Based on the readings for Weeks 2 and 3, answer the
following question: to what extent were the North and South different societies?
Consider perceptions at the time, and
the views of historians since.
Based on the readings and lectures from Weeks 2 and 3, I believe that the North and the South as societies differ most prominently on the issue of slavery. The role of slavery in the Southern society was extremely divisive to America as a union. Southern America is viewed as one of only 5 slave societies in history, wherein slaves made up one-third of the Southern population in 1860 (some 4 million). Slavery dominated the economic, political and social structure of the South and thus their removal would cause the downfall of the economy and society as a whole. In regards to slavery, the North too, had slaves, but it was never central to the economy. So when slavery was abolished in 1804 in every state above the Mason-Dixon Line, there were no major ramifications. The extent to which the North and South were different societies as a result of slavery is highlighted in the opinions of John Fitzhugh. He praises the South as a society and draws a correlation between the numbers of Southern slaves in an area and prosperity. Constrastingly, Lydia Maria Child and other Northerners deem slavery as backward and preventative to a free and prosperous economy. The writings of modern historians also reaffirm this notion. Bruce Levine details a complete social transformation in the North in which society is now based on manufacturing and industry, as well as a heightened sense or perception of morality (whether that did or didn't exist is a matter of debate). Southern society was seemingly left behind as a result of slavery , both economically and morally, thus causing a discernable difference in between the Northern and Southern societies which inevitably ended in Civil War.
Historian David Potter says that in most ways, the North and the South were fairly similar, whether in religion, law, language, and even racist attitudes. However, Thomas Jefferson ⎯ who owned a large Virginian plantation and many slaves⎯saw the northerners as more industrious, and cool; where as southerners were fiery, lazy, but more generous. George Strong, the New York Lawyer, also saw these differences as generating complete distinct societies that would eventually come into conflict. Differences, not just in perception, did indeed exist early in the 19th century, and continued to be exacerbated as the debate over slavery intensified.
We can see from Lydia Maria Child and Frederick Law Olmsted that the North saw themselves moving forward with the industrial revolution and increasing their economic position, while they looked at the South as being backwards in its thinking. George Fitzhugh shows us that the South believed they were peaceful, caring people, using their slaves to increase an already sound economy. The religious ideas of the time also differed greatly in the North and South. While the South believed slavery was blessed by God, the North evangelicals believed that everyone had free will to choose God and slavery prohibited this.
Primary source documents such as that of George Fitzhugh (Southerner) and Hinton Rowan Helper (Northerner) present contrasting opinions on the social and economic structures of Antebellum America, asserting that their regions were socially and economically superior. The most contentious issue that divided citizens of this era was there staunch attitude towards the abolition of slavery, with those below the Mason-Dixon Line, for the continuation of slavery and those above, against it. Historians (such as Bruce Levine) further illustrate this, maintaining that the Souths reliance on Slavery, caused relative economic stagnation in the South, as the production of cotton proved so profitable; there was no incentive to innovate. Whilst in the North, Slavery was abolished by 1804, resulting in firms restructuring and establishing a manufacturing based economy. Ultimately this restructuring created further division between the regions.
Whilst it is true that the North and South were similar in many regards, as both largely agricultural, protestant and racist societies, public perception during the antebellum clearly believed there were stark differences between the North and South, in economic structure, culture and ethos. Furthermore it seems both northerners and southerners alike defined themselves against the other.
To those sympathetic to the South, the South was a comfortable and noble agricultural paradise. Slavery was a biblically sanctioned institution, and slave owners strict but benevolent father figures. Slavery brought wealth, generosity, hospitality, more time for pleasure (the arts, literature etc), and acted to unite whites against blacks, thus easing class tensions. The south was a land of luxury, civilisation, and gentlemen tightly bound together by a culture of honour and pride. In contrast, the industrialised North was seen as an urban disaster zone, choked with smoke and chaos. In the North white workers lived a miserable existence crushed by long hours in squalid factories, and this had in turn brought down the honour of the white race and created a dissident working class. Dangerous ideas infiltrated everything, with socialists and abolitionists tearing Northern moral fibre to shreds. Cities swelled with foreign migrants and were rendered dangerous with free blacks and escaped slaves running wild. What was the American dream coming to?
