United States History - Why Have Things Changed So Little?

The Great Divide

As a student of history, and I must say I am definitely a student and not a teacher, I am compelled at how things today seem no different from 300 years ago. I'll get right to the point here.

Colonial Days

In the years leading up to the Revolutionary War, there were no thoughts of rebellion. People were happy. The South was slowly becoming a slave society, and the North was working its way to becoming industrial. That is, until the French and Indian War occurred.

It was actually a great victory for Britain and the colonies. It served two purposes:

• It showed dominance over the natives.
  
  
• It took land west of the Appalachians from the French.

However, it was an expensive war. It took major tolls on the British treasury, and forced more taxation upon the colonies. Really, when looking back, this was probably the greatest catalyst for war against Britain.

Also, with the Proclamation of 1763, which forbade the colonies from expanding past the Appalachians, the colonies began to stir about "rights" and "freedom". Still, most didn't find cause for war, especially in the southern region.

After the Boston Tea Party and the passing of the Coercive Acts, the colonies were able to unite, as best they could, and defeat the British for freedom.

But, did the colonies really unite? John Adams is often quoted as saying that the colonies were divided into three separate groups: one-third loyalist, one-third patriot, and one-third were apathetic to the cause.

How true does that hold today? 1/3 of our country today votes Republican, 1/3 votes Democrat, and 1/3 doesn't vote at all. Things don't change.

Furthermore, much of this divide occurred between the North and South. The North was far more industrial than the South, and so it was hit by these taxes and Acts much harder. They were forced to trade with only Britain, and because of this, the taxes hurt their economy.

Meanwhile, down south, everything was normal. There was no reason for war, and nobody cared. In fact, already the divide was occurring during the Declaration of Independence's creation. The North wanted to include slavery as a grievance against the King. It was their contention that the British were responsible for slavery in the U.S., however, the South obviously was not happy with that clause, and it was eventually removed.


The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution

The Articles of Confederation were weak federally. This is the prime reason that the entire thing was sacked. However, the Articles were actually responsible for helping keep slavery out of westward expansion with the NW Territory Act - furthering the divide between North and South.

The drawing up of the Constitution was made especially difficult due to the growing divide of the North and South. Slavery was an issue, of course, which had to be resolved. One of the only goals accomplished was that after 20 years of signing the Constitution, all states would agree to no longer import slaves. This was a big step, but further divided the North and South.

Next came the big issue of representation. How could this be worked out so that all the states were represented fairly? If it was done by state, the large states would suffer because their large population would be canceled out by smaller states. If it was done by population, the smaller states would have virtually no say.

This is how the idea of the House of Representatives and the Senate were formed. Thus, each state was fairly represented. However, this left another problem for the southern states:

Slaves comprised a large portion of the population. With more slaves than the North, people were represented less in the South than the North. From this, came the 3/5th compromise, in which 3 out of 5 slaves were counted for taxation and representation.

A short-term fix, that again, furthers the divide between the North and South.


The War of 1812

Yes, a great war that really sealed the deal for freedom of the U.S. from Britain. The United States had defended itself against multiple enemies without the help of any foreign nation.

However, were the states truly united? Of course not. The roles reversed in this war, with the South pushing for war and the North wanting to negotiate.

The South, being patriotic like it is, was extremely offended when its ships were impressed by the French and British navies. The North, caring about its economy and trade, wanted to negotiate and not instigate a costly war (also knowing that much of it would be fought on its territory).

Also, the South was extremely interested in the options of expansion. The states had not really begun to advance westward since the Proclamation of 1763, and this was a chance to finally remove the French from those areas. Moreover, directly below them were the Spaniards in Florida - which had actually kept Georgia slave free for a while as a buffer zone in case of war.

Without going into too much more detail, one can see the divide, AGAIN.


The Civil War and the Years Leading Up To It

The Civil War didn't just happen, there were many factors that caused the fire to spark - slavery, of course, being a major reason.

The South still advocated state rights and feared a strong, central government. Many believe this is mostly due to their fear of the abolishment of slavery. The North was offended by the Fugitive Slave Law, which required them to return slaves to their southern owners if caught. The North prided itself on due process, and was at odds with the idea of being forced to return slaves.

The North was slowly becoming more urban and industrialized. By this time, the textile revolution had hit America, and also other revolutions. The transportation revolution with trains, roads, steamboats, and canals had made an impact on the country.

The South continued to expand with the purchase of land and more slaves, while the North focused on industry and production. One could easily say that the North was an industrial society, and the south was a slave society.

This very fact alone is enough to cause a visible rift between the two territories. Not only were their ideals different, but their way of life in general. Families were different sizes, married for different reasons, and lived in different conditions.

Cont...

[edit on 18-11-2008 by Irish M1ck]

Republicans v Democrats

The divide continues. The factors that separate southern values from northern values seem to be more vague currently. For instance, no longer is it North v. South, but rather Liberal v. Conservative.

