Running Head History Final Paper
Introduction
Slavery was an important aspect of economic production before the American Revolution. In deed, both the South and the North benefited immensely from the services that were provided by the slaves. In particular, the South relied heavily on slave labor in its large scale plantation production. The North on the other hand utilized slaves for domestic production due to the fact that its climate was unfavorable for Agricultural production. However, this situation changed when the North assumed a different perception of slavery from the South. This was perpetuated by various factors that are intellectual, spiritual and ethical in nature. The emergent abolitionist movement shunned the practice and advocated for the release of the slaves. This threatened the wellbeing of the South and led to heightened tensions between the two blocks. Historical studies contend that the conflicting ideals and views regarding slavery contributed greatly to the American civil war.
It is against this background that this study seeks to provide an explicit analysis of the relationship between slavery and the civil war. To enhance effective coherence in the essay, it is organized in to two parts. The first section generates an intrinsic evaluation of the status of slavery before the American Revolution. The second section then provides an exhaustive analysis of how slavery contributed to the civil war.
Slavery before the Revolution
The shortage of laborers to work on the American farms prompted the need for slavery by both the North and South. Jones et al indicates that there were huge chunks of arable land with minimal population to work on the same (56). This acute shortage of labor prompted the need for compulsory labor. Since hiring persons of European origin was relatively expensive, most settlers opted for experienced African slaves. In order to secure this status, most colonies declared slavery lifetime servitude for both the slaves and their offspring. Generally, slaves were considered a valuable commodity that provided useful services in the home, ship building and in Agriculture. It is indicated that slaves were bought from New World colonies as direct importation from Africa was considered very dangerous and difficult. Buying slaves from the new world colonies was also advantageous as they were already familiar with the western habits of work and customs. Of great importance was their capacity to survive the long periods of winter as they had already survived one climate change.
Comparatively, the North had fewer slaves than the South. This can be explained by the different economic activities that the two blocks engaged in. The south practiced large-scale Agricultural production and therefore, more slaves were needed to provide the labor. Douglass indicates that the situation in the north was different because of the harsh climate that undermined large-scale agricultural production (63). In particular, it had long winters that prevented viable agriculture. As such, sustaining slaves was considered expensive and a burden for most parts of the northern population. Most homes in the North owned a maximum of two slaves that were employed in domestic production. At this juncture, it should be acknowledged that slavery was considered prestigious and a refection of ones economic wellbeing. Additionally, Douglass ascertains that unlike the southern slavery that was largely plantation oriented, northern slavery was urban (67). Nevertheless, slavery played a central role in the economy of America, irrespective of the position that the slaves held. In this respect, the slaves that provided domestic services in the North were also important as they freed their masters and enabled them to pursue important careers in medicine, law, religion or civil service.
Slavery after the Revolution
In his review, McPherson indicates that the northern economy differed significantly from the south as the population assumed different modes of production (78). In particular, the north had a rapidly growing economy that was based on mining, family farms, commerce, industry and transportation. In addition, its population that comprised of the British, Irish, German and European immigrants was also increasing rapidly. This population was largely urban and slavery was not practiced outside the Border States. The south on the other hand was largely dominated by a plantation settlement system that relied heavily on slavery. It was characterized by few cities and minimal industrial activities, except outside the Border States. Jones et al indicates that the slave owners in the south entirely controlled the economy and politics of the region (62). Thus, the rapid increase of population and economic output in the North became a cause of concern for the southerners as it threatened their ability to continue influencing the national government. This was further compounded by the declining political activity in the region.
Previously, it is indicated that politicians from both blocks had engaged in various meetings in an effort to moderate slavery. Considering the sensitivity of the issue, it had resulted in to different compromises. These compromises were preferred by both parties for the sake of peaceful co existence in the region. However, Douglass points out that they were not sustainable as they did not resolve the sensitive underlying issue of slave power (71). The inherent hostility that stemmed from the differing ideologies regarding slave trade resulted in to the collapse of the second party system. Essentially, the northerners advocated for slave free labor and economic production while the southerners relied heavily on slave labor and therefore opposed this. The free labor ideology basically sought to enhance economic opportunity of all segments of the society. Southerners considered this a threat to their wellbeing and described it as filthy operation. Douglass shows that they strongly opposed the proposed homestead laws that advocated for providing the population in the West with free farms (71). This opposition was perpetuated by the fear that the small farmers would probably oppose and shun plantation slavery. Unlike the perception of the Northerners, Southerners considered slavery a positive good as it exposed the slaves to modern civilization that made them enhance their intellectual and moral wellbeing through education.
In addition, it is posited that the Northern political leaders considered slavery an evil that is immoral and therefore needed to be shunned. They also believed that the southerners that owned slaves and controlled the national government had an underlying intention of spreading the same to the north. This according to McPherson made it difficult for the politicians to arrive at an anticipated compromise (75).
