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.
Jefferson’s emphasis on the contrasting personalities of Northerners and Southerners, and Hammond’s on Southern superiority, paints a nation divided by culture. For Potter however, the “commonalities” of law, language and political system, highlight a homogeneity ignored by contemporary observers. Nevertheless, eco-social disparities suggest these similarities were largely superficial. The North transformed its agricultural economy into a manufacturing one; the South remained rooted in farming. Thus it did not experience the social consequences of industrialisation including immigration, higher literacy rates. The most divisive factor was slavery. This caused the Protestant church to split over sectional lines, and isolated the two regions from each other, despite their shared cultural heritage.
The South was a slave society built upon the ideals of slave-holding that nourished and maintained an economy and a way of life that was justifiable by God. Conversely the North harboured strong anti-slavery ideals and the emergence of a Market revolution that propelled society economically. It is this point of difference Northern writer Fredrick Olmstead portrays the South as a society that enjoys the product of its labour, but not labour itself. However Northern writer James Hammond in 1845 claims cultural superiority over the North. Historians view this period as a period of inevitable civil war. Others however, view the differences as the result of incompetent politicians and the radical nature of abolitionists coming from the North.
Northern and Southern societies have fundamental differences, especially based on their subjective perceptions of each other at the time. For instance, the North developed into a free labour, industrial economy, while the South remained an agricultural slave society, in turn affecting gender roles, available areas of education and occupation, and other social and cultural aspects. Thus historians since the Civil War have formulated an objective difference thesis. Historians such as David Potter have also developed an objective similarity thesis illustrating areas of commonality such as law, religion, language and political system, which render the societies very similar. Ultimately the North and South seem economically and socially different in substance, however each society still maintains common areas described above and a system of hierarchy.
While the North experienced dramatic social and economic change, the South remained adhered to the feudal aristocratic social order due to the region’s reliance on cotton production. Southern legislatures were controlled by a select few of extremely wealthy, white plantation owners who were representatives of the South in congress. In contrast, the Market Revolution instigated the development of wage labour as mass manufacturing and industrialisation flourished in northern society. Labour strikes and resultant unions were formed in 1834 as workers recognised their rights in their endeavour to achieve self-reliance, independence and individuality characteristic of a progressive developing nation. Despite such economic change, both societies continued to hold familial values akin to notions of the public and private sphere. Women were generally exempt for the economic changes of the Market revolution and encouraged to remain in the “Cult of Domesticity” practiced by their southern counterparts.
One of the fundamental differences between North and South was the North’s status as an industrial power, whilst the South was essentially an agrarian economy. 60% of the North’s labour force worked outside the field of agriculture, whilst only 16% of the South’s labour force worked in the same field. The North was responsible for 9/10ths of the nation’s manufacturing in 1860. This notion is supported by contemporary Southern fears of the North’s industrial might, with Gregg in 1845 considering every “yankee…vessel” to be a “cost to South Carolina.” Olmsted similarly sees the Northern character as typified by a thirst for progress and development, whilst the Southerner retains no pleasure in labour “except with reference to a result.”
Since the time of the revolution, the north and south had steadily diverged into differing societies. While the south had formulated an agrarian economy, the north was developing into a successful industrialized financial system. One of the defining societal differences between the north and the south was the presence of slaves. While the northern states had free labourers, the southern states used slaves. This issue formulated differing opinions among its contemporaries. While James Hammond of the south believed that owning slaves was a white man’s right, many others such as northerner Lydia Maria Child firmly believe that having slaves can never be as economically beneficial as procuring free labour, while others still, such as the Grimke sisters, riled against the cruelty of slavery.
There were a number of major differences between the North and the South which signalled them as two very different societies. For a start, the North was the great industrial region of the continent (thanks to the Market Revolution, which instituted a cash payment system), and had a much higher education rate, whilst the South was still largely an agrarian/rural economy. The two were also divided on the issue slavery - the South saw slavery as a 'benevolent' institution, one which, according to Wyatt-Brown, was 'indispensable for the maintenance of the Southern way', which was ‘God-sanctioned...a patriarchal institution that is recognised and sanctioned in the Bible'. By contrast, to the North slavery was a 'sin' which slowed societal progress (Olmstead) and oppressed the 'blacks'(Grimke sisters, and which went against widely held Northern religious principal of free labour for wage, even for black men (Lincoln).
