top of page

Civil Belligerence

Matthew Saporito

By

About the Writing

As the economic disparities regarding slavery deepened between the North and South, the division between these regions grew significantly, ultimately leading to armed conflict as the only viable option to end slavery in the United States. During the 19th century, the North's opposition to slavery contrasted sharply with the South's staunch support for the institution, which was intricately tied to its economic prosperity. The North's embrace of industrialization, factory labor, and efficient transportation systems stood in stark contrast to the South's heavy reliance on slave labor, highlighting the divergent paths of economic development that fueled the growing tension between the two regions. This stark contrast in economic systems, combined with the South's passionate defense of slavery and its pervasive influence in the region, set the stage for the inevitable confrontation that would define the country's efforts to confront the issue of slavery.

The Writing

Civil BelligerenceMatthew Saporito
00:00 / 01:04

Due to economic differences regarding slavery between the South and North as well as the South’s violent and passionate view towards slavery, the division between the two was so strong, providing the federal government and the country as a whole with no other option but armed conflict to try and end slavery.

On account of slavery in the United States, the economy between the North and South was so split, inevitably resulting in war being the only option for the States to end slavery. During the 1800s, the North opposed slavery, whereas the South was in complete favor of it. With the North’s opposition to slavery, its primary source of economic growth was its factory labor and mass production of products. This product was quickly transported from A to B using the railroad system stretching across the United States: the North’s mass production and ability to transport products allowed for a massive economic rise easily. The South, on the other hand, relied heavily on slavery for its economic growth. This economic disparity was due to the difference in views on slavery. Yet, it was also due to the Industrial Revolution, “The continued polarization of Northern and Southern attitudes toward slavery paralleled the regions’ divergent courses of economic development. By the 1850s, the Industrial Revolution was transforming Northern manufacturing and society” (9). The Industrial Revolution led to the fast replacement of manual labor in the North by industrial work. This switch from manual labor to factory labor allowed for a boom in economic growth for the North, “With thriving commercial, financial, industrial, and agricultural sectors, Northern capitalists accumulated vast fortunes and employed a growing urban labor class” (9). This switch not only grew the economy of the North, but it also attracted many immigrants in search of a better life in the Northern United States. These factors created a divide between the North and South regarding economy, society, and population. While the North switched to industrial labor, the South stuck to slavery, “The large plantations that dominated the Southern economy relied on African slaves to harvest cash crops like tobacco” (2). The North depended on its new factory systems and railroad networks, while the South relied on slave labor. Giving up slavery within the South would have been highly detrimental, as slavery was the South’s primary source of economy. If slavery were to be taken away, the South’s economy would have plummeted. If the government tried to take away slavery, the South indeed would have defended it with armed conflict. The only way for the federal government to try to ban slavery within the South possibly would be war.


The South’s extremely passionate view towards slavery gave the impression that if slavery were to be banished, the South would surely rise and start war. The South protected slavery with all of its might, no matter the circumstance. Not only did the South try to preserve slavery within its existing slave states, but it also had the same passion for expanding slavery into new territories. Both protecting the slave states as well as broadening slavery included the act of armed conflict. A prominent example of the South’s passionate and violent view toward expanding slavery is shown in 1856 with the event of Bleeding Kansas. In the early 1850s, Kansas and Nebraska were introduced as new territories of the United States. The debate over whether they would be enslaved or free states led to the decision to repeal the Missouri Compromise for these two territories. The settlers of the territories were to vote on whether they would be a free or enslaved person state. As expected, this bill “raise[d] a hell of a storm” (10) across the nation.


The original settlers of Kansas were anti-slavery, yet pro-slave citizens from Missouri migrated into Kansas to sway the votes towards pro-slavery. This rivalry led to a violent dispute between the two sides. This conflict was known as Bleeding Kansas. As soon as Kansas entered the Union as a territory, the South acted quickly on doing everything they could to make it a slave state. When they didn’t get their way, they resorted to armed conflict. This shows the South’s violent passion towards slavery over just one single state; if there were an attempt to take away slavery fully, the South would surely resort to armed conflict. This passionate view towards slavery was also shown when Lincoln was elected into office. In 1860, the South Carolina convention announced its secession from the Union for multiple reasons. One of the reasons is the election of a president “whose opinions and purposes are hostile to Slavery” (15). South Carolina had unconstitutionally left the Union because Lincoln’s election had threatened slavery. Lincoln’s intention wasn’t even to take away slavery within the South, yet South Carolina was so quick to leave the Union over this minor threat without even knowing if it was true or not. This secession shows the South’s passionate view on slavery and how much they want to protect it. Both Bleeding Kansas and South Carolina’s secession illustrate the Southern view on slavery and how the South would most definitely resort to something extreme, such as war, to protect it.

STAY IN THE KNOW

Thanks for submitting!

bottom of page