Based on the readings for Weeks 2 and 3, answer the
following question: to what extent were the North and South different societies?
Consider perceptions at the time, and
the views of historians since.
Although some historians argue that the North and South were similar societies, in many ways on a practical level there were major contrasts between the two. In regards to how their economies operated, the South was dependent largely on a thriving agriculture industry fuelled by the increasing profitability of cotton plantations. By 1860, the South produced two-thirds of all the cotton grown in the world. By contrast, the North, although still largely agricultural, had a considerably more diverse economy and was willing, if not eager, to continue diversifying. The North were also generally more educated than the South, with the number of illiterate white adults in the South outnumbering those in the North nearly 2 to 1 (and this was not including blacks who were nearly all illiterate!). Another one of the major differences between the two was the prevalence of slavery. There were approximately four million slaves in the South to the seven million whites (in some states, slaves outnumbered free men!). Slavery existed in the North, but was nowhere near as prominent and was largely on the decline. Nonetheless, whether there were actual material differences between the two or not, most importantly the two perceive themselves as different and separate. It was this sentiment that ultimately led to the American Civil War.
There are two major schools of thought when comparing the antebellum North and South. The “reality of difference” thesis states that the two societies were completely different, with one based on folk culture, and the other on modernizing culture. The South was more rural, agriculturally based, had less extensive education and high illiteracy rates. The North was more urban, industry based, had more extensive education and lower illiteracy rates. In contrast, the “objective similarities” thesis claims that commonalities of law, religion, language, political system, racism and heritage outweighed any differences. However, many of these commonalities are superficial, in reality showing diversion between North and South. For example, Northern law was based on relatively consistent legal codes, with courts convicting and sentencing criminals according to precedent. Meanwhile, Southern legal codes were accompanied by codes of honour, resulting in minimal convictions, but leading to public persecution of accused criminals. Religion and politics similarly varied, with some Protestant denominations splitting into separate churches, and separate Northern and Southern candidates existing in politics.
It appears that to a great extent, the North and South were quite different, both economically and socially. Historian Bruce Levine points out that while there were economic developments in the antebellum South, they were relatively small in scale compared to the North. Thanks to its thriving cotton industry, the southern economy did not suffer, but the existence of slaves prevented economic expansion. The north had a much more diverse economy. Changes in the northern economy affected social life too – not always for the better. Men increasingly had to leave the home to seek employment and there was an increase in begging and domestic abuse. Southern society was dictated by the code of ‘honour,’ whereby one must be wary of outsiders, amongst other things. Given the factual differences in the two societies, it seems that perhaps some of the perceptions of the time may have some basis in fact. Thomas Jefferson wrote that northerners were typically more independent – this seems logical as northerners had to leave the home to seek an income. Olmsted refers to Southerners as unwelcome to new ideas and lacking in curiosity. This was most likely true because of the rules of their ‘honour code.’ While written observations from the time may have been exaggerated, it does seem that at least some of their opinions were based on fact.
Though David Potter argues that on the eve of secession there was probably more ‘cultural homogeneity in America society,’ than there was a century later, other historians argue that there was a modernizing culture existent in the north comprising of urban living and high levels of education and a ‘folk culture’ in the south which encompassed little education and a culture of slaves. Despite both being deeply racist societies, the fact that they perceived themselves to be different is deeply significant. While the North ‘modernized’ through mass immigration, the invention of the telegraph and the completion of the Erie Canal in 1825, the South was a slave society, perceived by the North to be ‘backwards.’ In the South, slavery was more than just a major presence; it dominated the economic, political and social structure. Slaves were worth more than anything else in the US apart from land and although the cotton was making the Southerners rich, the slaves were their greatest asset. While Southerners such as George Fitzhugh believed that slavery was fundamental to Southern prosperity, Northerners such as Lydia Maria Child believed that slavery was actually preventing the South from achieve the levels of growth witnessed in the North. Despite the fact that some secondary sources claim that the societies were not dissimilar, the concept that one society opposed the very thing that was at the core of the other suggests that the two were quite different.
