Lecture 37 : Sectional Tensions Escalate

The tension was raised betweeen the South and the North because the were talking bad about each other.

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

Every effort the North made to pacify the South and/or to help the Blacks was blatantly rejected by the South. If the North declared one law, the South would find a loophole and thus the country was a mess of disunity and debate over Constitutional changes (?) (Doc. A and B). This tug-of-war is also anther reason for why no social changes resulted from constitutional changes from 1860 to 1877. Even if the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were wholeheartedly radical and revolutionary constitutional changes, social changes, never mind developments, were not in any way possible because of strong Southern resistance (Doc. G).

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.

John Brown along with other northerners were outraged. Many abolitionists protested and claimed this law was outrageous. The question of whether it was right for the government to force abolitionist to help slave catchers was asked, Brown knew

John Brown’s beliefs about slavery and activities to destroy it hardly represented the mainstream of northern society in the years leading up to the Civil War. This rather unique man, however, has become central to an understanding and in some cases misunderstandings about the origins of the Civil War. The importance of Brown’s mission against slavery was colossal to accelerating the civil war between the North and the South. His raid on Harpers Ferry in1859 divided the United States like nothing else before, and could have been the main event leading to the Civil War.

As time passed the rapidly changing society in the nineteenth century, in 1820 the north and south began to have serious conflicting problems that were proved unfixable by compromise. During this time, the north underwent major social, economic, and industrial changes known as the Antebellum Period. While the south generally clung to king cotton and slavery and thus remained essentially the same. This arose a manifold of controversies with how issues such as tariffs, slavery, and land should be handled. Both the Union and the Confederacy tried to create compromises to resolve these problems, yet both sides were never completely satisfied no matter how hard they tried. This made it very close to impossible for them to completely put their

The North and the South were far from settling the slave issue. Another reason that caused the South to go to war was the difference in economic policies. The North was expanding more in the commercial and industrial side while the South was reliant on agriculture. Cities and factories had developed in the North and in the South, it was still staple producing and agrarian. The North’s industry was beginning to dominate its economy while the South was still mainly based on agriculture. The South only produced manufactured goods for consumption and the North were able to export manufactured goods. The taxes and tariff was unfair to the South. The Tariff Act of 1832 put high import fees on all European manufactured good, which was established to protect the Northern industries. The South’s reaction to the Act was a threat to secede from the Union. Railroads were also built to bond the northern tier of states. This made transportation easier in the Northeast than in the South. The Northeast traded with the West while the South can trade only by sea. " They wanted to promote the industry of the New England states, at the expense of the people of the South and their industry" In politics, the North had an advantage over the South. The North was more populated than the South and the South only counted slaves which was big part of their populations as * of a person. Since the House of Representative was based on population

The South threaten leaving the Union, because of the election of 1860 with Lincoln winning it. The South did not want to lose their way of life and felt the only way would be to leave the Union. The similarity in polarization of the two periods is that the farmers both times were on the side of rebellion. The differences is that the American Revoulation was an east verves west, for example North Carolina. The farmers who live in the west hated anything that the eastern city folks supported. The eastern normally supported the British government and big business, so the farmers in the west would just hate the British, because of the fact that people in the eastern supported them. The led up to the Civil War was north verves south. This is showed through all of the compromises leading up to the secession, for example the the Great Compromise of 1850. The North wanted California to enter as a free state. The South feeling that their will lose power in Congress wanted the North to pass stricter laws that would enforce the Fugitive Slave laws. The north got California and the south got the Fugitive Slave Act of

Throughout the history of mankind, slavery has existed in one form or another. Since the times of ancient civilizations to modern era subjugations, there have forces who feel strongly of its necessity and purpose, while others have devoted themselves to seeing the ideas and acts of slavery abolished. America is not an exception to the concept of slavery and during the nation’s early history, parties from both sides have been made famous for their beliefs in the continuation or the denouncement of slavery in the United States. To understand the contrasting views of pro-slavery advocates versus abolitionists in antebellum America, a comparison of the individual positions must be made to further understand the goals of each party.

In the early years of the 19th century, slavery was more than ever turning into a sectional concern, such that the nation had essentially become divided along regional lines. Based on economic or moral reasoning, people of the Northern states were increasingly in support of opposition to slavery, all the while Southerners became united to defend the institution of slavery. Brought on by profound changes including regional differences in the pattern of slavery in the upper and lower South, as well as the movement of abolitionism in the North, slavery in America had transformed from an issue of politics into a moral campaign during the period of 1815-1860, ultimately polarizing the North and the South to the point in which threats of a Southern disunion would mark the beginning of the Civil War in 1861 (Goldfield et. al, The American Journey, p. 281).

One of the most, if not the most, controversial and heated debates following the United States independence was regarding the institution of slavery. In the introduction to his book Half Slave and Half Free, Bruce Levine quotes Carl Schurzs’ observation as the “slave question not being a mere occasional quarrel between two sections of the country divided by a geographic line, but a great struggle between two antagonistic systems of social organization (p.15)”. The Nouthern states that allowed slavery benefited from the agricultural labor that those slaves provided. The Northern states that prohibited slavery did so for moral and pragmatic reasons; they felt it was morally wrong to deny another human any form of rights, and did not like the economic advantage it gave to the Southern states. With the use of slavery largely concentrated in the South, the movement against it came from the North and was led by abolitionists; those who were committed to bringing an end to the practice. In this course we have defined “Practice” as the conduct of policy, such as opinion, election, parties and law-making (Lecture). We define Policy as the goals of politics, those being sovereignty, defense, and a collective well-being (Lecture). The following analytical essay will examine antislavery sentiment and practices in the Northern states and the reaction of Southern states. Additionally how the pressures from both sides influenced the Policy of the United States following independence then

The North and South differed significantly in how they viewed their regions culturally. The North was against slavery and believed the Southerners were inferior to them. For example, in “The Cultural Roots of Disunion,” Cobb signifies that the North represented American ways when he says, “Northern States were Synonymous with America- with the South standing as the antithesis” (The Cultural Roots of Disunion”). This is important because it shows superiority that the North felt towards the South and emphasized the North’s belief that to be Northern was to be American. The northerners felt that slaveholders had too much power and that slavery did not fit into the ideas of the republic. However, contrastingly, in the South, slaveholders believed that their slave culture ultimately benefitted the economy (Sectional Conflict 11/8). In “The Cultural Roots of Disunion,” Cobb contrastingly describes the Southern culture by describing it as, “the

North would rule economically, but the South didn’t really pay attention towards that. 2. On the other hand, South wanted more state control and wanted to have majority of the power. But, the North wanted more federal control and takeover the whole nation, which caused an up rise of arguments.

A second issue that would spark tensions between the states that eventually would lead to war was the argument of states’ rights. The South would vigorously argue throughout the years before the war that the federal government’s authority was not above that of each individual state. (Mcpherson 25) This would mean the federal government was in violation of what the founding fathers created it to do. Many historians believe that this response was elicited by the fact that the Northern population was growing so quickly that it would soon have control of the federal government. Before 1860 many of the presidents that had been elected were pro-south or they were indeed from the south. (Mcpherson 35) With the north