By the late 19th century, the homogeny of the ‘united states’, as envisaged by the revolutionaries had been displaced. Two distinct cultural and economic societies, with divergent views of slavery, economics, religion, and the future of the nation had emerged. Whilst the South had maintained a stagnant, labor based agrarian economy; the North enjoyed an increasingly advanced and prosperous industrial and capitalistic system. Historians now postulate the impact of economic tensions between the North and South merely elucidate the central polarizing issue; that is slavery and its various discontents. The North admonished the ‘slaveocracy’, and rigid social hierarchy created by the slave holding elite in South. Conversely the South theorized slavery as a right of liberty. The South resented the moralizing critique of slavery, from Northerner’s who had no vested interest in its survival. Historian David Potter contends, that fundamental commonalities of American society (law, religion, language, political systems etc) point to a basic level of homogeneity. The differences between the North and South may have been popular perceptions. Regardless, they were forceful and malignant tensions, which deepened the sense of divide within the nation.
Although the North and the South shared many things in common, such as religion, language, history and Republican political systems and legal institutions, many things also divided them. James McPherson contends that the North and the South evolved as two separate societies in which their values and ideologies were so incompatible that they were no longer able to live together in the same nation. The South were ‘agricultural people’ whilst the North was urbanising and industrialising more rapidly. Furthermore, the New York Times asserts that ‘although a number of issues divided the North from South in the decades before the war, the issue that proved both paramount and insoluble was slavery.’
The two societies of the North and South in America from the late Eighteenth until the mid Nineteenth century were remarkably different. The South, a primarily agrarian slave society, did not enjoy the advances of the Industrial Revolution as the North did, which led to an explosion of population, employment and immigration which in turn led to a diverse range of religions in the North, which were not shared in the South, whose society remained dependent on slavery, as well as nowhere near as technologically advanced. Although there was fervent evangelism in both the North and South, and religion was used by both as either a condemnation or support of slavery, as Wyatt-Brown discusses in that the ideas of the South were “God-sanctioned”, whereas in the North, the abolition society of New York was attended by many evangelical reformers, whose ideology “clashed with slavery” (Levine), which in such a country as America, founded on religious freedom, would have had a great impact on the strained relations between the North and South before the war. - Kathleen McKinn
The North and South can indeed be considered different societies as even though the share certain base aspects such as language and politics they have a differing school of thought on some of the major aspects of their own society. One of the major conflicts of thought is that over slavery, and whilst they used much the same argument they came up with different conclusions. The South saw owning slaves as part of their freedom to own property and as a way to make a living and live the ideal life. The North however thought that the idea of owning slaves took away the idea of freedom as it created a dependence on something that was not yourself and indeed that you should not be able to take away the freedom of another person for you own benefit, rather that you should earn your own way.
The extent of the differences between the North and the South has been much contended my Historians. Although the leaders and people of the time felt that they were two completely separate societies and of two very different people, many historians today argue otherwise. The amount of similarities between the two, language, shared history, racism and many other aspects mean that it could be argued that they were not people from very different societies. However it cannot be argued against, that the North was a more industrialised area where the South relied much more on agriculture. Although the North was not riddled with slavery there racist ideals were not that different from the South, and it is fundamentally there means of economy and wealth where the two societies differ the most.
The subject of slavery and its defence/challenge by those with interest on the matter formed a major rift between how Northerners and Southerners not only viewed the physical nature of their society but also the morals that govern them. Defenders of Southern culture and slavery such as Hammond and Fitzhugh argue that there existed in the South a culture of stability (stagnation as argued by Olmsted) and social discipline as a result of their economic systems. The North by contrast has been portrayed as having great changes not just to the urban and rural landscape but also to the function and role of the family unit as a direct result of industrialisation. For the South, slavery ensured the survival of the traditional family unit bound by a single household and the gender roles associated with it while for the North, industrialism had created two distinct spheres of labour: the public (predominantly male) and domestic (predominantly female).
