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.
Loosely speaking, a society is a community of people living in a particular region who share customs, laws, and organisations. By these criteria it can be seen that the North and South were very much different societies. While both groups are in North America, there is a definite geographical grouping of societal differences, North, and South. Although both groups had the same constitution, the reality and application of the law is different from North to South, as are the specific customs. The greatest difference between North and South is the organisational and economic structure of the societies. The Southern economy is entirely structured around a slave society, while the North's is based upon "free" labour force. The North's economy is more technologically advances and is based more around manufacturing.
The North and South were different societies because the North was independent of Slavery while the South was dependent on Slaves. While they both heralded the same constitution, religion, and shared many cultural values, the economic changes occurring in the world and in the North created a divide between the two societies. The South appeared to be un 'curious' to progress which the North so readily embraced. The Slave holding Elite of the South seemed happy to prosper on their plantations while the masses in the South where not reaping benefits that working class masses where benefiting from in the North. The South was much more illiterate and their was less money being re-invested in it's infrastructure, as was being spent in the North. The North was standing for liberty, freedom and independence for all American's, and the South where stagnating this conception by maintaining their dependency on Slavery.
The perceived differences between North and South were based upon the class systems produced by the slave society existing in the South and the wealth distribution or market society in the North. Southern Honour was particularly integral to the way of a life in the South. Based on this moral code there was seemingly little lawlessness in the South. Religion also played a large part into this moral code which was guided by religious obedience. Comparatively, the North had a system of accountability that went beyond the individual and instead looked at the group or corporation. The North also embraced reforms in both economic growth as well as the belief that salvation was available to all and society could be saved from sin. The South was obstinate to reform and looked at the North with disdain for the their big government and political dominance.
Slavery was at the core of the vicissitude between the North and South. The industrialisation and urbanisation of the North had produced an economic environment which favoured independence from slavery and free labour, while the agriculturally based Southern economy was still heavily dependent on slavery for production. Southerners accused the North of hypocrisy, highlighting the similarities between slavery and wage labour and criticising the criminal deviance of the industrial city. Meanwhile Northerners were lamenting the South’s bondage to slavery and the ignorant disposition and disdain for progress of their Southern countrymen. The changing social relations also transformed the civic and spiritual realm of each society exemplified by changing gender roles, familial relations and class structures. There was also conflict in the political arena as the South accused the North of hijacking the political system for its own advantage creating a political environment of fervent anti-federalism in the South and pro-Unionism in the North.
The societies of the North and the South were above all, incompatible. Although historians such as David Porter assert that commonalities of language, heritage, religion, law and political systems outweighed any distinctions between the Abolitionists and the Confederates, it was their attitude towards slavery that ultimately resulted in their polarity. The South, agrarian and somewhat backward, was dependent on slavery as a means of economic prosperity. The North, on the other hand, was a more urban and industrialized society. The working-man of the North was self-sufficient and not an economic burden. The slaves in the South, however, were a financial strain on their owners when they required medical attention, reached old age or produced children.
Although some historians, such as David Potter, may argue that the North and South had more in common at the onset of the American Civil War than they had different, I disagree. Merely sharing a religion, political system, law, language and heritage does not mean that two societies, as different as the North and South were essentially compatible; primarily due to the fact that their economic and social systems were worlds apart. Many historians would argue that the North and South were too culturally different as seen by their differing lifestyles- the North was becoming a predominantly industrial, modern and urban society whereas the South remained an agricultural, rural society with a folk culture. This differentiation was entirely related to the fact that the South was a Slave Society. Very simply, the South as it was could not survive without it's slaves. The economic and social structure of the South relied on them too heavily to contemplate abolishing slavery. Slavery was the very essence of Southern culture and this is what made it fundamentally different from the North, ultimately leading to the Civil War.
The difference between the Northern and the Southern societies of America during the mid-ninetieth century was widely due to the issues of ‘Slavery’. The Southern society was a ‘Slave society’ made up of small Upper class citizens, dependant on their agricultural prosperity and their ownership of black slaves to propel their economy. The Northern and Southern societies represented the opposite spectrum of each other, the North being the more ‘Urban’, free labouring, modern society made up of elite intellectuals and ‘free soil’ thinking citizens, whereas the South represented the ‘Rural’ way of living, hospitable and honourable, but a backward society.
