The Southern and the Northern portions of the United States developed in different fashions. The North developed in the line of industrialization while the Southern section remained predominantly an agrarian economy. This means that there were different beliefs and cultures in the two sections. Disagreements were bound to happen. The disagreements were in the line of tariffs, taxes, federal rights as well as state rights. The civil war was inevitable.
After Eli Whitney had developed the invented the cotton gin, the Southern part developed in another different perspective from the northern part. There were a number of concerns that led to the two sections developing apart. The periodical of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Bleeding Kansas, John Brown’s raid on the Harpers ferry and different other social and political developments drove the two regions apart. Between 1820 and 1850, the two parts tried to merge, however, the efforts were futile.
The impact of the cotton gin was immense in that all the farmers in the South abandoned all their other products for cotton. This was because the cotton became more profitable than all the other products. In order to raise the much sought for profit, the farm owners had to purchase more slaves. The slaves had been predominantly from Africa and the West Indies before the act was banned in 1808. As the cotton farms became more profitable, the size of the farms also increased. The frugality of the Southern portion, of the United States, became very dependent on the cotton that was being produced and in order to maintain the high economic levels, more slaves were purchased. Although the Northern economy also benefited from the slavery, its influence was indirect. It was up to the publication of Uncle Tom’s Cabin that the plight of the slaves became well known to the northerners. The economy of the northern region was based on manufacturing and industrialization. The food that the factories in the northern region produced was enough for the armies.
In 1856, there was a great violence between the Free-soldiers and the groups that were pro-slavery termed as the ‘Bleeding Kansas’. The violence was well documented in the North, and many people were outraged. The Southern population, on the other hand, knew where the people in the North stood on the issue concerning Slavery. It is undoubtedly precise to say that the key impetus that led to the Civil War was when a Dutch trader was the initial person who brought African slaves to the United States. Tensions continued to rise especially when the leaders of the North and the South differed on policies. This led to the increases in the tensions and jealousies in the two areas to break out. One of the key issues that raised the tensions is that most of the Northerners felt that the key leaders of the United States were from the south. The Southerners, on the other hand, felt that it was their right to have the leaders come from their area, as they were more economically strong. For their part, the Southerners opted for developing their area in terms of developing roads, harbors, canals and these were not seen to interest the northerners. Ultimately, these developments constituted the first dissidents of the sectional areas.
At the end of the eighteenth century, financial superiority revitalized with the developed North while the South was undergoing growing doubts regarding the viability of farming cotton. There had been a lessening in the importation of slaves and a sudden decline of the southern economy. If the economy had sustained to decline, slave labor would have ultimately died out on its own; there was slight need for forced labor. That all transformed with the development of Eli Whitney’s cotton gin in 1793. Nevertheless, due to the North’s fundamental belief that nationwide preservation and the will of the popular succeeded the South’s right of free administration and self-determination, it demanded the very revolution, which the South wanted to evade.
In 1854, a senator came up with an economic proposal of a trans-continental railway that set the stage for a war, which gesticulated the end of political conciliation. The Kansas-Nebraska act, which was a straight result of the economic war, reversed the Missouri compromise. The ‘bleeding Kansas’ instance heightened pressures on both sides and offers further indication to suggest that the intrinsic economic encounters could not be controlled through political mediation. The North and the South had already resorted to arms to resolve their disagreements, and it was unbiased and a matter of time until the fights intensified into a civil war. The diverse economic structures of the South and the North were a central division that made war inevitable. The South was unwaveringly anti-tariff and was, consequently, discordant with the North, which required tariffs to guard their new productions. Failure to negotiate in respect to the tariff of 1828 and the subject of protectionism were vital factors in the development of sectionalism, which compelled the war.
The fundamental conflicts amid the South and the North were ultimately fully exposed because of a letdown of negotiation in the political field. The failure of American governance in 1846-1861 was exemplified by important events such as the Kansas, Nebraska act of 1854 and the Supreme Court verdict of 1857. These two events upturned the preceding Missouri compromise that stood for closely thirty years and thus once again got the two opposing homelands head to head. The Wilmot stipulation bill, which suggested the elimination of slavery in the areas assimilated from Mexico since the Mexican war, was a strong signal to the South that the North was scheming to counter its way of life. Therefore, the Southern approach became progressively locked in an oppression complex which they vindicated by indication of a ‘Northern conspiracy’ to abolish their economic establishments. The Wilmot stipulation bill was one such bit of the indication - although it was not passed. The voting of president Lincoln was the ultimate straw with which the South supposed the Northern schemes would advance the upper hand and bring about the demolition of Southern establishments.