In 1976, historian David Potter contended that on the eve of the American civil war there was “probably more cultural homogeneity...then there would be a century later.” However, contemporary views from the period paint a vivid picture of a nation that was polarised by the self-perceptions of its two very distinct societies. The issue of slavery was clearly the greatest source of polarisation between the North and the South. Political protagonists such as John Calhoun (1782 - 1850) outline Southern justifications for slavery in terms of the natural inequality of men, whilst others such as George Fitzhugh implicitly praise slavery with regard to the peaceful, plentiful and benevolent society it has created. In stark contrast, Northerners such as Frederick Law Olmsted, a journalist, emphatically write of slavery’s ruinous effect on Southern society. Instead of a society that is innovative, talented and full of enterprise, Olmstead is confronted with a hierarchical world dominated by the planter elite. In his eyes, whilst the Northerner “enjoys progress itself” and is advancing through enterprise and technology (such as the Erie Canal), the Southerner has “less curiosity,” “less originating talent,” and is frozen in that awful sin of dependency upon slavery. In addition, the Second Great Awakening can claim responsibility as a driving force of polarisation, as Evangelists such as William Lloyd Garrison passionately embraced the concept of free moral agency and endeavoured to cleanse society of the sin of slavery. Ultimately, this culminated in the 1844 chasm of the Methodist Church, a development that unsurprisingly came down to the inheritance of a slave by one Bishop Andrew. To conclude, when George Templeton Strong spoke in 1856 of “two social systems” entering a period of revolutionary conflict, he correctly reflected polarity between the North and the South, who perceived of themselves as radically different in the decades leading to the outbreak of the American civil war.
While societal similarities were present between North and South, to a large extent the North and South were different societies. The South had an agriculturally based economy, namely the cotton industry, which was intrinsically dependant upon slavery. Whereas the North was becoming more and more urbanised, with a manufacturing industry creating advances in transport, machinery and changing the social roles of men and women. With the divergence in economic growth, perceptions diverged too with the North viewing the South as uneducated (however illiteracy was more predominant in the South), lazy and backward. While the North were viewed to be violent and immoral as noted by George Fitzhugh. This difference in perception and economic, social reliance on slavery as a form of property divided the North and South, causing forms of political and religious separation.
On the physical level both societies presented similar characteristics, seen through their shared political system, legal channels, religion, history and language. One needs to look at the individual characteristics of each society, specifically the people, their work and their values, to find the real differences between the societies. The divided economies of the north and the south, one based purely around industrialization and production and the other centered around agricultural production, was a huge difference between the daily running of these societies. The nature of the work created a different mentality in northern and southern people, one society based around hard work and labor, and another around an idea of social hierarchies, property and slave ownership. The north also had a much higher level of education furthering the divide between north and south. The conflicting social values produced two completely different societies focused around different people, economies and morals.
Though antebellum North and South America possessed similar qualities, they largely differed socially and economically. The South thrived on its agriculture industry, mainly that of cotton. While the North was also involved in agriculture, it had a diverse industry to sustain its economy. The divergence between the North and South is perhaps most evident in their differing views on slavery. The South was reliant on the work of slaves to sustain its economy. Slave ownership was viewed as being the norm; a slave master was obligated to maintain the health of his slaves to ensure optimum return from the investment. However, the North saw slavery to be a form of dependency. Northerners believed that by putting an end to slavery, they would be helping the white man overcome his dependency. It was these conflicting social attitudes that contributed to much of the discord throughout America.
Though the societies of the North and the South shared numerous facets and were founded on the same basic political and religious principles, in the years leading up to the Civil War serious divisions formed between their social structures. Slavery allowed the South to develop into a society that was economically and socially dependent upon slaves, one in which the rich, slave-owning ‘slavocracy’ dominated the poor non-slave owners, and menial labour was viewed as degrading. The economy of the North however, was based on free labour, and as such was controlled by business owners, intellectuals and government officials. Similarly, due to the wealth of the cotton trade the South remained a largely agricultural society while in the North, industrialisation and the market revolution spurred a new age of cities and technological development that advanced the nature of the work force.
