Slavery and Sectionalism: North Against South During the 1800s, southerners defended the institution for its productive qualities, while the northern states opposed slavery for its immorality. Positive aspects of slavery, including overall economic growth and the accessibility of crop production, led the South to side with slavery due to its beneficial traits as well as the southern social structure and a boost for the economy. The optimistic view of the South contrasted with its negative aspects in the treatment of slaves and financial insecurity. The North protested against slavery for its disadvantages since the South hurt land value, yielded huge expenses and instability in monopolies, and most importantly mistreated black slaves. Overall,
…show more content…
The gap between the rich and the poor widened, creating different slave-owning groups. Those who owned many slaves supported slavery for their monetary gain, and the absence of work allowed their children to find good education, like John C. Calhoun and Jefferson Davis. The families who owned little to no slaves, although not immersed in the economics of slavery, strove to stay above slaves in the social caste, because many poor whites were close to slaves economically. The social split between a slave and a non-slaveholding white helped the South’s population gain the majority of support for slavery. Slaves were arguably treated better in the South compared to the North, with some free blacks able to own slaves in New Orleans, and the comparison between black slaves and factory workers. The South believed “the comforts of… slaves are greatly superior to those of the English factory operatives” (Doc A). With slaves in better care than the northern factory workers, factories seemed worse than slavery, diverting the issue from slavery to the workplace in the North. The treatment of slaves in comparison to the north is exemplified by the depiction of slaves, on green land, socializing and peacefully coexisting with their owners …show more content…
However, the disadvantages in slavery’s continuance in the South and the West concerned the North, and the stress for abolition in the westward territories was heeded by the North. The North and South became polar opposites before the civil war with compromises and the influence of the Mexican-American war. The South supported the Gag Resolution, with all anti-slavery cases being tabled, and the Fugitive Slave Law, with slaves denied a jury trial and commissioners paid for not allowing the slave to be freed. The North encouraged the Wilmot Proviso, which acknowledged the southern desire for slave states in Mexico, and the Compromise of 1850, making the senate unbalanced in the favor of the North, and allowing free states in the new ceded territory from Mexico. With the disregard for the compromise of both 1820 and 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act represented the tension between the North and South before the civil war, having them fight over the debated states, while the Dred Scott Case further separated the two sides of America with the constitutional rules of slavery. With each new law against slavery, the South became fully supportive of slavery, and the North became less and less accepting of
The gap between the rich and the poor widened, creating different slave-owning groups. Those who owned many slaves supported slavery for their monetary gain, and the absence of work allowed their children to find good education, like John C. Calhoun and Jefferson Davis. The families who owned little to no slaves, although not immersed in the economics of slavery, strove to stay above slaves in the social caste, because many poor whites were close to slaves economically. The social split between a slave and a non-slaveholding white helped the South’s population gain the majority of support for slavery. Slaves were arguably treated better in the South compared to the North, with some free blacks able to own slaves in New Orleans, and the comparison between black slaves and factory workers. The South believed “the comforts of… slaves are greatly superior to those of the English factory operatives” (Doc A). With slaves in better care than the northern factory workers, factories seemed worse than slavery, diverting the issue from slavery to the workplace in the North. The treatment of slaves in comparison to the north is exemplified by the depiction of slaves, on green land, socializing and peacefully coexisting with their owners …show more content…
However, the disadvantages in slavery’s continuance in the South and the West concerned the North, and the stress for abolition in the westward territories was heeded by the North. The North and South became polar opposites before the civil war with compromises and the influence of the Mexican-American war. The South supported the Gag Resolution, with all anti-slavery cases being tabled, and the Fugitive Slave Law, with slaves denied a jury trial and commissioners paid for not allowing the slave to be freed. The North encouraged the Wilmot Proviso, which acknowledged the southern desire for slave states in Mexico, and the Compromise of 1850, making the senate unbalanced in the favor of the North, and allowing free states in the new ceded territory from Mexico. With the disregard for the compromise of both 1820 and 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act represented the tension between the North and South before the civil war, having them fight over the debated states, while the Dred Scott Case further separated the two sides of America with the constitutional rules of slavery. With each new law against slavery, the South became fully supportive of slavery, and the North became less and less accepting of