QUESTION ANSWERS
1. Relationship between slavery and sectional feeling
Charles & Mary Beard
David M. Potter
Michael Holt
2. Relationship between slavery and other issues in the 1850s
Beard
Potter
Holt
3. Demise of the Whig Party and rise of the Republicans
Beard
Potter
Holt
QUICK SUMMARY
Beard: A view of the Civil War as an economic and social revolution
Potter: A view of the 1850s as a time of irreconcilable conflict between
North and South over the central issue of slavery
Holt: A view of the 1850s as a time when many issues besides slavery
dominated national politics
-Politics = diverse and multi-issue, with slavery important but not
always decisive.
1. Relationship between slavery and sectional feeling
Charles & Mary Beard
- Slavery contributes to sectionalism, but mainly as part of a larger economic conflict.
- Example: The divide between the industrial North (factories, wage labor) and the Southern plantation system (slave labor, cotton economy).
- Sectional tension reflects competing economic systems, not just moral disagreement over slavery.
David M. Potter
- Slavery is the central cause of sectionalism.
- Example: The Wilmot Proviso (1846)—an attempt to ban slavery in new territories—directly intensified sectional conflict.
- Example: The attack on Fort Sumter (1861) represents the final breakdown caused by disputes over slavery.
- Slavery drives all major sectional disputes.
Michael Holt
- Slavery is not always the main cause of sectional feeling.
- Example: The rise of the Know-Nothing (American) Party, which focused on anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic sentiment, not slavery.
- Example: Voting patterns often split along religious (Protestant vs. Catholic) and ethnic (native-born vs. immigrant) lines.
- Sectionalism existed, but politics was often shaped by other social tensions.
2. Relationship between slavery and other issues in the 1850s
Beard
- Slavery is tied to broader economic issues like wealth and industrial growth.
- Example: Northern support for protective tariffs vs. Southern opposition reflects deeper economic differences tied to slave vs. free labor systems.
- Slavery is part of a larger economic transformation.
Potter
- Slavery becomes the dominant issue that absorbs all others.
- Example: The Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) turned territorial expansion into a direct conflict over slavery (popular sovereignty → “Bleeding Kansas”).
- Example: The Compromise of 1850 shows how multiple issues (territory, fugitive slaves) all revolved around slavery.
- Other issues become extensions of the slavery debate.
Holt
- Slavery is just one issue among many competing concerns.
- Example: The temperance movement and nativist movements influenced political loyalties more than slavery for many voters.
- Example: The collapse of the Whigs partly stemmed from internal divisions over immigration and religion, not just slavery.
- Politics was multi-issue, not slavery dominated.
3. Demise of the Whig Party and rise of the Republicans
Beard
- Sees this as part of a major economic and social revolution.
- Example: The Republican Party’s support for free labor ideology, railroads, and industrial growth reflects Northern capitalist interests.
- The fall of the Whigs = collapse of a party unable to reconcile economic class differences.
- Republicans represent the victory of Northern economic power over the Southern planter elite.
Potter
- Attributes party realignment primarily to slavery conflicts.
- Example: The Kansas-Nebraska Act split the Whig Party along sectional lines, leading to its collapse.
- Example: The Republican Party formed in opposition to the expansion of slavery into the territories.
- Republicans rise as a sectional anti-slavery party.
Holt
- Emphasizes non-slavery political factors in party change.
- Example: The Whig Party declined partly due to divisions over immigration (nativism) and Catholic influence.
- Example: The Republican Party attracted former Whigs, Free Soilers, and anti-immigrant voters, forming a broad coalition.
- Party realignment reflects complex voter concerns, not just slavery.
QUICK SUMMARY
Beard: A view of the Civil War as an economic and social revolution
- Civil War politics = economic/class struggle (industrial vs. plantation systems).
Potter: A view of the 1850s as a time of irreconcilable conflict between
North and South over the central issue of slavery
- Politics of the 1850s = increasingly dominated by slavery, leading to war.
Holt: A view of the 1850s as a time when many issues besides slavery
dominated national politics
-Politics = diverse and multi-issue, with slavery important but not
always decisive.
DBQ-STYLE SAMPLE RESPONSE
This response would meet the APUSH rubric for a 7/7 score (thesis, contextualization, evidence from documents, outside evidence, sourcing, and complexity):
SAMPLE RESPONSE
In the mid-nineteenth century, the United States experienced rising sectional tensions that ultimately led to the Civil War. Following the Market Revolution, the North and South developed increasingly different economies, while westward expansion after the Mexican-American War raised the contentious question of whether slavery would extend into new territories. Although historians differ in their interpretations, the conflict can be understood as primarily driven by slavery, even as economic and social factors and other political issues also played significant roles.
