The American Civil War, which was fought from 1861 to 1865, was due to many
years of political conflict and tension between the North and the South sides of the
United States. Specifically, as the South’s economic dependence on slave labor
increasingly grew, so did their resistance against any attempts to restrict or abolish it.
Since the North was increasingly becoming more anti-slavery at that time, they opposed
not only its expansion into western territories but its existence itself. Consequently,
political tensions grew between both sides, which finally led to the southern secession
and the infamous American Civil War.
The South was extremely reliant on their slave labor because of its ability to
generate profit, which boosted the South’s economy. In the nineteenth century, cotton
replaced sugar, becoming the world’s largest major crop being produced by slave labor
(Foner 2022). The South was the central largest and powerful slave society that the
modern world has known, and utilized their vast network of slaves to become the
world’s largest exporter of cotton, eventually becoming three fourths of the world’s
cotton supply. Since cotton was an important commodity in international trade, the
South relied on their slave labor to produce more cotton and other slave crops such as
sugar and tobacco. Furthermore, inventions such as the cotton gin in 1793 increased
efficiency in cotton production, which made the South even more reliant on slave labor
in order to keep their economy afloat. Therefore, their dependence on slave labor for
their economy led to their resistance against any attempt to abolish it, which conflicted
directly against Northern interests.
The North on the other hand, had an extremely different economy from the South
for a variety of reasons. At the time, the South was very reliant on slave labor and its
production of slave crops (which was mostly agriculture), which limited its ability to
industrialize and develop into more modern ways of life. The Market Revolution which
occurred between the 1820’s and 1850’s, discouraged creating goods for self-use and
encouraged creating goods to sell, altered the North’s economy. As it contributed to the
urbanization of the north and development of infrastructure such as cities and factories.
In the North, they relied more on “industrial workers” rather than slaves focusing on a,
Northerners began to view slavery as outdated and not efficient, even to the point of
creating an American Anti-Slavery Society in 1833. Furthermore, abolitionist
movements in the 1830’s created deep tensions between the North and South, which
was not only moral but also political.
These tensions regarding slavery grew as westward expansion grew in the United
States as well. As the United States began to expand westward, debates over whether
newly acquired territories should allow slavery or not became a central political issue for
the country, as both sides fiercely disagreed. During the nineteenth century, events such
as the annexation of Texas in 1845, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 (due to
America’s victory in the Mexican-American War), and trends such as the California Gold
Rush in the mid 1800’s all led to the United State’s quick and vast expansion into
western territory. However, several events occurred which deepened the divide between
the two sides.
One prominent event that occurred was the Compromise of 1850, which was a
series of measures with the purpose of resolving the argument between the North and
South sides regarding slavery in newly acquired territory. Some specific sections of this
Compromise were the admittance of California as a free state (prohibiting slavery), the
Fugitive Slave Act, which required that escaped slaves be returned to their owners even
in free states, popular sovereignty in Utah and New Mexico, and many others. Although
it was supposed to ease arguments between the North and South, it did not solve the
underlying tensions between the sides. Additionally, sections of the Compromise only
further angered both sides. For example, the North was outraged by the Fugitive Slave
Act while the South was outraged by the admittance of California as a free state, which
consequently led to worse and more violent tensions between the North and the South.
Another important event was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which was a law
introduced by Stephen Douglassn that allowed for settlers in Kansas and Nebraska to
decide for themselves whether or not the states should allow slavery, essentially popular
sovereignty. Although it was initially created to ease tensions, it resulted in the infamous
“Bleeding Kansas” where opposing sides clashed violently in Kansas to fight over
whether the state should be pro or anti slavery. Furthermore, it repealed the Missouri
Compromise which initially had prohibited slavery in the area, angering the North. This
deepened the divide between the North and the South as the tensions turned violent,
leading it closer to the Civil War and southern secession.
Furthermore, other events such as the Wilmot Proviso of 1846, which was a
proposal to ban slavery from any new territory acquired from Mexico, and the creation
of the Free Soil Party, which was an official political party which opposed slavery, only
furthered the tensions between the North and the South, making them not only violent
but now political. Finally, the tension came to a climax at the election of 1860. It was at
this election that Abraham Lincoln (who was perceived as a threat to slavery) who
represented the Republican Party, won. Because of the divide between the Democratic
Party (who supported slavery at the time), Lincoln was able to win the election.
However, southern states viewed this as an attack to their political power, and a danger
to their ability to own slaves. This led to their basically immediate secession from the
United States in order to keep their interests. The secession of the southern states
catalyzed the start of the Civil War, as failed compromises between both sides and the
eventual attack of Fort Sumter led to the Civil War. Which although originally was
supposed to preserve the Union, turned into a war on abolition.
In conclusion, the secession of the southern states and eventual American Civil
War was a result of many years of tensions between the North and South, which grew
and grew due to a series of political events regarding slavery in newly acquired western
territories. The South viewed slavery as an essential part of their economy, and feared
that the loss of it would disrupt their profit generating ability, while the North viewed
slavery as not only outdated but also morally incorrect. Eventually, tensions climaxed
and led one of the most infamous civil wars in history.