To those sympathetic to the North, the North was a land of progress and opportunity. Though still largely agricultural, the North was pioneering industrial production with developments in manufacturing, aided by breakthroughs in communications and transportation (with the telegram, the canals and the railway). The North produced more and exported more, whilst its people were happier, more literate and more open minded.
In contrast the South was an ignorant and backward embarrassment. Where a powerful minority of lazy slave owning self styled aristocrats ran the show, held back progress, and kept a poor white underclass both down and out (only around 3000 families owned more than 100 slaves). Whilst most northerners still held deeply racist attitudes, slavery was opposed on both economic and moral (often religious) grounds. Slavery was not only brutal and unchristian; it also undermined free labour, social mobility, and the market revolution. Furthermore, fixed agricultural driven by slavery stood in the path of progress, of productivity, mechanisation and diversification of production.
In many ways, the North and the South were considered to be different societies. The South, as demonstrated in the praises of George Fitzhugh, considered itself to be a peaceful place where wealth was distributed more equally than in the North, whilst the North felt they were superior to the South, having developed further with the rise of industry. Historian Bruce Levine noted that whilst the North had largely moved away from reliance on agriculture, hard-pressed families still struggled with poverty and the challenges it presented. Slavery was one issue that differentiated the two societies the most. Whilst some people in the North still owned slaves, their society could function without them. The South however was considered to be a slave society, whereby slavery dominated the economic, political and social structure of society. Religion was used in both societies as a means to justify their opinions, no matter how contradictory they appeared.
The United states in the Antebellum era was divided on key issues such as slavery and religion however they were still shared far more similarities then they would have liked. David Potter points to their respect for the political system, their respect to the law, their similar religions and their shared heritage as a symbol of the homogeneity. Politically, they abided under the same government that represented all free people (plus the infamous three-fiifths rule for the House of Representatives).
While the Confederacy and the Union did share many similarities, the differences made the alliance incompatible. The South was made up of agricultural states (mainly exporting wool, cotton and tobacco) that relied on slave labour (over four million slaves worked in the South). While the North was increasingly a urbanised, industrial body of states (they still maintained a strong agricultural market at the same time). The increase of travel and communication (via the Eerie Canal, the increase in roads and the telegraph) founded modern globalisation and allowed the North to advance economically.
The growing differences between the South and the North was exacerbated by the Second Great Awakening in the early nineteenth century. Both sides used their religion (both were primarily Protestants) to justify their arguments against their opposition. Individuals such as Calhoun from the South and Garrison from the North would use their belief systems to justify why the other should not be allowed to function the way they did. The North and the South shared many similarities, however the issue concerning slavery in the South meant that both sides couldn't agree on how to run the country economically, and thus socially and politically.
In the antebellum period, the North and the South certainly perceived themselves as different; the North considering itself to be innovative, productive and educated while the South was backward, lazy and stagnant, and the South perceiving itself as more intellectual, more stable and more genuinely pious in religion compared to the sanctimonious and unsound North. However, some historians have argued in favour of the Objective Similarity features, suggesting that their shared heritage, language and religion made their societies more homogeneous than they perceived themselves to be. Yet despite these similarities, the South was nevertheless a society dominated by slavery. As a result of slavery discouraging the comparatively laborious involvement in manufacturing, the South was significantly less industrialised and urbanised than their Northern counterparts, and the South seemed unlikely to make the shift into industrialisation instead preferring the expansion of slavery. The South’s entire economy therefore relied on slavery. While the North did profit from slavery in the South (for example, it was often Northern-made ships that transported the cotton gained from slavery overseas), the North did have other means of sustaining itself.
The South and North also differed in levels of education, with the North being more educated and more literate than the South. Even in matters that the North and South supposed shares, for example the common religion of Protestantism, there were distinctions in the way religion was used in the North and South. In the South, the Bible was quoted to justify slavery, while many abolitionists in the North used different passages to denounce slavery. Churches in the North and South split over this issue of slavery.