The most obvious difference between the North and the South is in the sphere of economics. The South was an agrarian society, producing primary resources (namely cotton) for world-wide consumption. This is juxtaposed with the North, an enterprising, industrious economy. In addition, we can observe that the Southern economy was facilitted by slave labour, whilst the North was an exclusively free-labour economy. These economic differences subsequently produced a number of irreconcilable social divisions. The south became entrenched in their perceptions of status, requiring the existence of slavery to affirm their heirarchy. Consequently, the North considered the South to be a somewhat backward society, more concerned with the (supposedly) whimsical issues of 'honour' and 'status' (folk culture) than with notions of progress and innovation.
Northern and Southern societies shared many qualities that unified them, including shared legal, religious and political institutions and also pride in the revolution and political figures such as Washington (David Potter).
However at the time of the outbreak of war, the North and South perceived themselves as fundamentally different societies. Southerners such as James Hammond believed that their states were morally and religiously superior to the North and had better equality amongst whites. Conversely Northerners such as Lydia Child and Fredrick Olmsted criticised the economic backwardness, the lazy attitude towards work and the formation of an aristocracy of cotton plantation owners that dominated the South.
Religious opposition to slavery caused division amongst churches into Southern and Northern sections, exemplifying the differences in values held by both societies. Bruce Levine outlines the growing gap between lower and middles class wealth in the North and South, suggesting both experienced wealth inequality. Furthermore Levine outlines how only the North used its' growing wealth to invest in infrastructure and cultural buildings, whereas the wealth in the South remained in the pockets of the cotton elite.
Although the North and the South were seen to have very similar foundations in terms of their heritage, political and legal systems, religion and language, they functioned on a day to day basis as very different societies. The economic structure of each society was the key point in determining the difference between the two. The south was largely agricultural and the economy was built under the principles of a slave-society, which effectively meant that the economic prosperity of the South was determined on the existence of slaves. The North however was in the midst of an industrial revolution in which it was transforming into a capitalist society focused on developments in manufacturing, integrated markets and the modernization of Northern America. The divide in economic systems consequently led to the societies diversifying in areas of education, morals and social structure.
George Templeton Strong contended that the Civil War was ineluctable due to the “conflict between the two social systems”. The social values of the North and the South are a key point of divergence between the two societies where other areas retained similarities (e.g. politics). The South had developed an earnest code of honour that governed its white citizens, and viewed physical labour as demeaning. Contrastingly, the North rejected indolence in any form, and viewed the South’s dependence on slavery as “inconsistent with economy” (Lydia Maria Child). These differences influenced the tension between North and South leading up to and during the Civil War.
History, religion, language, political and legal systems are all superficial similarities between the antebellum North and South. Despite all these commonalities the South and the North perceived themselves as separate entities. The north embraced the industrial revolution and developed a market economy using immigrants as the source if most menial labour. The south on the other hand produced 2/3 of the world’s cotton it had no incentive to change its successful slave society to suit Northern ideals. The South perceived there social system as superior being devoid of menial labor for whites (in theory.) The issue of slavery eventually led to the split of the Protestant church into Northern and Southern factions. Other differences include legal systems based on precedent in the North and a legal system based on honour in the South. Education was also significantly different with white illiteracy rates in the South being double those in the North.
In many ways, the North and the South could appear at first glance very similar, highlighted by the two rival Presidents of the North and South respectively, Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis, both having been born in Kentucky. Both took incredible influence and gave infinite respect to the founding fathers. But since before independence, different economic structures underlying the two regions had been leading to a divergence in the cultures of northern and southern states of the Union. Although both systems were dominated largely by agriculture, the steady growth of industry and free labour, which enabled the development and expansion of a new class of white citizens - the foundations of a modern middle class. In contrast, the southern dependence, of over two centuries, on slavery had led to a different economic model to the north's, where the white people felt it was beneath them to work, and could not understand why the northerners would do such labour, when they could hire slaves. In contrast the north saw the southern whites as lazy, because to get rich in the north one thought they would need to work their way up, and could not do so by merely buying a slave.
Religion, and intellectual thought, had also diverged, with the north's attitude being largely one of either support or indifference to abolitionists, through the promise of personal salvation and the idea of human equality, at least regarding the ownership of an individual, whereas the south saw any threat to slavery as a threat to their state-rights, which were seen as being constitutionally guaranteed. It is true that the southern economy required slaves for it to function as it always had, and therefore one can see how the south may have seen it as an attack on the south, not a movement to free slaves. And it is largely around the issue of slavery, whether seen in moral or economical terms by southerners or northerners, that the two civilisations differed.
