The USA Civil War: A North-South Divide

The American Civil War was not a simple struggle between slaveholders and abolitionists, argues Tim Stanley.

The year 2011 marks the 150th anniversary of the outbreak of the American Civil War. Karl Marx defined it as a struggle between two historical epochs – the feudal and the capitalist. The victory of the latter made possible the eventual recognition of the human dignity and the civil rights of African-Americans.

Yet throughout the war British public sentiment favored the slave-holding South. In October 1861 Marx, who was living in Primrose Hill, summed up the view of the British press: ‘The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty.’ That view was shared by Charles Dickens, who wrote: ‘The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.’

What Marx and the modern reader understand to be a moral question – the question of whether or not one man could own another – many contemporaries understood in terms of economics and law.

Prior to fighting, relations between the North and South had been poisoned by disputes over taxes. The North financed its industrial development through crippling taxes imposed by Congress on imported goods. The South, which had an agricultural economy and had to buy machinery from abroad, ended up footing the bill. When the recession hit in the 1850s Congress hiked the import tax from 15 to 37 percent. The South threatened secession and the North was outraged. An editorial in the Chicago Daily Times warned that if the South left the Union ‘in one single blow, our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half of what it is now. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. War was the only alternative to financial ruin.

The North was broadly opposed to slavery and this cultural difference shaped the rhetoric of war. Abraham Lincoln’s Republican Party was a free labor movement – rabidly so. The northern popular culture depicted Southerners as decadent, un-Christian sponges. Lincoln’s election in 1860 put the government in the hands of the man most identified with anti-Dixie prejudice. Inevitably Southerners interpreted it as a Northern coup d’état.

Economic and cultural fear propelled the country into war. But slavery was rarely the issue at hand. While the Republican Party was anti-slavery, it was not abolitionist. In his 1861 inaugural address, Lincoln stated: ‘I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so … If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.’ High-minded though its rhetoric was, the Emancipation Proclamation of 1862 only freed slaves in areas occupied by Union forces. Slave-holding states fighting for the Union were exempted. Secretary of State William H. Steward commented: ‘We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.’

The roots of the economic difference between the North and South lay in their labor systems. As Marx observed: ‘The whole movement was and is based, as one sees, on the slave question. Not in the sense of whether the slaves within the existing slave states should be emancipated outright or not, but whether the 20 million free men of the North should submit any longer to an oligarchy of three hundred thousand slaveholders.’ But the record shows that Northern greed and anti-Southern prejudice played a big role in the Civil War too.

The seizure of New Orleans, 24 April 1862.

The year 2011 marks the 150th anniversary of the outbreak of the American Civil battle. Karl Marx defined it as a battle between ancient epochs – the feudal and the capitalist. The victory of the latter made feasible the eventual reputation of the human dignity and the civil rights of African Americans.

Yet in the war, British public sentiment favored the slave-holding South. In October 1861 Marx, who was residing in Primrose Hill, summed up the view of the British press: ‘The battle between the North and South is a tariff war. The struggle is, further, not for any principle, does now not contact the question of slavery and in reality activates Northern lust for sovereignty.’ That view was shared by Charles Dickens, who wrote: ‘The Northern onslaught upon slavery is not any more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to hide its desire for economic manage of America.’

What Marx and the contemporary reader apprehend to be an American ethical question – the query of whether or not or now not one man ought to very own another – many contemporaries understood in phrases of economics and regulation.

Before combat, family members between the North and South had been poisoned by means of disputes over taxes. The North financed its industrial development via crippling taxes imposed by means of Congress on imported items. The South, which had an agricultural economy and had to buy machinery from overseas, ended up footing the bill. When the recession hit within the 1850s Congress hiked the import tax from 15 to 37 according to cent. The South threatened secession and the North was outraged. An article in the Chicago daily instances warned that if the South left the Union ‘in one unmarried blow, our overseas commerce has to be decreased to much less than one-half of what it's far now. Our coastwise trade might pass into other palms. One-1/2 of our transport would lie idle at our wharves. We need to lose our alternative with the South, with all of its vast profits. The battle became the simplest alternative to a monetary wreck.

The North become extensively against slavery and this cultural distinction shaped the rhetoric of conflict. Abraham Lincoln’s Republican birthday party turned into a free labor motion – swiftly so. The Northern popular way of life depicted Southerners as decadent, un-Christian sponges. Lincoln’s election in 1860 put the government inside the palms of the man maximum identified with anti-Dixie prejudice. Unavoidably Southerners interpreted it as a Northern coup d’état.

Financial and cultural worries propelled the country into conflict. However, slavery turned into not often a problem to hand. While the Republican celebration became anti-slavery, it turned into now not abolitionism. In his 1861 inaugural deal with, Lincoln stated: ‘I haven't any purpose, without delay or in a roundabout way, to intervene with the institution of slavery where it exists. I accept as true with I don't have any lawful right to do so, and that I don't have any inclination to do so … If I may want to shop the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.’ excessive-minded though its rhetoric turned into, the Emancipation Proclamation of 1862 most effective freed slaves in areas occupied by way of Union forces. Slave-preserving states fighting for the Union have been exempted. Secretary of Nation William H. Steward commented: ‘We display our sympathy with slavery by using emancipating slaves in which we cannot attain them and protecting them in bondage in which we will set them loose.’

The roots of the financial distinction between North and South lay in their labor structures. As Marx determined: ‘The entire movement was and is based, as one sees, at the slave question. Not within the feel of whether or not the slaves within the current slave states ought to be emancipated outright or not, but whether or not the 20 million free guys of the North have to post anymore to an oligarchy of 3 hundred thousand slaveholders.’ however the document indicates that Northern greed and anti-Southern prejudice performed a massive position inside the Civil war too.