Key Concept 5.2 - Intensified by expansion and deepening regional divisions, debates over slavery and other economic, cultural, and political issues led the nation into a civil war.
- How did the North and the South react to slavery differently?
- How did debates over slavery intensify political divergence?
How did the North and the South react to slavery differently?
The North as a result of the Market Revolution in the last time period had its labor based in "free" employed labor. Despite only few owning slaves in the South, those large scale plantation owners were the heart of the Southern cotton based economy. An important thing to remember is that abolitionists gained strength but remained a vast minority and that in the South, most people did not actually own slaves. However, the tensions regarding slavery between the North and the South was more based on economic and political power motives. This can be seen with the creation of the free-soil party, a political movement to restrict expansion of slavery into the new territories of the Mexican Cession. The free-soil party did not oppose slavery on moral grounds, more so that they found it incompatible with the free labor system.
Despite widespread sentiments over slavery being dictated by economic and political motives, some abolitionists created strong campaigns against the institution of slavery during this time period. This can be seen with people like Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman and the Underground Railroad, and Harriet Beecher Stowe, who wrote the book "Uncle Tom's Cabin." These abolitionists tried fighting against slavery on moral grounds, quoting the "all men are created equal" or "natural rights of man" ideals. Other abolitionists take an overt and violent approach to fighting slavery. One such abolitionist was John Brown, which organized the raid on Harper's Ferry and started the Bleeding Kansas conflict.
With abolitionist movements gaining strength in the North, the South largely looked to justify the institution of slavery. Some argued, like John C. Calhoun, that slavery was a positive good and that it was better than the free labor system of the North. Such arguments included that plantation owners cared for their slaves outside of work while free laborers were stuck in horrible domestic lives that managers and elites had no care for. Others used racist remarks to justify slavery, seeing African Americans as "savages." Yet another justification against abolitionism is in the Dred Scott vs Sanford court case, which ruled that the Federal government had no power to make a state abolish slavery and that African Americans were not citizens. They looked at this court case as a protection of slavery through the Constitution.
How did debates over slavery intesify political divergence?
Many debates over slavery started coming in after the Mexican Cession. This gave a lot of new land, and with it potential states. Debates emerged over whether these new states should be slave or free states. One such argument was from the North side through the creation of the Free-soil party. Likewise, with the Wilmot Proviso, they pushed against the extension of slavery into the Mexican Cession. Despite the Wilmot Proviso passing the House due to a greater Northern population, it had not passed the Senate. The Senate was increasingly voting on strict partisan lines.
Nationally, they tried to glue together the two regions multiple times, but never succeeded. One of these was the Compromise of 1850. This added California as a free state, abolished slave trade in Washington D.C. used popular sovereignty to determine free or slave states in the Mexican Cession, and created the highly controversial fugitive slave law. The Compromise of 1850 intensified political divergence as the the North had started to create Personal Liberty Laws, laws that opposed the federal fugitive slave law. Another was the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which overturned the Missouri Compromise. This used popular sovereignty yet again, but applied to those two states with the expectation that Kansas would be slave and Nebraska would be free. This failed to resolve the issue as seen with John Brown's Bleeding Kansas. The Court also tried to resolve the issue with the Dred Scott decision. This ruled that African Americans were not citizens but instead property and that congress had no power over slavery in states.
As the expansion of slavery become the central issue of politics, the previous Second Party System ended. Those parties had been more concerned over creating a national economy with a federal bank, tariffs, and internal improvements but the Whigs had little ways to capture public sentiments over slavery. The new questions of extension of slavery gave birth to the Republican party, which comprised of former Whigs and free-soilers. This new Republican Party would more distinctly have a free-soiler position and better captured the current interests of the North.
With political parties emerging, the Senate split on strict partisan lines, and lack of fulfilling answers to the expansion of slavery to the new territories, the United States's composure crumbled at Abraham Lincoln's election. After winning without a single vote from the South, many Southern states felt a severe lack of representation and seceded, started with South Carolina's secession. Lincoln's election was the immediate cause to the Civil War.