Throughout the early and mid-1800s, sectional tensions arose throughout America. Sectionalism, or the loyalty to a particular subsegment of the Nation, rather than loyalty to the United States as a whole, was a pervasive characteristic of this period. Many factors contributed to these sectional tensions, however, the most divisive factor among the parties was the controversy over slavery. Slavery during this time was largely well-accepted in the South, but typically denigrated in the North. When the institution of slavery was condemned and threatened by the North, many southerners felt that their very survival and way of life was at risk. Slavery was an overwhelming contributor to sectional tensions because of its impact on the economic, political
…show more content…
The South had been initially mostly unwilling, and subsequently largely unsuccessful, at diversifying its agrarian economy away from its dependence on cotton, and was completely reliant upon slave labor to maintain the profitability of its cotton industry. The industrialization of the North was also a much more financially successful business model than was the agrarianism in the South. The North had embraced diversification of its economy through manufacturing and trade, and its economy thus grew very rapidly. Furthermore, the free, commonly paid workers in the North, were thought to be more motivated than the largely unpaid slave laborers in the South, partially explaining the improved profitability of Northern businesses. When Adam Smith said, “the free worker is stimulated by the fear of want and the desire for betterment…[while] a slave can have no other interest, but to eat as much, and to labor as little as possible,” he supported the concept of the superior work force of Northern free, versus southern slave laborers (McPherson, 96). Moreover, the southern economy suffered from a lack of access to capital. Since plantation owners reinvested most of their earnings in slaves and land, there was little capital …show more content…
For example, Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas attempted to pass both the Kansas-Nebraska Act, as well as the Compromise of 1850. He sought to repeal the ban of slavery north of the 36 degree 30” line previously established in the Missouri Compromise and to admit California as a slave state. In so doing, he sparked political controversy creating a divide between between anti-slavery (typically Northern) and pro-slavery (typically southern) politicians. These pro-slavery laws ignited widespread anger throughout the North, creating fissures within political parties which would eventually lead to divisions within them. Additionally, the numerous Acts passed in an effort to appease each side of the slavery controversy, also undermined the Country’s overall domestic tranquility. Furthermore, in the mid 1830s, a political party called the Whigs was formed to support the supremacy of Congress over the Presidency. In the election of 1852, the Whigs from the North were represented by Winfield Scott. Scott’s antislavery reputation negated any support from the South. Alternatively, the Whigs from the South were represented by Millard Fillmore, who was supportive of slavery. The clash between the candidates on the subject of slavery was so divisive, that it led to the split in the Compromise of 1850-weakened Whig party. The party not only split over the
The South had been initially mostly unwilling, and subsequently largely unsuccessful, at diversifying its agrarian economy away from its dependence on cotton, and was completely reliant upon slave labor to maintain the profitability of its cotton industry. The industrialization of the North was also a much more financially successful business model than was the agrarianism in the South. The North had embraced diversification of its economy through manufacturing and trade, and its economy thus grew very rapidly. Furthermore, the free, commonly paid workers in the North, were thought to be more motivated than the largely unpaid slave laborers in the South, partially explaining the improved profitability of Northern businesses. When Adam Smith said, “the free worker is stimulated by the fear of want and the desire for betterment…[while] a slave can have no other interest, but to eat as much, and to labor as little as possible,” he supported the concept of the superior work force of Northern free, versus southern slave laborers (McPherson, 96). Moreover, the southern economy suffered from a lack of access to capital. Since plantation owners reinvested most of their earnings in slaves and land, there was little capital …show more content…
For example, Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas attempted to pass both the Kansas-Nebraska Act, as well as the Compromise of 1850. He sought to repeal the ban of slavery north of the 36 degree 30” line previously established in the Missouri Compromise and to admit California as a slave state. In so doing, he sparked political controversy creating a divide between between anti-slavery (typically Northern) and pro-slavery (typically southern) politicians. These pro-slavery laws ignited widespread anger throughout the North, creating fissures within political parties which would eventually lead to divisions within them. Additionally, the numerous Acts passed in an effort to appease each side of the slavery controversy, also undermined the Country’s overall domestic tranquility. Furthermore, in the mid 1830s, a political party called the Whigs was formed to support the supremacy of Congress over the Presidency. In the election of 1852, the Whigs from the North were represented by Winfield Scott. Scott’s antislavery reputation negated any support from the South. Alternatively, the Whigs from the South were represented by Millard Fillmore, who was supportive of slavery. The clash between the candidates on the subject of slavery was so divisive, that it led to the split in the Compromise of 1850-weakened Whig party. The party not only split over the