# data[].attributes.body
Please provide honest feedback that would help the facilitator better, enhance and cater to your requirements/ issues. Appreciation/ Grievances both welcome.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Please provide honest feedback that would help the facilitator better, enhance and cater to your requirements/ issues. Appreciation/ Grievances both welcome.

# data[].attributes.body
Please use these maps to locate key places and recall the events that took place using these maps.
http://www.yourchildlearns.com/us_map.htm

https://mapchart.net/usa.htm

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This interactive map allows students to click on each of the 50 states to learn their facts and statistics.

# data[].attributes.headline
LS 2 - Sectional Conflict Video: Regional Differences

# data[].attributes.subject
LS 2 - Sectional Conflict Video: Regional Differences

# data[].attributes.body
How did regional differences between the North and South related to slavery lead to tensions in the years leading up to the Civil War? The video compares the economic and ideological differences that drove the sections apart.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
- [Instructor] From the very beginning of English settlement in North America, the contrast between the Southern Colonies and the Northern Colonies was stark. Things didn't improve much when the 13 Colonies rebelled in 1776 and became an independent nation. Tensions over slavery flared during the crafting of the U.S. Constitution, and repeatedly during the 19th Century, when compromises in 1820 and 1850 barely maintained the fragile balance between Northern and Southern states. But in 1860, the wheels finally came off, and the Southern states seceded from the Union, starting the Civil War. After more than 80 years of compromise, why did the differences between the North and the South finally become irreconcilable in the 1850s? In other videos we've traced the differences and similarities between the North and South from the Colonial Era until the late 1840s in terms of economics, social structure, and commonly held ideas about slavery. Let's revisit those comparisons for the years immediately leading up to the Civil War and see if we can identify why the conflict intensified in the 1850s. The difference between the economies of the North and South began way back at the outset of colonization in North America when the cold climate of the North prevented large scale plantation agriculture. Instead the Northern economy centered on trade and manufacturing. The first and second Industrial Revolution turned the Northern economy into one based on factories, where men, women and children worked for long hours, sometimes in dangerous conditions. In the 1840s the potato famine in Ireland and revolutions in Europe prompted many Irish and German immigrants to come to Northern cities in search of factory jobs. But even though most factory workers in the North struggled to make ends meet, there was some opportunity for social mobility, to climb the economic ladder. Therefore, the North also had a growing middle class in the mid-19th Century. Many in the lower class held out hope that they could move out West and start a small family farm in order to become financially stable. So to recap, the class structure in the North looked kind of like this. A large working class of laborers, many of them immigrants, a middle class of managers and small business owners, and a small upper class of factory owners, bankers and successful merchants. In the South, cultivating valuable cash crops to sell on the national and international markets had always been the center of the economy. Cotton had slowly replaced tobacco as the number one crop in the South, and American cotton plantations were producing nearly 70 percent of the world's cotton supply by 1860. With agriculture working out so well for plantation owners, there was no need to industrialize as in the North. All the labor on plantations was done by enslaved people, who had no hope of improving their lot in life except by running away. There was also a large number of poor white farmers who owned no slaves, and a few modest planters that owned fewer than 10 enslaved people. Despite the popular myth of gigantic plantations across the South, only one-tenth of a percent of slaveholders owned more than 100 people. The class system in the South was extremely rigid and aristocratic, not far off from a medieval feudal society, with a handful of wealthy white families dominating in each Southern sate. Wealth was measured in the South by the number of enslaved people a planter owned. Poorer whites aspired to buy enslaved people and become plantation owners themselves, but their prospects of doing so were pretty slim by the 1850s. Growing cotton quickly depleted the soil, and so both large plantation owners and whites who dreamed