Inseparable Link Between The Issues of Slavery and States’ Rights

Introduction

In the antebellum era, there was an inextricable link between the issue of slavery and the call for states’ rights and the weakening of the federal platform. These rights reserved a set of powers for state governments, powers that the federal government could not touch. The divisions brought about by the issue of slavery led the South to make calls for these rights, as founding fathers had previously limited them, in order to ratify a Constitution and secure a united nation. The reason why these two issues became so closely related can be seen through federal reaction to the growing economic and social tensions between the North and the South. Economically, the North was developing industrially and commercially, whereas the South remained in agrarian ways, heavily dependent on slaveholding. In the North, an economic system that saw no need for slavery, combined with the distaste of Southern slaveholding ideology, led to the development of an abolitionist fervor in the North that condemned their counterpart’s way of life. It was the political involvement in attempted appeasement of a divided nation that intensified the struggle between Southern plantation masters and Northern industrialists for control of the federal government, ultimately sparking southern calls for states’ rights. The South believed that such a method of self-government was the only way to protect the practice of slavery and in turn their livelihoods, as the federal government was not prepared to give them what they wanted.

Economic Differences and the Call for States’ Rights

The vastly differing economies of the North and South served to increase Southern demand for states’ rights. The South withheld a cotton economy, with its most prominent feature being the plantation system, a system dependent on slavery, whereas the North was experiencing a rapid industrial and commercial expansion. During the initial phase of industrial expansion, the North saw the development of a textile industry, a factory system based on the extensive use of machinery and the employment of a large workforce. Developments were rapid; by the mid-century, successful industrial states contained almost five hundred factories and employed nearly 100,000 workers (Smith, 2005). As it was in the South, the necessity for slave labor was not apparent in the new Northern economy, with the focus being placed on skilled laborers. The success seen in the North acted only to worsen relations between the two poles of the United States, with the South denouncing the alternative labor system practiced in the North.

Federal Response to Economic Developments

The relationship between the issue of slavery and states’ rights is truly seen when examining federal government response to these new economic developments. The British had begun their industrial transition much earlier in the 1780s, meaning they were producing and exporting vaster quantities of goods, and by the mid-nineteenth century were producing half the world’s textiles (Johnson, 2010). In the United States, however, Southern cotton still accounted for almost half the value of total exports in 1834. Therefore, to protect the newly growing industry from experienced British rivals, the federal government introduced a set of tariffs on exports, which culminated in the tariff of 1832, raising the tax on foreign goods to 50% (Thompson, 2011). The South saw this as an ‘oppressively high’ protective tariff, favoring the growth of anti-slavery settlement in the North. This is because the export of raw materials to Britain fueled the southern economy, but high taxes on exports to the United States meant that Britain had less money for the purchase of Southern cotton. The result of this saw a Southern determination to devise barriers against encroachments on their rights, and the Nullification Crisis of November 1832, saw the first major call for states’ rights in response to federal intervention. South Carolina declared the tariff void, threatening to secede if it was not removed. Considering this extreme reaction, John Ashworth suggests that it was federal government ‘support’ of an anti-slavery economy, that drove many states’ rights enthusiasts out of the Democratic party (Ashworth, 1995). The South sincerely feared the subversion of their slave system, and so the call for states’ rights arose as a solution.

Social Tensions and Abolitionist Criticism

The issue of states’ rights arose not just due to economic differences, but also the extreme social tensions that were becoming apparent. As the North lost the necessity for slaveholding, many developed thoughts that resembled an early abolitionist mindset. Due to such vast economic difference, many Northerners felt compelled to constrict the effects of slavery, and this came about through fervent speech and writing. The focus of early abolitionists was the attack of the slaveholding ideology of the South, the most prominent text being Harriet Beecher's ‘Uncle Tom's Cabin', which sold 3,000 copies on its first day of publishing (Beecher, 1852). Beecher’s text infuriated Southerners, drawing attention to the cruelties of slavery while bringing much acclaim to the practice of abolitionist writing, highlighted by its popularity. Similarly, in 1816, Presbyterian minister George Bourne challenged slave-owners by suggesting that whenever Southerners were challenged on the question of slavery, “they were fast choked, for they had a negro stuck fast in their throats” (Bourne, 1816). It was how Northern abolitionists began to attack time-honored practices with extreme criticism, often targeting the ‘ideological and spiritual’ importance of slaveholders, that infuriated the South. Not only had early abolitionists disputed Southern ideology, but they had also begun to infiltrate their way of life, influencing a violent slave revolt in Virginia in 1831. To a society concerned with upholding the honor of deeply held beliefs, Northern criticisms were not received well, driving Southerners even further into the hands of those who had already called for the practice of states' rights.

Federal Attempts to Ease Social Tensions

Furthermore, it was federal attempts to cool the dangerous social tension felt towards slavery throughout the country that really saw the call for states’ rights become a majority in the South. Tensions growing between the two halves of the country were not aided by the governmental decision to call the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The act allowed for popular sovereignty in the states of Kansas and Nebraska, as to the issue of slavery, in the hopes that this would begin to appease the nation (Douglas, 1854). However, due to a strong resolution to eradicate slavery, many Northerners flocked to the two states to ensure a favorable outcome. This was seemingly the tip of the iceberg for Southerners, who now held fears, real and imaginary, that a hostile northern majority would subvert their slave system. This act made it clear how the federal government would side on the issue of slavery. During the Nullification Crisis, Southern state South Carolina was deemed ‘traitors’ by President Andrew Jackson, yet Northerners who acted to change the destined outcome of popular sovereignty were simply allowed (Remini, 1981). Southern rage had reached its peak with many now seeing states' rights as the only way to uphold the practice of slaveholding and therefore maintain their lifestyle and economy.

Conclusion

The issues of slavery and states’ rights were inseparably linked, especially during the antebellum era. Disagreement on the necessity and morality of slaveholding characterized most, even all, of the tensions seen between the North and the South in this period. The idea that the two economies were almost the exact opposites of each other, with an industrially developing North and a South yet to break out of the old agricultural mold, put into question just how necessary slaveholding was, thus placing threats on the entire existence of the Southern lifestyle. Social criticism in the form of abolitionism only served to further threaten the practice of slaveholding so central to the South. Arguably, it is upon the assessment of federal involvement that the link between slavery and states’ rights becomes so clear. The actions of the federal government painted them as supporters of Northern anti-slavery sentiment, most importantly their differing reactions to the outcome of both the Nullification Crisis and the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The South saw the only way out from vicious criticism and a biased government, to be the calling of states’ rights: self-government and the weakening of federal power. Upon assessment, it is clear just how interlinked the two issues became, through a combination of social, economic, and, most importantly, political factors.

References

• Ashworth, J. (1995). Slavery, Capitalism, and Politics in the Antebellum Republic. Cambridge University Press.
• Beecher, H. (1852). Uncle Tom's Cabin. John P. Jewett & Company.
• Bourne, G. (1816). The Book and Slavery Irreconcilable. G. Bourne.
• Douglas, S. A. (1854). The Kansas-Nebraska Act. U.S. Congress.
• Johnson, P. (2010). A History of the American People. Harper Perennial.
• Remini, R. V. (1981). Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Freedom, 1822–1832. Harper & Row.
• Smith, J. (2005). The Industrial Revolution in America. Greenwood Press.
• Thompson, G. (2011). Tariffs and the American Economy. Yale University Press.