would there have been a sectional crisis that pitted North and South against one another without the instigating factor of slavery?

why or why not, need help with this

5 Answers

Relevance
  • 3 weeks ago
    Favorite Answer

    Yes.... the vast difference in population and economies was the real issue.  The South was feeling the pressure of a Federal Government under increasing influence by a handful of more-populous Northern States..

    This same conflict still exists today.  Costs in midwestern and southern states rise every time regulations developed by California and New York lobbyists are adopted by the Federal Government...this puts greater strain on smaller local businesses, who then give way to large national chains... family farms & fisheries along the Gulf Coast are being put out of business because only the large corporations can keep all the latest regulations...most of which were written in the context of the California economy...

    The loss of regional economies not only make the nation less economically diverse (and thus more prone to wide-scale recession) but also less culturally diverse, which then limits what has been one of our nation's greatest strengths: the ability to find a home and prosper in a shared community that reflects our desires and our values....

  • Marli
    Lv 7
    3 weeks ago

    Aside from slavery? Probably States vs Federal government. The southern states wanted to control their taxes - who collects and for what the moneys are used - particularly customs duties at their ports. The federal government insisted that customs was their baliwick, covering the Union as one whole. The revenues from Charleston should be used in North Carolina, said North Carolina. No, said Washington. It should be used for federal projects, like the transcontinental railroad; or for a state that can't raise enough to find its projects.

  • Silver
    Lv 4
    3 weeks ago

    Well, the Civil War was primarily about "state's rights", as the south likes to word it. The north was progressing much faster than the south, and it was not willing to follow. It's very similar to now, coal workers not progressing to green energy jobs, then it was plantation workers not willing to change their farming to eliminate slavery and match Northern factories to eliminate rapid surplus that made them poor. The election of Abraham Lincoln was the actual cause of the civil war. They couldn't stand such a liberal person winning. Imagine if people really were as crazy as threatened online and started a war if a Dem beat Trump.

  • 3 weeks ago

    Slavery wasn't the biggest issue. The south wanted individual states rights. The North invaded the south and won the war. Slavery was a war strategy used to cause internal strife within the South. Prior to Presidency, Lincoln had always voted towards keeping the status quo.

    That said, I am from the South and believe worldwide it was good that we lost. When WWI and WWII came into play. the UNITED STATES of AMERICA played a great part in ending both.

    • Marli
      Lv 7
      3 weeks agoReport

      The federal government bent to accomodate it in the South. (E.g.The Missouri Compromise and the Fugitive Slave Act) Lincoln said during his first term in Congress that he opposed the slave trade in D.C., but an undivided US was more important. He would rather buy the slaves and send them to Africa .

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Greg
    Lv 7
    3 weeks ago

    Probably. The war was as much about taxation as it was slavery. There was slavery in the northern states too. The south was paying 80% of federal taxes, which were actually tariffs, and most of the money was being spent in the north.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.