Explain how the Slave States and the Free States were becoming more different in the 1830s, 40s, and 50s.
For a long time, the Free and the Slave States have been under constant conflict. Each state was under entirely different social, economic, and political standards that could not allow the two nations to merge and work in unison. The South was the Slave State because they use to depend mainly on slaves for their livelihood. The state used to have large communities that owned slaves and had a strict system of classifying people basing it on their economic status, for instance, there was a class of rich people, middle class and slaves at the lower level. The North was the Free State, and they use to depend on factories for their livelihood because the north was more industries in comparison to the south (Davidson, 2016).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Free State did not classify its people economically meaning that they did do not need slaves for labor and was against the use of slaves. Since the north was not supporting the use of slaves, the issue arises because the south would not live without slaves and that could affect their livelihood (Litwack, 2009). The religion of the south was mainly Episcopalian who had firm beliefs in rituals while the north had Methodists and Baptists. The conflicting views of the two states lead to competition for more land where each country wants to expand to the west. The increasing tension and conflicting views lead to the beginning of the civil war. In the year 1850 Henry manage to create a compromise that would help unite the two regions in regards to slaves. However, before creating a commitment, there was a war in 1848 that lead to the formation of territories. There was also a massive influx of people into California because of the presence of Gold and due to the petition that the state will become a Free State.
What is meant when historians call the Civil War a second American Revolution?
The American Civil War is a second revolution because the war brought about massive changes to the political, social, and economic aspects of America. Before the Civil War, there was conflict concerning slavery between the two States affecting their ability to work together because one of the states was against the use of the slave. The aftermath of the Civil War was astonishing because they manage to abolish the use of slaves, therefore, affecting the social, political, and economic characteristics of the state (Van der Pijl, 1995). Politically, the war brought about changes on the dominating party where the Republican Party has been holding the seat for an extended period. In economic terms, both the North and the South states manage to suffer from the cost of the war, but after the war, they were able to pick up and thrive.
The war also manages to change the people behavior between the two states where the level of patriotism and nationalism manage to increase and become stronger and eradicating the problem of racism that used to exist between the countries (Davidson, 2016). The positive changes occur because the war manages to abolish the use of slaves that was the leading cause of conflict between the two states. Civil War was also strong enough to destroy the aristocratic way of leadership in the south where landowners could own properties and slaves who work in the farms. Due to the loss of slaves, the primary workforce for the south, the state manages to lose most of its plantation and some of the cities because of the Civil War setting back the economy of the south for decades (Aiken, 2003). Civil war is the second revolution in America because the war manages to change many things in the country both positive and negative.
References
Aiken, C. S. (2003). The cotton plantation South since the Civil War. JHU Press.
Davidson, J. (2016). A Little History of the United States. Yale University Press.
Litwack, L. F. (2009). North of Slavery: The Negro in the Free States. University of Chicago Press.
Van der Pijl, K. (1995). The second glorious revolution: globalizing elites and historical change. International political economy: Understanding global disorder , 100-128.