Jefferson’s emphasis on the contrasting personalities of Northerners and Southerners, and Hammond’s on Southern superiority, paints a nation divided by culture. For Potter however, the “commonalities” of law, language and political system, highlight a homogeneity ignored by contemporary observers. Nevertheless, eco-social disparities suggest these similarities were largely superficial. The North transformed its agricultural economy into a manufacturing one; the South remained rooted in farming. Thus it did not experience the social consequences of industrialisation including immigration, higher literacy rates. The most divisive factor was slavery. This caused the Protestant church to split over sectional lines, and isolated the two regions from each other, despite their shared cultural heritage.
ReplyDeleteThe South was a slave society built upon the ideals of slave-holding that nourished and maintained an economy and a way of life that was justifiable by God. Conversely the North harboured strong anti-slavery ideals and the emergence of a Market revolution that propelled society economically. It is this point of difference Northern writer Fredrick Olmstead portrays the South as a society that enjoys the product of its labour, but not labour itself. However Northern writer James Hammond in 1845 claims cultural superiority over the North. Historians view this period as a period of inevitable civil war. Others however, view the differences as the result of incompetent politicians and the radical nature of abolitionists coming from the North.
ReplyDeleteNorthern and Southern societies have fundamental differences, especially based on their subjective perceptions of each other at the time. For instance, the North developed into a free labour, industrial economy, while the South remained an agricultural slave society, in turn affecting gender roles, available areas of education and occupation, and other social and cultural aspects. Thus historians since the Civil War have formulated an objective difference thesis. Historians such as David Potter have also developed an objective similarity thesis illustrating areas of commonality such as law, religion, language and political system, which render the societies very similar. Ultimately the North and South seem economically and socially different in substance, however each society still maintains common areas described above and a system of hierarchy.
ReplyDeleteWhile the North experienced dramatic social and economic change, the South remained adhered to the feudal aristocratic social order due to the region’s reliance on cotton production. Southern legislatures were controlled by a select few of extremely wealthy, white plantation owners who were representatives of the South in congress. In contrast, the Market Revolution instigated the development of wage labour as mass manufacturing and industrialisation flourished in northern society. Labour strikes and resultant unions were formed in 1834 as workers recognised their rights in their endeavour to achieve self-reliance, independence and individuality characteristic of a progressive developing nation. Despite such economic change, both societies continued to hold familial values akin to notions of the public and private sphere. Women were generally exempt for the economic changes of the Market revolution and encouraged to remain in the “Cult of Domesticity” practiced by their southern counterparts.
ReplyDeleteOne of the fundamental differences between North and South was the North’s status as an industrial power, whilst the South was essentially an agrarian economy. 60% of the North’s labour force worked outside the field of agriculture, whilst only 16% of the South’s labour force worked in the same field. The North was responsible for 9/10ths of the nation’s manufacturing in 1860. This notion is supported by contemporary Southern fears of the North’s industrial might, with Gregg in 1845 considering every “yankee…vessel” to be a “cost to South Carolina.” Olmsted similarly sees the Northern character as typified by a thirst for progress and development, whilst the Southerner retains no pleasure in labour “except with reference to a result.”
ReplyDeleteSince the time of the revolution, the north and south had steadily diverged into differing societies. While the south had formulated an agrarian economy, the north was developing into a successful industrialized financial system. One of the defining societal differences between the north and the south was the presence of slaves. While the northern states had free labourers, the southern states used slaves. This issue formulated differing opinions among its contemporaries. While James Hammond of the south believed that owning slaves was a white man’s right, many others such as northerner Lydia Maria Child firmly believe that having slaves can never be as economically beneficial as procuring free labour, while others still, such as the Grimke sisters, riled against the cruelty of slavery.
ReplyDeleteThere were a number of major differences between the North and the South which signalled them as two very different societies. For a start, the North was the great industrial region of the continent (thanks to the Market Revolution, which instituted a cash payment system), and had a much higher education rate, whilst the South was still largely an agrarian/rural economy. The two were also divided on the issue slavery - the South saw slavery as a 'benevolent' institution, one which, according to Wyatt-Brown, was 'indispensable for the maintenance of the Southern way', which was ‘God-sanctioned...a patriarchal institution that is recognised and sanctioned in the Bible'. By contrast, to the North slavery was a 'sin' which slowed societal progress (Olmstead) and oppressed the 'blacks'(Grimke sisters, and which went against widely held Northern religious principal of free labour for wage, even for black men (Lincoln).