When discussing the differences between the North and South of America at the time of the civil war, one must first take into account the things they had in common. Issues of religion, political system, history and language are all found to be similar on both sides. However the differences between the two stem more from each side's view of the other, and their perception of themselves, than their historical and political differences. The North viewed the south as backwards, unkempt and unmotivated, whereas the South had a similar negative view of the North. Each state thought themselves in the right when it came to contested issues such as slavery and the economy, and did not yield in this field, with the modernizing, industrial North feeling that slavery led to a stagnant economy due to the lack of turnover in profits and goods. There was also a bitter feeling in the South towards the North due to tarrifs and trading taxes, that they felt were in place purely to benefit the North and impede the south. Essentially, on the surface, the two sides were quite similar, but it is their attitudes to money, social heirachy and economy that show how different the two societies really were.
During the 1850's many political decisions intended as compromise eventually led to further polarisation of the North and South.
The Fugitive Slave Act (1850) was a concession to the South's was of life. However, the North saw this as a violation of their state's sovereignty and some enacted State Personal Liberty laws to nullify federal law. This reaction offended the South. The Kansas Nebraska Act (1854) was seen by Northerns as reversing the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Northerns were further enraged by Southern attempts to rig democratic votes in each state to determine the outcome of each act (Bleeding Kansas).
These and other political decisions increased the tension between the North and South. To blame the civil was on just these political factors would be ignoring these society's opposing economic, legal and social systems. These systems lead to a difference in underlying values, which caused both political and religious schisms.
Randall and Craven whilst acknowledging the problems caused by political compromise prior to the war overlook the inherent differences between the two societies that this legislation exacerbated. Thus I would suggest their assessment is not entirely valid. (21465355)
Name: Sheldon Oski
ReplyDeleteStudent ID: 22069844
Although some historians argue that the North and South were similar societies, in many ways on a practical level there were major contrasts between the two. In regards to how their economies operated, the South was dependent largely on a thriving agriculture industry fuelled by the increasing profitability of cotton plantations. By 1860, the South produced two-thirds of all the cotton grown in the world. By contrast, the North, although still largely agricultural, had a considerably more diverse economy and was willing, if not eager, to continue diversifying. The North were also generally more educated than the South, with the number of illiterate white adults in the South outnumbering those in the North nearly 2 to 1 (and this was not including blacks who were nearly all illiterate!). Another one of the major differences between the two was the prevalence of slavery. There were approximately four million slaves in the South to the seven million whites (in some states, slaves outnumbered free men!). Slavery existed in the North, but was nowhere near as prominent and was largely on the decline. Nonetheless, whether there were actual material differences between the two or not, most importantly the two perceive themselves as different and separate. It was this sentiment that ultimately led to the American Civil War.
There are two major schools of thought when comparing the antebellum North and South. The “reality of difference” thesis states that the two societies were completely different, with one based on folk culture, and the other on modernizing culture. The South was more rural, agriculturally based, had less extensive education and high illiteracy rates. The North was more urban, industry based, had more extensive education and lower illiteracy rates. In contrast, the “objective similarities” thesis claims that commonalities of law, religion, language, political system, racism and heritage outweighed any differences. However, many of these commonalities are superficial, in reality showing diversion between North and South. For example, Northern law was based on relatively consistent legal codes, with courts convicting and sentencing criminals according to precedent. Meanwhile, Southern legal codes were accompanied by codes of honour, resulting in minimal convictions, but leading to public persecution of accused criminals. Religion and politics similarly varied, with some Protestant denominations splitting into separate churches, and separate Northern and Southern candidates existing in politics.
