• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

How substantial were the differences between the North and South on the eve of the Civil War?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Clare Ford How substantial were the differences between the North and South on the eve of the Civil War? The differences between the Northern and Southern halves of the United States were substantial on the eve of the Civil War. Both sides detested the other for reasons originating from as far back as the 1840. Sectional tensions had grown, with both Northern and Southern States provoking each other into conflict over their differences. Economic, social, political and cultural contrasts led to the unchangeable disintegration of relations between the states and so their union in the years following the Fort Sumter fiasco of 1860. But these differences had been there for much longer before they caused such problems. Northerners demanded high tariffs on imports to protect their goods from cheap foreign competition. The South, however, wanted just the opposite: low tariffs on the many goods it imported. The persistent conflict over the tariff was crucial because at the time the federal government had few other sources of revenue. Neither personal nor corporate income taxes existed. Thus the tariffs funded the turnpikes, railroads, and canals that were so important to Northern industrialization and Western expansion. The South preferred to do without these improvements in return for lower tariffs. ...read more.

Middle

The South's response to this was embodied by the 1832 South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification, which accused the North of victimising the culture and Southern states, and of arbitrarily imposing prohibitive taxes on cotton and Southern goods. Later, the South particularly John Calhoun, in his objections to Henry Clay's 1850 Compromise which was to placate sectional antagonises accused their northern neighbours of a long list of offences. The South claimed that it was the victim of restrictive tariffs on Southern products, the implementation of the apparently abolitionist Personal Liberty Laws, and that Northern aggression had been manifested in the Wilmot Proviso which was favoured by free soilers and the Republican Party. The Missouri Compromise which allowed Missouri the 24th state to become a slave state was, in Calhoun's view offensive and repulsive to the decent and civilised inhabitants of the South. The North was enraged by Calhoun's protest in the face of what had appeared to be a successful compromise. They believed that Clay a champion of Southern rights had handled the situation deftly and without overdue bias, although there were obviously clauses that they ardently disagreed with. Sectional tension in America graduated from focusing on slavery and began to concentrate on the notion of Slave Power. ...read more.

Conclusion

By 1860, the differences between the North and South had become so great that Northerners and Southerners felt as if they belonged to two different countries. For two halves of a union to posses such different qualities and ways of life it was almost impossible to avoid civil war. But slavery in the South antagonised the North for example with the Fugitive Slave Act and the North provoked the South with the Abolitionists. With more accommodating compromises and more astute president's war may have been avoided. However the Union could not exist for much longer the way it was with such division. It was unlikely the South would give up its profitable way of life but also as impossible, that the North would lay down its morals i.e. slavery and economic views. Southerners had no desire to abandon a system on which their entire economy depended. Up to 1860, only a few extremists in the South wanted to create a separate Southern country. Moderates of both North and South hoped that a compromise could be reached over their differences about slavery and taxes. But instead the fight over slavery contributed extensively to starting the civil war. The war is sometimes called "the war of Southern Independence" showing the union was divided because the South wanted to break away. Civil War became inescapable and a necessary to resolve the North and South's issues once and for all. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. Many peoples have contributed to the development of the United States of America, a ...

    For the majority of the population, New Deal legislation defined minimum standards of living: the Fair Labor Standards Act set MINIMUM WAGE and maximum hour limitations and included a prohibition on child labor in interstate commerce; the Social Security Act (see SOCIAL SECURITY)

  2. How substantial were the differences between the North and South on the eve of ...

    Industry in the North was making rapid progress; there was urbanisation and big cities such as Chicago were taking form. However the North was still agricultural as well as being industrialised. The south also had made some progress, however not in the same way as the North.

  1. The American Civil War was not caused by real and deep rooted divisions between ...

    'communication vacuum' and all the topics were mis-represented as they were not well informed of the facts. The Southerners would trust these ideas because of what had happened in the previous years, such as Lecompton and John Brown's escapades at Harper's Ferry and Pottawotomie.

  2. In what ways and to what extent did the issue of expansion widen the ...

    Genera; Sam Houston led the Texans against a new Mexican leader General Santa Anna and they fought the Battle of Jacinto in 1836. Santa Anna was captured and was forced to agree to the freedom of Texas from Mexico. The Texans wanted to join the United States and many Southerners

  1. History of the United States

    Confederate president Jefferson DAVIS intended to fight on, but it was hopeless. The Civil War was over. A Nation Transformed: The North The war had transformed both North and South. On Jan. 1, 1863, Lincoln had issued his EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION, declaring slavery dead wherever rebellion existed (in the border states, it was terminated by later local action).

  2. In what ways was the Pacific war a racist conflict?

    This naturally evoked great anger in America, and the caption to the cartoon was taken from The Mikado and read "Let the punishment fit the crime". The implication again is of an uncivilised, unjust race that needs to be exterminated.

  1. Why did the South lose the American Civil War?

    disadvantage for many reasons including being less industrialised and having a weaker economy. All of these reasons ensured that the Confederacy was less likely to win and would be badly affected afterwards. Political leadership was an important factor in who was to win the war, with many people viewing the

  2. Was the civil warinevitable?

    Thus the southern mind set became increasingly locked in a persecution complex which they justified by evidence of a 'Northern conspiracy' to destroy their economic institution, the Wilmot proviso was one such piece of evidence even though it was not passed.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work