Due to Southern society’s dependence on slavery as well as the differences in interpretations in aspects of life they seemed to share (not to mention the very fact that they did believe themselves to be different people), it is fair to say that although they shared language, history and law, they were different societies.
The societies of the North and South were very similar in many aspects. The historian David Potter explains that the two societies shared a common language, legal and political system. However, there were some distinct differences in the economic and social systems. The key issue in this is slavery. While the North was industrialised and relied on manufacturing for their economic advancement, the South was a slave society which was totally dependent on slave labour for its agricultural economy. Although the North and South shared a common religion for the most part (Protestantism), religion became another wedge between the two societies. The North and South would both use religion as a justification for their attitudes towards the major social issues such as slavery.
The readings from weeks two and three highlight both similarities and differences in the way in which the North and South viewed economic, social and religious issues during the Antebellum period.
Economically, while the North had developed an economy based largely on industry, the economic systems throughout the South were largely agricultural, supported by the slave trade by which their economic systems came to largely rely on. This Southern reliance on slavery also highlighted the contrasting attitudes of the North and South in regard to economic and social issues. While the North often labelled slavery as a backward means by which to advance, both economically and socially, the South regarded slavery as a necessary means to achieve economic and social prosperity.
While economic and social issues were important in distinguishing Northern and Southern attitudes during the Antebellum period, the issue of religion also played a significant role, with both the North and South believing their actions throughout the period were not only appropriate, but also necessary in a religious context.
It is often agreed that the main difference between the North and the South as societies in the antebellum period was the issue and presence of slavery as well as the industry it created. The south was seen as an unchanged agricultural society while the North continued to industrialise. As Bruce Levine states, where cotton consumption continued to increase to a point where in it accounted for more than half the value of all U.S exports, the prosperous South lacked the need to industrialise. Even so, this fact led Northerners to view the south as backwards and uneducated. Alternatively James Henry Hammond stated that the South was a peaceful and harmonious society while George Fitzhugh further praised the South for its more equal distribution of wealth. In this way, the societies were similar in their need to define themselves against the other.
While developing from one nation ensured certain similarities such as a shared religion, language and legal system, these aspects of society were often used to create difference. For example, while the North and the South shared a common religion, both sides used the bible in their respective cases against and for slavery.
At a very basic level, if we remove detail from the equation, both societies had similar roots in Christian religion, law and an essential racism. However, the very different attitudes to production and work saw the societies diverge in many respects.
According to perceptions at the time, the South - with its essentially agricultural society based on the labour of slaves – was a quiet, contented, peaceful and companionable place. Honour was a key foundation of Southern society, as was their famous hospitality. However, system of slavery restrained innovation in agriculture. In the North, particularly the North-West, the lack of free labour led to technological developments in an attempt to make production cheaper and faster. The Southern slave states merely worked their slaves harder or bought more.
The North, though still largely agricultural, also possessed rapidly growing industry and urbanisation. No slavery meant that hard work was essential for all, and the freedom and desire to ameliorate your situation in life – by your own hands – was a widespread tenet of Northern society. This fast-paced change in the North was conspicuously absent from the steady, slave-bound South.
