Increasing affluence and political influence in the North exacerbated the impending economic and political plight of the South, tearing apart the nation. Observing a stronger sentiment towards the peculiar institution of slavery by the South, Abraham Lincoln asserted that the country is destined to crumble. In a speech at Springfield Illinois, Lincoln accentuates, “A House divided against itself cannot stand.” Southern aggravation toward the North can be seen as a result of the North’s higher capital, growing incomes, and leverage in government. Thomas P. Kettell’s examination of the regional distribution of wealth in 1850 depicts the significant difference in the value of bank capital between the North and South. The North accumulated almost …show more content…
Not only did the South owe a tremendous amount of money to the lavish creditors of the North, but the North also exploited cotton and made a lavish living from the toil of slaves. Financially tied, the South was approaching an economic decline. The economic structure within America leaned towards the North and fueled industrialism, though it was powered by the labor of servants. Delivering a speech written by John C. Calhoun, James Mason emphasizes, “A single section, government by the will of the numerical majority, now controls the government and its entire powers. The North has absolute control over the government” (Calhoun 158). Explicitly defaming the North for its alleged oppressive and hostile grasp on government, Calhoun argues that the whims of the South would ultimately be extinguished. An example of such superiority can be seen through William Lloyd Garrison, an abolitionist born north of the Mason-Dixon line, who provoked the wrath of the South in his claim against the legality of …show more content…
Strife between the two regions skyrocketed from the fear that the North - with increasing powers - would attempt to outlaw the practice of slavery, a disaster to the undiversified and reliant South. Opposing sentimentality on the divisive issue of slavery was spurred by Thomas R. Dew, a southerner advocating the practice. Dew affirms, “It is said slavery is wrong … and contrary to the spirit of Christianity … we … deny most positively, that there is anything in the Old or New Testament, which would go to show that … the master commits any offense in holding slaves” (Dew 158). Dew furthers his argument to portray the merriment of slaves, being fed and clothed by the humane and virtuous, and that the brash conduct toward slaves is the action of the unaccustomed to slavery. Conflicting agendas regarding the future of slavery divided the metaphorical national house and contributed to the economic and political downfall of the South in that slavery was the main source of income - providing cotton to be sold - and that more political opposition to slavery gained traction in the North and fed electoral
In Apostles of Disunion, Dew presents compelling documentation that the issue of slavery was indeed the ultimate cause for the Civil War. This book provided a great deal of insight as to why the South feared the abolition of slavery as they did. In reading the letters and speeches of the secession commissioners, it was clear that each of them were making passionate pleas to all of the slave states in an effort to put a stop to the North’s, and specifically Lincoln’s, push for the abolishment of slavery. There should be no question that slavery had everything to do with being the cause for the Civil War. In the words of Dew, “To put it quite simply, slavery and race were absolutely critical elements in the coming of the war” (81). This was an excellent book, easy to read, and very enlightening.
The North had a very different opinion of the American way and made it exceedingly clear with the formation of numerous abolition societies, effectively abolishing slavery across the northern region and allowing blacks to live as productive members society, rather than its the property. Even one of the most prominent slave holders of that time was forced to rethink the legitimacy of slavery. “Seeing free black soldiers in action undermined [George] Washington’s racial prejudice and ultimately his support for slavery itself” (Finkelman 18). The productivity, societal and political benefits, and military empowerment made available by freed slaves challenged the South’s sense of racial supremacy, thus they began to establish a defense against the complete abolition of
The United States began to dissatisfy some of its citizens and so the concerns of sectionalism, or the split of the country began to arise. There was a continuous riff between the south and the north over a few issues, a major one being slavery. The south argued that the slaves were necessary to support the southern economy. According to document A, the south were angry that the north was creating taxes that hurt the southern economy, thus increasing the need for slavery since they had to make up for the expense of the taxes. The south felt that the north was able...
