15-1 Growing Tensions between the North and South

ONE EUROPEAN'S STORY

Alexis de Tocqueville [TOHKovihl] was a young French government official from a wealthy family. In 1831, he sailed across the Atlantic Ocean to study American prisons and politics. At one point, Tocqueville traveled in a steamship down the Ohio River. The river was the border between Ohio, a free state, and Kentucky, a slave state. Tocqueville noted what he saw on both sides of the river.

A VOICE FROM THE PAST

The State of Ohio is separated from Kentucky just by one river; on either side of it the soil is equally fertile, and the situation equally favourable, and yet everything is different. Here [on the Ohio side] a population devoured by feverish activity, trying every means to make its fortune. . . . There [on the Kentucky side] are people who make others work for them and show little compassion, a people without energy, mettle or the spirit of enterprise. . . . These differences cannot be attributed to any other cause but slavery. It degrades the black population and enervates [saps the energy of] the white.

Alexis de Tocqueville, Journey to America

North and South Take Different Paths

Prior to the Civil War the economies of the North and the South developed differently in the early 1800s. Although both economies were mostly agricultural, the North began to develop more industry and commerce. By contrast, the Southern economy relied on plantation farming. The growth of industry in the North helped lead to the rapid growth of Northern cities. Much of this population growth came from immigration. In addition, immigrants and Easterners moved west and built farms in the new states formed from the Northwest Territory. Most canals and railroads ran east and west, helping the Eastern and Midwestern states develop strong ties with each other.

Trade

Trade is based on a simple idea. If you have something someone else needs or wants, and that person has something you need or want, you exchange, or trade, those two things. After the trade, you should both be better off than before. The concept of trade works similarly for groups of people. For example, in the early 1800s, the South had few factories. Planters who wanted manufactured goods usually had to buy them from manufacturers in the North or in Europe. To have the cash to buy those goods, Southerners sold other goods, such as cotton, to the North and other countries. Each sold the goods they could produce in order to get money to buy the goods they could not make. The South developed differently than the North. A few wealthy planters controlled Southern society. They made great profits from the labor of their slaves. Much of this profit came from trade. Planters relied on exports, especially cotton. Because these plantations were so profitable, planters invested in slaves instead of industry. As a result, the South developed little industry. Most Southern whites were poor farmers who owned no slaves. Many of these people resented the powerful slaveholders. But poor whites accepted slavery because it kept them off the bottom of society.

Harper's Weekly Civil War Cartoon on Slavery

The February 9, 1861 Edition of Harper's Weekly

Antislavery and Racism

The issue of slavery caused tension between the North and the South. In the North, the antislavery movement had slowly been gaining strength since the 1830s. Abolitionists believed that slavery was unjust and should be abolished immediately. Many Northerners who opposed slavery took a less extreme position. Some Northern workers and immigrants opposed slavery because it was an economic threat to them. Because slaves did not work for pay, free workers feared that managers would employ slaves rather than them. Some workers were even afraid that the expansion of slavery might force workers into slavery to find jobs. Despite their opposition to slavery, most Northerners, even abolitionists, were racist by modern standards.

Many whites in the North as well as the South refused to go to school with, work with, or live near African Americans. In most states, free African Americans could not vote. When Northern attacks on slavery increased, slaveholders defended slavery. Most offered the openly racist argument that white people were superior to blacks. Many also claimed that slavery helped slaves by introducing them to Christianity, as well as providing them with food, clothing, and shelter throughout their lives. Slaveholders were determined to defend slavery and their way of life. In this way, the different ideas about slavery brought the North and the South into conflict.

