'To what extent had the USA become two different societies by the eve of the Civil War?'

Authors Avatar

James Moore

‘To what extent had the USA become two different societies by the eve of the Civil War?’

The traditional interpretation of the American Civil War holds that the states of North America had become divided into two camps representing two very different societies by the 1860’s.  These societies had little common ground, with different economic and social infrastructures and were divided by the issue of slavery.  This argument claims, therefore, that slave states and free states were bound to come into conflict since the north and the south were ‘divided across a fault line delineated by the institution of slavery’.  The conflict indeed became a Civil War in 1861, fought between two separate geographical regions, with most northerners on the side of the Union and most southerners on the side of the Confederacy.   Even in some cases, such as in Kentucky and Missouri, the war divided families and brother fought against brother.  However, some historians have challenged this traditional interpretation of the Civil War.  For example, recent revisionist historians such as Susan-Mary Grant claim that historians writing on the Civil War in the past often exaggerated the state of the Union and overemphasise how weak it was before the outbreak of war.  She claims that although the north and the south had their differences, the union was not as divided as previous historians made it out to be and, over time, the image of the Civil War has been distorted to overemphasise the differences between the two sides.

        

The popular view of the American Civil War is that it was fought between a progressive and modern society in the north against a traditional hierarchical society in the south, which still clung to its ‘peculiar institution’ of slavery.  This view presents the north as industrial and urban while the south was agricultural and rural, with one-quarter of northerners living in urban areas in 1860, compared to only one-tenth of southerners.  However, this traditional view disregards the fact that the north was still very much agricultural, with 40% of the region’s workers employed in the agricultural sector of the economy.  It is true that in the previous 40 years before the Civil War, the northern states of America were moving towards urbanisation, with a powerful manufacturing sector.  By 1860, 15 of the largest 16 cities in the USA were located in the states that remained loyal to the Union and the urban population in America grew 3 times faster than the rural population from 1810-1860, going from 6% to 20% of the total.  Industrialisation encouraged immigration to northern towns in America and immigration resulted in the north and the south of America moving further apart in terms of social structure.  Immigration was by far the largest factor that accounted for the growth in population in the USA, which increased by 15 million between 1840 and 1860.  Between 1830 and 1860, 5 million people from Europe immigrated to the USA, with the vast majority of these immigrants settling in northern towns such as New York and Boston.  By 1860, 1 in 6 northerners were foreign born, compared to 1 in 30 in the south.  When Great Britain ruled the country, the largest city was Philadelphia with a population of around 42,000.  By 1850, New York was the largest city in the country, with a population of over 500,000.  In comparison, the largest town in the south was New Orleans, with a population of 150,000. However, although the north was clearly more industrial than the south, the north was still in the development process of industrialisation, as only 4 northern manufacturing industries employed over 50,000 people and in 1860, 3 in 4 northerners lived outside towns with a population greater than 2,500.  This shows that the north was still reliant on the agricultural sector of the economy and the poplar view of the north as an urban society, rather than an agricultural society during the civil war, is therefore misguided.  As the north was still a predominantly rural society before the civil war, and was only moving towards an era of urbanisation, similarities can be drawn between the north and the south because the two regions were still reliant on the agricultural sector of the economy.  This shows that the claim that the US had become two separate societies by the eve of the civil war is weak in this instance as the supposedly two separate societies were operating similar economic infrastructures.

Industrialisation nevertheless was extremely slow in the south and therefore more resources were devoted to rural purposes and, as job opportunities were not as frequent as those in the north, immigrants were reluctant to move to the south of the USA.  Immigration allowed for new views and cultures to impact on society and, with immigration figures being high in the north, and low in the south, a sense of unity and a claim of a uniquely ‘American experience’ developed in the southern regions of the country.  Immigration could account for the fact that the two social structures in the north and the south became increasingly different, as the north became more tolerant of immigrant populations because they would provide cheap labour, but with this offer of cheap labour, came with it different cultures, languages and religions, which increased the spectrum of ethnicity in northern society.  Increased immigration intensified the ethnic and religious divisions within the working class.  Before 1840, ¾ of immigrants were Protestants, mainly from Britain, but the religious and occupational mix changed dramatically over the next two decades.  2/3 of the new immigrants were Catholics from Ireland and Germany after 1840.  Historians have differed on the topic of immigration, with more sceptical historians such as Gary W. Gallagher arguing that an increase in immigrant populations would increase productivity and increase the chances of the north gaining a majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate.  Peter Batty, however, is keen to point out that the issues of morality and tolerance were important in the north when considering immigration, which simply wasn’t the case in the southern regions of the country.  

Join now!

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 ...

This is a preview of the whole essay