Civil War Rhetorical Analysis

1293 Words 5 Pages
The Civil War turned a once united nation into two. Though many factors played into the war, it is evident that slavery was the main reason for battle. The Civil War was inevitable because the North and South disagreed on morality of slavery, whether the institution was constitutional, and whether changing the “southern way of life” would be good or bad. William Seward, a Republican from the North, saw slavery as inhumane. A white man will be free no matter if he is native or foreign simply because of his color. Seward, in his speech The Irrepressible Conflict, explained that slavery went against the chief elements of human life. He said slavery is damaging to “man’s soul” and to the unity of the nation. His argument concerned the divide …show more content…
Stephens said that the Negro was not equal to white men and it was only right that he be subordinate. He argued that the North was fighting a principle of politics that went against what God wanted. Incredibly, there were some rare people like Hinton Helper, a North Carolinian who were opposed to slavery. Helper is not concerned with the morality of slavery so much as he is with its social and economic effects. Helper stated, “to say nothing of the sin and the shame of slavery, we believe it is a most expensive and unprofitable institution…” He further claimed that if slavery was gone, non-slaveholding whites would reap the moral benefits because they would be seen as equals. A larger concern for both North and South was the affects slavery had on the economy. Seward said a man contributed positively and efficiently when he free versus being a slave. In a slave labor society, the worker was there against his will. Though he may work hard, there was no incentive for him at the end of the day. If a slave were freed and were paid for his labor it would have led to a more productive outcome. The free man would contribute to society leading to economic and social prosperity in the

Related Documents