Sectionalism States Rights and Democracy Chapter 11

Sectionalism, States Rights, and Democracy Chapter 11

Sectionalism:

Sectionalism Nationalism & the United States v. Lasted only a short while. Sectionalism • Develop between the North and South • Because of differences in economy, culture, and political interests. ØSectionalism is loyalty to a particular region or section of a country instead of to the nation as a whole Ø Opposite of nationalism

North Economy Political Parties Slave Labor Abolition – end slavery South

Sectionalism Differences between the two regions 1 st developed as a result of the different geographies of the regions. ØThe North’s industrial economy • Developed trading, small farms, and industries ØThe South’s agricultural economy • Developed the plantation system. Different political beliefs - The political parties & the regions took different positions on the issues of the day. ØSoutherners tended to be Democratic. Republican • Followers of Thomas Jefferson who called themselves Republicans ØNew Englanders tended to be Federalists (and later Whigs).

Sectionalism & Slave Labor When America was first being colonized, both regions had slavery. ØAfter the American Revolution, the Northern states slowly emancipated (set free) their slaves • There was little need for slave labor in the industrial North ØThe invention of the cotton gin led the South to become even more economically dependent upon slave labor.

What did the large number of immigrants to the Northern industries do to the House of Representatives? How did the slave population continue to increase in South Carolina even after the slave trade was outlawed?

Sectionalism & Representation Northern Industry ØAttracted European immigrants ØAllowed the North to have a larger representation in the House of Representatives. The South Did not attract many immigrants Although the international slave trade was outlawed in 1808, the numbers of slaves grew due to higher birth rates and smuggling.

What did the South view as the only “respectable” job? How did Southerners respond to Northern criticism about slavery?

Sectionalism & Abolition The growing abolition movement caused even more regional tension. Southerners • Believed that planting was the only respectable job • Feared that the abolitionist opinions would force them to give up slavery. • Tried to keep anti-slavery propaganda out of their region, Northerners Abolitionists convinced large Northern audiences of the evils of the ‘peculiar institution. ’ Southerners responded in anger to abolitionists’ criticism, claiming that slavery was actually good, because it cared for workers throughout their lives.

Describe the slave population in the south by the 1820 s.

Slavery in the South Carolina, by the 1820’s ØThe black population surpassed the white population ØThere was an African American majority in most Southern states ØSectionalism increased as a result of the growing slave population.

Denmark Vesey:

Denmark Vesey Plot The Denmark Vesey plot caused Southerners to become even more fearful and controlling of their slaves. • Vesey was a free black carpenter in Charleston who supposedly organized a revolt of 9, 000 followers to help free his race from slavery. • The revolt was discovered before it took place and Vesey was hanged.

What happened to slave codes after the Denmark Vesey plot was discovered?

Denmark Vesey Plot Slave codes ØDeveloped as a result of the Stono rebellion ØThe General Assembly passed laws that prohibited slaves from meeting, learning to read and write and that regulated all aspects of slaves’ lives ØWere strengthened to better protect white society.

What three things did the South think would happen if slavery didn’t expand to new territories?

New Territories & Slavery Southerners Feared that if slavery could not expand into the territories 1. The national government would be in the hands of the North 2. Slavery would be outlawed 3. Southerners would have a large African American population that they could not control Both sides became more stubborn in their beliefs • Were less willing to compromise on the issue of expansion of slavery into the territories

Why was the North concerned about Missouri joining the Union as a slave state?

New Territories & Slavery As the United States continued to grow, the North and South disagreed on allowing slavery in new territories. Northern states Concerned about Missouri joining the Union as a slave state ØIt was the first state admitted from the Louisiana Purchase ØIt would upset the equal balance of slave and free states’ votes in the Senate

The Missouri Compromise

The Missouri Compromise 1. Admitted Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state. 2. It also tried to avoid future controversy by drawing a line westward from Missouri’s southern border, at the 36 30’ latitude line 3. Prohibiting slavery in the Louisiana Territory north of that line. The South learned from this crisis the importance of maintaining the balance of Senate votes from slave and free states.

The Missouri Compromise

What was the protective tariff designed to do? Who did the tariff benefit?

Protective Tariffs In 1828, South Carolinians opposed a high protective tariff ØDesigned to raise import taxes on goods coming from foreign countries in order to make them more expensive than goods produced in the United States. §This would benefit the emerging industries in the North. Since South Carolina was largely agricultural, a protective tariff would raise the price of the manufactured goods that South Carolinians would buy from the industrial north or from Great Britain. Therefore southerners objected to raising the protective tariff.

Protective Tariff Political cartoon of the results of the protective tariffs.

Protective Tariff For example: : üSC could buy a chair from Great Britain for $5 üThe chairs from the North were $8 ØThe protective tariff placed a tax on the chairs from Great Britain raising the cost to $9. ØSouth Carolina could still buy the chairs from Great Britain, but they would have to pay more ØCould also buy chairs from the North but it was still more expensive than if they only had to pay $5. (Note: these numbers are not real prices. )

The Nullification Crisis Andrew Jackson John Calhoun In 1828 the United States Congress passed a protective tax • Vice President John C. Calhoun, of SC, anonymously wrote a booklet claiming that it was a states’ right to declare such a law unconstitutional and nullify it through a special state convention. • If states could do this, then they could declare anything they didn’t like unconstitutional, and would weaken the federal government. Both Washington, D. C. and South Carolina debated this opinion.

Nullifiers: Unionists:

The Nullification Crisis South Carolinians split into a States’ Rights Party, or Nullifiers, and a Union party Unionists. Nullifiers believed that states should have the right to nullify laws made by the federal government Unionists did not believe states should nullify laws. Nullifiers Unionists In 1832, the Nullifiers won control of the South Carolina General Assembly.

What did the SC Nullifiers do when the Tariff of 1832 was passed?

Tariff of 1832 ØPassed by the United States Congress ØThe South Carolina legislature called a meeting and … nullified the tariff John C. Calhoun üResigned the vice presidency üEntered the U. S. Senate where he was a strong voice against the tariff and for nullification.

What did President Andrew Jackson do when the Tariff of 1832 was nullified by South Carolina?

The Nullification Crisis President Andrew Jackson • Condemned the nullifiers • Said it was treason for a state to ignore federal laws. • He urged Congress to pass a Force Bill that would authorize the national government to send troops to collect the tariff in South Carolina. The South’s reaction to Jackson’s Force Bill.

What finally ended the Nullification Crisis? How did South Carolina react to the Force Bill?

The End of the Crisis The Compromise • Congress lowered the tariff • South Carolina repealed (took back) the nullification However, v. South Carolina nullified the Force Bill v. Asserting a state’s right to declare an act of Congress to be unconstitutional in that state The states’ right idea would continue to develop.