The differences in the economies of the North and the South were one of the major causes of the Civil War."

North and South Economic Differences as the One of the Main Causes of the American Civil War 1861-1865 Name Professor Course/Subject Date Introduction The paper will tackle the economic factor in the increasing level of conflicts between the Northern and Southern states prior the American Civil War, which led to the secession of the 11 states otherwise known as the Confederacy and culminated into an all-out war where the Union emerged victorious. It will argue that the differences in the economies between the North and the South were one of the main causes of the Civil War. It will do so by tracking through historical events which highlighted these differences and how the other conflicts (racial, moral, political, etc) were affected by these economic engagements. Finally, it will argue that despite the major influence of these economic differences to the Civil War, it cannot be concluded that these differences determined wholesale the very texture of the Civil War. The American Civil War (1861-1865) is without doubt a heavily political conflict. Historically, the four-year long hostility was sparked by the election of Abraham Lincoln as the President of the United States of America. As Lincoln`s name was regarded as dangerously synonymous to his and the Republicans` anti-slavery campaign, his election was seen by the Southern states as a fatal move against the generally agricultural, slavery-fueled economy of the South. Despite this seemingly simple deduction of the origin of the American Civil War, it is in reality a very complex event that came about because of a complex set of circumstances. According to a recent session by the Organization of American Historians, despite the various theories and speculations that abound in the making sense of the origins of the war, it is indeed quite safe to say and finally conclude that "it was disunion itself that sparked the war." To ask "what are the factors that brought about to this ‘disunion?" is to go back to where we started again. Hence, it will only be wise tosubmit to the fact that the Civil War invariably sprung from a series of irreconcilable conflicts within the United States.[Elizabeth R. Varon, Bruce Levine, Marc Egnal, and Michael Holt at a plenary session of the Organization of American Historians, March 17, 2011, reported by David A. Walsh "Highlights from the 2011 Annual Meeting of the Organization of American Historians in Houston, Texas" ] This paper then, would attempt to expound on one of these multitude of elements, and that is basically the economic factor of the conflict. The paper will argue that aside from the more popular knowledge that slavery in itself is the root of the Civil War conflict, the inherent economic differences between the Northern and Southern states proved to be the much more compelling factor. The paper will then proceed to elucidate what are these specific economic differences are, both in the urban and plantation side, and give a picture of how and why these specific factors mitigate or worsen the ongoing political conflict between the North and the South. Finally, we will proceed to the contestations around this speculation and try to tackle their merits and demerits. Key conflicts that led to the Civil War If we will be obliged to summarized the most important conflicts that may have caused the secession and the eventual full-blown war, we can do so in the following points: (1) the Lincoln (Republican) Victory; (2) conflicts on the issue of slavery, whatever the motivation e.g. economic, racial/racist, moral, etc (Howe 1914); (3) issues on the state mechanism within the federal government; (4) the increasing influence of the Abolitionist movement and its sympathizers. However, if we are to scrutinize these factors, their economic roots will remain quite consistent and staggeringly fundamental. For instance, Lincoln`s victory can be attributed partially to the solid political base in the much more dense population in the North. Since his political campaign swept mostly Northern territory (which of course is less dependent on the slave economy, and is also larger in numbers than the South), it is evident that Lincoln`s victory was driven not much by the eloquence of his program but more by his clever campaign tactic (Foner 1975). One of these tactics, of course, is discerning the powerful voting power of the Northern states. The issue of slavery in the North, on the other hand, became a moral issue during the period prior to the Civil War. Since slavery is not a crucial part of the Northern economy, which is more industry-driven, this socio-economic system became easier to dispose. The free labor system, indeed, is much more efficient for an industrial economy than a slave system. Loopholes in the federal system are also glaring if we factor in the stark contrasts between the Northern and Southern states in terms of culture and political inclinations. Since the Federal government seeks to impose a unified and centralized bureaucraticmechanism, Southern states find it hard to integrate their land-based, decentralized agricultural economy to the Federal power (Stampp 1981). This difficulty, again, is a combination of many factors, one of which is the difference in the North and the South`s modes of economy. The presence of the economic discussion, of course, will not be an exercise on crude economic determinism, as we will recognize the relative autonomy of many racial, political and even moral issues. Nonetheless, as they are all submerged in their own economic conditions, it will be inevitable, but not tantamount to something that may be regarded as the most important conflict. Rapid industrialization in the North By the time of the early Republic, slavery it seems is a pragmatic choice in order to attain full-speed development based on agriculture. Slave trade is perfectly legal, and the slaves were spread throughout the country almost evenly. The Northern New England states, for instance, were the chief providers of slave ships by the time the American Revolution is slowly coming to a halt. Nonetheless, during the Antebellum period, it must be pointed out that despite the obvious necessity of slavery in jumpstarting agriculture in the country, the Northern states are more inclined to participate in slavery as services provided by private companies and not as personal property. For instance, New York, then known as New Amsterdam, was dependent on the services provided by the slaves of the Dutch West India Company. On the other hand, the rich and fertile soil in the South compelled citizens to focus on agriculture. Tobacco was seen as a very profitable crop, and since tobacco requires large hectares of land for cultivation, farmers are more inclined to develop large farms which are far apart. These large hectares of land require enormous amount of labor, and this kind of labor can only be sustained through a steady and strong slave labor force. Limitations on land resource, however, didn`t limit the economic potential of economies in the North. New England states are blessed with coal, iron, and basic mineral resources. The abundance of these resources compensated to the North`s lack of fertile agricultural lands. Eventually, the northern economy became geared towards utilizing these resources for the development of basic industries (Huston 2003). Developments in transportation led to further developments in trade and commerce. Urban centers bulged as the steady and massive influx of migrants (mainly English, Irish, German, among others) helped in strengthening the urban workforce. Nonetheless, farms were maintained as stable producers of food and cash crops, but they remain relatively small in size and are present only in the outskirts of the urban centers. Crucially, it must be noted that the industrial power of the Northern economy made it capable of participating in international trade and large-scale manufacturing. In fact, during the height of the cotton industry, the North acquires its cotton raw materials from the blooming cotton economy down south, and exports its manufactured products, thanks to its highly developed textile industry (Huston 2002). Agriculture in the South The South has notably less diverse natural resources. Southern climate made it versatile to many types of crops, but metals and other resources are considerably less abundant in the South. Nonetheless, because of their favorable climate and fecund land, the...