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.
Personally I think that the North and South were markedly different. Even though some historians in different decades since have attempted to paint the two as brothers in arms, the sheer fact that at the time they viewed one another as separate entities brings out a clear distinction. Often making sweeping generalisations about people from the other side, members from both the North and the South differed along sectional lines in the ways that they interpreted their religion and national history and the ways in which they went about their lives under the restrictions and structures of their differing societies.
The "North" and the "South" are not only terms used to describe the geographic regions of the United States, but also marked cultural and societal disctinctions, often at odds with each other in reference to ideology, economy and societal makeup. The extent of these disctions can be found in many historical sources from the time of the Civil War, but can also be seen in today's United States, often drawing divisive lines of religious affiliation and political allegiance. It is truly remarkable that the South, as loser in the War, has been able to reconstruct the causes and intent of the War, a privlege only usually granted to the victors of war throughout history.
Whilst some historians may construct the North and the South as having similarities, it is clear that their ideologies concerning slavery made them distinct societies. Within the North itself there were differing opinions on slavery. Anti-slavery proponents considered slave-societies as backward and uneconomical compared to the North’s progressiveness. Also, they argued that owning slaves created an indolent attitude in Southerners and also accused them of lacking curiosity, genius and talent. Abolitionists considered slavery a sin against God which should be immediately eradicated from society. Southerners saw slavery as crucial to economic prosperity as it fuelled the thriving trade of cotton. The intentional inequality between the superior whites and inferior blacks was supposedly offset by the benevolence of slave-owners who provided for their slaves and maintained peace and contentment in society.
To what extent were the North and South different societies? By the middle of the 19th century the general societies of the North and of the South had clearly and definatively evolved into distinct cultures. The industrialising slave-free North had come from an agricultural and subsistent background to evolve through a market revolution into a society with a manufacturing based economy, a rising middle class, high levels of immigration and education. The South by comparison had maintained the agricultural economy of plantations operated and reliant on slavery. The North viewed the South as backwards, dominated by aristocatic planter elites and inferior while Southern perceptions of the North were of states preferred by Washington and conspirators in every part of government.
The economic and social systems in the North and South rendered the two: very different societies.
The North operated under an economic system of free labour, where its workers were not reliant on another party, nor unable to advance their economic positions. The North was also an industrialising society.
The South, on the other hand, operated under an economic system of slave labour, where its level of production was dependent on the agricultural work performed by slaves. The slaves were the property of the slave owners.
Socially, the way the North viewed itself was dependent on how it viewed the South, and vice versa. The North saw the South as an increasingly backward and lazy society, in contrast to its progressive quality. The two also had very different cultures. Northern culture was one which modernised, whereas the South maintained a folk culture, which heavily emphasised the necessity of Southern honour.
The most obvious and easily apparent difference between the antebellum North and South is that the North was 'free' and the South was a slave society. This meaning that the South was economically, politically and socially dependent on slavery. This is intrinsically linked with the next major difference. The South is agriculturally based. According to Levine, by 1860, the South produced two thirds of the worlds cotton. In contrast, the North had an industrialised based economy. Generally speaking, the South saw themselves as more equal, or in other words, see whites as more equal. As George Fitzhugh states in 1854 "one free citizen does not lord it over another". They believed that the North is far worse as they exploit their workers but have no obligation to look after them. On the other hand, Northerners see themselves as progressive according to Frederick Olmsted in 1854. Similarly, Hinton Rowan Helper believes fervently in the backwardness of the Southern economy.
The North was an industrialised economy, believing in free labour and the advancement of the individual. Southern economy was agricultural and facilitated by slave labour. Northerners found slave labour offensive to progression, whereas Southerners saw free labour as exploitive, as there was no obligation on the business owners to look after their workers (Fitzhugh (1854)). Most Northerners, black or white, went to school, and if they furthered their education, they were exposed to law, finance, medicine etc. In the South, only the rich went to school. Further education in the South was military training and finishing school. Northerners argued Southerners are uneducated and lazy, whereas Hammond (1845) argues that Presidents are overwhelmingly slave-holders, and that high ranking politicians are Southerners. Fizhugh (1854) remarks Southern society is peaceful and content, with few in jail, whereas Northerners contend with mobs, trade unions, strikes for higher wages, and armed resistance to the law.
