1. The Road to the Civil War
Sectionalism
The Road to the Civil War

2. Sectionalism
Supporting the issues of your region of the nation as being more important than the issues of the nation as a whole
In the mid-1800s sectional tensions began growing between 3 regions in the United States.
North
South
West
Sectionalism is rising in the mid 1800s (approx until Reconstruction). This is based on the idea that Americans were supporting regional issues rather than American issues, which led to political stalemates. Many people were angry and did not support federal laws that went against regional beliefs and values. Three regions went head to head, including the West, the South, the North.

3. 1. National Bank Recharter was denied in 1811
Economic panic during War of 1812
New Second Bank chartered in 1816
“easy credit” was a major issue
The National Bank charter was denied, and led to an economic panic throughout the United States during the War of This panic created a movement to reinstate a federal bank, the Second Bank of the United States, which was chartered in One issue was “easy credit”, which was meant to regulate public credit through private banking institutions.

4. 1. National Bank (con’t)
North: pro-bank, good investment source for Northern industry, and merchants
South: anti-bank, helps North become more politically and economically powerful, infringes on “states rights”
West: anti-bank, “common man”/small farmer, the National Bank makes it harder to procure cheaper loans from small banks
The North was pro-bank because it would allow them to obtain loans for new factories, and manufacturing ventures. The bank was predominately used by wealthy, Northern merchants, which made the South angry. The South was against the recharter of the National Bank because it was dominated by wealthy Northerners, and to them it symbolized the prosperity of the North, and the fact that the Northern economy was stronger than the South. The South also wholeheartedly believed in states rights over federal power, meaning they did not support a federal bank over small, local banks or state-run banks. The West did not support the bank either because smaller banks were able to provide cheaper loans, which Westerners needed to purchase land, and farming equipment. Also, most settlers would be classified as “common men”, who would have seen the bank as an institution supporting aristocrats.

5. 2. Land Policy 1800…320 acres @ $2 per acre
West wants cheap land
North/South want to convert land into $$$
North…cheap land takes cheap labor force for factories
South…fears agricultural competition in the West
Land policy was another shifting political debate in the 1800s. The North and the South agreed that the West should be used as a money maker to gain revenue from selling land to settlers. The North was also reluctant to support cheap land because many times it would mean that the cheap work force (predominately immigrants who couldn’t afford land) would move out West to take advantage of cheap land prices. This led to an extreme reduction in the available work force in New England. The South doesn’t support cheap land because it would lead to economic competition with Western agricultural prices, because most settlers began to tend to the land as subsistence farmers. Nevertheless, land prices were cut in quarter, and prices went from $2 an acre to a measly 50 cents per acre meaning more could afford new opportunities in the frontier.

6. 3. Tariff Protective Tariff v. Revenue Tariff
Protective shields Northern industry from British competition
Revenue is meant to obtain revenue, which helps the newly developing areas
War of 1812 impacts rate of Tariff
Tariff of Abominations (1828)
Nullification
Tariffs were the largest antebellum debate in the United States, along with slavery. The country was split by sectional divides. The North, especially New England supported high tariffs to protect their industrial, and manufacturing based goods from popular British goods. The South initially supported the tariff considering Southern Democratic-Republicans typically wanted to the British empire in any way possible, but as the tariffs were put in place it began hurting the “common man”. The high tariffs hurt Southerners because they imported most of their goods from Britain, and used very few Northern goods (poor transportation over land, and aversion to helping Northern economy because sectional tensions are growing). The South especially hated the tariff of abominations in 1828 that set a 38% tax on virtually ALL British goods. The South Carolina takes extreme measures, even threatening secession, due to the tariffs. The federal government continues responding by asserting dominance over states rights. The Nullification Crisis ensues in which asserted states power to nullify federal laws, but eventually a compromise was reached, in the Tariff Act of 1833.

7. 3. Tariff (con’t)
North: pro-high tariffs, protects American goods from British goods
If you have to pay an extra tax on British goods, most will buy the American product
South: anti-high tariffs, import most goods from Britain(esp. textiles), don’t want to pay tariff for British goods
West: in the middle, supports tariffs to a certain extent because NE industry benefits the West
The North had been an advocate of higher tariffs since their economy took off in a manufacturing direction. This would ensure that Americans would purchase American goods instead of highly sought after British goods. They particularly supported a protective tariff, but this was VERY harmful to Southerners. The South imported MOST goods that were not agricultural, so a 38% tariff on goods would drastically hurt the South. They also saw that this was meant to help the North, which fueled the anti-tariff movement further. The West supported the tariff, but mostly revenue tariffs that would lead to internal improvements in the West. The West also benefitted from a burgeoning manufacturing economy in the Northeast because they had a close relation to the North.

8. 4. Internal Improvements
To what extent should national government help finance construction of canals, turnpikes, highways, and railroads??
Federal subsidies?
National Road
Jackson vetoes Maysville Road project
Internal improvements came along with the upcoming industrialization and modernization of the United States. In the North, merchants supported the idea of canals that would ease the transportation aspect of manufacturing. The South does not support internal improvement because it would lead to a stronger link between the northeast and northwest which would help the North’s economy even further. Also, the South manly exports their products, so they only need transportation to the coast, not within the states. The West FULLY supports federal subsidies for internal improvements because it will strengthen their economy, as well as the country’s. This would also make a better quality of life on the frontier. Jackson’s support of sectional politics is seen by the fact that he vetoes the Maysville Road project which would link the entire state of Kentucky by one road. Jackson used the southern idea of states rights to explain why the federal government should not get involved.

9. 5. THE BIG DIVIDE: Slavery
Prohibited in Northwest Territory
Slave trade outlawed in 1808
Could upset equal balance in Senate
Compromise of 1820 (MO Comp.)
Fugitive Slave Law
This will become the MOST heated example of Sectionalism…. WAR
Slavery had been a point of contention for most of the 1800s, as seen in the Missouri Compromise which held off the Civil War for a few decades. The main problem was the North and the South both saw a balance of power that rested on the institution of slavery. The South had already allowed a few encroachments on the “peculiar institution”, such as the prohibition of the slave trade, meaning no more slaves could be imported to the United States, they could only come from slaves already here. The fugitive slave law had enraged many Northerners who were morally opposed to slavery and did not want participate in slavery in any way. The South saw no reason for the federal government, or the North, to have any say in their economy that basically was supported on the backs of institutional racism, and slavery. Slavery will be the largest divide in the United States and will lead to the Civil War, or the culmination of sectionalism, especially over slavery and state’s rights.

10. The BIG THREE Daniel Webster…North John C. Calhoun…South
Henry Clay…West
The compromises created by these three Senators helped to delay the coming of the Civil War as long as possible.
The three main politicians during the era of sectionalism are Daniel Webster, a Whig representing the North, John C. Calhoun, a Democratic-Republican representing the South, and Henry Clay, who was originally a Democratic-Republican then switched to the Whig party, and represented the West. These men will compromise on issues to push worsening sectional divisions off for as long as possible. Henry Clay was even known as the Great Compromiser.