A House Divided: Sectionalism and Slavery

By the mid-1800s, the United States was split into two distinct regions. The North embraced industrialization, building a web of factories, textile mills, and over $30,000$ miles of railroad tracks. Its economy relied on paid labor and diverse manufacturing. In contrast, the South remained a plantation economy centered on 'King Cotton.' This system relied almost entirely on the labor of enslaved people to produce crops for export. This economic split is known as sectionalism, where people felt more loyalty to their specific region than to the nation as a whole. While the North’s population surged with immigrants, the South’s wealth was tied up in land and human property.

As the U.S. expanded westward, every new territory sparked a fierce debate: Would it be 'free' or 'slave'? This wasn't just a moral argument; it was a fight for balance of power. In the Senate, each state got two votes. If there were more slave states, the South could protect slavery; if there were more free states, the North might abolish it. The Missouri Compromise and later the Compromise of 1850 were temporary 'band-aids' designed to keep the peace by balancing the number of free and slave states. However, these compromises only delayed the inevitable clash over the morality and legality of slavery.

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 turned the North into a 'hunting ground.' This law required all citizens to assist in catching runaway enslaved people. Anyone caught helping a runaway could be fined or jailed. For many Northerners, this was the breaking point. They felt the law forced them to participate in the institution of slavery, which they found morally wrong. It turned neutral citizens into abolitionists and increased the use of the Underground Railroad. Instead of calming tensions, the law acted as gasoline on a fire, convincing many that the North and South could no longer coexist.