Much debate was caused by the fact that the North was anti slavery and the South was pro slavery. Both sides had opposing views about slavery and how it should be dealt with. The North had several negative things to say about it, whereas the South, obviously had a few positive factors to mention. If it were not for the creation of the cotton gin, the conflict between the two sides would have aroused. The South’s main argument was that slaves were mandatory for economic growth, while countless people in the North strongly refuted the statement. The South would have commanded more intense and severe work within the slaves, which would have sparked more discussion about the subject of matter.
Throughout American history, the south and the north have consistently held different beliefs on how to handle some subjects. Whether it ranged from slavery, to taxing, or to business, southerners and northerners often seemed to be on opposite sides of the spectrum. It was not any different back in the 1800’s. Though intensely different, they were still part of the same country. One of the biggest issues that made the north and the south so distinct from one another was their view and perspective on slavery. The north, who was considered mostly republican, saw slavery as something that needed to be abolished for it was a great sin committed by mankind; while the south, who were mostly considered democrats, viewed it as a necessity for they considered African-Americans a race that needed to be controlled because they were less intelligent than the white man but very violent and because they were “built” for the hard labor. Over the 1800’s they had been a tension built between the two sides of the country. The tension rose to a boiling point when the 1860 election rolled around. After the elections occurred, a chain of events followed which would leave a lasting impact on the current United States. In the heart of these events was the civil war. To this day, it is very debatable that the war started because of the unsure future of slavery under new leadership.
Dred Scott (c. 1799 – September 17, 1858) was an enslaved African American man in the United States who unsuccessfully sued for his freedom and that of his wife and their two daughters in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857, popularly known as the "Dred Scott Decision". Scott claimed that he and his wife should be granted their freedom because they had lived in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory for four years, where slavery was illegal. The United States Supreme Court decided 7–2 against Scott, finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott 's temporary
The line between the North and South was deeply imbedded due to both moral and economic factors. Events in our country's history meant that this rift was eventually going to happen and war would ensue. The South always thought they were oppressed and looked down upon. They decided enough was enough when Lincoln became president and fought back. But, the economics of the two factions were far too vast to ever make a permanent compromise. Just like Lincoln said “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided.” which is what led to the war. The country divided because of the North success in the Industrial Revolution and the South’s refusal to join this revolution and relieve itself of its dependency on the economic
Political tension between the North and the South started early when there was disagreement over Henry Clay’s American System. The American System imposed tariffs to support northern manufacturing, federally funded roads and canals, and supported the National Bank. Northerners were in support of the American System but the South wasn’t on board with the plan. This protective tariff was a tax on imports, and since the South was receiving most of the imported goods, they got the brunt of the tariff. The South believed it was unfair that it was putting money into the North’s industrial economy when the South was barely making enough revenue to support itself. While the South provided the Northern industries with most of the raw materials they needed, the price the North paid for these things were nothing compared to what the South had to pay for the manufactured goods the North produced. The opposition to the American System was so strong that South Carolina declared the tariffs void and threatened to leave the Union. But Andrew Jackson worked with South Carolina and the Union remained whole. This was the Nullification Crisis of 1832. The two regions clashed politically too. While the North became generally
The North and South both had opposite opinions about slavery, The South favored slavery because of there agricultural based economy which they needed slaves to attend to their harvests and crops, the North was against slavery because they were an industrialized nation they had no need for slavery. This debate went on and almost resulted
The North and South in the nineteenth century were different in lifestyle and morale as well as economy. The north had a booming industrial economy while in the South, cotton was king. Because of this, congress was continuously addressing controversial matters and providing answers that did not satisfy either one side or both. The early 1800s were full of the North and the South making many attempts at reconciliation that just fell short. Among those were the Missouri Compromise of 1820, and the Great Compromise of 1850. Other tempestuous attempts led to the Tariff/Nullification Controversy, anti slavery debates in congress, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Whether it was one side or the other, there was always someone to oppose - and in some
Sandford). Chief Justice Taney, who happened to be a former slave owner, gave the majority opinion, 7-2, ruling against Dred Scott. He also said as a person of African descent, Dred Scott was not a citizen and could not sue in federal court. He added that Scott had never been free, since slaves were considered personal property (Dred Scott v. Sanford 63).
The issue of slavery was becoming more and more prominent in the years between 1820 and 1865, and was creating a lot of sectional tension between the North, who tended to hold abolitionist beliefs, and the South, who were generally pro-slavery. Many arguments were used to defend slavery, but many of these arguments ignored some crucial details. For instance, moral arguments against slavery tended to ignore the horrible conditions slaves were forced to live in; economic arguments ignored many viable solutions to their problem; and political arguments ignored blatant bias.
Religious justifications played a significant function in the intellectual maintenance and creation of racial hierarchies’ construction. According to Finkelman, the religious defenses of slavery fit together with the White’s assumption about race. Ministers from the South all agreed that only Slavery could impose Christian morality upon the Blacks. In addition, they urged Masters to respect marriages between slaves by avoiding sexual exploitation of their slaves. In this way, Southerners justified slavery as an institution, which proved beneficial to slaves due to the generous and humane side based on Christianity.
In March 5,1857, after deliberating for several months, Chief Justice Roger Taney issued the ruling. The Court determined, by a majority of seven to two, that Dred Scott and his family were still slaves. It stated that even if, the Scotts had traveled into free territory, moving back to St.Louis had made them slaves once more. However, The Court decided to go further and addressed other issues regarding slavery and blacks. On citizenship, the Court decided no black could ever be a citizen, in Taney's own words "slaves nor their descendants, whether... free or not, were then acknowledged as part of the people [citizens]"# According to this, Scott was only property , therefore he did not have the right to file suit, and as a result was never free. The Court also decided to rule the
In the United States there was a heated debate about the morality of slavery. Supporters of slavery in the 18th century used legal, economic, and religious arguments to defend slavery. They were able to do so effectively because all three of these reasons provide ample support of the peculiar institution that was so vital to the South.
In the nineteenth century, supporters of slavery used legal, religious, and economic arguments to defend the institution of slavery. Southern plantation owners depended heavily on slavery. Cotton, their main export, required tedious slave labor. Thus, southern supporters of slavery employed whatever tactics they could in order to keep their slaves from emancipation, which worked and extended slavery for a few more decades. As the abolition movement picked up, southerners became organized in their support of slavery in what became known as the pro-slavery movement.
There were several primary causes that would eventually lead to one of America’s bloodiest war and now I will explain each one in further detail. One of the main issues that would spark tensions between the northern and southern states was their differing views on slavery. In the North the most prominent idea in peoples mind during the period before the war was the idea of free labor. (Perret 10) They believed that it emphasized economic opportunity in the northern states. (Perret 14) Many anti-slavery movements would soon begin in the northern states and gain great momentum within the 1830’s and 1840’s. What these movements aimed at doing was to change the way people worked and lived which would help the working class adapt to new