The south feared that immigration would lead to a change to the social structure of the region and that immigrant populations would distort the image of the south and religious homogeneity would be threatened, which was an important feature of the south. Therefore, immigration not only allowed for increased productivity in northern industries, but it emphasised the difference in tolerance between the northern and southern states of America. The breakdown of traditional social structures in the north as a result of immigration did set the north and south apart, but it would be wrong to claim that the north had become a particularly ‘tolerant’ society by 1860. Anti-Catholic and ethnic riots occurred in several of the North Eastern cities during the 1830’s and 1840’s. The worst of the these numerous riots occurred in Philadelphia in 1844, with 3 way battles between Irish Catholics, Protestants and militia left 16 dead, many wounded and 2 churches destroyed. It could be argued that in terms of ideological tolerance of change and especially immigration, the north and the south were similar in approach, but when this ideology was applied to the process of immigration itself, the north was willing to compromise and the south wasn’t. Abraham Lincoln illustrated the point after his successful election campaign that the north could not have been considered morally superior to the south over the issue of slavery: ‘I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with slavery in states where it exists’. The process of industrialisation and the subsequent consequences to society due to immigration in northern towns of America did increase the diversity in society between the north and the south, adding claim to the fact that the US had become two different societies by the eve of the civil war.
Economic systems in the north and the south were so diverse that it could be argued that they increased the social differences between the north and the south, but as some individuals such as Senator Thomas Hart Benson suggested prior to the war, these apparently ‘opposing’ economic systems could have actually brought the north and the south closer together and decreased the differences between the two regions. As the Senator argues, ‘The two halves of the Union were made for each other, as much as Adam and Eve’. The south was ideally suited to large-scale agricultural production while the north provided industrial strength. Together, a partnership would have allowed the Union to grow economically as the north and the south invested into opposing economic systems. This could have had the desired effect of the whole of the nation prospering because comparative advantages would have developed and America would possess the ability to trade with many other nations, which would inevitably reduce the differences between the north and the south.
However, the problem was that as the south produced large quantities of agricultural products and 80% of the southern population was employed in the agricultural sector, the south had to rely on the north to organise exports, because the south simply lacked the resources to do so, with only 10% of the nations manufactured output originating from the south, which contained 35% of the nations population. Businesses in the north developed the necessary trade links to export goods abroad as a result of industrialisation, which the majority of the southern traders did not have. The north would aid southern farmers in exporting goods, which many believed would decrease differences between the north and the south. Southern farmers would benefit from the transaction as it would allow them to target foreign markets and thus increase revenue, and northern merchants would also benefit because they would receive a share of the profit for their services provided. However, this was not the case because a large proportion of the profits made by exporting the goods abroad ended up with the northern merchants, which infuriated southern farmers. This shows that northern industries played an important role in the American economy because without the necessary skills to export goods, agricultural production would decrease and threaten the livelihoods of many American farmers, especially those in the south.
The additional relationship problem between the two economies was that the south also had a heightened sense of its importance in the American economy since, by the 1850’s, 90% of the cotton that Europe acquired came from the south of America and cotton production in the US accounted for more than half the country’s total exports between 1815 and 1860. This led many southerners to believe that ‘King Cotton’ was the most important aspect of the American economy and wealthy southerners refused to invest in other areas of the economy. This debate over who had the more important part to play in the economy meant that the north and south pulled apart rather than complementing each other, as had been suggested by Senator Thomas Hart Benson. ‘Cotton and slavery led the South ever further apart from the rest of the country. While the North became increasingly industrial and city-inclined, the South remained agricultural and rural in outlook’. The federal government exploited the differences between the north and the south when tariffs were placed on exports and imports. The north wanted a period of isolationism and protectionism and were pro-tariffs being placed on imports, whereas the south were strongly opposed to any form of protectionism and tariffs because the whole southern economy was based on exports of goods such as cotton and tobacco. The south believed that the imposition of tariffs led the south to be economically exploited by the north, showing that the north and the south would not pull together, which would inevitably cause dispute and possibly conflict.
