Sectionalism In Nineteenth Century America

Sectionalism in nineteenth century America can best be defined through analogy. The root of all issues in America at the time was like a great chain constricting the country along the line geographically separating the North and South. The chain was made up of many links, both large and small, reflecting issues perceived by both sides of the tension. Though, regardless of size, each link played its part in further constricting all ties between the North and South until, eventually, the pressure grew too large and the South completely broke away from the North and rallied to war against it. Quite possibly the greatest proverbial link in the chain centered on the issue of slavery. While the North’s economy was rapidly urbanizing, the South still …show more content…
Though the exact beginning can be a bit subjective to some, it can be assumed that the Missouri Compromise was the first tangible dispute that played a key role in sectionalism. With America’s eye turned away from conflict with Europe and towards expansion within its own continent, many changes were planned by the Republican party which left little traditional values, like slavery, untouched (Craven 7). Many Northerners despised slavery. Whether they were Republican or simply Christian made no matter because it seemed obvious that exploiting those African-Americans was a violation of basic human rights (Craven 17). It should come as no surprise then that much effort was put into preventing the spread of slavery across the Midwest in the form of the Missouri Compromise. The traditional balance between slave states and free states was vulnerable to imbalance when Missouri requested admittance into the United States, it being a slave state (Brinkley 188). The North wanted to limit the spread of slavery across the Midwest but they wanted to admit Maine as a new state as well, so, naturally, a compromise was made (Brinkley 188-189). Though this settlement ended rather peacefully, it certainly would not be the end of the slavery debate nor would it end further division of the …show more content…
With Calhoun creating the mindset that each individual State should have the last say in deeming whether or not a passed law is constitutional, and the ability completely nullify a law passed by Congress, a new pro-Confederacy pride is born (Brinkley 206). This mindset would set the foundation of much of the reasoning that prideful Southern aristocrats and democrats would use to help rally the region to push for secession, rather than submission, from their ‘oppressive’ Northern brothers (Craven 3). With this newfound independent pride, South Carolinians rallied and voted to nullify two tariffs set forth by Congress due to the fact that they felt it was the root of their economic standstill. In order to safely diffuse this situation, Clay daftly settled the issue with a compromise consisting of a gradually lowering tariff, though the State still stubbornly disputed parts of the compromise to have the final say in the matter (Brinkley 207). Even though this issue was again resolved favorably for both regions, the South realized that actions as a unified force against the suppressive North were most efficacious, as opposed to resistance independently. They would be sure to use this to their advantage when sectional pressure