of becoming large plantation owners looked to the West for new lands to cultivate in order to expand the cotton kingdom. In short, the class structure in the South looked a little like this. A large permanent under class of enslaved laborers, with non-slaveholding whites above them in rights and in economic power. Then there was a small number of planters who owned a few enslaved people. And at the very top was a tiny fraction of large planters who owned more than 100 enslaved people. So how did these economic differences lead to tension? Well first, there were tensions over whether the economic policy of the Federal Government promoted agriculture or manufacturing. Things like tariffs and the expansion of the railroad turned into bitter fights over whether the government was prioritizing the needs of one section or the other. And then there was westward expansion. Both Northerners and Southerners looked to the West for their future economic opportunities, and both sides suspected the other of trying to suppress their paths to social mobility. The ideologies of the North and South also diverged sharply in the 1850s. In the North, most whites didn't object to slavery as it existed in the South, but worried about the potential expansion of slavery to the West. The Free Soil Movement aimed to preserve Western lands for small white farmers. There was also a growing sense among Northerners that the South had too much power in the Federal Government thanks to the Three-Fifths Compromise, which granted Southern states representation in Congress for 60 percent of its disenfranchised enslaved population in addition to its white population. This was a fair charge to make. Many events of the 1850s like the Fugitive Slave Act, which compelled Northern whites to assist in capturing runaway slaves, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which reopened the possibility of allowing slavery north of the Missouri Compromise line, and the Supreme Court's decision in the case Dred Scott versus Sandford, which claimed that African-Americans weren't citizens, convinced Northerners that what they called the slave power, had come to dominate government. Consequently, the abolition movement, which called for the immediate end of slavery everywhere, grew considerably more mainstream in the 1850s. Writers like Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of the influential abolitionist novel Uncle Tom's Cabin, activists like Frederick Douglas, who had escaped from slavery and toured the North lecturing about its evils, and vigilantes like John Brown, who led deadly raids on slaveholders, dramatized the moral evil of slavery to a growing audience in this time period. In contrast to the North, white Southerners believed they had the Constitution on their side, and that Northern attempts to limit the expansion of slavery constituted an assault on their liberty. In addition, white Southerners began to craft a proactive defense of the institution of slavery in the 1850s. Instead of treating slavery like the South's embarrassing, but necessary, peculiar institution as they had in the past, Southern commentators began to frame slavery as a positive good. They pointed to the conditions of immigrants in Northern factories, who might be injured in an accident at work, and then be fired for no longer being productive. Slave owners argued that they treated their enslaved laborers better than Northern factory owners treated their wage slaves. Southern sociologist George Fitzhugh wrote two books arguing that slavery was preferable to the kill or be killed environment of unbridled capitalism, and that poor whites should be enslaved in addition to people of African descent in order to protect them from being eaten alive in the free market. In looking at these economic, social, and ideological differences between the North and South, it's clear that by the 1850s there was really a clash of cultures going on. Would the United Stated be an agricultural nation, or an industrial one? One where anyone, no matter their color or place or birth, could climb the social ladder, or one where just a few deserved to enjoy all the blessings of liberty? In 1860, these questions would propel the country into civil war.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sectional conflict: Regional differences (video) | Khan Academy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Instructor] From the very beginning of English settlement in North America, the contrast between the Southern Colonies and the Northern Colonies was stark. Things didn't improve much when the 13 Colonies rebelled in 1776 and became an independent nation. Tensions over slavery flared during the crafting of the U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
Go through this brochure to learn more about how the slaves were brought in, the impact on the economy, politics and society. Bonus pictures too!

