<p>Does anyone know the answer to this question?</p>
<p>All of the following contributed to the sectional crisis that culminated in the civil war EXCEPT
A. Gadsen purchase
B. Election of Lincoln in 1860
C. Dred Scott decision
D. Comp. of 1850
E. Kansas Nebraska</p>
<p>I went with Lincoln but it could also be Gadsen purchase. Any ideas?</p>
<p>The answer is A. The question is an EXCEPT question, and Gasden Purchase didnt really contribute to sectional tensions.</p>
<p>Are you sure? I believe that the gadsden purchase did contribute to a sectional dispute.</p>
<p>The debate over the Gadsden Purchase was influenced by the sectional divisions over slavery, but I don’t think the Gadsden Purchase itself contributed much to those divisions. It was caught in the crosshairs, so to speak.</p>
<p>I’m not sure I understand. I believe there was an argument either about slavery or the construction of the transcontinental railroad that involve the gadsden purchase. If that is true, the purchase of the territory certainly contributed to those disputes.</p>
<p>I’ll concede that the Gadsden Purchase may have contributed to the sectional crisis, but even so, it wasn’t nearly as divisive or as important in the long run as any of the other events/issues given as choices. </p>
<p>Here’s a relevant quote from the Wikipedia article:
“The unfortunate debates in 1854 left an indelible mark on the course of national politics and the Pacific railroad for the remainder of the antebellum period. It was becoming increasingly difficult, if not outright impossible, to consider any proposal that could not somehow be construed as relating to slavery and, therefore, sectional issues. Although few people fully realized it at the close of 1854, sectionalism had taken such a firm, unrelenting hold on the nation that completion of an antebellum Pacific railroad was prohibited. Money, interest, and enthusiasm were devoted to emotion-filled topics, not the Pacific railroad.”</p>
<p>That’s what I meant by the Gadsden Purchase being caught in the crosshairs of the slavery debate. Northerners and Southerners were divided on it, true, but that’s because they were already divided, as a result of the Compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska conflict. If these divisions did not already exist, there wouldn’t have been much of a debate over such a small piece of land. The debate over the Gadsden Purchase didn’t substantially increase these divisions or directly lead to the Civil War as the other answer choices did.</p>
<p>“That’s what I meant by the Gadsden Purchase being caught in the crosshairs of the slavery debate. Northerners and Southerners were divided on it, true, but that’s because they were already divided, as a result of the Compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska conflict.”
But can’t the same argument be said for Lincoln? The north and south were already divided sectionally.
Perhaps Lincoln’s election only excacerbate existing contentions. Furthermore, the question did not ask for what contributed least to sectionalism. One of the choices did NOT contribute at all to sectionalism. If the gadsden purchase contributed in any way then it cannot be eliminated.</p>
<p>but didn’t lincoln’s election lead DIRECTLY to the deep south seceding and the civil war? I would have went with G purchase</p>
<p>Youre probably right. Gadsden was my ininitial choice but I switched to Lincoln. Oh well.</p>