The key issue in dispute was the south’s reliance on slave labour against the north’s abolition of slavery as an institution. A common view of the south prior to the Civil War was that all southerners were slave owners and the plantation was at the centre of every southerner’s life. However, this was not the case, as only 25% of southern families owned slaves and approximately 60% of these 25% owned more than 5 slaves. This could lead to the conclusion that most southerners were not involved in the slave industry and that it was only a minority of southerners that were active in the slave trade so there wasn’t a great difference between the north and the south over the issue of slavery. However, although the majority of southern families did not actually own slaves, historians such as Alan Farmer argue that those who did not own slaves were as much a part of the slave process as those who did own slaves. Families who did not own slaves accepted the ‘peculiar institution’ as a way of life and feared the consequences of abolishing slavery on southern society and were more than happy in assisting slave owners by all means possible when slaves went missing. In much of the south, the plantation was at the centre of the community and as institutional law was less established in the south than in the north, the plantation was a cohesive force and often provided judge and jury, prosecution and punisher. As cotton was America’s biggest export, low-cost methods of production were vital to keep America at the forefront of the cotton exportation business. This led cotton and slavery to become interdependent and the south relied on both slavery and cotton even more as the years went by because there seemed to be no other feasible option for the south in terms of production. Peter Batty and Peter Parish illustrate the point that slavery and cotton markets were at the heart of the southern economy as well as social structure and as the north was investing in markets which differed greatly from southern markets, the north and the south became even more distinct from one another.
While the north modernised, plantation owners did not invest their profits into machinery, but instead bought even more slaves. This not only was seen as the way to increase productivity, but also increased the owner’s social status. Individuals who owned a high number of slaves had a high status and this was deemed to be very significant in rural southern America. Honour, hierarchy, and status were very important in the traditional society of the south and even in the late 19th Century, disputes between males would often result in violence, with even state officials and Senators wishing to resolve matters in such a fashion. Violent crime was frequent in the south; for example, there was more violence in the state of Mississippi in 1850 than in all the New England states put together, despite the huge differences in populations. It was a tough way of life and slave owners often had the legal right to murder slaves and violence became part of children’s lives in the south from an early age, which was one of many aspects of southern life that northern citizens found peculiar. The industrial north looked towards the southern regions of the USA and saw ‘un-educated masses, cruelty and slavery, which was distorting the image of the USA as the land of the free’, with moral outrage in view of southern activities increasing the diversity between the two regions. This proves that northerners believed they were distinct and perhaps even morally superior to southerners because of the manner in which southerners acted and their continuation of slavery. This perceived moral difference became more pronounced as states became divided into two camps, either free states like New York, or slave states such as South Carolina.
The traditional view of the role of slaveholders in the causes of the Civil War was that they were wealthy individuals, who had a strong influence in the political and social environment in their surroundings. This view presents the south as undemocratic in comparison with the north, and emphasises the fact that the north was democratic and the south was riddled with corruption, which had its basis in slavery. However, this was not the case because although many plantation owners did have political powers, so too did wealthy individuals in the north of the country. This meant that the north and the south were not dissimilar in how powerful individuals could affect politics in their state, which is often not made clear by historians writing about the American Civil War. Plantation owners did not usually actually possess political power, with only 1 of the 8 governors of Virginia two decades prior to the Civil War, being plantation owners. Planters only held a majority in the South Carolina state legislature, showing that, in general, planters did not wield the political power that many believe they did. This adds weight to the argument that the difference in society between the north and the south were small and both the two regions held similar undemocratic processes at that same time.
Other economic and social infrastructures such as communication networks showed how the north and the south had developed into two separate societies, with facilities in the north of the country, far superior to those in the south. Historians have labelled the 1815 era as the transportation revolution. There was 9,000 miles of rail in the US in 1850, making the US the leading country in transportation throughout the world. 21,000 additional miles were laid by 1860, giving the US a larger rail network than the whole of the world combined. However, this network of communications was not evenly distributed throughout the country and prior to the civil war, the north had twice as many rail tracks as the south. Despite the call from southern newspapers and magazines to invest in communication networks, more capital was still invested into slavery and cotton markets, which were seeing steadily increasing prices each year. As the north moved towards urbanisation, the south refused to move with the north, and remained rural. This led the south to be isolated in terms of transport and communication links, which were vital for businesses to prosper and could account for why there were comparatively fewer businesses in the south. The north often exploited this view, portraying the south as an ancient institution and the fact that slavery remained in southern states made the south look inferior to the north in terms of economic and international growth.