Thomas Meredith When examining the separate societies of the north and south, various stark differences are obvious. The most widely acknowledged being the obvious dependence of the south upon slavery on which their economy relied upon to produce agricultural goods. To the North’s perception this created a new type of aristocracy among southern plantation owners, as a component of this the north saw this reliance upon slave labour by the south as juxtaposition to many of the constitution’s stated ideals of independence. Similarly was the North’s path of industrialization, utilizing free labour and large amounts of Irish and European immigrants to also work manual labour jobs, this progression industrially was far different from that of the south’s, as they still comprised mainly of plantations. The absence of railway lines in the south during this period is testament to this. Ultimately although bound under the same constitution the North and South where in fact separated by an abyss of culture, technology and social progression.
It seems as if commenting on this would be useless, seeing as practically everyone else has outlined the main differences between the two sides. But, sure, let's try our hand at this.
At the time, it seemed to both Northerners and Southerners that the differences between them was unbridgeable - to the extent that they would refer to each other in such a way, despite both sides being wholly 'American' [although I have some doubts about whether either side considered the other 'American' at all or not - but that's a different story altogether]. The readings are testament to this - throughout all of the primary sources given, both sides were disparaging each other as being different from that which was their ideal, and, therefore, inferior. That alone, at first glance, would be enough evidence for an outside observer to say that they truly are different.
However, this fact could also be looked at inversely, as the eagerness of both sides to define and separate themselves from the 'other' seems, at least to me, that they are more common than they previously thought or allowed themselves to think. Events [going on a tangent here for a bit] during the actual war itself, wherein both sides gave the other pet names [Billy Yank and Johnny Rebel] - and not necessarily condescending ones - suggests some acknowledgement of affection and/or sympathy and similarity amongst the common soldiery at the time.
However, as many here have pointed out, societies often break up due to a single focal point, and in this case, it was the issue of slavery.
By the way, this is Paul Maniquiz. I can't seem to get my name on the actual "[name here] says" slot, so I'll just insert it here. I'll sign up for blogger next week or something.
It is widely believed that the North and the South shared obvious similarities, similarities including; religion, law, language and political systems. These are the similarities that appear on the surface and are largely superficial when considering their deep, polar differences. The North’s dependence on slavery and the “aristocracy” of the South’s desire to maintain the wealth and ease that came with owning numerous slaves placed them in direct opposition with the North who wished to abolish slavery. The South relied on “southern honour” and religion to police their existence using the Old Testament to justify the use of slavery and claiming that “slavery was god’s way of bringing Christianity to Africa.” The North on the other hand believed in liberty, freedom and independence for all Americans. The North embraced industrialisation which created an environment which allowed them to free themselves from the need for slaves and encouraged free labour. The result was a clear divided between the North and South. The North enjoyed freedom for all and economic prosperity whilst the South remained backward industrially, economically, educationally and with infrastructure.
The North and South were very similar in many aspects. They were mostly white; Protestants and both had social tiers that defined the ‘classes’ of society. However, there were also many differences, mainly to their economics. The recent Market revolution had meant that the North had benefitted greatly from the increase in industry and had therefore benefitted from an increase in population as well as more railway lines being built. The South on the other hand remained an agricultural society and therefore had a much greater reliance on slavery. The differing views on slavery were the major aspect that defined the North and South, with the North seeing slavery as an evil that would eventually die out, and the South seeing owning slaves as a goal and an acknowledgement of success. These key differences are what eventually drove the South to the thought of secession
The North and the South were differing societies in a number of contexts. Firstly and most importantly, the differing ideals between the importance of slaves; the North being a 'society with slaves' (non-dependent on slavery, having it there to assist normal manual labour) and 'slave societies' in the South (reliant on slavery to the extent where the abolishment of slavery would cause major problems in the South, particularly for work done in the fields). Additionally, the means of production were different with the North being more industrial and the South being mostly agricultural in nature. This also ties into the North becoming increasingly urbanized whilst the South stayed rural with only 10% of Southerners living in the city prior to the outbreak of the Civil War. Finally, though this can be disputed to a degree, Southerners were perceived as somewhat more simple and less educated than the North with fewer opportunities for education available, although this could be attributed to what people understand as skewed and now backward views on racial rights.