The North and the South differed in many ways, politically, economically and in regards to the views on slavery. The fact that the South was a slave-society, its economy built on the cotton plantations and agricultural wealth, was sharply contrasted with the North’s gradual aversion to slavery and the cry of abolitionist groups in cities like Boston and New York. A threat to the plantation economy in the South was going to be seen as a mortal threat to the Southern way of life.
Whilst not all Southerners were of course, slave-owners, there was a pro-slavery ideology which permeated the South and augmented their views about their place in America and the wider world.
Differing from the agricultural South, the North had a more diverse economy. It boasted its industrial power; manufacturing iron, coal, machinery and weapons, with a greater population and more rails and infrastructure. Primary industries like agriculture and mining were also a part of the prosperity of the North.
While cotton remained lucrative, there was no main reason for the South to diversify. Yet it did not see it was vulnerable to changes in trade patterns or from embracing new types of industry.
Northerners and Southerners, despite their similarities (language, religion, history), were distinctly different societies, and saw themselves as inherently different.
Whilst the North was becoming a major player in the industrial revolution, the South remained largely agricultural. The industrialization of the North led to mass population movements towards cities, whilst Southerners generally lived in or around farms and plantations in small communities. Slaves maintained these fields and the South was a slave economy, almost completely reliant on slave labour to produce goods to sell. In contrast, by the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, slavery had been abolished from Northern society and the North had developed into a booming capitalist economy, where any free man could work and make a living. Education-wise, whilst many Northern white men attended university and became academics, their rich, white Southern equivalents were attending military school, and learning about the piety and honour of the South. Northerners viewed themselves in relation to the South and vice versa, so the social distinction was acknowledged even then. Despite their differences, both North and South were racist and both used religion to justify their actions and their motivations for fighting for their cause. They shared a language, religion and history, however the significant divide in economic and social structures can allow one to come to the conclusion that the North and South were indeed, different societies.
The economic differences in the North and South caused the creation of separate identities. The North, with its industrial progressiveness, saw itself as educated, and concurrently saw the south as backwards and lazy because they were dependent on slavery, and agricultural economy. Conversely, Southerners thought that the North shared none of the benevolence of a master to their slave, with the free workers. George Fitzhugh stated that the North was hypocritical, and had more inequality and more crime than the South. Even the Protestant religion was altered for the purposes of each region, though it remained important for both.
The industrial, socially progressive Northern society starkly contrasted with the agriculturally driven society of the South. There were a myriad of factors that differentiated the two, including education, varying perceptions of honour and morality, and of course, issues concerning the validity of free labour versus a dependency on slavery. It is important to consider that at that time, Northerners and Southerners recognised these differences. Despite sharing religion, language and an admiration for the liberty enshrined in the Constitution established decades earlier, they were very much defined by their cultural and social identities.
As Bruce Levine contends, the economic development of the North had a dramatic affect on Northern society, including family life, gender roles and religion. Thus, for the North, the social-cultural progression that had occurred was inextricably linked to their status as a free state, and in turn, further demonstrated the divide between the North and South as separate societies.
While some historians may argue that the North and South were essentially identical societies (with a common language, religion and revolutionary heritage), differences in economy, education and culture suggest that these societies were very different. The Southern economy was based on agriculture and depended on the use of slaves in order to expand. The South was a slave society - slavery permeated every aspect of Southern life including the political, economic and social. In contrast, the North was an industrializing society, reliant on free labour. The North believed the South to be backward, uneducated and indolent and themselves as modern and progressive while the South saw their system of slave labour as an equalizer between whites, resulting in a fairer, more benevolent and utopian society. An important point to make is that a historian's opinion of whether the North and South were different societies is relatively unimportant - they saw themselves as two disctinct societies so we must also consider them as such.
