The South You Never Knew: How Economic Rivalry Ignited the American Civil War

An article written as a project to counter argue the issues of states' rights and slavery as the grounds for the beginning of the Civil War.

 

 

            The issue of slavery in the southern states has long been the popular choice for many who call it the powder keg by which the Civil War was ignited. The Civil War began and was fought for much more deeply entrenched societal problems. This War of Brothers, as it has been called, was a perfect storm of economic rivalry, states’ rights, and slavery. Those who are quick to assume that slavery was at the root of the conflict are merely skimming the surface of the historical record. There was a South that held deep Unionist convictions and where the majority of those living there were not slave holders.  By a closer examination of the pre-war social, economic, and political records, it can be clearly demonstrated that while slavery might have been the rallying cry of both sides, at the core of the conflict rested deep-rooted economic rivalry.

            During the days following the American Revolution differences between North and South were overshadowed by their common interest in establishing a new nation. These earlier divergences were seated in climate, lifestyle, and economic ideologies and were later responsible for birthing their two different expansionist philosophies of the North and the South. As the North began to develop as a highly industrialized business sector, the South continued in the business of agriculture. The vast majority of American industry was located in the Northern states, whereas the economies of the agricultural southern states were based on the export of raw materials and the importation of manufactured goods. The South held few manufacturing concerns, and Southerners had to pay higher prices for goods in order to subsidize northern profits. This disparity in industrial technology and a differing point-of-view concerning tariffs on imports gave rise to an ever widening rift between the two factions.

            The North held a difficult position with regards to slavery. While most were decidedly against slavery, the political and business leaders in the various voting sectors refused to speak out against it. Understanding the undeniable impact that the loss of slavery would have on the northward flow of cotton (which was something the merchants and New England manufacturers depended upon), that loss in cotton production also carried implications for banking and shipping. It powered textile-manufacturing revolutions in both New England and Europe and paid for imports of everything from steel to spices. So there was little surprise when community leaders portrayed abolitionists as lunatics and party politicians maintained that the Constitution prevented any interference with slavery.

            To say that slavery was at the heart of the war would seem somewhat uninformed as only about 10,000 land holders owned large numbers of slaves, these located primarily in the Deep South on large plantations. The balance of slave owners was small farmers who owned three or fewer slaves. Two-thirds of Southerners owned no slaves at all. That is to say that by 1860, of the 5.5 million white Southerners�"3.6 million owned no slaves. Oddly enough however, the institution of slavery was inextricably tied to the nation’s economy. Add to these facts that the Northern industrialists who depended upon the cotton trade were also content to suppress those who were outspoken about slavery and it becomes clear that there must be some other larger issue that could cause such divisiveness in the nation. With only a third of the population in the South representing an institution under such alleged controversy, it would appear that an amendment to the Constitution would take care of this problem. If slavery were to possess such a dynamic through which a civil war would take place, certainly federal law could have stepped in. Slavery was too widely accepted by Northerners and Southerners alike for a Constitutional amendment to be written at this time.   In fact, most of the men who would be voting for the amendment held slaves themselves.   

            When journalist John O’Sullivan produced an article in 1845 that featured the term “Manifest Destiny,” the Whig party leaders were quick to criticize it. The criticism became the catalyst for a great embracing of the term’s meaning and produced zeal in the nation to continue westward expansion. Soon afterward, Texas was annexed and this spawned the Mexican war.  After America defeated the Mexicans, they acquired the Texas territory along with the California and New Mexico territories. It is at this key juncture in history that the two differing economic ideologies of the North and South begin to take the form of contentious political posturing. The question of whether or not these territories would allow slavery came to the surface. Most of these new territories gained were south of the Missouri Compromise line and Southerners argued they had the right to expand slavery to those new territories. It is critical to understand why the Southerners sought to keep slavery below the 36^th parallel in these new western territories. Southerners feared a loss of representation in the Senate. Southern Representatives and Senators were concerned that their interests would not be suitably addressed, especially as it pertained to taxation and tariffs.  With the Northern population swelling, Southerners were afraid the Northern states would increase their representation in the Senate.  The North already had a substantial advantage in the House by the 1850’s. An equal number of slave states would be necessary to keep the balance of power and prevent any radically anti-Southern legislation from being approved. By the late 1850s, the fear of Northern domination in national economic policy, combined with the desire to maintain Southern institutions (including slavery), became a major influence on the people who eventually chose to secede from the Union. While concerned about the potential loss of representation that would occur if these states were not slave states, there was great fear about how an unbalanced Congress and Senate would bring about higher tariffs, thus further damaging the wealth of Southerners by potentially reducing exports to affected countries. Southerners feared that tariffs which protected Northern manufacturing profits would cause economic difficulty in the South by driving up the price of cotton in Europe and making it less competitive. In turn, Southerners would incur much higher prices for imported manufactured goods which were highly sought after. A recession in the South during the 1820’s was blamed on the country’s tariff policies. As if to rub salt in an already deep wound, the tariffs collected were used to fund projects in the North such as roads, harbors and canals. 