Religion and education also differed in the north and the south, with the Protestant work ethic helping to create an environment enhancing the concept of capitalism and increasing the chances of creating an industrial and commercial colossus in the north, whereas religion was more centred around the individual in the south, and the concept of slavery contradicted religious teachings. Immigration also had an effect on religion, as many immigrants brought different religions into the USA and the north was relatively tolerant of these new beliefs, resulting in a more multi-faith society, which the south simply did not have because many southerners wanted the south to remain ‘pure’ in terms of Christian beliefs. Only half the number of white children in the south attended school as in the northern states mainly because there was a low population density in the south and children would have to travel miles to attend school. Many southern parents simply did not want their children to go to school and were not willing to pay the extra money in terms of taxation that would be required to maintain the schools. This resulted in nearly 50% of the south suffering from illiteracy and in comparison only 5% of northerners were illiterate in the 1860’s. Education and religion, two of the most important factors in society, therefore differed greatly between the north and the south. These factors show the willingness of the north to change, as they accepted different religions as a result of immigration and yet the south refused to accept immigration and education was limited, with a taboo placed on the issue of slavery in many schools. Religion and education were at the forefront of social issues in the 1850’s and the fact that the two regions applied very different policies and ideologies to the two areas shows that two different societies would naturally evolve overtime.
There were undoubtedly differences between the north and the south of the US in terms of social and economic structures prior to the Civil War. Most historians writing on the American Civil War argue that, although war was not inevitable, ideological differences between the north and the south were developing decades before the outbreak of Civil War and that, at some stage, there was likely to be conflict. Slavery was the pivotal point in the southern economy and social structure, which was a focal point of the differences between the north and the south and it was arguably the main reason for the outbreak of Civil War. In March 1865, a few weeks before Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, he stated that slavery was ‘somehow’ responsible for the start of the war. Slavery was an issue that was interconnected into southern social and economic structure because the south relied heavily on cotton and other agricultural markets to prosper, which were labour intensive and therefore, it was believed that the whole southern economy and society was reliant on slavery. The whole issue of whether there were two separate societies apparent in the USA prior to the Civil War is down to the willingness of change and to accept new ideas and ways of life into society, which is shown by the north, but not by the south over issues such as immigration, industrialisation and most importantly slavery. Even though, as Susan-Mary Grant claims, there were undoubtedly similarities between the north and the south, as they spoke the same language, shared the legal system and had the same racist views, James M. McPherson states that they were increasingly using these similarities to insult and distance each other. Even on issues such as religion, which should have unified the country, diversity occurred between the two regions, with the two largest denominations, the Methodist and Baptist Churches split into hostile northern and southern churches over the question of slavery. Recent revisionist historians, who argue that there were not two separate societies in existence in the USA, have placed the blame for the outbreak of war on blundering politicians for failing to find a compromise or solution to the impending crisis. The opinion of recent revisionist historians may go to far in terms of defending the state of the union prior to the war, but it is still a useful angle to consider because after slavery was abolished, the North and the South did pull together and unite. However, my view is also that of the vast majority of historians writing on the American civil war. There were basic ideological differences between the north and south of the USA over a wide range of issues, creating two separate societies, which resulted in the outbreak of civil war in 1861. As Alan Farmer proposes ‘The south possessed a character quite distinct from that of the north, distinct enough to qualify their region for separate nationhood’. Although war was not inevitable, the differences that were apparent between the north and the south were going to reach a point in time where they resulted in conflict of some form in order for the country to develop on an international scale. As James M. McPherson argues ‘The slavery issue would probably have caused an eventual showdown between the north and the south in any circumstances. But it was the country’s sprawling growth that made the issue so explosive’. McPherson centres the basis for the American civil war around economics and issues related to economics. Slavery increased the diversity of the two societies but more importantly, there were opposing underlying social and economic infrastructures in the north and the south, which led to two very different sets of ideologies and indeed two separate societies by the eve of the civil war in 1861.
Gary W Gallagher – The American Civil War
Gary W Gallagher – The American Civil War
Gary W Gallagher – The American Civil War
James M. McPherson – Battle Cry of Freedom - 1990
Alan Farmer – The origins of the American Civil War 1846-61 – 1996 – Page 19
Ian F.W. Beckett – The War Correspondents – The American Civil War - 1997
Alan Farmer – The origins of the American Civil War 1846-61 – 1996 – Page 17, 18
James M. McPherson – Battle Cry of Freedom - 1990
James M. McPherson – Battle Cry of Freedom - 1990
James M. McPherson – Battle Cry of Freedom - 1990
Alan Farmer - The Origins of the American Civil War 1846-61 – 1996 – Page 19
Peter Batty & Peter Parish – The Divided Union - 1987
Peter Batty & Peter Parish – The Divided Union - 1987
Ian F.W. Beckett – The War Correspondents – The American Civil War - 1997
Peter Batty & Peter Parish – The Divided Union -1987
Gary W Gallagher – The American Civil War
James M. McPherson – Battle Cry of Freedom - 1990
Alan Farmer - The Origins of the American Civil War 1846-61 – 1996