expansion or you opposed it, and everyone knew which side you were on.

Significance: This marked the end of compromise politics and the beginning of open sectional warfare in Congress.

The Last Great Compromise of 1850

The California Gold Rush of 1849 forced another crisis when California's population exploded and it demanded immediate statehood - as a free state. The Compromise of 1850 was Henry Clay's attempt to satisfy everyone, but it actually satisfied no one.

The deal was complex: California joined as a free state, the slave trade (but not slavery itself) was banned in Washington D.C., and Utah and New Mexico could decide the slavery question through popular sovereignty - letting residents vote on it.

The most controversial part was the strengthened Fugitive Slave Law, which required all Americans to help capture runaway slaves or face heavy fines. This turned every Northerner into a potential slave-catcher and radicalised many who had been neutral on slavery.

Warning Sign: Rather than solving tensions, this compromise created new conflicts and split both major political parties internally.