While the North and the South may have shared certain similarities in their origins, religion, and political ideals, there were fundamental, and some historians argue, insurmountable, divides between the two in regards to social structure and especially in their respective attitudes to slavery. The readings demonstrate that the people of the North and the South perceived each other as separate peoples with differing characteristics and defining traits that epitomise the divided nation that antebellum America had developed into. Slavery was an issue that polarized the two societies, being fundamental to the functioning of the Southern economy and societal hierarchy where as in the North alternative industries, with the rapid industrialization and creation of a manufacturing industry, meant that slavery had become less essential. To the American citizens of this period, the North and the South for all intents and purposes were completely different cultures, divided in all but name
When we compare societies, we base thier differences and commonalities on features such as thier economy and thier culture. More importantly, as the "Perecption of Difference" theory goes, the socieites perception of themselves and others perhaps supersedes any other thought by a third party. For this reason, it is perhaps conclusive to say while there were common elements between the two socieites thier difference outweighs thier commonalities. The South saw their slave soceity as being the key aspect of their economic and intellectual growth, as slavery provided the means to "convert hundreds of thousands of suqare miles of wilderness into cultivated land" (Conrederate President Jefferson Davis). This is to be compared with the view of the Northerners who saw industrialisation as being the more modern and efficent way to produce revenue, and thus they viewed slavery as the Southerners' way of feeling superior to another race. Furthermore, the south argued that having slaves allowed them to focus on other areas, such as that of education, evident in thier many national leaders (coming from the South). The obvious counter agrument was that the North had a higher literacy rate than that of the south. While the presence of slaves was also evident in the North a more physical change was that of the different cultures. That is to say, the South enjoyed more of a folk culture while the north saw their culture as modernising. As stated above, the most important feature in differeniating the two societies, is its own inhabitants' perception. And in that case the two societies where divided. This is evident in President Davis' comparison of the south to that of the North, as well as Fredrick Law's perception of the south's desire to feel suprior to that of the North, hence owning slaves. BY Ashwin Sivaratnam
The conflagration of the United States civil war was the violent culmination of a widely shared sentiment, in which the Northern and Southern states of the Union were perceived as different societies.
Foremost was the prevailing desire to espouse a supposed “southern cultural superiority” over the North. Popular arguments in support of this notion concern religious piety and intellectual superiority. James Henry Hammond cited, in an 1845 piece, the fact that the Executive office of the United States government has been held by slave-holders for 44 of its 56 year existence, as well as a large proportion of the Legislative branch hail from the South. This presumption of the United States government being populated by slave holders attempts to link this uniquely Southern ideal with the enlightened principles of the government. Hammond continues his argument by addressing the American religious fervour as resulting from the Great Awakening. “The piety of the South is unobtrusive” states Hammond, and further elates upon the South’s rejection of pseudo religions such as Millerism and Mormonism as well as the Southern sects propensity to unite in harmonious avocations of humble peace.
However despite cultural frictions, it is clear that economics provide the greatest distinctions between the two “societies”. Lydia Maria Child attacks the traditional notions of slavery and elates the Northern phenomena of industrialization and free labour. Essentially slavery as a practice was more financially demanding than would seem. Slave holders were wholly responsible for these “goods” and must invest immense amounts of capital into slave holding, such as their proper care, physical well-being and general upkeep. Free labour however, due to an established wage, would free the employer of any of these responsibilities, ensuring the founding value of individual freedom is maintain whilst production remains efficient.
To justify these historical perceptions of the split between Northern and Southern cultures, one need not look any further than contemporary American discourse in politics and popular culture. Politically the South retains a distinct and separate ideology from many Northern states, as the same applies to cultural properties and societal norms.
Whilst the North and South shared the same religious, cultural and political background, in the antebellum period they differed widely in their social and economic situation. Firstly, Northern urban and industrial development (based on free labour) meant that wealth was more equally distributed, and towns and factories increasingly replaced agriculture. The profitable nature of manufacturing meant that the government could afford to invest in public services and infrastructure, thereby improving jobs, education, and the transportation system.Socially, Northerners began to pride themselves on their chance to “better” their individual circumstances-they looked down on Southerners as morally corrupt for perpetuating a slave society, and economically and socially backward for their lack of industry and higher percentage of illiteracy. Southerners however prided themselves on their piety, “independence and equality” (George Fitzhugh) and cotton production, which was seen as impossible to maintain without slave labour. Not only did slavery pose as a major ideological division between North and South, but it is evident that this division was rooted in the type of economy (agricultural vs industrial) and expressed itself in the social structures and values found in each region. Therefore whilst from a historical perspective many parallels can be drawn between North and South, the fact that the people of each region viewed themselves as inherently distinct from the other indicates that they were profoundly different.
