The geographical size of the United States, even as the thirteen colonies of England, led to regions of vastly different climates, resources, economies, social and cultural structures, and politics. These differences are referred to as sectionalism. The sectional differences between the northern and southern states in the United States have almost always been present in American society and politics. At times it was seen as a strength. Still, during the 1850s, with the catalysts of territorial expansion and slavery, the sectional conflict became one of the core causes of the American Civil War.
Sectionalism’s Role in the Civil War
Sectionalism is defined by the growing contrasts between the North and South social, political, and economic values. As new issues arose in an ever-expanding nation, these sectional conflicts worked to divide the country further.
Sectionalism in the Civil War: Definition
Sectionalism: The increasing contrast between the political values, lifestyles, culture, social structures, customs, and economies of North and South - also known as regionalism, breeds a local loyalty to one’s specific region instead of allegiance to a nation as a whole
Causes of Sectionalism in the Civil War
As mentioned, sectionalism has been a part of American society since the nation's founding. However, forces acted to further push Americans towards a stronger loyalty to their region's political and cultural values over allegiance to a united nation. The four core causes of sectionalism in the Civil War are Political values, Economics, Cultural, and Slavery. The table below describes these causes and the facts of sectionalism in the Civil War.
Causes of Sectionalism in the Civil War |
Political Values | At its core, the difference in political values between the North and the South was the interpretation of the Constitution and the nation's view. The North tended to view the powers of the Constitution as a means of wanting a stronger national government with greater power to act over the country’s issues. The South tended to value the state’s sovereign power over its citizens and, thus, valued a weaker and less intrusive national government. In addition, many Northerners viewed the nation as a whole, while Southerners tended to view the United States as a collection of individual states who valued popular sovereignty. |
Economics | The northern states had economies centered around industry and manufacturing, which promoted economic policies of high tariffs to protect their manufactured goods from foreign competition. The north was also partially dependent on the west and south for the raw agricultural goods needed for their industry (partly because they held a more united view of the nation); thus, the north also had the largest concentration of transportation networks. In the south, the economy was almost entirely based on agriculture and plantations of cash crops such as cotton. Because of this, the south often opposed the national tariffs as the tax would ward off foreign investors and buyers of their crops. |
Cultural | Strongly correlated with their respective economies, the North and South culture is also starkly contrasted. The North had many large urban regions based around solid industrial centers. Northerners, on average, were better educated, relatively less religious, and had a higher employment rate than the South. The South was characterized by rural life and decentralized populations. Due to the agricultural economy, there tended to be more economic disparity between the wealthy white elites who owned vast plantations and the poorer white tenant farmers. The South also had a more rigid social caste structure with less societal flexibility to move up the socioeconomic ladder. |
Slavery | the most significant issue further divided the regions and was defined, especially in the 1850s. By the 1850s, most northern states had either abolished slavery or had strong abolitionist tendencies and policies. Many northern citizens held a negative view of slavery and saw it as a horrific institution. The South held slavery as a necessity for their way of life and economy. Though most southerners did not own slaves, many had religious, racist, and social views that felt slavery benefited white society and the southern economy; some even believed it benefited the enslaved peoples. |
Examples of Sectionalism in the Civil War
The first sectional battle of the 1850s involved the territory of California and is an excellent example of sectionalism’s role in the Civil War.
More than eighty thousand Americans flooded California in 1849. President Zachary Taylor, seeing a simple solution to the challenge of governing lands acquired from Mexico, urged settlers to apply for admission to the Union. They promptly submitted a proposed state constitution that did not allow for slavery. However, southern politicians wanted to make California slave territory or extend the Missouri Compromise of 1820 line west through California.
Fig. 1 - This map shows the Confederate, Union, and middle states at the outbreak of the Civil War; however, it also shows that sectionalism was also geographic.
The Wilmot Proviso
Representatives from nine southern states met in an unofficial convention to assert the South’s right to a part of the California territory. On the other hand, fourteen northern legislatures were equally determined to keep slavery out of the new regions. They had endorsed the Wilmot Proviso, an amendment to a military appropriation bill proposed by Representative David Wilmot of Pennsylvania in 1846. The Proviso stated that slavery should be prohibited from any territory won by Mexico. Though it did not pass congress, it became a rallying cry for abolitionists it attracted considerable support in the North.
Fig. 2- David Wilmot created the Wilmot Proviso
The Compromise of 1850
Sensing the rising tensions between the North and the South, Henry Clay attempted to compromise. In 1820 and 1833, Clay took the lead in shaping sectional compromise. This time, Clay presented a series of compromise measures, balancing the issues of California and nearby territories, the Texas border, runaway slaves, and the slave trade in Washington, D.C. Over the following weeks, Clay and others steered proposals through debate and amendment, persisting despite serious disagreements. Line by line, concerned and angry senators worked out the bill's final language.
Fig. 3- Henry Clay attempted sectional compromise in Congress several times in the mid-1800s and authored the Compromise of 1850
The problems they attempted to solve were complicated. Would California or a part of it be a free state? How should the land acquired from Mexico be organized? In 1847, Lewis Cass introduced the idea of popular sovereignty. Though Congress had to approve statehood for a territory, it should allow the people living there to regulate their affairs in their way.
Under Cass’s idea, Southerners claimed equal rights in the regions; neither Congress nor a territorial legislature could bar slavery. Only when settlers framed a state constitution could they take that step. Meanwhile, Northerners argued that Americans living in a territory were entitled to local self-government and thus could outlaw slavery at any time if they allowed it.
Despite the bitter debate, the Compromise of 1850 finally passed. California was admitted as a free state, the Texan border was set to its current boundary, and the territories of New Mexico and Utah were organized and granted the power to legislate their rights and subjects.
Fundamentally, the Compromise of 1850 was not a settlement of sectional disputes. It was an evasion. Though the compromise bought time for the nation, it did not create guidelines for settling subsequent territorial questions. It merely put them off.
Sectional Conflict - Key takeaways
- Sectionalism is the increasing contrast between the political values, lifestyles, culture, social structures, customs, and economies of North and South
- Sectionalism, also known as regionalism, breeds a local loyalty to one’s specific region instead of allegiance to a nation as a whole.
- During the 1850s, with the catalysts of territorial expansion and slavery, the sectional conflict became one of the core causes of the American Civil War.
- The four core causes of sectionalism in the Civil War are Political values, Economics, Cultural, and Slavery.
- Examples of sectionalism include the heated and divided debate over the admission of California as a state and the Compromise of 1850 that followed.
Explanations 
Exams 
Magazine 
