Disagreements Between The North And South

During the first half of the 19th century, the northern and southern regions of the United States fought to find a mutually acceptable solution to the issue of slavery. Unfortunately, little in common has been found. The cotton-oriented economy of the American South continued to rest on the shoulders of its slaves, even as the North`s calls for the abolition of slavery became stronger. At the same time, the industrialization of the North continued. In the 1820s and 1830s, the divergent needs of the economies of the two regions continued to weigh on north-south relations. Many to the north looked south and saw a section they believed to be holding back the nation. They saw a country of lazy, cruel, violent people who did not adhere to the ideas that would make the United States grow. This is the view that many had in the north of the south. Only a tenth of the countries of the South lived in urban areas and traffic between cities was difficult, except on the water. Only 35% of the country`s railways were in the south.

In 1860, the agricultural economy of the South began to stall, while northern producers boomed. Much of this debate misses an important point that most Americans thought, by the mid-1850s, that there were big differences between the white states of the White North and South. The countries of the North looked south and saw people transformed by slavery. Many white southerners, considered to be northern countries, are an almost foreign people who want to interfere in Southern society. The most important thing is that it doesn`t matter if there were big differences. If people thought it existed and acted accordingly, that is the most important thing. People looked north when they were to the south and saw a people they thought were different, and the same thing was happening the other way around. In the mid-1850s, an ideology of “free work” was established in the North, an ideology that argued that there was no intrinsic antagonism between work on one side and capital on the other. He argued that an individual could start owning his work, and they put it in the context of his work: work, uses this work to acquire a small amount of capital, and eventually become a member of the middle class or more.