While the reading certainly addresses slavery as one of the major factors contributing to the American Civil War, it does not oversimplify the complexity of the time period. Consider page 30 (p. 7 of the PDF), which states that there were two other potential causes of sectional rift--overall cultural differences as well as the industrialization of the North versus the stagnant agricultural economy of the South.
What is the most plausible of these factors? Why do you say so? Do you think this conflict could have been avoided if there was no westward expansion in the colonies?
I think the economic factor is more plausible than the cultural factor. There is strife in Nigeria right now and to people outside the country, it would be appear to be because the Muslim culture in the North that has sharia law, and the Christian, westernized culture in the south have conflicting ideas. But these issues stem from the abundance of resources and wealth in the South that the North does not benefit from. Northern Nigeria is dry and poor. There are not many resources there and most people are cow herders. Rebellions and strife occur when one group of people is not happy, if the Northern economy was striving like the South's is, then it would be highly unlikely that NIgeria would be on the brink of a civil war. In the U.S, the South was starting to lag behind the North, who was rapidly industrializing, which made them worry about their diminishing power. I do think conflict could have been avoided though if there was no westward expansion because expansion greatly magnified how weak the south could become if the country got bigger which made their lagging economy more insignificant.
ReplyDeleteI think the rate of industrialization versus the agricultural economy is the more plausible factor in US sectionalism. The fact that the North industrialized at such a fast rate just pushed the South farther away from the North. Southernerns were still trying to keep up the cotton plantation industry, but the competiting North was building factories, highering unskilled workers, and surpassing the South in both economy and use of technology. I do believe that this divide would not be as large without westward expansion. Expanding westward meant that the country needed a way to connect itself, thus industry created the railroad. Factors like these not only increased industrialization in the north, but created a greater divide between the north and south.
ReplyDeleteI believe it is fair to say that a very significant factor contributing to the outbreak of the civil war is the different cultural worlds of the North and South. The North's dynamic and modern approach of industrialization greatly encouraged sectionalism among the two areas. The North and South simply did not have the same values. A very interesting point supporting this idea is exemplified where the article says, "If North and South clashed politically, it was because of this general incompatibility and not because of disagreement over slavery or any other single, specific issue. The two cultures still would have clashed even if all the Negroes had been free." In my opinion, slavery was of course a factor, but the overriding of the Civil War causes was the cultural differences of the North and South.
ReplyDelete*Also, this conflict would most likely not be avoided even without the western expansion.
DeleteI like the way Abdoulaye compared the relationship of the North and South to the current situation in Nigeria. I believe that he is right in saying that the North and South were so vastly different in both the way they though about things, but also how they live their lives. They were so far adrift from each other politically and industrially that they may as well have been different countries, which of course led the South wanting to secede.
ReplyDeleteWestward expansion, manifest destiny, was another reason for this divide because it brought more industry, jobs, and people to the North. For example, the city of Chicago became much larger once a rail station was placed there Therefore, this added to the growing divide between the North and South
I believe that the industrialization of the north and the agricultural south was the more plausible factor. I think this because as the north was industrializing, the south was continuing with their agricultural path. And the two were rapidly becoming more and more diverse.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nicki when she says that the western movement was a positive thing. It meant the north and south had to come together and make agreements on things. It says on page 3, "the south opposed public appropriations to improve the means of transport." The south would be stubborn about many of the agreements between the north. There was a constant friction between them for a long time. Until they would finally realize it needs to change.
I believe technology, as most wars are, was the factor that lead the north and south in battle. The north wanted the south to "Catch Up" and join the north on the road to advancing jobs and how people make money. The southerners weren't as open to a change in their way of life. Farming was how they knew to make money and provide for themselves. Change was a very difficult thing for many plantation owners to comprehend. I also believe that the north was always scared of the south. One of the reasons that the war and conflict began was because the north didn't want the south to get to rich and powerful, because with dedicated citizens and a lot of money, a country can do a lot.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the industrial nature of the North and the agrarian nature of the South incompatibility was the biggest factor. The South's reluctance to play catch up with the North. The two very different economies also produced very different societal structures. The South's emphasis on 'loyalty, courtesy, and physical courage' and it's 'static rate of change' were very different to the North's 'mobile,fluid, egalitarian' culture. Slavery was a huge factor in causing the war, but the cultural differences were also a large factor.
ReplyDeletei think that both factors play into each other. While the south was almost 100% agriculture, its culture would in turn be a more outdoors and "hardened" culture. The north was full of business men who were educated and knew exactly what need to be done to keep up with the rest of the world. so when thinking about the other two issues that were discussed on page 30, they can be seen as almost dependent on each other. As one people moves to another form of life and another a different way there are bound to be differences of cultures with the different ways they make money. If i had to choose one major issue it would be the difference of industrialization in the north and agricultural ways in the south because without these differences then the north and south wouldnt have separated they way they did.
ReplyDeleteFor me, it is very plausible that the big causes for the civil war were less the clash between slavery supporters and abolitionists, but the conflict between economical interests. The North started to industrialize, to build, to advance technology, the Northern States wanted an economical change and improve by following the example of the industrial progress in Europe. The southern States wanted to remain in the old way and pursue in agriculture. They didn't want a change, no technical advance. These differences separated the south and the north dramatically, and as they had so different systems, I think it was already as if there were two lands, from the economic point of view.
ReplyDeleteNow maybe they could have go on like this for many years, either in their own way of handeling the economy, but when the idea of the manifest destiny appeared and America started to extent westwards, the question was: What about the new territories? It had to determined whether they should adopt to the Northern economy system or the southern. And this, I think, was a big point of disagreement between the South and the north and one of the main causes for the Southern Stater to separate from the Union later.
I agree with the writer's opinion that slavery did play a huge rule as one of the factor that pulled the trigger of the civil war. But i found the other two factor seems to be more convincing, which are the economy and the dissimilar cultural atmosphere. The rural daily stable life and the plantation economy which brought the static rate of change prevented the south from being industrialization. Instead, the northern seems to have stronger enterprise and adaptability which help them boost the economy and lead to more advanced civilization.
ReplyDeletealso, i love this guy's saying that"as for slavery,of course the southern system of chattel labor was static and archaic,while the northern system of wage labor was fluid and competitive.But each, in its own way, could be brutally exploitative, and the two societies but were merely reflections or aspects of a broader and deeper duality."
DeleteI would say that slavery most certainly had its role to play, But economic and "dissimilar cultures" between the north and the south most likely had a larger role to play. As stated in the article there wasn't enough "antislavery" for it to be the leading cause for the north and south to start a war. If anything slavery was an excuse to justify sectional conflict between the North and south which lead to the war.
ReplyDeleteI think that there is no definitive reason behind the American Civil War. The South was used to an unindustrialized lifestyle, which held principles that were directly against the North's ideas of human rights. The cultural differences did not help the tension between the North and the South, because negotiation was nearly impossible between them. Slavery added to the problems, but I think that slavery is in place because of the South would not industrialize and make industry for themselves besides agriculture. The South seemed as though they needed to practice this life to feed their families.
ReplyDelete