Based on the readings and lectures from Weeks 2 and 3, I believe that the North and the South as societies differ most prominently on the issue of slavery. The role of slavery in the Southern society was extremely divisive to America as a union. Southern America is viewed as one of only 5 slave societies in history, wherein slaves made up one-third of the Southern population in 1860 (some 4 million). Slavery dominated the economic, political and social structure of the South and thus their removal would cause the downfall of the economy and society as a whole. In regards to slavery, the North too, had slaves, but it was never central to the economy. So when slavery was abolished in 1804 in every state above the Mason-Dixon Line, there were no major ramifications. The extent to which the North and South were different societies as a result of slavery is highlighted in the opinions of John Fitzhugh. He praises the South as a society and draws a correlation between the numbers of Southern slaves in an area and prosperity. Constrastingly, Lydia Maria Child and other Northerners deem slavery as backward and preventative to a free and prosperous economy. The writings of modern historians also reaffirm this notion. Bruce Levine details a complete social transformation in the North in which society is now based on manufacturing and industry, as well as a heightened sense or perception of morality (whether that did or didn't exist is a matter of debate). Southern society was seemingly left behind as a result of slavery , both economically and morally, thus causing a discernable difference in between the Northern and Southern societies which inevitably ended in Civil War.
ReplyDeleteHistorian David Potter says that in most ways, the North and the South were fairly similar, whether in religion, law, language, and even racist attitudes. However, Thomas Jefferson ⎯ who owned a large Virginian plantation and many slaves⎯saw the northerners as more industrious, and cool; where as southerners were fiery, lazy, but more generous. George Strong, the New York Lawyer, also saw these differences as generating complete distinct societies that would eventually come into conflict. Differences, not just in perception, did indeed exist early in the 19th century, and continued to be exacerbated as the debate over slavery intensified.
ReplyDeleteWe can see from Lydia Maria Child and Frederick Law Olmsted that the North saw themselves moving forward with the industrial revolution and increasing their economic position, while they looked at the South as being backwards in its thinking. George Fitzhugh shows us that the South believed they were peaceful, caring people, using their slaves to increase an already sound economy. The religious ideas of the time also differed greatly in the North and South. While the South believed slavery was blessed by God, the North evangelicals believed that everyone had free will to choose God and slavery prohibited this.
ReplyDeleteElspeth Clarke
Primary source documents such as that of George Fitzhugh (Southerner) and Hinton Rowan Helper (Northerner) present contrasting opinions on the social and economic structures of Antebellum America, asserting that their regions were socially and economically superior. The most contentious issue that divided citizens of this era was there staunch attitude towards the abolition of slavery, with those below the Mason-Dixon Line, for the continuation of slavery and those above, against it. Historians (such as Bruce Levine) further illustrate this, maintaining that the Souths reliance on Slavery, caused relative economic stagnation in the South, as the production of cotton proved so profitable; there was no incentive to innovate. Whilst in the North, Slavery was abolished by 1804, resulting in firms restructuring and establishing a manufacturing based economy. Ultimately this restructuring created further division between the regions.
ReplyDeleteWhilst it is true that the North and South were similar in many regards, as both largely agricultural, protestant and racist societies, public perception during the antebellum clearly believed there were stark differences between the North and South, in economic structure, culture and ethos. Furthermore it seems both northerners and southerners alike defined themselves against the other.
ReplyDeleteTo those sympathetic to the South, the South was a comfortable and noble agricultural paradise. Slavery was a biblically sanctioned institution, and slave owners strict but benevolent father figures. Slavery brought wealth, generosity, hospitality, more time for pleasure (the arts, literature etc), and acted to unite whites against blacks, thus easing class tensions. The south was a land of luxury, civilisation, and gentlemen tightly bound together by a culture of honour and pride.
In contrast, the industrialised North was seen as an urban disaster zone, choked with smoke and chaos. In the North white workers lived a miserable existence crushed by long hours in squalid factories, and this had in turn brought down the honour of the white race and created a dissident working class. Dangerous ideas infiltrated everything, with socialists and abolitionists tearing Northern moral fibre to shreds. Cities swelled with foreign migrants and were rendered dangerous with free blacks and escaped slaves running wild. What was the American dream coming to?