Had negotiation been used more frequently the war may have been deferred, but not altogether evaded. The conflicting Nations of South and North had an anxious balance of power in the House of Representatives ever since the very creation of a bilateral legislature. Pressures since then until the beginning of the war ascended over whether the new regions would become unrestricted or slave permitted. Nevertheless, the uneasy stability had been conserved for the most part by negotiation. However, many scholars pointed out that there were intrinsic antagonisms within the structure, and consequently one side would predictably have to declare its side triumphant in one way or another – war was unavoidable.
The issue for the war being an avoidable circumstance was dependent the fact that the North and the South had existed with the problems that ultimately led to the occurrence of the civil war for a long time. Consequently, scholars who stick to that theory claim that there was a stout possibility for a negotiation to be initiated, using as a foundation for their dispute, the indication of the many pre-war compromises which eased sectional strains. Some revisionists also account for the escalation of the Civil War by emphasizing that the vivacious instrument of concession was deserted by a “blundering groups” in the events conjuring up to the Civil War. The philosophy of a “clumsy generation” holds legitimacy to some extent. Nevertheless, this very philosophy in itself extinguishes the idea that the war was some avoidable battle, for it only highlights the degree of the serious detachments in the nation, which could not be determined irrespective of how many concessions either side accepted. The fundamental issues such as that of free labor opposing slave labor persisted. One side would have to abolish the ideas of the other in order to put to end to rest the separating issues. Only then could the areas are truly unified. It could also be claimed that revisionist writing in the 1930s and 1940s required accurate historical background because they “scrutinized the sources of the Civil War at a time when war as a means of resolving problems was not well-thought-out to be a sound answer.” They saw war as a great evil while in the nineteenth-century; conflict was seen as an admissible means of solving evils. Consequently in the eyes of nineteenth-century representatives, armed struggle would have been seen as an unavoidable step in order to progress their political philosophy once a chance arose.
In the case of the American interior war, Southern secession was the chance seized upon by the North. The absence of a strong anti-violence undertaking in the actions primary to the civil war strappingly suggests the satisfactory nature of war in order to determination issues and illustrates the degree to which sectionalism had full-fledged and divided the country into two separate nations. The capacity that the North had in terms of manpower, technological advancement and the army made it possible to guarantee that the North won the War. Henceforth, one could argue that the very nature of nineteenth-century global policy made the civil war an inevitable event.
In conclusion, the civil war was an unavoidable incidence; too many issues leading up to the civil war had the consequence of aggravating the essential differences amongst the North and the South. Lincoln, as well as numerous other partisan leaders, supposed that the country could not last to exist as two nation’s less than one administration. In some form, the two discordant beliefs had to settle their variances. Though, because the variances were so essentially vital to each section, political negotiation would have eventually led only to one side’s monetary and social philosophy being wiped out; both sides were reluctant to let their organizations be denied by the other. Eli Whitney’s discovery altered the stakes as it invigorated a dying society and set it in place as king of the southern economy deprived of which the South felt it could not last. The South and the North did not propagate along similar frugally or ideologically. That shaped an inherent uncertainty in the United States. At some stage, the two contrasting sections would unavoidably come into the military battle once all concessions were finished.
Works cited
Hochschild, Jennifer L., Brenna Marea Powell, and Vesla Weaver. "Political Discourse On Racial Mixture: American Newspapers, 1865 To 1970." Conference Papers -- Midwestern Political Science Association (2008): 1-43. Academic Search Premier. Web. 9 Dec. 2014.
Khoury, Dina Rizk. "The Government Of War." International Journal Of Middle East Studies 46.4 (2014): 791-793. Academic Search Premier. Web. 9 Dec. 2014.
Malanowski, Jamie. "Was War Inevitable?." Civil War Times 52.2 (2013): 58-65. Academic Search Premier. Web. 9 Dec. 2014.
Johnson, Paul Christopher. "Savage Civil Religion." Numen: International Review For The History Of Religions 52.3 (2005): 289-324. Academic Search Premier. Web. 9 Dec. 2014
Arenson, Adam. "Experience Rather Than Imagination: Researching The Return Migration Of African North Americans During The American Civil War And Reconstruction." Journal Of American Ethnic History 32.2 (2013): 73-77. Religion and Philosophy Collection. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
Auman, William T. "North Carolina's Conscientious Objectors." America's Civil War 27.3 (2014): 68. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
Fortney, Jeff. "Lest We Remember: Civil War Memory And Commemoration Among The Five Tribes." American Indian Quarterly 36.4 (2012): 525-544. Religion and Philosophy Collection. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
Poteat, R. Matthew. "Part 2: "A Modest Estimate Of His Own Abilities": Governor Henry Toole Clark And The Early Civil War Leadership Of North Carolina." North Carolina Historical Review 84.2 (2007): 127-155. Academic Search Premier. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