David M. Potter argues that slavery was the central force behind sectional conflict, claiming that it became the defining issue of the 1850s. He points to events like the Wilmot Proviso and the firing on Fort Sumter to illustrate how disputes over slavery’s expansion steadily deepened the divide between North and South. Potter’s interpretation is supported by events such as the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which led to “Bleeding Kansas,” demonstrating how the question of slavery in the territories could provoke violent conflict. Because Potter writes in 1976, during a time when historians emphasized political causation, his focus highlights how slavery increasingly dominated national debates and made compromise nearly impossible (Doc. 2)
In contrast, Charles and Mary Beard view the Civil War as a broader “social revolution” rooted in economic conflict between the industrial North and the plantation South. They argue that Northern capitalists, laborers, and farmers overthrew the Southern planter elite, similar to the class upheaval of the French Revolution. This interpretation is supported by the North’s advocacy for policies like protective tariffs and internal improvements, which clashed with Southern agricultural interests. Writing in 1927, during a period when historians often emphasized economic determinism, the Beards highlight how slavery functioned within a larger system of class and economic differences rather than as the sole cause of conflict (Doc. 1)
However, Michael Holt challenges the idea that slavery dominated political life in the 1850s, arguing instead that issues such as nativism and religion often shaped voter behavior more strongly. He notes that divisions between Protestants and Catholics and between native-born Americans and immigrants influenced party allegiance more than positions on slavery. The rise of the Know-Nothing Party, which focused on anti-immigrant sentiment, supports Holt’s claim that politics in this period were not solely defined by sectional conflict. Writing in 1969, Holt reflects a historiographical trend that emphasizes political culture and voter behavior, suggesting that the collapse of the Whig Party and rise of the Republican Party cannot be explained by slavery alone (Doc. 3)
While these interpretations differ, the evidence suggests that slavery ultimately became the most significant issue because it intersected with and intensified other conflicts. Economic differences between North and South, highlighted by the Beards, were deeply tied to the existence of slavery, while the political divisions emphasized by Holt became increasingly sectional as parties realigned around the issue of slavery’s expansion. Thus, although multiple factors contributed to rising tensions, slavery served as the central catalyst that transformed these differences into an irreconcilable conflict.
Why this earns a 7/7
ANNOTATION VERSION OF DBQ
Paragraph 1 (Contextualization & Thesis)
In the mid-nineteenth century, the United States experienced rising sectional tensions that ultimately led to the Civil War.
(Context intro—sets up broader historical situation)
Following the Market Revolution, the North and South developed increasingly different economies, while westward expansion after the Mexican-American War raised the contentious question of whether slavery would extend into new territories.
(Contextualization point earned-broader developments before the prompt)
Although historians differ in their interpretations, the conflict can be understood as primarily driven by slavery, even as economic and social factors and other political issues also played significant roles.
(Thesis point earned-clear, defensible, and nuanced claim)
Paragraph 2 (Document 2 – Potter & Evidence & Sourcing & Outside Evidence)
David M. Potter argues that slavery was the central force behind sectional conflict, claiming that it became the defining issue of the 1850s. Uses Document (Potter)
He points to events like the Wilmot Proviso and the firing on Fort Sumter to illustrate how disputes over slavery’s expansion steadily deepened the divide between North and South. Uses document content accurately
Potter’s interpretation is supported by events such as the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which led to “Bleeding Kansas,” demonstrating how the question of slavery in the territories could provoke violent conflict. Outside Evidence point earned
Because Potter writes in 1976, during a time when historians emphasized political causation, his focus highlights how slavery increasingly dominated national debates and made compromise nearly impossible. Sourcing point earned (explains author’s context/perspective)
Paragraph 3 (Document 1 – Beard + Evidence + Sourcing + Outside Evidence)
In contrast, Charles and Mary Beard view the Civil War as a broader “social revolution” rooted in economic conflict between the industrial North and the plantation South. Uses Document (Beard)
They argue that Northern capitalists, laborers, and farmers overthrew the Southern planter elite, similar to the class upheaval of the French Revolution. Accurate use of document argument
This interpretation is supported by the North’s advocacy for policies like protective tariffs and internal improvements, which clashed with Southern agricultural interests. (Reinforces argument with specific evidence)
Writing in 1927, during a period when historians often emphasized economic determinism, the Beards highlight how slavery functioned within a larger system of class and economic differences rather than as the sole cause of conflict. Sourcing point earned (explains historical context of authors)
Paragraph 4 (Document 3 – Holt + Evidence + Sourcing + Outside Evidence)
However, Michael Holt challenges the idea that slavery dominated political life in the 1850s, arguing instead that issues such as nativism and religion often shaped voter behavior more strongly.
