Civil War IDM Summative Essay. Question: How can compromise lead to conflict? Directions: Use the information you learned from the 3 Civil War IDM formative task assignments and sources to write an essay. In your essay, you are answering the question: How can compromise lead to conflict? To help you answer the question, you will use the 3 Civil War IDM formative tasks and sources. Use evidence (quotes) from the sources to support your answer.

**Title: The Paradox of Compromise: A Prelude to Conflict in the Civil War** The American Civil War was a culmination of escalating tensions between the North and South, particularly regarding the issue of slavery. While many historical events illustrate how compromise can serve as a temporary solution, they also reveal that such agreements often sow the seeds for future conflicts. This essay explores how compromises made during the antebellum period contributed to the eventual outbreak of the Civil War. One significant example is the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which aimed to maintain a balance between slave and free states. By admitting Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state, this compromise sought to quell sectional strife. However, it only provided a short-term fix; the underlying issues surrounding slavery remained unresolved. As historian David Herbert Donald notes, "the Missouri Compromise did not eliminate the fundamental differences between the North and South." Instead, it merely postponed the inevitable clash by masking the growing divide with superficial agreement. Similarly, the Compromise of 1850 attempted to address the contentious issue of slavery in newly acquired territories following the Mexican-American War. It included provisions such as the Fugitive Slave Act, which mandated that escaped slaves be returned to their owners. While this compromise momentarily alleviated tensions, it incited fierce opposition in the North, where abolitionist sentiments were gaining momentum. Frederick Douglass famously stated, “The Constitution is a glorious liberty document,” yet the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act contradicted these ideals, further alienating Northern citizens and intensifying anti-slavery sentiment. Moreover, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 exemplifies how compromise can lead to violent conflict. This act allowed settlers in those territories to determine whether they would allow slavery through popular sovereignty. The result was bloody confrontations known as "Bleeding Kansas," illustrating that attempts at compromise could escalate into violence when opposing factions felt their rights and beliefs were threatened. Historian William C. Davis argues that "the act unleashed a torrent of violence" that underscored the failure of compromise to create lasting peace. In conclusion, while compromises such as the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act were intended to ease tensions between the North and South, they ultimately revealed the deep-rooted divisions within the nation. These agreements failed to address the core issues surrounding slavery, leading to increased animosity and conflict. Thus, the history of the Civil War serves as a poignant reminder that compromise, rather than fostering unity, can sometimes pave the way for deeper discord and eventual confrontation. Explanation Compromise can lead to conflict when it fails to satisfy all parties involved, creating resentment and division. In the context of the Civil War, compromises like the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 temporarily eased tensions but ultimately highlighted deep-seated disagreements over slavery, leading to greater discord.