The Wilmot Proviso

After the Missouri Compromise in 1820, political disagreements over slavery seemed to go away. But new disagreements arose with the outbreak of the War with Mexico in 1846. Many Northerners believed that Southerners wanted to take territory from Mexico in order to extend slavery. To prevent that, Representative David Wilmot of Pennsylvania proposed a bill, known as the Wilmot Proviso, to outlaw slavery in any territory the United States might acquire from the War with Mexico. But slaveholders believed that Congress had no right to prevent them from bringing slaves into any of the territories. They viewed slaves as property. The Constitution, they claimed, gave equal protection to the property rights of all U.S. citizens. The Wilmot Proviso removed the right of slaveholders to take their slaves, which they regarded as property, anywhere in the United States or its territories. Southerners claimed that the bill was unconstitutional. The Wilmot Proviso divided Congress along regional lines. The bill passed the House of Representatives. But Southerners prevented it from passing the Senate.

Even though the Wilmot Proviso never became law, it had important effects. It led to the creation of the Free-Soil Party, a political party dedicated to stopping the expansion of slavery. The party's slogan expressed its ideals-"Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor, and Free Men." The Free-Soil Party won more than ten seats in Congress in the election of 1848. More important, the party made slavery a key issue in national politics. Politicians could ignore slavery no longer.

Controversy over Territories

By 1848, the nation's leaders had begun to debate how to deal with slavery in the lands gained from the War with Mexico. The proposed addition of new states threatened the balance in Congress between North and South. The discovery of gold in California brought thousands of people into that territory. There would soon be enough people in California for it to apply for statehood. Most California residents wanted their state to be a free state. But this would tip the balance of power clearly in favor of the North. Southerners wanted to divide California in half, making the northern half a free state and the southern half a slave state.

In 1849, President Zachary Taylor proposed that California submit a plan for statehood that year, without going through the territorial stage. By skipping this stage, Taylor's plan gave Southern slaveholders little time to move to California with their slaves. In March 1850, California applied to be admitted as a free state.

With California as a free state, slave states would become a minority in the Senate just as they were in the House. Jefferson Davis, a senator from Mississippi, warned, "For the first time, we are about permanently to destroy the balance of power between the sections."

The Compromise of 1850

California could not gain statehood, however, without the approval of Congress. And Congress was divided over the issue. Behind the scenes, statesmen sought compromise. Taking the lead was Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky. Clay had helped create the Missouri Compromise in 1820. Now Clay crafted a plan to settle the California problem.

The Compromise of 1850:

1. To please the North, California would be admitted as a free state, and the slave trade would be abolished in Washington, D.C.

2. To please the South, Congress would not pass laws regarding slavery for the rest of the territories won from Mexico, and Congress would pass a stronger law to help slaveholders recapture runaway slaves.

Many people on both sides felt they had to give up too much in this plan. But others were tired of the regional bickering. They wanted to hold the Union together. Daniel Webster, senator from Massachusetts, supported the compromise for the sake of the Union.

A VOICE FROM THE PAST

I wish to speak today, not as a Massachusetts man, nor as a Northern man, but as an American. . . . I speak today for the preservation of the Union. Hear me for my cause.

Daniel Webster, quoted in The Annals of America

The job of winning passage of the plan fell to Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois. By the end of September, Douglas succeeded, and the plan, now known as the Compromise of 1850, became law. Some people celebrated the compromise, believing that it had saved the Union. But the compromise would not bring peace.

Chapter 15-1 Quiz

1. Prior to the Civil War the economy of the North depended on _______________________.

2. Prior to the Civil War the economy of the South depended on the _______________________system.

3. The issue of _______________________caused tension between the North and the South.

4. _______________________was an unsuccessful attempt to outlaw slavery in any territory the United States might acquire from the War with Mexico.

5. The _______________________Party was a political party dedicated to stopping the expansion of slavery.

6. The Free-Soil Party won more than _______________________seats in Congress in the election of 1848.

7. Southerners wanted to divide _______________________in half, making the northern half a free state and the southern half a slave state.

8. Senator _______________________of Kentucky crafted the Compromise of 1850.

9. As part of the Compromise of 1850, Congress would pass a stronger law to help recapture _________________.

10. Senator _______________________of Illinois was instrumental in helping the Compromise of 1850 become law.