“The contrast in the relative prominence of slavery between the Upper South and the Lower South reflects the adverse health conditions and arduous labor requirements of lowland rice cultivation, whereas tobacco farming continued to be attractive to free family farmers as well as to slave owners”(Engerman, Sutch, & Wright, 2004). The lower South depended on their slaves more than the Upper because they were in the process of cropping tobacco. The Upper South had to keep up with the lower south, because they had to focus on their slave trade that would build and expand their plantations. During this era, the diverse between these two regions were more concerned with the values of slaves. The values of slave price can increase because of high demands between the upper and the lower South. As the upper South was coming up short, the slave profession took off. The slave profession helped the Upper South, yet there were numerous deformities. The slave percentage was at the end of its usefulness of significance “in the Upper South” significance it had a weaker understanding of community reliability than in the cotton areas. This made the upper south separate on what the future may hold. It was not clear on whether if the future was based on the Deep South’s financial growth between the North and the
The institution of slavery, from the year 1830 to 1860, created a divide between the northern and southern regions of the United States. Southerners, who relied on slaves to maintain their plantations, supported the institution, as it was a major part of their economy. Meanwhile, northerners, many of whom depended on slave produced cotton for textile mills and goods for the shipping industry, were divided on the slave issue, as some saw it as a blessing while the abolitionists saw it as a horrific institution. Overall, attitudes toward the institution of slavery, due to a variety of causes, differed in the varying regions in the United States from 1830 to 1860.
Slavery was a dominant part of the political and social arenas of 1800’s America. However, it was not homogenous as it divided America into two distinct groups: those who supported it and those who did not. Traditionally, the states in the north had been anti-slavery while the states in the south had been pro-slavery. Southern life and economy depended on slavery and therefore staunchly supported the continued legal status of slavery. The northern states on the other hand recognized the inhumane nature of slavery and campaigned to establish equality for all citizens. In order to establish solid reasoning for their stance, both pro-slave and anti-slave groups turned to theological inspiration for their actions. The Bible inspired both pro-slavery advocates and anti-slavery abolitionists alike. Religion was used in order to justify slavery and also to condemn it.
The North and South were forming completely different economies, and therefore completely different geographies, from one another during the period of the Industrial Revolution and right before the Civil War. The North’s economy was based mainly upon industrialization from the formation of the American System, which was producing large quantities of goods in factories. The North was becoming much more urbanized due to factories being located in cities, near the major railroad systems for transportation of the goods, along with the movement of large groups of factory workers to the cities to be closer to their jobs. With the North’s increased rate of job opportunities, many different people of different ethnic groups and classes ended up working together. This ignited the demise of the North’s social order. The South was not as rapidly urbanizing as the North, and therefore social order was still in existence; the South’s economy was based upon the production of cotton after Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin. Large cotton plantations’ production made up the bulk of America’s...
During the Depression of 1873 the Northern interest in the South’s slavery issue slowly diminished. Northerners were m...
The presidential elections of 1860 was one of the nation’s most memorable one. The north and the south sections of country had a completely different vision of how they envision their home land. What made this worst was that their view was completely opposite of each other. The north, mostly republican supporters, want America to be free; free of slaves and free from bondages. While on the other hand, the south supporters, mostly democratic states, wanted slavery in the country, because this is what they earned their daily living and profit from.
This relationship of master-slave was reciprocal. This relationship provided the master with status and power while slaves received autonomy in a sense. On the Silver Bluffs plantation, the slaves negotiated through resistance. The slaves “instead of seeking indirectly to avoid the domination inherent to slavery, these individuals confronted it, turning to arson and escape as overt expressions of their rebelliousness”. The slaves used this to negotiate with Hammond for autonomy and it worked. Hammond viewed himself as a patriarch and needed the slaves for his status and authority. This relationship was beneficial to both parties. Slaves relied on the masters for survival and planters relied on the slaves for sufficiency and status. “The road to power lay through the plantation.” This need for power and status was what separated the South and North. The North had different aspirations than the South which lead to the deterioration of their political and social power within the Union. The South wanted to maintain this master-slave relationship which ultimately required "reopening the slave trade and territorial expansion” to fight the economic deficiencies of slavery which conflicted with the aspirations of the North. Genovese argues that the South would have imploded without the Civil War. The South does not industrialize due to the fear of urbanization, lack of rural market, and diversity of agriculture. Power was more
Constitutionally the North favored a loose interpretation of the United States Constitution, and they wanted to grant the federal government increased powers. The South wanted to reserve all undefined powers to the individual states themselves. The South relied upon slave labor for their economic well being, and the economy of the North was not reliant on such labor or in need of this type of service. This main issue overshadowed all others. Southerners compared slavery to the wage-slave system of the North, and believed their slaves received better care than the northern factory workers received from their employers. Many Southern preachers proclaimed that slavery was sanctioned in the Bible. Southern leaders had constantly tried to seek new areas into which slavery might be extended (Oates 349).
The previous two-party system helped check the North’s power and keep balance in the federal government. However, after the collapse of this old system, the people of the South are not being welcomed into a new party with their best interests in mind (Holt, 405). Northern extremists are threatening slavery, which is a direct attack on the entire southern economy. If extremists succeed in abolishing slavery, they will effectively strip us of our freedom. How can we be free if we are imprisoned by the chains of poverty? The South lacks the political representation in the federal government to fight these extremists and I fear that one day the Northern extremists will destroy the South (Holt, 404). The Northern States have already grown incredibly wealthy due to their more industrial economy, how would the North react if we threatened to ban the use of machinery (Levine, 411)? Their entire economy would be crippled if they lost their main form of production. If slavery was abolished not only would the South lose its main way approach to producing goods; it would flood the market with cheap black labor, taking jobs away from whites (Levine, 410). Without political representation, we cannot get issues that effect Southern states onto the national stage. The federal government is trying to push a way of life onto the South and since the South lacks sufficient political
A solution to limit slavery debates led to the creation of a doctrine known as Popular Sovereignty. “A territory could decide by vote whether or not to permit slavery within its boundaries.” Therefore, this doctrine gave the territory right to be pro-slavery or anti-slavery. Although the doctrine ruled in favor of the majority of the population of a territory, not one hundred percent of the territory’s population was always in compliance. It is commonly discussed that slavery was something that greatly segregated the north from the south. With the south being pro-slavery, many were aware that the south needed slavery for particular services or else they would not feel so strongly to preserve slavery. “Slavery was basically a system to control labor, being a great investment for slave-owners to profit from.” Slaves were necessary for cotton production and other farm duties. “Cotton was king in the Old South: its primary export and the major source of southern wealth.” Furthermore, the south
The North and the South had been sectionalized for years on many issues, yet the majority of the congressmen had still come together when necessary for the good of the Nation, up until 1854. After Lincoln won the election in 1860, the nation was divided by sectionalism. Due to the Nation being divided and the Southerners being paranoid about the slaves being freed, I believe both issues were causes that led to the Civil War. Works Cited Brands, H. W.. American Stories: A History of the United States. New York: Routledge, 1998 2nd ed.
The North and South in the years 1800 to 1860 were divided into two different territory which showed their different morale and lifestyle. Both factions conflicting ideas towards the issues affecting the nation. The compromise was made impossible by 1860 due to disagreement over states' rights, intense growth in sectionalism and dispute over the morals of slavery. During the time, the north underwent major social, industrial, and economic changes known as the Antebellum Period. The industrial economy took place in the North while the cotton kingdom took place in the South. The southern states wanted to expand slavery to other countries, while the northern states wanted to limit slavery to the South. In the Election of 1860 when Lincoln was elected, he believed slavery was wrong and made efforts to hold the Union together, Attempts such as the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the Great Compromise of 1850 to bring reconciliation the North and South were made which led the Tariff/Nullification Controversy. In the early 1800s, the South and North faction made attempts to compromise but f...