To those sympathetic to the North, the North was a land of progress and opportunity. Though still largely agricultural, the North was pioneering industrial production with developments in manufacturing, aided by breakthroughs in communications and transportation (with the telegram, the canals and the railway). The North produced more and exported more, whilst its people were happier, more literate and more open minded.
In contrast the South was an ignorant and backward embarrassment. Where a powerful minority of lazy slave owning self styled aristocrats ran the show, held back progress, and kept a poor white underclass both down and out (only around 3000 families owned more than 100 slaves). Whilst most northerners still held deeply racist attitudes, slavery was opposed on both economic and moral (often religious) grounds. Slavery was not only brutal and unchristian; it also undermined free labour, social mobility, and the market revolution. Furthermore, fixed agricultural driven by slavery stood in the path of progress, of productivity, mechanisation and diversification of production.
In many ways, the North and the South were considered to be different societies. The South, as demonstrated in the praises of George Fitzhugh, considered itself to be a peaceful place where wealth was distributed more equally than in the North, whilst the North felt they were superior to the South, having developed further with the rise of industry. Historian Bruce Levine noted that whilst the North had largely moved away from reliance on agriculture, hard-pressed families still struggled with poverty and the challenges it presented. Slavery was one issue that differentiated the two societies the most. Whilst some people in the North still owned slaves, their society could function without them. The South however was considered to be a slave society, whereby slavery dominated the economic, political and social structure of society. Religion was used in both societies as a means to justify their opinions, no matter how contradictory they appeared.
ReplyDeleteThe United states in the Antebellum era was divided on key issues such as slavery and religion however they were still shared far more similarities then they would have liked. David Potter points to their respect for the political system, their respect to the law, their similar religions and their shared heritage as a symbol of the homogeneity. Politically, they abided under the same government that represented all free people (plus the infamous three-fiifths rule for the House of Representatives).
ReplyDeleteWhile the Confederacy and the Union did share many similarities, the differences made the alliance incompatible. The South was made up of agricultural states (mainly exporting wool, cotton and tobacco) that relied on slave labour (over four million slaves worked in the South). While the North was increasingly a urbanised, industrial body of states (they still maintained a strong agricultural market at the same time). The increase of travel and communication (via the Eerie Canal, the increase in roads and the telegraph) founded modern globalisation and allowed the North to advance economically.
The growing differences between the South and the North was exacerbated by the Second Great Awakening in the early nineteenth century. Both sides used their religion (both were primarily Protestants) to justify their arguments against their opposition. Individuals such as Calhoun from the South and Garrison from the North would use their belief systems to justify why the other should not be allowed to function the way they did. The North and the South shared many similarities, however the issue concerning slavery in the South meant that both sides couldn't agree on how to run the country economically, and thus socially and politically.
Jordan Ramanauskas
In the antebellum period, the North and the South certainly perceived themselves as different; the North considering itself to be innovative, productive and educated while the South was backward, lazy and stagnant, and the South perceiving itself as more intellectual, more stable and more genuinely pious in religion compared to the sanctimonious and unsound North. However, some historians have argued in favour of the Objective Similarity features, suggesting that their shared heritage, language and religion made their societies more homogeneous than they perceived themselves to be.
ReplyDeleteYet despite these similarities, the South was nevertheless a society dominated by slavery. As a result of slavery discouraging the comparatively laborious involvement in manufacturing, the South was significantly less industrialised and urbanised than their Northern counterparts, and the South seemed unlikely to make the shift into industrialisation instead preferring the expansion of slavery. The South’s entire economy therefore relied on slavery. While the North did profit from slavery in the South (for example, it was often Northern-made ships that transported the cotton gained from slavery overseas), the North did have other means of sustaining itself.
The South and North also differed in levels of education, with the North being more educated and more literate than the South. Even in matters that the North and South supposed shares, for example the common religion of Protestantism, there were distinctions in the way religion was used in the North and South. In the South, the Bible was quoted to justify slavery, while many abolitionists in the North used different passages to denounce slavery. Churches in the North and South split over this issue of slavery.