Many historians consider the North and South similar societies, however the sheer fact that both perceived themselves as two separate states, rendered them by proxy, separate societies. Despite sharing some mutual ground, differing ideologies and practices caused distinction. The greatly differing social, political and economic differences and both parties’ unwillingness to compromise with the other created a clear divide, leading to the desire for successions and the arguably inevitable civil war. The economic boom in the North was not mirrored by the South, spurring the practice of two entirely different economic systems; one the beginnings of modern capitalism, and the other slavery. This was mirrored in both the political and social makeup of both the North and South, thus rendering them individual entities.
The North and South exhibited many differences, the most prominent of which manifested in the association of the white population and slaves. Whilst the North could be considered a society with slaves, the South more closely adheres to the idea of a 'slave society'. Thus, while the North presents a construct where slaves represent a societal norm, they are not reliant upon them for the successful continuation of said society. In contrast, the South, in their reliance on free labour in order to maintain their primary industry, would not function without slavery.
Despite possessing a common heritage from the revolution, both sides were convinced that by the 1860's the North and South had evolved into disparate societies. More importantly they were perceived to be incapable of reconciliation with each other. The popular perceptions from that period have been repeated by historians in spite of the tremendous shared culture between them. In part the matter of slavery came to became a matter or self-perception, the south came to consider the practice of slavery an integral part of their culture and in the north the criticism of said practice came to be perceived in a similar fashion.
Demarcation between the North and the South is evident economically, culturally and socially but the differences were self constructed. People who share a common heritage and history, language, land and values can only diverge so much to be seen as different societies. Historians such as Bell Irvin Wiley recognise the similarities between the North and the South. Any cultural differences were emphasised by members of those societies. Equally, the economic differences were vast; the North having a firm industrial based economy and the South reliant on agriculture and human labour.
Personally I think that the North and South were markedly different. Even though some historians in different decades since have attempted to paint the two as brothers in arms, the sheer fact that at the time they viewed one another as separate entities brings out a clear distinction. Often making sweeping generalisations about people from the other side, members from both the North and the South differed along sectional lines in the ways that they interpreted their religion and national history and the ways in which they went about their lives under the restrictions and structures of their differing societies.
ReplyDeleteThe "North" and the "South" are not only terms used to describe the geographic regions of the United States, but also marked cultural and societal disctinctions, often at odds with each other in reference to ideology, economy and societal makeup. The extent of these disctions can be found in many historical sources from the time of the Civil War, but can also be seen in today's United States, often drawing divisive lines of religious affiliation and political allegiance. It is truly remarkable that the South, as loser in the War, has been able to reconstruct the causes and intent of the War, a privlege only usually granted to the victors of war throughout history.
ReplyDeleteWhilst some historians may construct the North and the South as having similarities, it is clear that their ideologies concerning slavery made them distinct societies. Within the North itself there were differing opinions on slavery. Anti-slavery proponents considered slave-societies as backward and uneconomical compared to the North’s progressiveness. Also, they argued that owning slaves created an indolent attitude in Southerners and also accused them of lacking curiosity, genius and talent. Abolitionists considered slavery a sin against God which should be immediately eradicated from society. Southerners saw slavery as crucial to economic prosperity as it fuelled the thriving trade of cotton. The intentional inequality between the superior whites and inferior blacks was supposedly offset by the benevolence of slave-owners who provided for their slaves and maintained peace and contentment in society.
ReplyDeleteTo what extent were the North and South different societies?
ReplyDeleteBy the middle of the 19th century the general societies of the North and of the South had clearly and definatively evolved into distinct cultures. The industrialising slave-free North had come from an agricultural and subsistent background to evolve through a market revolution into a society with a manufacturing based economy, a rising middle class, high levels of immigration and education. The South by comparison had maintained the agricultural economy of plantations operated and reliant on slavery. The North viewed the South as backwards, dominated by aristocatic planter elites and inferior while Southern perceptions of the North were of states preferred by Washington and conspirators in every part of government.