# data[].attributes.body
In the words of Harriet Beecher Stowe, here is an illustrated and abridged version of the book that promises a fun reading experience. Read and share your thoughts in the G Classroom!
PS: The file is large, please be patient while it loads.

# data[].attributes.body
Watch this animated video to visualise the movement better.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animation Series: From Slavery To Freedom, The Underground Railroad (#AtlantisBuild)

# data[].attributes.body
Read the accounts of people who escaped a life bereft of freedom. Explore this site for resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Thomas Cole was born in Jackson Co,. Alabama on the 8th of August, 1845....

"When the meat supply runs low, Mr. Sandson sends some slaves to kill a deer or wild hog or just any kind of game. He never sends me in any them bunches but I hoped he would and one day he calls me to go and says not to go off the plantation too far, but be sure bring home some meat. This the chance I been wanting, so when we gets to the hunting ground the leader says to scatter out, and I tells him me and another man goes north and make the circle round the river and meet about sundown. I crosses the river and goes north. I is going to the free country, where there ain't no slaves. I travels all that day and night up the river and follows the north star. Several times I think the blood hounds am trailing me and I gets in the big hurry. I is so tired I couldn't hardly move, but I gets in a trot.

"I is hoping and praying all the time I meets up with that Harriet Tubman woman. She the colored woman what takes slaves to Canada. She always travels the underground railroad, they calls it, travels at night and hides out in the day. She show sneaks them out the South and I thinks she's the brave woman.

"I eats all the nuts and kills a few swamp rabbits and catches a few fish. I builds the fire and goes off 'bout half a mile and hides in the thicket till it burns down to the coals, then bakes me some fish and rabbit. I is shaking all the time, afraid I'd get caught, but I is nearly starve to death. I puts the rest the fish in my cap and travels on that night by the north star and hides in a big thicket the next day and along evening I hears guns shooting. I sure am scared this time, sure enough. I is scared to come in and scared to go out, and while I is standing there, I hears two men say, 'Stick you hands up, boy. What you doing?' I says, 'Uh-uh-uh. I dunno. You ain't going take me back to the plantation, is you?' They says, 'No. Does you want to fight for the North?' I says I will, 'cause they talk like northern men...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Harriet Tubman: Slave Stories | Underground Railroad Student Activity | Scholastic.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Thomas Cole was born in Jackson Co,. Alabama on the 8th of August, 1845.... "When the meat supply runs low, Mr. Sandson sends some slaves to kill a deer or wild hog or just any kind of game.

# data[].attributes.headline
LS 7 - Debating the Causes of Civil War.

# data[].attributes.subject
LS 7 - Debating the Causes of Civil War.

# data[].attributes.body
Gather information from this source and argue the cause that could be the most crucial.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As we remember the tenth anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, we should also not forget that this year marks the 150th anniversary of the beginning of another tragic episode: this country's Civil War that left more than 600,000 dead in its wake.

A torrent of controversy has in fact arisen alongside the Civil War's sesquicentennial, the most prevalent being debates over the war's causation. Perhaps it is to be expected. Ever since the conflict's inception, scholars have hotly debated whether, for example, the crisis was precipitated by Southern economic backwardness or Northern economic nationalism; the institution of slavery itself or its possible territorial expansion; a conspiracy of the "Slave Power" or a conspiracy of Northern manufacturers seeking to exploit the agrarian South.

Earlier this year, Time ran a story on the prevailing view of the Civil War's causation among leading academics. In it, James McPherson stated that "everything stemmed from the slavery issue," and David Blight finished off the article with the conclusion that "slavery was the cause of the war." Similar unicausal sentiments have since popped up elsewhere. With such strong declarations coming from such preeminent scholars of the subject and the era, it would appear that the debate has been settled.

Well, not quite. While this line of argument has certainly become the mainstream, in recent years the Civil War's economic complexities have garnered renewed scholarly attention. Economic issues may not have outweighed the broader issue of slavery as the primary causal factor of secession and war, but, scholars have recently sought to show how the oft-overlooked international political economy influenced other causes, including slavery.
Complexity is Not a Lost Cause
Stemming from the common trend toward boiling down such a complex story, the age-old tariff argument has once again arisen. This, in large part, is thanks to the heavy-handed treatment of the subject by James W. Loewen, author of the popular Lies my Teacher Told Me. In a widely read February Washington Post piece entitled "Five Myths About why the South Seceded," he has provocatively suggested that "tariffs were not an issue in 1860, and Southern states said nothing about them." In response to such a bold claim, policy historian Phil Magness has offered a nuanced rejoinder, taking interested readers through the contentious tariff issue in the years leading to Southern secession, focusing in particular upon the very real debate over the tariff in 1860 as the high Morrill Tariff bill haltingly made its way through Congress. He reminds us that the tariff was indeed a prominent issue on the eve of the Civil War.