Jones et al ascertains that the southern social structure that was stratified and patriarchal encouraged slavery (67). Thus despite the fact that only few southerners owned the slaves, the institution was defended by the entire population. Essentially, the individuals that had the biggest pieces of land owned more slaves than their counterparts. As such, they assumed a higher position in the social stratum. In addition, slavery was perpetuated by the racist attitude that the population assumed. The blacks were considered inferior to the whites and therefore, it was contended that their position in the social structure should remain as slaves. Further, social positions such as slave patrols increased racism and acted as unifying factor of the White southerners. Basically, they were an indication of power and honor and hence accorded the poor Whites authority over the black slaves. In particular, the position gave them the power to whip, maim, search and even kill the slaves (Jones et al 73).
Coupled with the increased abolitionist movement in the North, the rise of literature shunning racial slavery increased the tensions between the south and the north. In particular, literary works such as Uncle Toms Cabin and The Liberator increased the tensions in the South as they directly attacked the practice of slavery. McPherson also cites that the economic rivalry between south and the north contributed to the civil war (79). In this regard, the north abolished slavery and introduced the industrial revolution that was characterized by increased urbanization, reform movements and high levels of education. This led to increased settlement of the immigrants in the north. In some cases, the parts of the southern population migrated and settled in the North. This further exacerbated the hostilities between the blocks that led to increased aggression and defensive attitude by the south. Further, it is worth noting that the south was relatively conservative and sought to further its cultural ideologies. As such, it resisted the revolution that was occurring in the North.
Promotion of the market ideology is also identified as a major cause of the tensions and hostilities between the south and the north. In this regard, McPherson postulates that as commercial activities increased in the north, the market economy began to influence the political power in the region (81). At this juncture, it should be appreciated that slavery in the South had initially been elemental in influencing the economic status of individuals. This shift in the ideologies made the southerners to be worried about their political positions in the national government.
The conflicting interpretation of biblical teachings regarding slavery also contributed significantly to the conflict between the North and South nations. Seemingly, the interpretations between the north and south were different. While the north considered slavery to be evil, the southern interpretation justified the same. Douglass ascertains that the protestant churches were unable to agree on the biblical interpretations of the institution of slavery (88). Arguments for and against slavery were also apparent within the political sphere. The abolitionists believed that the constitutional clause that extended slavery for twenty yeas was not democratic. Democracy in this respect was considered to be a demonstration of equity and liberty. Fundamentally, it was argued that all humans had equal rights and all activities needed to further the happiness of the same. As such slavery was considered a form of oppression that infringed upon the human rights of the slaves. On the contrary, the proponents of slavery based their assumption on the concept of race. In this respect, they argued that Whites and Blacks can never be equal and that the Blacks needed to be submissive to the white race that was conceivably superior.
With time, Jones et al notes that the south realized that it was loosing control over the government to the North (95). As such, they turned to the sates rights argument in order to continue protecting slavery. In this respect, southerners argued that the tenth amendment prohibited the federal government from infringing upon the rights of slave holders. In addition, they indicated that the federal government was not supposed to interfere with the status of slavery in the states that already practiced the same. Seemingly, they believed that the stringent interpretation of the constitution could protect them from the northern abolitionist movement. Adherents of this movement believed that slavery was not only a social evil but also an immoral act that needed to be addressed accordingly. They held different beliefs with the most radical calling for the immediate release of the slaves. Others proposed a gradual emancipation while the liberal ones simply wanted to bring to an end the spread of slavery and its relative influence.
It is also contended that the tensions between the North and the south were heightened by the collapse of the national party system. This happened after the compromise of 1850. The two political parties of the nation that comprised of the Democrats and the Whigs fractured along regional lines. The Northern Whigs decided to blend in to a new republican party. This party was largely anti slavery and its mandate promised a bright future for Americans. In particular, great emphasis was laid on education, industrialization and homesteading. Although the north considered these ideals promising, the southerners perceived the party to be very indecisive and one that could contribute greatly to conflicts and war.
Douglass indicates that the election of 1860 also exacerbated the tension between the two blocks. It is posited that the election was characterized by apprehension and the lack of a candidate that had the confidence of the entire nation was a symbol of change. The north demonstrated more political power and Lincoln was elected as the president in the region. This election also gave the north complete control over the Free States and deprived the south of this privilege. The subsequent secession highly compromised the peaceful existence of the nation.
Conclusion
As it has come out from the review, slavery was considered an important factor in economic production before the American Revolution. Slaves provided vital services at all levels of production. It is also certain that it contributed significantly to the civil war in America. The conflicting perceptions of slavery by the two blocks increased the tensions between the South and North. It is also clear that other factors like culture, religion and differing economic ideals played augmenting roles in perpetuating the civil war. Of great significance in this regard however was the election of President Lincoln who was a proponent of antislavery. This led to the secession of the Southern states from the Union. Notably, it compromised the unity that the two blocks shared and further perpetuated the differences between the North and the South.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment