The Sectional Conflict between North and South - Essay Example

How did the western expansion heighten sectional conflict between North and South? How did the western expansion heighten sectional conflict between North and South? In the first half of the nineteenth century, the citizens of the United States were moved by a belief in manifest destiny that claimed that it was the right of the US to cover the continent. The development of technology acted as a catalyst to expansion. The expansion in turn triggered the sectional tension between the North and South bringing to the limelight, the issue of extension of slavery into the West. Despite there being some brief compromises between the North and South, none was able to ease the sparking conflict. Social and economic differences caused the Civil War such that in order for these differences to cause battle, territorial expansion was necessary (Merk, 1995). The conflicts were so bad, though without the added political stresses that were in accompaniment of the territorial expansion, the civil war would not have occurred. The United States constituted of two clashing economies. The economy of the south was formed based on agriculture. Slaves became the chief source of labour in the South, for the sake of production of a suitable crop. The North, on the other hand, had an industrialised economy, that revolved around innovation of technology and had manufacturing factories. The North, however, did not make use of slaves to have a functional economy. This, as a result, left the South trapped in an agricultural system that was traditional, while the North seemed to advance on a daily basis. The economic discrepancies evident between the North and South were continually advancing and eventually climaxed in the Nullification Crisis in 1833. The United States had imposed protected tariffs on all goods that were being imported. This tariff proved disadvantageous to the Southerners because the prices of the many foreign goods they purchased hiked. Considering that the economy of the people of the South was not a manufacturing power, the Southerners had no option but to buy their manufactured goods from the North (Merk, 1995). The state of South Carolina then threatened to nullify the tariffs since they did not like the forced Northern convenience. Some days before the decision to nullify was made final, South Carolina suddenly ended the crisis to avoid facing the massive army of the US. The Nullification Crisis however, highlighted how different the economies of the North and South were. As a result, a tension, specifically between South Carolina and the union was created. South Carolina then realized that it had to convince more states from the South to join the rebellion if it had to override the union. The territorial expansion however, was the one that majorly triggered an uprising. The thesis of inevitability suggests that the United States was in fact united in a nationalist system of continentalism (Merk, 1995). The North and South were however separated by fears of a future expansion of slavery into the territories, as well as, doubts about the wisdom of incorporating mixed-race peoples of Mexico into a white man’s democracy (Merk, 1995). The social beliefs of the North and South were strikingly different. The Northerners believed that modernization was crucial. They were adamant about modernizing the economy and government railroads that were being laid at surprising rates. Inventions were being created, while several Northerners got inspired by detaching from the old and traditional European ways of life. Most people from the North were factory workers residing in urbanized cities and towns. The wealth in the North was large, but fairly distributed. The South, however, most of the whites worked in small farms. The possessors of the farms in the South are the ones who had amassed great wealth. In the South, nearly half the population consisted of enslaved African-Americans. The Southern aristocrats treasured the imported goods and ideas from Europe, as well as their agriculture. This shows that the United States had two societies, one concerned with modernization and the other revolving around tradition. The Northerners felt that the South held the United States from progressing as a nation. The Louisiana Purchase referred to the 530,000,000 acres of land in North America purchased by the United States from France. Spain was in control of the Louisiana territory since the year 1762. The disagreements between Spain and the United States concerning the freedom to navigate the Mississippi, as well as, the right for the people of America to transport their goods over the ocean-going vessels in New Orleans had tried, but solved by the Pinckney treaty that was signed in 1795 (Mill, 1862). Having the treaty in control and a frail Spanish empire in leadership over Louisiana, the Americans were comfortable that the Westward expansion of the United States was not going to face restriction in the end. Spain had a good reason too, to fear their European rivals. The French had laid many claims on the North America’s Atlantic seacoast. The Napoleon Bonaparte’s plots to awaken the empire of the French however threatened the situation. He had a plan to recapture the priceless sugar fields of St. Domingue from an uprising of slaves, and would use Louisiana as the storage for his territory. France claimed Louisiana from Spain at around 1800 then took its ownership in the year 1802, disseminating an enormous number of the French army to St. Domingue and planned to assign another army to New Orleans. President Jefferson then sent James Monroe to join Robert Livingston who was in France, to try purchasing New Orleans and West Florida for a whooping ten million dollars. Once the transaction failed, they attempted to create a military alliance with England. The French army meanwhile was faced with yellow fever and malaria, yet the war with England was still looming. Napoleon then gave in to his plans for Louisiana, and offered Livingston and Monroe the whole territory for fifteen million dollars. The news of the sale then reached the United States. Jefferson however, was faced with a problem since he advocated strict adherence to the constitution, while the constitution did not empower him to purchase any territories. The people of the US were excited to own an extra few million more acres of land. The new land provided an avenue for the expansion and formation of new states. There was, however, a query on whether the new states on the land would be for slaves, or free. The issue was solved by allotting some of the land to the slaves and another to the free. When the war with Mexico occurred, more land was added and there was a population outburst (Pessen, 1985). The Missouri Compromise was then replaced, and the other one stated that popular sovereignty would decide the legality of slavery in each new state created from a former Mexican territory. The idea of the expansion of slavery was a threat to the Northerners who found not modernizing the US frightening. In 1845, the Kansas-Nebraska Act resulted, and claimed that the problem of slavery would be determined upon by popular sovereignty in each state. As a result, there was intense bloodshed in Nebraska and Kansas (Turner, 1893). In response to the act, the Republican Party was created to impede the stretch of slavery in relation to growth of states. The territorial expansion occurred at the antebellum of the civil war, and contributed in creating tension between the North and South. The Westward expansion was clearly because of some compelling forces like slavery (Roosevelt, 1899). The Southerners were naturally resistant to the Republican Party since they believed that the Republicans threatened their social and economic ideals involving territorial expansions and life. When Abraham Lincoln, who was a republican, was elected to presidency in the year 1860, the Southern states finally started seceding from the union because of Lincoln’s stance on territorial expansion (Billington & Ridge, 2001). The social and economic differences alone were not enough reason for the Southern secession, but the contrasting views on expansion of the country triggered the Civil War. While the social and economic differences between the North and South were tremendous, they were not reason enough to awaken a civil war (Washington, 1901). The political troubles and progress associated with territorial extension were needed to start warfare. It is important to note that territorial expansion in the United States was, in fact, a major reason to trigger the conflicts between the northerners and southerners. The expansion itself, however, was not fully a compelling cause for the start of the civil war, and neither was it a foundation for the other underlying causes. Up until the civil war, America continued expanding westward (Washington, 1901). One of America’s initial territorial expansions underwent regulation in the 1700s by the Northwest Ordinance, which stated America’s expansion into the new territories. This caused the first outbreak of tension between the North and South. The tension occurred because Congress barred slavery between Mississippi and Ohio (Wiltse, 1961). If Slavery would be abolished, it meant that there would be nothing requiring compromise as territorial expansion took place, so no alarm would have occurred between the North and South due to it. In conclusion, territorial expansion, therefore, served only as a tool to accelerate the tension between the people of the Northland those of the South. This was so because the Northerners wanted to outlaw slavery more than the South did. References Merk, F., (1995). Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History: A Reinterpretation. Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press. Billington, R.,A., & Ridge, M., (2001). Westward Expansion: A History of the American Frontier. Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press. Wiltse, C., M., (1961). The New Nation, 1800-1845, New York, Hill and Wang. Pessen, E., (1985). Jacksonian America: Society, Personality, and Politics. Urbana, University of Illinois Press. Mill, J. S., (1862).The Contest in America. Accessed from http://wwnorton.com/college/history/america9/full/docs/JSMill-Contest_America-1862.pdf. Turner, J., F., (1893). The Significance of the Frontier in American History. Accessed from http://wwnorton.com/college/history/america9/full/docs/FJTurner-Frontier_Significance-1893.pdf. Roosevelt T., (1899. The Strenuous Life. Accessed from http://wwnorton.com/college/history/america9/full/docs/TRoosevelt-American_Ideals-1900.pdf. Washington, B., T., (1901). Up From Slavery: An Autobiography. Accessed from http://wwnorton.com/college/history/america9/full/docs/BTWashington-Up_From_Slavery-1901.pdf. Read More