Magness is not alone in recovering the economic remnants of Civil War history. Marc Egnal has made a particularly loud splash with Clash of Extremes: The Economic Origins of the Civil War (2009). In it, he preemptively refutes Loewen's statement, suggesting instead that in the 1860 election the tariff was "the most important economic issue." More importantly, he argues that slavery alone as a moral issue "didn't explain why the sections clashed," and that the oversimplified "slavery" mantra was therefore "fraught with problems." By concluding that "economics more than high moral concerns produced the Civil War," he revives and updates the interpretation first put forth by Charles and Mary Beard that the war was at heart an economic and ideological conflict between the growing protectionist Northeastern manufacturing section and the free-trading agrarians of the South. Egnal suggests that this sectional divide was made larger as the Western states-for so long siding with the South on most political matters-began developing their own infant industrial manufactures and found their interests aligning more and more with the North. The rise of the "Great Lakes economy" became further entwined with Northern markets alongside the rapid development of rail lines and canals. Egnal does not deny that the Republican Party contained strong antislavery roots, but he does suggest that such sentiment was overshadowed by the party's adherence to the Homestead Act, internal improvements, and economic nationalism.

Egnal's interpretation has in turn led to a heated debate between himself and John Ashworth on H-CivWar, among others. With Ashworth calling conservative historian Charles Beard a "vulgar Marxist," and charging Egnal as being "self contradictory" and suggesting that he minimizes the role of the millions of blacks at the war's outbreak, both sides of the debate are worth reading.

Books on the Civil War's political economic complexity continue to proliferate. In similar economically oriented fashion, John Majewski's Modernizing a Slave Economy: The Economic Vision of the Confederate Nation (2009) stresses the importance of the South's burgeoning manufacturing sector, the development of state-sponsored internal improvements and centralized economic regulations, and the corresponding growth of protectionist sentiment, demonstrating that the Confederacy was by no means united behind the twin banners of states' rights and free trade. My own forthcoming work in the Journal of the Civil War Era in turn examines the Morrill Tariff's transatlantic traction, particularly how it both garnered anti-Union sentiment and Confederate sympathy within free-trading Great Britain. Nicholas and Peter Onuf in Nations, Markets, and War: Modern History and the American Civil War (2006) also spend some time on exploring the Civil War's economic intellectual roots, and Brian Schoen's The Fragile Fabric of Union: Cotton, Federal Politics, and the Global Origins of the Civil War (2009) does a particularly fine job of reexamining the international political economy and Southern political thought from the 1780s to the conflict's onset.

None of these historians discounts the importance of slavery, but they each demonstrate that such a stand-alone descriptor proves inadequate. The influence of slave uprisings, abolitionism, and free soil certainly deserves center stage, but the above projects should remind historians not to lose sight of the international political economic backdrop along the way. Remembering the Civil War's complexities is not a lost cause.

You may also like:
Jacqueline Jones on Civil War Savannah
George Forgie on Civil War classics
Daina Berry on former-slave narratives

Photo Credits
Map of percentage of slaves in the population in each county in the slave-holding states of the United States in 1860. By United States Coast Guard [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Richmond Virginia, Woolen Factories and Pontoon Bridge, Civil War Photographs, 1861-1865, Library of Congress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Debating the Causes of the Civil War - Not Even Past

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As we remember the tenth anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, we should also not forget that this year marks the 150th anniversary of the beginning of another tragic episode: this country's Civil War that left more than 600,000 dead in its wake.

# data[].attributes.headline
LS 8 - Comic Booklet on American Civil War 

# data[].attributes.subject
LS 8 - Comic Booklet on American Civil War 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Civil War in Color: Lincoln's Gettysburg Address | History

# data[].attributes.headline
LS 10- Why was the Battle of Gettysburg Important?

# data[].attributes.subject
LS 10- Why was the Battle of Gettysburg Important?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why was the battle of Gettysburg important?

# data[].attributes.body
A movie you could consider watching. Link your learnings from the class to it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lincoln Official Trailer #1 (2012) Steven Spielberg Movie HD

# data[].attributes.body
Use this source to draw links and relations to events in the past and present in US History.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Civil War, Part I: Crash Course US History #20

# data[].attributes.body
Use these worksheets to practice structuring your arguments and revise