While the party lines change, the name of each party changes, and the reasons behind it, the divide is always constant. A movement towards progress and an opposite polar movement based around conservatism.

A picture showing the Mason-Dixon Line


Picture showing 2000 election of Gore v. Bush


Picture showing 2008 election of Obama v McCain


But what are the core values that separate the "Liberals" and the "Conservatives". I will not examine the values of the true liberals and conservatives, but rather the large movements as a whole.

Conservatives

• Religion
  
• Pro-Life
  
• Partial Isolationism
  
• Nation Building (when in office)
  
• Pro Guns (many advocate all guns be legal)
  
• Against teaching only evolution in schools
  
• Can't make up their mind on state rights. Some want state rights on everything, but then forget their mandate to ban abortion through federal means.
  
• A large make-up is poor, uneducated whites

Liberals

• No Religion involved in government
  
• Pro-Choice
  
• Diplomacy wanted, and respect for all foreign nations
  
• Nation Building (when in office)
  
• Anti-gun proliferation (left up to states)
  
• Pro-evolution - against Creationism being taught
  
• Also cannot make up mind on states vs fed.
  
• Large make up is poor, uneducated people from the inner cities.

So I ask all of you, when will this great divide end? Is it in the near future? Is there any way to appease both parties? Can we come to terms on anything?

Things have changed a lot, technology has changed a lot, in fact freedoms have changed a lot, todays extreme conservatives would be considered 200 years ago psychoticly insane liberals.

I think the only thing that hasn't changed is the dividing force of two different political parties.

reply to post by FoxStriker


That's what I am talking about.

Obviously things aren't the same, but my point is that the rift between these societies has remained and festered.

reply to post by Irish M1ck


First of all, there were many big names of the south involved in the revolutionary war.
Heroes and Patriots of the South
General Francis Marion, General William Moultrie, General Andrew Pickens, and Governor John Rutledge, to name a few.
Revolutionary War; Southern phase

Believing the loyalists were strongest in the South and hoping to enlist the slaves in their cause--an objective that seems incompatible with a focus on Southern loyalists--the British turned their efforts to the South. In fact, the British had some important military successes in the South. They occupied Savannah, Georgia, in late 1778 and Charleston, South Carolina, in May 1779. They also struck a disastrous blow on General Horatio Gates' forces at Camden, South Carolina, in August 1780.

Although the British were successful in most conventional battles, the fighting in the South, under the leadership of Generals Nathanael Greene and Daniel Morgan, turned toward guerrilla and hit-and-run warfare. Moreover, the British had overestimated loyalist sentiment in the South; their presence actually forced many, who had been sitting out the war, to take sides, most in favor of the Patriots. At the same time, the British underestimated the logistical problems they would encounter, especially when their army was in the interior away from the supplies offered by their fleet. Patriot forces, on the other hand, were supplied and could hide among the local population. As a result, the British southern strategy was a dismal failure.

Tories even came around here, where I live in Georgia torturing people!

Secondly, the south before the civil war was mostly agricultural.
Cotton was king of the exports!
Causes of the Civil war

In 1789 Georgians, as did much of the rest of the country, saw slavery as a dying institution. Eli Whitney's stolen modification of the cotton gin(1793) created a greater demand for slaves, so rather than "wither on the vine" the institution prospered. The Northwest Ordinance, adopted in 1787 banned the practice in the Northwest Territories. In 1798 Georgia forbid further importation of slaves and the Constitution allowed Congress to outlaw importation of slaves in 1808, which they did. Over the next 40 years lesser skirmishes were fought over slavery including the Compromise of 1820. In North Georgia slavery was not widespread and a majority of the slaves were of Native American, Scottish or Irish descent.

Slaves often spoke of "our cotton" or "our cattle". The only item they would concede was the master's carriage. Trusted slaves were permitted to go to town unescorted. Others suffered horribly. Conditions in northern factories were as bad or worse than those for a majority of the slaves, but it would be 40 years after the war when they were properly addressed.

Some of us Americans are direct descendants of white slaves; White slavery

He who wins the war writes the history!

And don't dismiss out of hand, The catholic connection, where jesuits supposedly stirred up both sides of America for the pope.
Both John Wilkes Booth and John Surratte were catholic.
Here's a picture of John after he fled the U.S. for the Vatican;




[edit on 18-11-2008 by Clearskies]

reply to post by Clearskies


Correct. The South was not 100% against the war, and there were important people who came from there and battles fought there. However, the general idea for revolution came from and was largely supported in the North.

The South during the civil war was almost a completely agricultural slave society. Correct. And while your source adds some interesting perspectives to the issue, I do not necessarily agree with Georgia's attempt to downplay the atrocities by comparing them to factory conditions, nor should they even attempt to minimize the issue by promoting the idea that most slaves didn't have it all that bad.