ReplyDeleteIt appears that to a great extent, the North and South were quite different, both economically and socially. Historian Bruce Levine points out that while there were economic developments in the antebellum South, they were relatively small in scale compared to the North. Thanks to its thriving cotton industry, the southern economy did not suffer, but the existence of slaves prevented economic expansion. The north had a much more diverse economy. Changes in the northern economy affected social life too – not always for the better. Men increasingly had to leave the home to seek employment and there was an increase in begging and domestic abuse. Southern society was dictated by the code of ‘honour,’ whereby one must be wary of outsiders, amongst other things. Given the factual differences in the two societies, it seems that perhaps some of the perceptions of the time may have some basis in fact. Thomas Jefferson wrote that northerners were typically more independent – this seems logical as northerners had to leave the home to seek an income. Olmsted refers to Southerners as unwelcome to new ideas and lacking in curiosity. This was most likely true because of the rules of their ‘honour code.’ While written observations from the time may have been exaggerated, it does seem that at least some of their opinions were based on fact.
ReplyDeleteThough David Potter argues that on the eve of secession there was probably more ‘cultural homogeneity in America society,’ than there was a century later, other historians argue that there was a modernizing culture existent in the north comprising of urban living and high levels of education and a ‘folk culture’ in the south which encompassed little education and a culture of slaves. Despite both being deeply racist societies, the fact that they perceived themselves to be different is deeply significant. While the North ‘modernized’ through mass immigration, the invention of the telegraph and the completion of the Erie Canal in 1825, the South was a slave society, perceived by the North to be ‘backwards.’ In the South, slavery was more than just a major presence; it dominated the economic, political and social structure. Slaves were worth more than anything else in the US apart from land and although the cotton was making the Southerners rich, the slaves were their greatest asset. While Southerners such as George Fitzhugh believed that slavery was fundamental to Southern prosperity, Northerners such as Lydia Maria Child believed that slavery was actually preventing the South from achieve the levels of growth witnessed in the North. Despite the fact that some secondary sources claim that the societies were not dissimilar, the concept that one society opposed the very thing that was at the core of the other suggests that the two were quite different.
ReplyDeleteIn 1976, historian David Potter contended that on the eve of the American civil war there was “probably more cultural homogeneity...then there would be a century later.” However, contemporary views from the period paint a vivid picture of a nation that was polarised by the self-perceptions of its two very distinct societies. The issue of slavery was clearly the greatest source of polarisation between the North and the South. Political protagonists such as John Calhoun (1782 - 1850) outline Southern justifications for slavery in terms of the natural inequality of men, whilst others such as George Fitzhugh implicitly praise slavery with regard to the peaceful, plentiful and benevolent society it has created. In stark contrast, Northerners such as Frederick Law Olmsted, a journalist, emphatically write of slavery’s ruinous effect on Southern society. Instead of a society that is innovative, talented and full of enterprise, Olmstead is confronted with a hierarchical world dominated by the planter elite. In his eyes, whilst the Northerner “enjoys progress itself” and is advancing through enterprise and technology (such as the Erie Canal), the Southerner has “less curiosity,” “less originating talent,” and is frozen in that awful sin of dependency upon slavery. In addition, the Second Great Awakening can claim responsibility as a driving force of polarisation, as Evangelists such as William Lloyd Garrison passionately embraced the concept of free moral agency and endeavoured to cleanse society of the sin of slavery. Ultimately, this culminated in the 1844 chasm of the Methodist Church, a development that unsurprisingly came down to the inheritance of a slave by one Bishop Andrew. To conclude, when George Templeton Strong spoke in 1856 of “two social systems” entering a period of revolutionary conflict, he correctly reflected polarity between the North and the South, who perceived of themselves as radically different in the decades leading to the outbreak of the American civil war.
ReplyDeleteWhile societal similarities were present between North and South, to a large extent the North and South were different societies. The South had an agriculturally based economy, namely the cotton industry, which was intrinsically dependant upon slavery. Whereas the North was becoming more and more urbanised, with a manufacturing industry creating advances in transport, machinery and changing the social roles of men and women. With the divergence in economic growth, perceptions diverged too with the North viewing the South as uneducated (however illiteracy was more predominant in the South), lazy and backward. While the North were viewed to be violent and immoral as noted by George Fitzhugh. This difference in perception and economic, social reliance on slavery as a form of property divided the North and South, causing forms of political and religious separation.
ReplyDeleteOn the physical level both societies presented similar characteristics, seen through their shared political system, legal channels, religion, history and language. One needs to look at the individual characteristics of each society, specifically the people, their work and their values, to find the real differences between the societies. The divided economies of the north and the south, one based purely around industrialization and production and the other centered around agricultural production, was a huge difference between the daily running of these societies. The nature of the work created a different mentality in northern and southern people, one society based around hard work and labor, and another around an idea of social hierarchies, property and slave ownership. The north also had a much higher level of education furthering the divide between north and south. The conflicting social values produced two completely different societies focused around different people, economies and morals.
ReplyDeleteThough antebellum North and South America possessed similar qualities, they largely differed socially and economically. The South thrived on its agriculture industry, mainly that of cotton. While the North was also involved in agriculture, it had a diverse industry to sustain its economy. The divergence between the North and South is perhaps most evident in their differing views on slavery. The South was reliant on the work of slaves to sustain its economy. Slave ownership was viewed as being the norm; a slave master was obligated to maintain the health of his slaves to ensure optimum return from the investment. However, the North saw slavery to be a form of dependency. Northerners believed that by putting an end to slavery, they would be helping the white man overcome his dependency. It was these conflicting social attitudes that contributed to much of the discord throughout America.
ReplyDeleteThough the societies of the North and the South shared numerous facets and were founded on the same basic political and religious principles, in the years leading up to the Civil War serious divisions formed between their social structures. Slavery allowed the South to develop into a society that was economically and socially dependent upon slaves, one in which the rich, slave-owning ‘slavocracy’ dominated the poor non-slave owners, and menial labour was viewed as degrading. The economy of the North however, was based on free labour, and as such was controlled by business owners, intellectuals and government officials. Similarly, due to the wealth of the cotton trade the South remained a largely agricultural society while in the North, industrialisation and the market revolution spurred a new age of cities and technological development that advanced the nature of the work force.
ReplyDeleteThe most obvious difference between the North and the South is in the sphere of economics. The South was an agrarian society, producing primary resources (namely cotton) for world-wide consumption. This is juxtaposed with the North, an enterprising, industrious economy. In addition, we can observe that the Southern economy was facilitted by slave labour, whilst the North was an exclusively free-labour economy. These economic differences subsequently produced a number of irreconcilable social divisions. The south became entrenched in their perceptions of status, requiring the existence of slavery to affirm their heirarchy. Consequently, the North considered the South to be a somewhat backward society, more concerned with the (supposedly) whimsical issues of 'honour' and 'status' (folk culture) than with notions of progress and innovation.
ReplyDeleteNorthern and Southern societies shared many qualities that unified them, including shared legal, religious and political institutions and also pride in the revolution and political figures such as Washington (David Potter).
ReplyDeleteHowever at the time of the outbreak of war, the North and South perceived themselves as fundamentally different societies. Southerners such as James Hammond believed that their states were morally and religiously superior to the North and had better equality amongst whites. Conversely Northerners such as Lydia Child and Fredrick Olmsted criticised the economic backwardness, the lazy attitude towards work and the formation of an aristocracy of cotton plantation owners that dominated the South.
Religious opposition to slavery caused division amongst churches into Southern and Northern sections, exemplifying the differences in values held by both societies. Bruce Levine outlines the growing gap between lower and middles class wealth in the North and South, suggesting both experienced wealth inequality. Furthermore Levine outlines how only the North used its' growing wealth to invest in infrastructure and cultural buildings, whereas the wealth in the South remained in the pockets of the cotton elite.
Although the North and the South were seen to have very similar foundations in terms of their heritage, political and legal systems, religion and language, they functioned on a day to day basis as very different societies. The economic structure of each society was the key point in determining the difference between the two. The south was largely agricultural and the economy was built under the principles of a slave-society, which effectively meant that the economic prosperity of the South was determined on the existence of slaves. The North however was in the midst of an industrial revolution in which it was transforming into a capitalist society focused on developments in manufacturing, integrated markets and the modernization of Northern America. The divide in economic systems consequently led to the societies diversifying in areas of education, morals and social structure.