In essence, the North and South represented a societal, economic, political, religious and moral dichotomy. Furthermore, the attitudes both inherent and expressed of the differing societies exacerbated the distinction. Society in the North symbolised abolition, liberty and stressed that all citizens (including white, Christian men) were obliged to be self-disciplined and proper; adhering to the moral ideals of the church. Comparatively, the South adhered more literally to the bibles readings, believing Slavery to be a benevolent act, founded upon the white Southerner’s views of their intrinsic racial superiority. Economically, the north was more concerned with white collar jobs and commercial and industrial growth. Whereas, the South’s structure of wealth was contingent upon the thriving agriculture industry, which relied on the continued exploitation of slaves. Despite the early 20th Century views of the war as “a struggle between two noble foes”(Blight, 2011), modern perceptions of the war focus on the racial struggle, rapid social and domestic change, as well as the subsequent cultural developments which continue to echo the binary opposition between the wealthy and the disenfranchised amongst America’s integrated citizens.
The North and South shared a founding heritage, language, constitution and (in many ways) similar religious and cultural values. They were, however, fundamentally opposed in many ways, and may therefore be viewed as distinct societies that were structured very differently. The North, following the construction of the Erie Canal, was the trade and industrial capital of America, while the South relied primarily on agricultural production. Northern industry was built on the shoulders of “free labourers”, whilst the South was reliant on slavery as a form of labour. Contemporaries on both sides of the border perceived a cultural divide between the North and South, with Southern propaganda criticizing the lawlessness, class conflict and exploitation within Northern society, while Northern critics ruthlessly attacked the “sinful South” and its `“slave aristocracy”. Religion played a prominent role in both societies however they often drew opposing interpretations (e.g. the North used the Bible to condemn slavery, whilst the South used the Bible to justify it).
testing 1, 2, 3
ReplyDeleteLoosely speaking, a society is a community of people living in a particular region who share customs, laws, and organisations. By these criteria it can be seen that the North and South were very much different societies. While both groups are in North America, there is a definite geographical grouping of societal differences, North, and South. Although both groups had the same constitution, the reality and application of the law is different from North to South, as are the specific customs. The greatest difference between North and South is the organisational and economic structure of the societies. The Southern economy is entirely structured around a slave society, while the North's is based upon "free" labour force. The North's economy is more technologically advances and is based more around manufacturing.
DeleteThe North and South were different societies because the North was independent of Slavery while the South was dependent on Slaves. While they both heralded the same constitution, religion, and shared many cultural values, the economic changes occurring in the world and in the North created a divide between the two societies. The South appeared to be un 'curious' to progress which the North so readily embraced. The Slave holding Elite of the South seemed happy to prosper on their plantations while the masses in the South where not reaping benefits that working class masses where benefiting from in the North. The South was much more illiterate and their was less money being re-invested in it's infrastructure, as was being spent in the North. The North was standing for liberty, freedom and independence for all American's, and the South where stagnating this conception by maintaining their dependency on Slavery.
ReplyDeleteThe perceived differences between North and South were based upon the class systems produced by the slave society existing in the South and the wealth distribution or market society in the North. Southern Honour was particularly integral to the way of a life in the South. Based on this moral code there was seemingly little lawlessness in the South. Religion also played a large part into this moral code which was guided by religious obedience. Comparatively, the North had a system of accountability that went beyond the individual and instead looked at the group or corporation. The North also embraced reforms in both economic growth as well as the belief that salvation was available to all and society could be saved from sin. The South was obstinate to reform and looked at the North with disdain for the their big government and political dominance.
ReplyDeleteSlavery was at the core of the vicissitude between the North and South. The industrialisation and urbanisation of the North had produced an economic environment which favoured independence from slavery and free labour, while the agriculturally based Southern economy was still heavily dependent on slavery for production. Southerners accused the North of hypocrisy, highlighting the similarities between slavery and wage labour and criticising the criminal deviance of the industrial city. Meanwhile Northerners were lamenting the South’s bondage to slavery and the ignorant disposition and disdain for progress of their Southern countrymen. The changing social relations also transformed the civic and spiritual realm of each society exemplified by changing gender roles, familial relations and class structures. There was also conflict in the political arena as the South accused the North of hijacking the political system for its own advantage creating a political environment of fervent anti-federalism in the South and pro-Unionism in the North.