The economic and social systems in the North and South rendered the two: very different societies.
ReplyDeleteThe North operated under an economic system of free labour, where its workers were not reliant on another party, nor unable to advance their economic positions. The North was also an industrialising society.
The South, on the other hand, operated under an economic system of slave labour, where its level of production was dependent on the agricultural work performed by slaves. The slaves were the property of the slave owners.
Socially, the way the North viewed itself was dependent on how it viewed the South, and vice versa. The North saw the South as an increasingly backward and lazy society, in contrast to its progressive quality. The two also had very different cultures. Northern culture was one which modernised, whereas the South maintained a folk culture, which heavily emphasised the necessity of Southern honour.
The most obvious and easily apparent difference between the antebellum North and South is that the North was 'free' and the South was a slave society. This meaning that the South was economically, politically and socially dependent on slavery.
ReplyDeleteThis is intrinsically linked with the next major difference. The South is agriculturally based. According to Levine, by 1860, the South produced two thirds of the worlds cotton. In contrast, the North had an industrialised based economy.
Generally speaking, the South saw themselves as more equal, or in other words, see whites as more equal. As George Fitzhugh states in 1854 "one free citizen does not lord it over another". They believed that the North is far worse as they exploit their workers but have no obligation to look after them. On the other hand, Northerners see themselves as progressive according to Frederick Olmsted in 1854. Similarly, Hinton Rowan Helper believes fervently in the backwardness of the Southern economy.
The North was an industrialised economy, believing in free labour and the advancement of the individual. Southern economy was agricultural and facilitated by slave labour. Northerners found slave labour offensive to progression, whereas Southerners saw free labour as exploitive, as there was no obligation on the business owners to look after their workers (Fitzhugh (1854)). Most Northerners, black or white, went to school, and if they furthered their education, they were exposed to law, finance, medicine etc. In the South, only the rich went to school. Further education in the South was military training and finishing school. Northerners argued Southerners are uneducated and lazy, whereas Hammond (1845) argues that Presidents are overwhelmingly slave-holders, and that high ranking politicians are Southerners. Fizhugh (1854) remarks Southern society is peaceful and content, with few in jail, whereas Northerners contend with mobs, trade unions, strikes for higher wages, and armed resistance to the law.
ReplyDeleteThe North and the South differed in many ways, politically, economically and in regards to the views on slavery. The fact that the South was a slave-society, its economy built on the cotton plantations and agricultural wealth, was sharply contrasted with the North’s gradual aversion to slavery and the cry of abolitionist groups in cities like Boston and New York. A threat to the plantation economy in the South was going to be seen as a mortal threat to the Southern way of life.
ReplyDeleteWhilst not all Southerners were of course, slave-owners, there was a pro-slavery ideology which permeated the South and augmented their views about their place in America and the wider world.
Differing from the agricultural South, the North had a more diverse economy. It boasted its industrial power; manufacturing iron, coal, machinery and weapons, with a greater population and more rails and infrastructure. Primary industries like agriculture and mining were also a part of the prosperity of the North.
While cotton remained lucrative, there was no main reason for the South to diversify. Yet it did not see it was vulnerable to changes in trade patterns or from embracing new types of industry.
Northerners and Southerners, despite their similarities (language, religion, history), were distinctly different societies, and saw themselves as inherently different.
Whilst the North was becoming a major player in the industrial revolution, the South remained largely agricultural. The industrialization of the North led to mass population movements towards cities, whilst Southerners generally lived in or around farms and plantations in small communities. Slaves maintained these fields and the South was a slave economy, almost completely reliant on slave labour to produce goods to sell. In contrast, by the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, slavery had been abolished from Northern society and the North had developed into a booming capitalist economy, where any free man could work and make a living.
ReplyDeleteEducation-wise, whilst many Northern white men attended university and became academics, their rich, white Southern equivalents were attending military school, and learning about the piety and honour of the South. Northerners viewed themselves in relation to the South and vice versa, so the social distinction was acknowledged even then.
