The following essay was my first test in “History of the South” this year. The question was to examine and explain the heritage and mindset of the South, contrast it with the North and explain why the two regions were destined to conflict.
Introduction
Even previous to the American Revolution, there has always been two very different heritages and mindsets of the North and the South. Let’s observe the heritage of each region and then move onto each region’s mindset. It is the thesis of this essay that these two region’s differences made future conflict, whether political or militarily inevitable.
The Northern Heritage
The North was essentially founded by Protestants (Puritans) who sought religious freedom and an opportunity to reform society with implementing laws, morals and priorities that focussed on godly living and a heavily Reformed religious backdrop. These Protestants made their priorities church, family and eventually education.
Before the first Pilgrims set foot at Plymouth, the establishment of a formal government was already heavily on their minds. The North has always seen itself as the political leader/region of the North American continent. Northerners have generally always held to Federalist political view–meaning they believed in compromise among colonies or states for the larger benefit of the nation . Often, the North has never made huge distinction between their region and the nation . Their leaders have always considered the North as the nation and not so much as a region of that nation.
Also important to note is that the North has always dominated in industry and mass production where the South has come nowhere near such large scale industry or production. This remains so in many senses even into the present day United States.
The Southern Heritage
The South, while now regarded as vastly more religiously influenced and receptive than the North, was not originally so. Jamestown, Virginia was not loaded with devout Christians seeking religious sanctuary; if one came to Jamestown, he was most likely interested in financial profit. The priorities of the South have historically been agriculture, local government and self interests. While Southerners have never lacked national patriotism–for the nation’s greatest patriots have been from the South–they felt an even stronger tie and dominating obligation to their local area or state.
The family and religion were not originally priorities. Family and church would not become key until after the Great Awakening. The first Southerners were mostly business-minded people and indentured servants. Slavery did not begin to take hold until the early days surrounding the Revolution. Slavery would evolve primarily by how economic it would prove to be for Southerners. Though many Northerners agreed with and participated in the slave trade, the South made slavery far more rewarding and institutionalized.
Note: The vast differences, and I would feel comfortable calling them “polar opposites,” of the North and South almost guaranteed from the beginning an unavoidable conflict between Northern and Southern interests. While the North argued from strong, central government, the South cried “small government with severely limited power. While the South argued for strict interpretation of the Constitution, the North was inclined to favor a more liberal and relative interpretation. Quite frankly, I am confounded about how the Civil War did not occur earlier than it did. It almost did occur between the Tariff dispute between president Andrew Jackson and South Carolina’s John C. Calhoun. (Great for further reading on the South / North conflict.)
Contrasting Mindsets of the North and South
The precursory events leading up the Civil War are often blamed solely on slavery. While slavery cannot be ignored or minimized, there were much larger issues under the “iceberg tip” of slavery. While slavery is the thing most easily recognizable to the casual reader and student of American History, a deeper study will show the true battle to be the interpretation and application of the United States Constitution. The South believed that if the Federal government got rid of slavery–which the Constitution gave no power to do–they could then usurp any power they fancied. Also worth noting is that had slavery been abolished instantly, the Southern economy would have been completely devastated–almost without Northern sympathy. Southern livelihood depended on agriculture, which meant labor, which in turn meant slaves; remove the slaves, remove the labor and derail the economy. Even though many Southerners saw the evil of slavery and truly felt guilt over it, they could not find a solution to instantly abolish it without self-destructing the economy. The North was viewed much like another Great Britain and King George III, for the North repeatedly ignored Southern concerns and interests and passed legislation that continued to hurt the South while helping the North or “benefiting the nation.” The South never saw national compromise as part of their constitutional obligation and rightly so. Northern attempts to ban slavery in the South were seen as direct attacks on Southern economy and livelihood. Despite the moral dilemma of slavery, the South was completely right in perceiving the North as a threat to their livelihood and economy. The Civil war was simply the culmination of two conflicting mindsets. After many attempts by Southern politicians to appeal their case and beg the North to stop infringing on their rights and interests, the North only ignored them and tightened its grasp on the South. If the South did not take drastic action, her constitutionally guaranteed rights would only continue to slip away and the Constitution would be trampled over more and more. War was the last resort of the crisis; a crisis already fought with compromises, fiery speeches, literature and a growing Southern distrust of the North.
Conclusion
These polar opposites seemed destined for a great conflict in ideals–ultimately turning into a bloody Civil War; a war of ideals; a war of state’s rights; a war of Constitutional interpretation.
My Additional Remarks
From my study on this subject, I make the case that the central issue of American History has and always will be the interpretation of the United States Constitution. It was written by men who had fought against Great Britain for the right to have their own freedoms and liberties. No other document save the Holy Scriptures has been under more constant attack from within the United States. Ever since the ratification of the Constitution, liberal politicians and presidents have tried to interpret it loosely or disregard it altogether. Though the president swears an oath of allegiance to defend the Constitution, that oath is nothing more than a formality today. Even the current leader of out nation has violated this document tremendously, for by it, he should not even be allowed to become our leader or remain it. Even now with the immigration controversy between Arizona and the Federal government, the theme of state’s rights and Constitutional interpretation rings loud and clear. The Civil War did not end the state’s rights issue, it only intensified it and demonstrated the necessity of free Americans to stand, unto death, against those who would trample, ignore or even attempt to dissolve the United States Constitution.
I leave you with a quote:
“I love the Union, but I would rather leave the Union with my Constitution than remain in the Union without it.”
~Jefferson Davis.
