Between 1740 and 1865, tensions between the Northern and Southern colonies and states grew, due to their increasingly diverging interests. While most historians agree that the conflict over slavery was one of the main causes of the war, whether these conflicts were ideological, political, moralistic, economic, or social, is something that still continues to be debated over a century following the end of the war. In addition to the evident economical differences each side began to experience, with the North urbanizing and the South continuing with their agricultural lifestyle-- the abolitionist movement, the disjunction between state and federal rights, the rise of third political parties, the election of Abraham Lincoln, the fragmented Congress, as well as the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Dred Scott v. Sandford case-- all contributed to the nation becoming “a house divided” and culminated in the Civil War in 1861 (Findlay).
The most obvious reason for the division of the Union was slavery. From an ideological perspective, slavery was not consistent with the core ideology of republicanism, which valued unalienable rights and liberty. The Union wanted to gradually abolish slavery (for many reasons) through method of non-extension, which aimed to end slavery by containing it. Contrary to common belief, the abolitionist movement in the North was not pro-African American or particularly morally driven. Despite slavery being absolved in the North by 1804, anti-black sentiment and racism (not only against African Americans, but also immigrants) was still rampant. The Civil War did not start out as a war over slavery, instead it was a war that aimed at preserving the Union. The North essentially used slavery as a justification for war. This is evident in the North’s sudden shift from their pro-slavery ideals to their sudden abolitionist ideologies. When The Liberator, by William Lloyd Garrison was published in 1831, he represented a new voice that was insistent on ending slavery and advocating for enfranchisement. At this point, he was a minority, being so moralistic and immediate in his approach to abolishing slavery. He was disliked by most Northerners and ended up being run out of town. However, he did alter the dialogue of slavery in the North and invoked a new sense of thinking regarding slavery and the values of the practice. Still, at this time, many Northerners were pro-slavery, however, by 1852 when Uncle Tom’s Cabin, by Harriet Beecher Stowe, was published, Northerners responded favorably to her message, with it becoming a best seller. Within the span of twenty years, the North had gone from being accepting of slavery to openly opposing it (Findlay).
While all colonies, North and South, at some point were complicit in the slave trade, Southern colonies, with their warmer climates and fertile land, tended to be more dependent on slave labor as their economies were driven by agriculture, specifically the cotton and tobacco trade. With agriculture being so profitable as a result of slave labor, most southerners were set in their agricultural lifestyle and did not see the need for industrialization. Contrarily, as time passed, the Northern colonies, which were geographically less suited for farming, became progressively less dependent on agriculture, and instead began to embrace urbanization and industrialization. With the rapid construction of factories and infrastructures such as railroads, manufacturing and overseas exports became the backbone of the Northern economy. “Between 1800 and 1860, the percentage of [northern] laborers working in agricultural pursuits dropped drastically from 70% to 40%” (Battlefields). This major economic transition, as well as the freedom and opportunity that America seemed to offer, attracted many immigrants from European countries. As a result, in the North, slaves, were essentially replaced by these immigrant laborers and by free blacks from the South. In addition to this, the North had adapted a free labor ideology, which essentially directly opposed the idea of slavery. These economic divergences led the North and South to slowly grow apart in their principles and interests, which contributed to the divisive nature of the US. The sectionalism resulted in an obvious split between the North and South-- citizens were no longer just “Americans”, they were Northerners or Southerners.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
The sectionalism between the Northerners and Southerners was apparent in government as well, with Congress slowly falling apart. This can be seen in the attack of Senator Charles Sumner by Congressman Preston Brooks. Brooks took it upon himself to advocate for slavery by beating the anti-slavery senator, Sumner, with a cane. This incident drew a drastically polarized response from the American public regarding the expansion of slavery in the US. It was symbolic of the discourse that was present in the public, as well as the government. In 1850, California applied to the Union and entered as a free state. However, at the time there was no Southern state applying to become a slave state, resulting in an imbalance, with 15 slave states and 16 free states (Findlay). Consequently, in this compromise, the Fugitive Slave Law was passed, but nine Northern states had already passed laws refusing to cooperate with the federal laws for recapture. This showed the present disjunction between national and state laws. This compromise also allowed for any future state applying to the union to be determined as a free or slave state by method of popular sovereignty. This was problematic as any state regardless of location could become a slave or free state. Conflict emerged in 1854, in Kansas, when pro-slavery and anti-slavery advocates rushed to Kansas to influence the decision. This culminated in the conflict Bleeding Kansas, which was essentially a mini civil war, six years before the actual Civil War (Findlay).
In addition to this incident, the Supreme Court's decision on the 1857, Dred Scott v. Sandford case, added heat to the tension already surrounding the issue of slavery. A slave, Dred Scott sued for his freedom because his owner had lived in a free state for four years, the state courts made opposing decisions so the case went to The Supreme Court. The Supreme Court made a pro-Southern defense of slavery by making two points: the federal government lacked the power to ban slavery and that African Americans, regardless of being free or a slave, weren’t citizens so therefore had no right to bring something to court. “The blacks had no rights which the white man was bound to respect” (Chief Justice Taney). This decision opened all territories up to slavery once again, allowing for expansion. Therefore, in this sense, the central cause of conflict between the North and South was the issue of slavery, but it was only in the expansion that slavery truly became a reason for war. During this time the national parties are beginning to break down with the Democrats and Whigs, forming inner sectional Northern and Southern branches. This results in the rise of the Republican party, represented by Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln took advantage of the splits within the Democratic party, and won the 1860 election through a plurality of the vote. Lincoln’s victory triggered declarations of secession by several slave states, and the formation of the Confederate States. The Confederacy, as well as the declarations of secession were not acknowledged by the North. Lincoln was not anti-slavery, instead he was primarily concerned with the preservation of the Union. “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery” (1862, Letter to Horace Greeley).
Lincoln like many Northerners's main goal was to unify America into a single, industrialized America. Therefore, it can be argued that the abolition of slavery was merely an unintentional result of the war, not the main cause for war. The Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 did not free a single slave, and instead only applied to states where Congress had already outlawed slavery and to the states that had already seceded from the Union. It did not apply to the border states where the slavery was a problem. The effect of the proclamation was a more symbolic one, it changed the war into a war about secession to a war about slavery. It declared that freed slaves could fight for the Union. The Civil War had changed from “white man’s war” to the war for African American’s to earn their freedom and citizenship (Proud Shoes). As Frederick Douglass said once a black man had fought for the US, “there is no power on earth that can deny that he has earned the right to citizenship”. By the end of the Civil War, over 180,000 black men had fought on the Union’s side (National Archives). The proclamation showed that the Civil War wasn’t simply about unifying the nation, but about slavery, and was strategically used to increase morale and the number of soldiers on the Union’s side to win the war.
The differences surrounding slavery, economic development, and political ideals between 1740 and 1865, resulted in America becoming a “house divided”. While many may believe that the North’s anti-slavery stance was based on moral principles, arguing that it was the only factor in the emergence Union’s abolitionist ideals would be an incorrect generalization. Tensions between the North and South grew regarding slavery and secession due their increasingly diverging interests regarding slavery and industrialization eventually resulting in the Civil War.
Stuck on your essay?