ReplyDeleteGeorge Templeton Strong contended that the Civil War was ineluctable due to the “conflict between the two social systems”. The social values of the North and the South are a key point of divergence between the two societies where other areas retained similarities (e.g. politics). The South had developed an earnest code of honour that governed its white citizens, and viewed physical labour as demeaning. Contrastingly, the North rejected indolence in any form, and viewed the South’s dependence on slavery as “inconsistent with economy” (Lydia Maria Child). These differences influenced the tension between North and South leading up to and during the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteHistory, religion, language, political and legal systems are all superficial similarities between the antebellum North and South. Despite all these commonalities the South and the North perceived themselves as separate entities. The north embraced the industrial revolution and developed a market economy using immigrants as the source if most menial labour. The south on the other hand produced 2/3 of the world’s cotton it had no incentive to change its successful slave society to suit Northern ideals. The South perceived there social system as superior being devoid of menial labor for whites (in theory.) The issue of slavery eventually led to the split of the Protestant church into Northern and Southern factions. Other differences include legal systems based on precedent in the North and a legal system based on honour in the South. Education was also significantly different with white illiteracy rates in the South being double those in the North.
ReplyDeleteJames Matcott - 23431369
ReplyDeleteIn many ways, the North and the South could appear at first glance very similar, highlighted by the two rival Presidents of the North and South respectively, Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis, both having been born in Kentucky. Both took incredible influence and gave infinite respect to the founding fathers. But since before independence, different economic structures underlying the two regions had been leading to a divergence in the cultures of northern and southern states of the Union. Although both systems were dominated largely by agriculture, the steady growth of industry and free labour, which enabled the development and expansion of a new class of white citizens - the foundations of a modern middle class. In contrast, the southern dependence, of over two centuries, on slavery had led to a different economic model to the north's, where the white people felt it was beneath them to work, and could not understand why the northerners would do such labour, when they could hire slaves. In contrast the north saw the southern whites as lazy, because to get rich in the north one thought they would need to work their way up, and could not do so by merely buying a slave.
Religion, and intellectual thought, had also diverged, with the north's attitude being largely one of either support or indifference to abolitionists, through the promise of personal salvation and the idea of human equality, at least regarding the ownership of an individual, whereas the south saw any threat to slavery as a threat to their state-rights, which were seen as being constitutionally guaranteed. It is true that the southern economy required slaves for it to function as it always had, and therefore one can see how the south may have seen it as an attack on the south, not a movement to free slaves. And it is largely around the issue of slavery, whether seen in moral or economical terms by southerners or northerners, that the two civilisations differed.
When discussing the differences between the North and South of America at the time of the civil war, one must first take into account the things they had in common. Issues of religion, political system, history and language are all found to be similar on both sides.
ReplyDeleteHowever the differences between the two stem more from each side's view of the other, and their perception of themselves, than their historical and political differences. The North viewed the south as backwards, unkempt and unmotivated, whereas the South had a similar negative view of the North. Each state thought themselves in the right when it came to contested issues such as slavery and the economy, and did not yield in this field, with the modernizing, industrial North feeling that slavery led to a stagnant economy due to the lack of turnover in profits and goods.
There was also a bitter feeling in the South towards the North due to tarrifs and trading taxes, that they felt were in place purely to benefit the North and impede the south.
Essentially, on the surface, the two sides were quite similar, but it is their attitudes to money, social heirachy and economy that show how different the two societies really were.
Samantha Brimacombe 22641394
During the 1850's many political decisions intended as compromise eventually led to further polarisation of the North and South.
ReplyDeleteThe Fugitive Slave Act (1850) was a concession to the South's was of life. However, the North saw this as a violation of their state's sovereignty and some enacted State Personal Liberty laws to nullify federal law. This reaction offended the South.
The Kansas Nebraska Act (1854) was seen by Northerns as reversing the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Northerns were further enraged by Southern attempts to rig democratic votes in each state to determine the outcome of each act (Bleeding Kansas).
These and other political decisions increased the tension between the North and South. To blame the civil was on just these political factors would be ignoring these society's opposing economic, legal and social systems. These systems lead to a difference in underlying values, which caused both political and religious schisms.
Randall and Craven whilst acknowledging the problems caused by political compromise prior to the war overlook the inherent differences between the two societies that this legislation exacerbated. Thus I would suggest their assessment is not entirely valid. (21465355)