ReplyDeleteBy the late 19th century, the homogeny of the ‘united states’, as envisaged by the revolutionaries had been displaced. Two distinct cultural and economic societies, with divergent views of slavery, economics, religion, and the future of the nation had emerged. Whilst the South had maintained a stagnant, labor based agrarian economy; the North enjoyed an increasingly advanced and prosperous industrial and capitalistic system. Historians now postulate the impact of economic tensions between the North and South merely elucidate the central polarizing issue; that is slavery and its various discontents. The North admonished the ‘slaveocracy’, and rigid social hierarchy created by the slave holding elite in South. Conversely the South theorized slavery as a right of liberty. The South resented the moralizing critique of slavery, from Northerner’s who had no vested interest in its survival. Historian David Potter contends, that fundamental commonalities of American society (law, religion, language, political systems etc) point to a basic level of homogeneity. The differences between the North and South may have been popular perceptions. Regardless, they were forceful and malignant tensions, which deepened the sense of divide within the nation.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the North and the South shared many things in common, such as religion, language, history and Republican political systems and legal institutions, many things also divided them. James McPherson contends that the North and the South evolved as two separate societies in which their values and ideologies were so incompatible that they were no longer able to live together in the same nation. The South were ‘agricultural people’ whilst the North was urbanising and industrialising more rapidly. Furthermore, the New York Times asserts that ‘although a number of issues divided the North from South in the decades before the war, the issue that proved both paramount and insoluble was slavery.’
ReplyDeleteThe two societies of the North and South in America from the late Eighteenth until the mid Nineteenth century were remarkably different. The South, a primarily agrarian slave society, did not enjoy the advances of the Industrial Revolution as the North did, which led to an explosion of population, employment and immigration which in turn led to a diverse range of religions in the North, which were not shared in the South, whose society remained dependent on slavery, as well as nowhere near as technologically advanced. Although there was fervent evangelism in both the North and South, and religion was used by both as either a condemnation or support of slavery, as Wyatt-Brown discusses in that the ideas of the South were “God-sanctioned”, whereas in the North, the abolition society of New York was attended by many evangelical reformers, whose ideology “clashed with slavery” (Levine), which in such a country as America, founded on religious freedom, would have had a great impact on the strained relations between the North and South before the war.
ReplyDelete- Kathleen McKinn
The North and South can indeed be considered different societies as even though the share certain base aspects such as language and politics they have a differing school of thought on some of the major aspects of their own society. One of the major conflicts of thought is that over slavery, and whilst they used much the same argument they came up with different conclusions. The South saw owning slaves as part of their freedom to own property and as a way to make a living and live the ideal life. The North however thought that the idea of owning slaves took away the idea of freedom as it created a dependence on something that was not yourself and indeed that you should not be able to take away the freedom of another person for you own benefit, rather that you should earn your own way.
ReplyDeleteThe extent of the differences between the North and the South has been much contended my Historians. Although the leaders and people of the time felt that they were two completely separate societies and of two very different people, many historians today argue otherwise. The amount of similarities between the two, language, shared history, racism and many other aspects mean that it could be argued that they were not people from very different societies. However it cannot be argued against, that the North was a more industrialised area where the South relied much more on agriculture. Although the North was not riddled with slavery there racist ideals were not that different from the South, and it is fundamentally there means of economy and wealth where the two societies differ the most.
ReplyDeleteThe subject of slavery and its defence/challenge by those with interest on the matter formed a major rift between how Northerners and Southerners not only viewed the physical nature of their society but also the morals that govern them. Defenders of Southern culture and slavery such as Hammond and Fitzhugh argue that there existed in the South a culture of stability (stagnation as argued by Olmsted) and social discipline as a result of their economic systems. The North by contrast has been portrayed as having great changes not just to the urban and rural landscape but also to the function and role of the family unit as a direct result of industrialisation. For the South, slavery ensured the survival of the traditional family unit bound by a single household and the gender roles associated with it while for the North, industrialism had created two distinct spheres of labour: the public (predominantly male) and domestic (predominantly female).
ReplyDelete