Due to Southern society’s dependence on slavery as well as the differences in interpretations in aspects of life they seemed to share (not to mention the very fact that they did believe themselves to be different people), it is fair to say that although they shared language, history and law, they were different societies.
-Rebecca Abbott
The societies of the North and South were very similar in many aspects. The historian David Potter explains that the two societies shared a common language, legal and political system. However, there were some distinct differences in the economic and social systems. The key issue in this is slavery. While the North was industrialised and relied on manufacturing for their economic advancement, the South was a slave society which was totally dependent on slave labour for its agricultural economy. Although the North and South shared a common religion for the most part (Protestantism), religion became another wedge between the two societies. The North and South would both use religion as a justification for their attitudes towards the major social issues such as slavery.
ReplyDeleteDavid Marsh
The readings from weeks two and three highlight both similarities and differences in the way in which the North and South viewed economic, social and religious issues during the Antebellum period.
ReplyDeleteEconomically, while the North had developed an economy based largely on industry, the economic systems throughout the South were largely agricultural, supported by the slave trade by which their economic systems came to largely rely on. This Southern reliance on slavery also highlighted the contrasting attitudes of the North and South in regard to economic and social issues. While the North often labelled slavery as a backward means by which to advance, both economically and socially, the South regarded slavery as a necessary means to achieve economic and social prosperity.
While economic and social issues were important in distinguishing Northern and Southern attitudes during the Antebellum period, the issue of religion also played a significant role, with both the North and South believing their actions throughout the period were not only appropriate, but also necessary in a religious context.
It is often agreed that the main difference between the North and the South as societies in the antebellum period was the issue and presence of slavery as well as the industry it created. The south was seen as an unchanged agricultural society while the North continued to industrialise. As Bruce Levine states, where cotton consumption continued to increase to a point where in it accounted for more than half the value of all U.S exports, the prosperous South lacked the need to industrialise. Even so, this fact led Northerners to view the south as backwards and uneducated. Alternatively James Henry Hammond stated that the South was a peaceful and harmonious society while George Fitzhugh further praised the South for its more equal distribution of wealth. In this way, the societies were similar in their need to define themselves against the other.
ReplyDeleteWhile developing from one nation ensured certain similarities such as a shared religion, language and legal system, these aspects of society were often used to create difference. For example, while the North and the South shared a common religion, both sides used the bible in their respective cases against and for slavery.
Libby Langford
At a very basic level, if we remove detail from the equation, both societies had similar roots in Christian religion, law and an essential racism. However, the very different attitudes to production and work saw the societies diverge in many respects.
ReplyDeleteAccording to perceptions at the time, the South - with its essentially agricultural society based on the labour of slaves – was a quiet, contented, peaceful and companionable place. Honour was a key foundation of Southern society, as was their famous hospitality. However, system of slavery restrained innovation in agriculture. In the North, particularly the North-West, the lack of free labour led to technological developments in an attempt to make production cheaper and faster. The Southern slave states merely worked their slaves harder or bought more.
The North, though still largely agricultural, also possessed rapidly growing industry and urbanisation. No slavery meant that hard work was essential for all, and the freedom and desire to ameliorate your situation in life – by your own hands – was a widespread tenet of Northern society.
This fast-paced change in the North was conspicuously absent from the steady, slave-bound South.