            Northerners viewed western expansion differently than those living in the South. While Southerners saw expansion as an opportunity to equalize congressional disparity, the North saw westward expansion for its economic opportunity alone. They were unencumbered by ulterior motives and the chance to gain additional representation was a bonus. 

            The South was perceived as a citadel of states’ rights. It is true that certain contingents asserted the right of the state to supersede Federal law, as evidenced by the Nullification Crisis of 1832; however, these groups failed in almost every case. The Vice President under John Quincy Adams, John C. Calhoun, led the charge against protective tariffs. Calhoun issued a doctrine that proclaimed it was "the right of any state to overrule or modify not only the tariff but also any federal government law deemed unconstitutional.” After resigning his office in 1832, and returning to the Senate post in South Carolina, which he had held prior to his Vice Presidency, Calhoun led a state convention to declare that Jackson’s Tariff of 1832 was unenforceable in the state. South Carolina began to make military preparations for an anticipated Federal enforcement. After renegotiating a new tariff and the passage of the Force Bill, which empowered the government to use military force, South Carolina repealed its Nullification Ordinance. One of the most interesting points regarding the Nullification Crisis is the role of President Jackson. A Carolinian by birth and a resident of Tennessee, Jackson was an outspoken advocate of the Union.  When he threatened South Carolina with overwhelming force in the crisis of 1832, his allegiance to the integrity of the Union was conspicuously present for his Southern compatriots to confer over. Moreover, other voting records indicated strong Union sentiment all through the South �" including the Deep South. Carl N. Degler in his article entitled “There Was Another South,” appearing in the August 1960 edition of American Heritage Magazine discusses the voting records of alleged anti-union and pro-secession states: 

Throughout the Deep South in the state elections of 1851, Unionist Democrats and Whigs combined to stop the incipient secessionist movement in its tracks. In Georgia, Howell Cobb, the Unionist candidate for governor, received 56,261 votes to 37,472 for his opponent, a prominent Southern Rights man; in the legislature the Unionists captured 101 of the 127 seats. After the same election the congressional delegation of Alabama consisted of two secessionists and five Union supporters. In the Calhoun stronghold of Mississippi, where Jefferson Davis was the best-known spokesman for the Southern Rights movement, Davis was defeated for the governorship, 28,738 to 27,729, by his Unionist opponent, Henry S. Foote. Even in fire-eating South Carolina itself, the anti-Calhoun forces won overwhelmingly, 25,045 to 17,710. (Degler 2)

Clearly, with such a divided South on the issue of states’ rights and with such high Unionist sentiment in virtually every state, it becomes very difficult to cite the aforementioned as primary reason the states took up arms against one another. 

            With the South even less united on Nullification and secession than on slavery, there is only one reasonable cause for war �" economic rivalry. The unsettling fears of Southerners concerned about the loss of not only a livelihood but an ideology were met with a philosophy of vast Northern economic expansion. They were faced with shrinking profits from oppressive tariffs. In addition, in the minds of secessionists, the threat of national abolition had the potential of reducing the wealth of many prominent Southerners. There was certainly no division among Southerners regarding the fears surrounding the potential loss of their livelihoods; however, the South was a land that was torn between its views on nationalism and its methods of free enterprise.

            The Kansas-Nebraska Act, introduced in 1854, brought the economic and social issues to a head. The Act provided that popular sovereignty would determine whether a state in the new territory would be a free state or a slave state and overturned the Missouri Compromise as well, including the prohibition on slavery in these areas of the Louisiana Purchase.  Northern Free Soilers, Democrats and Whigs voiced opposition to this legislation, not on the grounds of the morality of slavery but based upon their collective desire for free labor �" the engine of economic prosperity. Their concern was that slave labor would cripple the economic expansion of the new territories.

            During this same period, technology in transportation started making great strides in innovation. By 1860, there were more than 30,000 miles of railroad in the United States; the majority of the rail lines lie in the North. The railway became mission critical to supply Northern and British factories with cotton. But while Southern planters prospered from the sale of their cash crop, they reinvested in slavery rather than technology. Slavery had been proven to be a very efficient method of farming. The South was becoming increasingly aware however, that because of their culture and practices, they were becoming subservient to the North.

