It has been said that by the 1850s each side distrusted the other so greatly that disunion was inevitable: the North because of Southern grasping for more slave territory; the South because of Northern nullification of the Constitution and federal laws. Comment critically. Webster in 1850 was condemned as an appeaser or compromiser and hence not a statesman. Is compromise essential to statecraft?
It has been said that by the 1850s each side distrusted the other so greatly that disunion was inevitable: the North because of Southern grasping for more slave territory; the South because of Northern nullification of the Constitution and federal laws. Comment critically. Webster in 1850 was condemned as an appeaser or compromiser and hence not a statesman. Is compromise essential to statecraft?
Related questions
Question
It has been said that by the 1850s each side distrusted the other so greatly that disunion was inevitable: the North because of Southern grasping for more slave territory; the South because of Northern nullification of the Constitution and federal laws. Comment critically. Webster in 1850 was condemned as an appeaser or compromiser and hence not a statesman. Is compromise essential to statecraft?
Expert Solution
![](/static/compass_v2/shared-icons/check-mark.png)
This question has been solved!
Explore an expertly crafted, step-by-step solution for a thorough understanding of key concepts.
This is a popular solution!
Trending now
This is a popular solution!
Step by step
Solved in 2 steps
![Blurred answer](/static/compass_v2/solution-images/blurred-answer.jpg)