ReplyDeleteThe societies of the North and the South were above all, incompatible. Although historians such as David Porter assert that commonalities of language, heritage, religion, law and political systems outweighed any distinctions between the Abolitionists and the Confederates, it was their attitude towards slavery that ultimately resulted in their polarity. The South, agrarian and somewhat backward, was dependent on slavery as a means of economic prosperity. The North, on the other hand, was a more urban and industrialized society. The working-man of the North was self-sufficient and not an economic burden. The slaves in the South, however, were a financial strain on their owners when they required medical attention, reached old age or produced children.
DeleteAlthough some historians, such as David Potter, may argue that the North and South had more in common at the onset of the American Civil War than they had different, I disagree. Merely sharing a religion, political system, law, language and heritage does not mean that two societies, as different as the North and South were essentially compatible; primarily due to the fact that their economic and social systems were worlds apart. Many historians would argue that the North and South were too culturally different as seen by their differing lifestyles- the North was becoming a predominantly industrial, modern and urban society whereas the South remained an agricultural, rural society with a folk culture. This differentiation was entirely related to the fact that the South was a Slave Society. Very simply, the South as it was could not survive without it's slaves. The economic and social structure of the South relied on them too heavily to contemplate abolishing slavery. Slavery was the very essence of Southern culture and this is what made it fundamentally different from the North, ultimately leading to the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between the Northern and the Southern societies of America during the mid-ninetieth century was widely due to the issues of ‘Slavery’. The Southern society was a ‘Slave society’ made up of small Upper class citizens, dependant on their agricultural prosperity and their ownership of black slaves to propel their economy. The Northern and Southern societies represented the opposite spectrum of each other, the North being the more ‘Urban’, free labouring, modern society made up of elite intellectuals and ‘free soil’ thinking citizens, whereas the South represented the ‘Rural’ way of living, hospitable and honourable, but a backward society.
ReplyDeleteThomas Meredith
ReplyDeleteWhen examining the separate societies of the north and south, various stark differences are obvious. The most widely acknowledged being the obvious dependence of the south upon slavery on which their economy relied upon to produce agricultural goods. To the North’s perception this created a new type of aristocracy among southern plantation owners, as a component of this the north saw this reliance upon slave labour by the south as juxtaposition to many of the constitution’s stated ideals of independence. Similarly was the North’s path of industrialization, utilizing free labour and large amounts of Irish and European immigrants to also work manual labour jobs, this progression industrially was far different from that of the south’s, as they still comprised mainly of plantations. The absence of railway lines in the south during this period is testament to this. Ultimately although bound under the same constitution the North and South where in fact separated by an abyss of culture, technology and social progression.
It seems as if commenting on this would be useless, seeing as practically everyone else has outlined the main differences between the two sides. But, sure, let's try our hand at this.
ReplyDeleteAt the time, it seemed to both Northerners and Southerners that the differences between them was unbridgeable - to the extent that they would refer to each other in such a way, despite both sides being wholly 'American' [although I have some doubts about whether either side considered the other 'American' at all or not - but that's a different story altogether]. The readings are testament to this - throughout all of the primary sources given, both sides were disparaging each other as being different from that which was their ideal, and, therefore, inferior. That alone, at first glance, would be enough evidence for an outside observer to say that they truly are different.
However, this fact could also be looked at inversely, as the eagerness of both sides to define and separate themselves from the 'other' seems, at least to me, that they are more common than they previously thought or allowed themselves to think. Events [going on a tangent here for a bit] during the actual war itself, wherein both sides gave the other pet names [Billy Yank and Johnny Rebel] - and not necessarily condescending ones - suggests some acknowledgement of affection and/or sympathy and similarity amongst the common soldiery at the time.
However, as many here have pointed out, societies often break up due to a single focal point, and in this case, it was the issue of slavery.