Uses Document (Holt)
He notes that divisions between Protestants and Catholics and between native-born Americans and immigrants influenced party allegiance more than positions on slavery. (Accurate use of document content)
The rise of the Know-Nothing Party, which focused on anti-immigrant sentiment, supports Holt’s claim that politics in this period were not solely defined by sectional conflict. Outside Evidence (reinforces argument)
Writing in 1969, Holt reflects a historiographical trend that emphasizes political culture and voter behavior, suggesting that the collapse of the Whig Party and rise of the Republican Party cannot be explained by slavery alone. Sourcing point earned
Paragraph 5 (Complexity + Synthesis)
While these interpretations differ, the evidence suggests that slavery ultimately became the most significant issue because it intersected with and intensified other conflicts. (Begins synthesis across documents)
Economic differences between North and South, highlighted by the Beards, were deeply tied to the existence of slavery, while the political divisions emphasized by Holt became increasingly sectional as parties realigned around the issue of slavery’s expansion. Complexity point earned (connects multiple interpretations)
Thus, although multiple factors contributed to rising tensions, slavery served as the central catalyst that transformed these differences into an irreconcilable conflict. (Strong concluding synthesis)
FINAL RUBRIC BREAKDOWN (7/7 POINTS)
This response would meet the APUSH rubric for a 7/7 score (thesis, contextualization, evidence from documents, outside evidence, sourcing, and complexity):
SAMPLE RESPONSE
In the mid-nineteenth century, the United States experienced rising sectional tensions that ultimately led to the Civil War. Following the Market Revolution, the North and South developed increasingly different economies, while westward expansion after the Mexican-American War raised the contentious question of whether slavery would extend into new territories. Although historians differ in their interpretations, the conflict can be understood as primarily driven by slavery, even as economic and social factors and other political issues also played significant roles.
David M. Potter argues that slavery was the central force behind sectional conflict, claiming that it became the defining issue of the 1850s. He points to events like the Wilmot Proviso and the firing on Fort Sumter to illustrate how disputes over slavery’s expansion steadily deepened the divide between North and South. Potter’s interpretation is supported by events such as the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which led to “Bleeding Kansas,” demonstrating how the question of slavery in the territories could provoke violent conflict. Because Potter writes in 1976, during a time when historians emphasized political causation, his focus highlights how slavery increasingly dominated national debates and made compromise nearly impossible (Doc. 2)
In contrast, Charles and Mary Beard view the Civil War as a broader “social revolution” rooted in economic conflict between the industrial North and the plantation South. They argue that Northern capitalists, laborers, and farmers overthrew the Southern planter elite, similar to the class upheaval of the French Revolution. This interpretation is supported by the North’s advocacy for policies like protective tariffs and internal improvements, which clashed with Southern agricultural interests. Writing in 1927, during a period when historians often emphasized economic determinism, the Beards highlight how slavery functioned within a larger system of class and economic differences rather than as the sole cause of conflict (Doc. 1)
However, Michael Holt challenges the idea that slavery dominated political life in the 1850s, arguing instead that issues such as nativism and religion often shaped voter behavior more strongly. He notes that divisions between Protestants and Catholics and between native-born Americans and immigrants influenced party allegiance more than positions on slavery. The rise of the Know-Nothing Party, which focused on anti-immigrant sentiment, supports Holt’s claim that politics in this period were not solely defined by sectional conflict. Writing in 1969, Holt reflects a historiographical trend that emphasizes political culture and voter behavior, suggesting that the collapse of the Whig Party and rise of the Republican Party cannot be explained by slavery alone (Doc. 3)
While these interpretations differ, the evidence suggests that slavery ultimately became the most significant issue because it intersected with and intensified other conflicts. Economic differences between North and South, highlighted by the Beards, were deeply tied to the existence of slavery, while the political divisions emphasized by Holt became increasingly sectional as parties realigned around the issue of slavery’s expansion. Thus, although multiple factors contributed to rising tensions, slavery served as the central catalyst that transformed these differences into an irreconcilable conflict.