            As ire between the sections and states continued to build, the Southern states became increasingly aware that the industrial North held virtual control over the South. The North controlled most of the marketing and export of cotton, they had an ever increasing amount of political control, and Northern influence over banking held equal disparity. It is here, between these perplexing constrictions that the South began to entertain thoughts of secession. Sectional leadership in the South felt that the final solution of secession was the only logical solution for its continued existence. Southerners, the majority of which cherished the Union, felt economically cornered and began to raise questions concerning secession. They felt that it was paramount to maintaining the life that they had always lived and always loved. In and of itself, it was not about slavery. Slavery was a symptom of the problem. The heart of this war was an overwhelming imbalance of power �" financial and political. The final sentiment of the South is best surmised by one of its greatest and most revered leaders, Col. Robert E. Lee. In a letter written to his son, Custis, on January 23, 1861, he states: “I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than the dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation." (brotherswar.com) In his words any reader can sense the pain and anguish of the South as they embarked upon a new course in an unfriendly environment. 

 

 

 

 

 

Work Cited

Degler, Carl N. “There Was Another South.” www.americanheritage.com  Aug 1960. 27 November

 

 2008. http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1960/5/1960_5_52.shtml

 

Lee, Robert E.  Brotherswar.com. Nov 2008. 29 November   

             2008.http://www.brotherswar.com/Civil_War_Quotes_4b.htm

Author's Note

I appreciate your counter-points. When given the assignment, it was made clear that there is no decisive or conclusive evidence for the basis of the war. We were assigned the topics to research and write about. Thanks for reading.

Reviews

[David Lewis Paget]

Hi Todd,
Not being an American, my history studies always tended to revolve around English, and British Commonwealth issues. The American Civil War, however, has always been fascinating in the fact that here were men of the same race, same colour, same language, and living on the same continent, embarking on a war which was so incredibly destructive to human life. There has always been a huge divide in opinion between those who term themselves Economic Historians, and those who term themselves Social or Political Historians. According to one set, money is the root cause of every act in human society, while the other set maintain that it is those human differences in opinions which fire events. There is, of course, a case for each.
Your article has certainly enlightened me with regard to the various issues involved, though obviously, without deeper study a lot of the references are lost on me. As I have no background in this area, the terms 'Nullification', 'Northern Free Soilers' and the like, including many of the Tariff Acts I would need to study to understand the ramifications. However, I think you have put forward a good case for the economic side of things to have been a primary force in the events which led to the eventual slaughter. A very interesting article.
David.

[Mark]

Although I was born in the South, Todd--northern Louisina, to be semi-precise--I was raised in the West, and so was never indoctrinated with the ingrained resentments and suspicions that many of this part of the country seem to harbor. I learned early not to trust history texts, as they are always authored by the victors, and are always skewed to make their points of view seem unassailable. Doubtless slavery was an evil way for one group of humans to treat anoher; equally doubtless, humanity has much profited from black scholars and intellectuals who would never have existed had their great-grandfathers not been so ill-used. So I will continue to refrain from agonizing over Who did What to Whom, a hundred or a thousand years ago, and persist in believing that why I did That to Him, Now, is a preferable way to gauge my usefulness, and leave the Big Picture to God.

[Fabian G. Franklin]

I'm a Civil War student myself so while I really didn't find that much new here, I did agree with what was offered. I have a collection of books on the subject. My favorite is The American Heritage Picture History of The Civil War written by Bruce Catton. I always did like books with pictures and still do. The book Andersonville by MacKinlay Kantor about a concentration camp in North Carolina during the Civil War is very good, graphic, horrifying but gripping in its story. The book is a work of fiction but Andersonville was not. The war is still a subject of great interest to me. Nicely covered here.

[Phibby Venable]

This is very well said. Very organized and fair. Although, I detest slavery, I believe many of the
northern factory workers were subjected to far worse conditions than most slaves. Children, women, men,
...all suffered sickening losses of body parts and health..long, torturous hours of work inside
boiling/freezing sites.

[JudyC]

I enjoyed reading this well-organized piece. I love to study American History; my main area is the American Revolution, so I learned a lot from reading this essay. I have always heard that there were many combined factors which led to the Civil War. It always seems to boil down to economics, doesn't it? Thanks for sharing this research!

[HoorayForUnderdog]

I am not a history buff but I do remember studying in college that there was quite a few economic/social issues that led to the start of the civil war. Your essay is well written and definitely brings up some interesting points for discussion.

[Emily B]

I have always enjoyed the story of the Free State of Winston County, Alabama. They seceded from the State to show their disapproval at secession from the Union. I think it was sometime in the 1960s before they went back into the fold. . .

History is manipulated and folded neatly to tell a story the easy way. Slavery had other names in this country previously. Indentured servitude is portrayed in our schools as some sort of happy, harmonious trade-off for passage to the New World. It was every bit as degrading and many times a life sentence for those caught in its clutches.