Despite their differences, both North and South were racist and both used religion to justify their actions and their motivations for fighting for their cause. They shared a language, religion and history, however the significant divide in economic and social structures can allow one to come to the conclusion that the North and South were indeed, different societies.
The economic differences in the North and South caused the creation of separate identities. The North, with its industrial progressiveness, saw itself as educated, and concurrently saw the south as backwards and lazy because they were dependent on slavery, and agricultural economy. Conversely, Southerners thought that the North shared none of the benevolence of a master to their slave, with the free workers. George Fitzhugh stated that the North was hypocritical, and had more inequality and more crime than the South. Even the Protestant religion was altered for the purposes of each region, though it remained important for both.
ReplyDeleteThe industrial, socially progressive Northern society starkly contrasted with the agriculturally driven society of the South. There were a myriad of factors that differentiated the two, including education, varying perceptions of honour and morality, and of course, issues concerning the validity of free labour versus a dependency on slavery. It is important to consider that at that time, Northerners and Southerners recognised these differences. Despite sharing religion, language and an admiration for the liberty enshrined in the Constitution established decades earlier, they were very much defined by their cultural and social identities.
ReplyDeleteAs Bruce Levine contends, the economic development of the North had a dramatic affect on Northern society, including family life, gender roles and religion. Thus, for the North, the social-cultural progression that had occurred was inextricably linked to their status as a free state, and in turn, further demonstrated the divide between the North and South as separate societies.
While some historians may argue that the North and South were essentially identical societies (with a common language, religion and revolutionary heritage), differences in economy, education and culture suggest that these societies were very different.
ReplyDeleteThe Southern economy was based on agriculture and depended on the use of slaves in order to expand. The South was a slave society - slavery permeated every aspect of Southern life including the political, economic and social. In contrast, the North was an industrializing society, reliant on free labour.
The North believed the South to be backward, uneducated and indolent and themselves as modern and progressive while the South saw their system of slave labour as an equalizer between whites, resulting in a fairer, more benevolent and utopian society.
An important point to make is that a historian's opinion of whether the North and South were different societies is relatively unimportant - they saw themselves as two disctinct societies so we must also consider them as such.
Many historians consider the North and South similar societies, however the sheer fact that both perceived themselves as two separate states, rendered them by proxy, separate societies. Despite sharing some mutual ground, differing ideologies and practices caused distinction. The greatly differing social, political and economic differences and both parties’ unwillingness to compromise with the other created a clear divide, leading to the desire for successions and the arguably inevitable civil war. The economic boom in the North was not mirrored by the South, spurring the practice of two entirely different economic systems; one the beginnings of modern capitalism, and the other slavery. This was mirrored in both the political and social makeup of both the North and South, thus rendering them individual entities.
ReplyDeleteChristopher Malone
ReplyDeleteThe North and South exhibited many differences, the most prominent of which manifested in the association of the white population and slaves. Whilst the North could be considered a society with slaves, the South more closely adheres to the idea of a 'slave society'. Thus, while the North presents a construct where slaves represent a societal norm, they are not reliant upon them for the successful continuation of said society. In contrast, the South, in their reliance on free labour in order to maintain their primary industry, would not function without slavery.
Despite possessing a common heritage from the revolution, both sides were convinced that by the 1860's the North and South had evolved into disparate societies. More importantly they were perceived to be incapable of reconciliation with each other. The popular perceptions from that period have been repeated by historians in spite of the tremendous shared culture between them. In part the matter of slavery came to became a matter or self-perception, the south came to consider the practice of slavery an integral part of their culture and in the north the criticism of said practice came to be perceived in a similar fashion.
ReplyDeleteDemarcation between the North and the South is evident economically, culturally and socially but the differences were self constructed. People who share a common heritage and history, language, land and values can only diverge so much to be seen as different societies. Historians such as Bell Irvin Wiley recognise the similarities between the North and the South. Any cultural differences were emphasised by members of those societies. Equally, the economic differences were vast; the North having a firm industrial based economy and the South reliant on agriculture and human labour.
ReplyDelete