Points:
Time spent:
IP address:
Canary word: Present
Possible AI signals:
Original Text:
Are you sure you want to delete this comment? This cannot be undone.
Mark this comment as a review? Points will be awarded to the poster.
Your comment was posted, but it wasn’t long enough to count as a review. Reviews need about four complete sentences (at least 250 characters). Try writing another review that explains your thoughts in more detail — the author will appreciate it, and you’ll earn points for it.
139,231 Literary Works • 672,518 Reviews
hi williamsong!
you have the essayist review already, so i can't give feedback on the technical elements. however, i like history. i like it to the point that it's my profession. i think i can give you a solid review from the historical and factual side of things.
so yeah, your essay gets the history right where it counts. you clearly understand that the american civil war wasn't just a random eruption of violence, and that it was the result of decades of tension between two societies with fundamentally different views. you've chosen to center your narrative around slavery and westward expansion, which is not just valid, but arguably the most historically accurate frame we have. all very excellent starting points for an essay on american history.
now, for the long of it.
for me, what really matters when talking about the civil war is understanding how deeply entrenched the south was in its reliance on slavery. it was not just an institution, and really, it became a way of life and a pillar of identity. your essay touches on that well. there's a temptation in some circles to say slavery would have “died out” on its own, but you correctly point out that by the 1800s, it was booming. and you use real data to prove that.
then you contrast that with the north, which you rightly describe as undergoing the market revolution. big times. there's where i think the heart of the conflict starts to show over what kind of country america was going to be. the south digs in its heels, clinging to a past it's not ready to leave behind. the north has growing infrastructure with its factories and railroads, and things are looking up for them. those are widely different realities for the same nation to co-exist in.
when you say the north “viewed slavery as outdated,” that is something to expand on. outdated like what? an old tool? a wound that had never healed properly? there's the perfect opportunity to ask how ideology and economy can overlap. this was a shift in how people saw the world. the north's growing discomfort with slavery wasn’t even just moral, even if that is the most common understanding of it. it was also practical, existential. slavery was incompatible with a future that they had visions for; how can you show that here more in depth?
i like how you walk us through the great legislative waypoints of the time: the compromise of 1850, kansas-nebraska, the wilmot proviso, etc. these are not easy things to make coherent since they are dense with political jargon. when you describe “bleeding kansas,” i can imagine it outside of an academic position and like i am an empathetic human being. making your writing sympathetic is hard. that’s where your writing is strongest to me, since it remembers the people. without the people, what else would exist? people cause everything, good and bad.
though, there's where your foundation needs some work. you talk about the election of 1860 and lincoln's victory, but you don't expand on what that means. lincoln didn't promise to free all slaves, but the south didn’t need him to. they could already feel the power slipping from their hands. then, you mention fort sumter as if it started the war, but really, it was the opening shot of a war that had already begun in hearts and legislatures. these are the kinds of moments that matter because the essay shifts depending on what we choose to emphasize.
yeah, you have a very strong essay despite this. i can tell you didn't memorize this just to recite straight facts, but you tried to humanize and make sense of a war that felt senseless. that is history. the heart of the matter is sound.
best,
floodlights
I write mostly essays, so it's cool to review one!
You’re not shying away from the scale of the issue here, which is important! There’s a lot of power in how plainly you lay out the South’s economic dependence on slavery, especially the role of cotton. These kinds of details give the essay realism! I feel that the connection you make between technological advancement, like the cotton gin, and the intensifying reliance on enslaved labor is strong -- it highlights how “progress” didn’t always mean progress for everyone.
Where I see the most depth is in your handling of the north-south ideological clash. I love how you move from economic differences to cultural ones, especially in this line:
It is effective to use the phrase “even to the point” here. To me, it's acknowledging a slow but real shift in collective moral consciousness. It humanizes the broader political shifts you're outlining, which is very important.
Thematically, the section on westward expansion is also a strong pivot! I think you successfully show how each new territory became a new flashpoint for conflict. It’s not just the South vs. the North, but a repeated struggle over the identity of a growing nation. I am glad that you mention real events, like the Compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, as well.
There are a few run-on sentences that could be broken up though. Like this:
Besides that, citations are essential! You do include one in-text citation, which is a good start. It supports a major claim about cotton and slave labor. However, if you're writing this as a formal essay, you’ll want to incorporate more specific citations throughout.
For example, you could support this with a primary source like a newspaper excerpt or a quote from a speech, or a secondary source that contextualizes the violence. Most people are familiar with the event, but you have to back up what you say with evidence. I suggest using Google Scholar for this!
As a draft, this is really strong! You’re not only demonstrating a solid grasp of historical content but also telling a meaningful story about why this war happened and what it meant for a divided nation. That is what good essays do!
Great work!