Why this earns a 7/7
- Thesis (1): Clear, defensible, nuanced (slavery central but acknowledges other factors)
- Contextualization (1): Market Revolution + Mexican-American War expansion
- Evidence from Docs (2): Uses all 3 historians accurately
- Outside Evidence (1): Wilmot Proviso, Kansas-Nebraska Act, Know-Nothing Party, tariffs
- Sourcing (1): Explains historians’ context (time period, perspective)
- Complexity (1): Weighs multiple interpretations and synthesizes them
ANNOTATION VERSION OF DBQ
Paragraph 1 (Contextualization & Thesis)
In the mid-nineteenth century, the United States experienced rising sectional tensions that ultimately led to the Civil War.
(Context intro—sets up broader historical situation)
Following the Market Revolution, the North and South developed increasingly different economies, while westward expansion after the Mexican-American War raised the contentious question of whether slavery would extend into new territories.
(Contextualization point earned-broader developments before the prompt)
Although historians differ in their interpretations, the conflict can be understood as primarily driven by slavery, even as economic and social factors and other political issues also played significant roles.
(Thesis point earned-clear, defensible, and nuanced claim)
Paragraph 2 (Document 2 – Potter & Evidence & Sourcing & Outside Evidence)
David M. Potter argues that slavery was the central force behind sectional conflict, claiming that it became the defining issue of the 1850s. Uses Document (Potter)
He points to events like the Wilmot Proviso and the firing on Fort Sumter to illustrate how disputes over slavery’s expansion steadily deepened the divide between North and South. Uses document content accurately
Potter’s interpretation is supported by events such as the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which led to “Bleeding Kansas,” demonstrating how the question of slavery in the territories could provoke violent conflict. Outside Evidence point earned
Because Potter writes in 1976, during a time when historians emphasized political causation, his focus highlights how slavery increasingly dominated national debates and made compromise nearly impossible. Sourcing point earned (explains author’s context/perspective)
Paragraph 3 (Document 1 – Beard + Evidence + Sourcing + Outside Evidence)
In contrast, Charles and Mary Beard view the Civil War as a broader “social revolution” rooted in economic conflict between the industrial North and the plantation South. Uses Document (Beard)
They argue that Northern capitalists, laborers, and farmers overthrew the Southern planter elite, similar to the class upheaval of the French Revolution. Accurate use of document argument
This interpretation is supported by the North’s advocacy for policies like protective tariffs and internal improvements, which clashed with Southern agricultural interests. (Reinforces argument with specific evidence)
Writing in 1927, during a period when historians often emphasized economic determinism, the Beards highlight how slavery functioned within a larger system of class and economic differences rather than as the sole cause of conflict. Sourcing point earned (explains historical context of authors)
Paragraph 4 (Document 3 – Holt + Evidence + Sourcing + Outside Evidence)
However, Michael Holt challenges the idea that slavery dominated political life in the 1850s, arguing instead that issues such as nativism and religion often shaped voter behavior more strongly.
Uses Document (Holt)
He notes that divisions between Protestants and Catholics and between native-born Americans and immigrants influenced party allegiance more than positions on slavery. (Accurate use of document content)
The rise of the Know-Nothing Party, which focused on anti-immigrant sentiment, supports Holt’s claim that politics in this period were not solely defined by sectional conflict. Outside Evidence (reinforces argument)
Writing in 1969, Holt reflects a historiographical trend that emphasizes political culture and voter behavior, suggesting that the collapse of the Whig Party and rise of the Republican Party cannot be explained by slavery alone. Sourcing point earned
Paragraph 5 (Complexity + Synthesis)
While these interpretations differ, the evidence suggests that slavery ultimately became the most significant issue because it intersected with and intensified other conflicts. (Begins synthesis across documents)
Economic differences between North and South, highlighted by the Beards, were deeply tied to the existence of slavery, while the political divisions emphasized by Holt became increasingly sectional as parties realigned around the issue of slavery’s expansion. Complexity point earned (connects multiple interpretations)
Thus, although multiple factors contributed to rising tensions, slavery served as the central catalyst that transformed these differences into an irreconcilable conflict. (Strong concluding synthesis)
FINAL RUBRIC BREAKDOWN (7/7 POINTS)
- Thesis (1/1)
- Contextualization (1/1)
- Evidence from Documents (2/2) (uses all 3 effectively)
- Outside Evidence (1/1) (Wilmot Proviso, Kansas-Nebraska Act, Know-Nothing Party, tariffs)
- Sourcing (1/1) (explains POV/context for multiple historians)
- Complexity (1/1) (weighs and synthesizes interpretations)