While the North and the South may have shared certain similarities in their origins, religion, and political ideals, there were fundamental, and some historians argue, insurmountable, divides between the two in regards to social structure and especially in their respective attitudes to slavery. The readings demonstrate that the people of the North and the South perceived each other as separate peoples with differing characteristics and defining traits that epitomise the divided nation that antebellum America had developed into. Slavery was an issue that polarized the two societies, being fundamental to the functioning of the Southern economy and societal hierarchy where as in the North alternative industries, with the rapid industrialization and creation of a manufacturing industry, meant that slavery had become less essential. To the American citizens of this period, the North and the South for all intents and purposes were completely different cultures, divided in all but name
ReplyDeleteWhen we compare societies, we base thier differences and commonalities on features such as thier economy and thier culture. More importantly, as the "Perecption of Difference" theory goes, the socieites perception of themselves and others perhaps supersedes any other thought by a third party. For this reason, it is perhaps conclusive to say while there were common elements between the two socieites thier difference outweighs thier commonalities. The South saw their slave soceity as being the key aspect of their economic and intellectual growth, as slavery provided the means to "convert hundreds of thousands of suqare miles of wilderness into cultivated land" (Conrederate President Jefferson Davis). This is to be compared with the view of the Northerners who saw industrialisation as being the more modern and efficent way to produce revenue, and thus they viewed slavery as the Southerners' way of feeling superior to another race. Furthermore, the south argued that having slaves allowed them to focus on other areas, such as that of education, evident in thier many national leaders (coming from the South). The obvious counter agrument was that the North had a higher literacy rate than that of the south. While the presence of slaves was also evident in the North a more physical change was that of the different cultures. That is to say, the South enjoyed more of a folk culture while the north saw their culture as modernising. As stated above, the most important feature in differeniating the two societies, is its own inhabitants' perception. And in that case the two societies where divided. This is evident in President Davis' comparison of the south to that of the North, as well as Fredrick Law's perception of the south's desire to feel suprior to that of the North, hence owning slaves. BY Ashwin Sivaratnam
ReplyDeleteThe conflagration of the United States civil war was the violent culmination of a widely shared sentiment, in which the Northern and Southern states of the Union were perceived as different societies.
ReplyDeleteForemost was the prevailing desire to espouse a supposed “southern cultural superiority” over the North. Popular arguments in support of this notion concern religious piety and intellectual superiority. James Henry Hammond cited, in an 1845 piece, the fact that the Executive office of the United States government has been held by slave-holders for 44 of its 56 year existence, as well as a large proportion of the Legislative branch hail from the South. This presumption of the United States government being populated by slave holders attempts to link this uniquely Southern ideal with the enlightened principles of the government. Hammond continues his argument by addressing the American religious fervour as resulting from the Great Awakening. “The piety of the South is unobtrusive” states Hammond, and further elates upon the South’s rejection of pseudo religions such as Millerism and Mormonism as well as the Southern sects propensity to unite in harmonious avocations of humble peace.
However despite cultural frictions, it is clear that economics provide the greatest distinctions between the two “societies”. Lydia Maria Child attacks the traditional notions of slavery and elates the Northern phenomena of industrialization and free labour. Essentially slavery as a practice was more financially demanding than would seem. Slave holders were wholly responsible for these “goods” and must invest immense amounts of capital into slave holding, such as their proper care, physical well-being and general upkeep. Free labour however, due to an established wage, would free the employer of any of these responsibilities, ensuring the founding value of individual freedom is maintain whilst production remains efficient.
To justify these historical perceptions of the split between Northern and Southern cultures, one need not look any further than contemporary American discourse in politics and popular culture. Politically the South retains a distinct and separate ideology from many Northern states, as the same applies to cultural properties and societal norms.
Samuel Baker
Whilst the North and South shared the same religious, cultural and political background, in the antebellum period they differed widely in their social and economic situation. Firstly, Northern urban and industrial development (based on free labour) meant that wealth was more equally distributed, and towns and factories increasingly replaced agriculture. The profitable nature of manufacturing meant that the government could afford to invest in public services and infrastructure, thereby improving jobs, education, and the transportation system.Socially, Northerners began to pride themselves on their chance to “better” their individual circumstances-they looked down on Southerners as morally corrupt for perpetuating a slave society, and economically and socially backward for their lack of industry and higher percentage of illiteracy. Southerners however prided themselves on their piety, “independence and equality” (George Fitzhugh) and cotton production, which was seen as impossible to maintain without slave labour. Not only did slavery pose as a major ideological division between North and South, but it is evident that this division was rooted in the type of economy (agricultural vs industrial) and expressed itself in the social structures and values found in each region. Therefore whilst from a historical perspective many parallels can be drawn between North and South, the fact that the people of each region viewed themselves as inherently distinct from the other indicates that they were profoundly different.
ReplyDelete