By the way, this is Paul Maniquiz. I can't seem to get my name on the actual "[name here] says" slot, so I'll just insert it here. I'll sign up for blogger next week or something.
It is widely believed that the North and the South shared obvious similarities, similarities including; religion, law, language and political systems. These are the similarities that appear on the surface and are largely superficial when considering their deep, polar differences. The North’s dependence on slavery and the “aristocracy” of the South’s desire to maintain the wealth and ease that came with owning numerous slaves placed them in direct opposition with the North who wished to abolish slavery. The South relied on “southern honour” and religion to police their existence using the Old Testament to justify the use of slavery and claiming that “slavery was god’s way of bringing Christianity to Africa.” The North on the other hand believed in liberty, freedom and independence for all Americans. The North embraced industrialisation which created an environment which allowed them to free themselves from the need for slaves and encouraged free labour. The result was a clear divided between the North and South. The North enjoyed freedom for all and economic prosperity whilst the South remained backward industrially, economically, educationally and with infrastructure.
ReplyDeleteThe North and South were very similar in many aspects. They were mostly white; Protestants and both had social tiers that defined the ‘classes’ of society. However, there were also many differences, mainly to their economics. The recent Market revolution had meant that the North had benefitted greatly from the increase in industry and had therefore benefitted from an increase in population as well as more railway lines being built. The South on the other hand remained an agricultural society and therefore had a much greater reliance on slavery. The differing views on slavery were the major aspect that defined the North and South, with the North seeing slavery as an evil that would eventually die out, and the South seeing owning slaves as a goal and an acknowledgement of success. These key differences are what eventually drove the South to the thought of secession
ReplyDeleteThe North and the South were differing societies in a number of contexts. Firstly and most importantly, the differing ideals between the importance of slaves; the North being a 'society with slaves' (non-dependent on slavery, having it there to assist normal manual labour) and 'slave societies' in the South (reliant on slavery to the extent where the abolishment of slavery would cause major problems in the South, particularly for work done in the fields). Additionally, the means of production were different with the North being more industrial and the South being mostly agricultural in nature. This also ties into the North becoming increasingly urbanized whilst the South stayed rural with only 10% of Southerners living in the city prior to the outbreak of the Civil War. Finally, though this can be disputed to a degree, Southerners were perceived as somewhat more simple and less educated than the North with fewer opportunities for education available, although this could be attributed to what people understand as skewed and now backward views on racial rights.
ReplyDeleteIn essence, the North and South represented a societal, economic, political, religious and moral dichotomy. Furthermore, the attitudes both inherent and expressed of the differing societies exacerbated the distinction. Society in the North symbolised abolition, liberty and stressed that all citizens (including white, Christian men) were obliged to be self-disciplined and proper; adhering to the moral ideals of the church. Comparatively, the South adhered more literally to the bibles readings, believing Slavery to be a benevolent act, founded upon the white Southerner’s views of their intrinsic racial superiority. Economically, the north was more concerned with white collar jobs and commercial and industrial growth. Whereas, the South’s structure of wealth was contingent upon the thriving agriculture industry, which relied on the continued exploitation of slaves. Despite the early 20th Century views of the war as “a struggle between two noble foes”(Blight, 2011), modern perceptions of the war focus on the racial struggle, rapid social and domestic change, as well as the subsequent cultural developments which continue to echo the binary opposition between the wealthy and the disenfranchised amongst America’s integrated citizens.
ReplyDeleteGillian Gray
The North and South shared a founding heritage, language, constitution and (in many ways) similar religious and cultural values. They were, however, fundamentally opposed in many ways, and may therefore be viewed as distinct societies that were structured very differently. The North, following the construction of the Erie Canal, was the trade and industrial capital of America, while the South relied primarily on agricultural production. Northern industry was built on the shoulders of “free labourers”, whilst the South was reliant on slavery as a form of labour. Contemporaries on both sides of the border perceived a cultural divide between the North and South, with Southern propaganda criticizing the lawlessness, class conflict and exploitation within Northern society, while Northern critics ruthlessly attacked the “sinful South” and its `“slave aristocracy”. Religion played a prominent role in both societies however they often drew opposing interpretations (e.g. the North used the Bible to condemn slavery, whilst the South used the Bible to justify it).
ReplyDelete