*Edit:

Cool picture of JWB.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by Irish M1ck]

I ran out of time and got a little tired today, but I'll post up some more similarities of division in U.S. history.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by Irish M1ck]

Slavery also existed in the North;
introduction

"In Connecticut in the 1950s, when I was growing up, the only slavery discussed in my history textbook was southern; New Englanders had marched south to end slavery. It was in Rhode Island, where I lived after 1964, that I first stumbled across an obscure reference to local slavery, but almost no one I asked knew anything about it. Members of the historical society did, but they assured me that slavery in Rhode Island had been brief and benign, involving only the best families, who behaved with genteel kindness. They pointed me in the direction of several antiquarian histories, which said about the same thing. Some of the people of color I met knew more."[3]

IMO, the major side effect of politics has been to cause division rather than unity - and of course this helps keep politicians in a job.

Everything mentioned has a direct correlation to politics.

An over simplification perhaps, but get rid of politics and you get rid of the divisions - BUT until humans can overcome their prejudices this isn't going to happen.

reply to post by Clearskies


Sure it did. But, the North was a society with slaves (very few), while the South was a slave society.

Big contrast.

reply to post by budski


That is, in essence, what it all comes down to - politics. I am confused at why each region seems to hold onto it's same politics, even after they have changed so much elsewhere.

reply to post by Irish M1ck


Aw pshaw!
There are conservatives all over America!
Even some conservatives I know voted for Obama. (Have you ever heard of a 'Dixiecrat'?)
It was because he might be a change from the 'neocons' and sagging economy.
Who's to say those surveys are right, anyway?

Divisive, I say.

Also, less than a third of Georgians actually owned slaves.
Kent State University Journal article



[edit on 18-11-2008 by Clearskies]

reply to post by Clearskies


Yeah, but the maps and voting results don't lie. Nor do the opinion pieces being posted about what scares people about Obama. Guns, religion, abortion, etc. It's the same stuff.

The divide today seems just as strong as it always has, only the issues aren't quite as passionate as slavery.

From my own experience in the UK, it would appear that divides are caused by tradition in voting patterns,with many instances of families following the same voting patterns they have for generations.

There are different factors in this but the major players appear to be tradional family voting patterns, local values, local churches/religion etc etc

In other words, it appears that demographic shifts are not taking place with enough force to overcome what many in a particular area see as their core traditional values.
This means that in many cases people are voting the ticket rather than the man because they either don't believe the message being given out, or that views about a particular party are so entrenched (as in core party values) that voters take no notice of a platform and instead rely on perceptions of what a paticular party means to them.

It comes down to the all important swing vote - which is why elections are such a close run thing, and why little ever really changes.

reply to post by budski


It seems many people don't take an active involvement in their politics, and so these patterns tend to become a permanent facet of any static demographic. Changes in voting then only occurs as changes in that population's environment begin to affect their living conditions. But whatever changes occur will remain consistent across that entire population, as their core values tend to stay the same. So there's some cohesive element there. What do you think, does culture tend to propagate faster in relatively less educated populations?

Honestly, I don't see anything changing until people become more educated, and are willing to devote their creative and intellectual energy to their politics. Willing is the key word. Technological change should help, as manual labor is relegated to robotic automation and cybernetic information systems, freeing up more people to pursue a broader education. You would be surprised how many people are so inflexible in the way they conduct their lives. There are generations of automobile technicians working for the Big Three in Detroit that will now have a very, very difficult time getting work in anything else. They've dug themselves a hole that will be difficult to climb out of. In fact, it will be so difficult they will automatically look to the government for assistance, and base all their subsequent political rationalizations around the loss of their jobs and how the government handled the situation. So that's one example where people are becoming merely a product of their surroundings; their votes will be largely a result of their present economic situation, and that will shape the perspectives of their children and further. As education increases in any given group, this precipitous effect tends to be reduce in force, as subsequent generations are able to establish their own values. These people will be able to create more personal opinions by basing their experiences around the core values they themselves have developed throughout life. More education tends to lead to more autonomy from your original group, which leads to more experiences, and so in the end you see more opinions.

Basically, people need to command a certain level of wealth and personal security so that they can actually make rational political decisions, and until then I believe economic reasons will be a rather large factor in the division of ideology and power.

Interesting topic, Irish. I'm glad you posted it. Oh, and please excuse all of my unsubstantiated conclusions. These are just thoughts. I tried not to make too many assertions.

[edit on 23-11-2008 by cognoscente]

reply to post by cognoscente


That's exactly what I wanted you to do. Thanks for your post.

It goes completely against the grain that the parties seem to exist in the exact same areas, people vote for the same reasons, and nothing, politically, has changed all that much.

So, compared to everything else that has progressed considerably the past 100 years, your thoughts make sense as why things are staying the same politically.

There was no civil war!!!!!!!!

The south seceded from the United States, a fact "civil war" antagonists seem to always convieniently leave out.

The Confederate States of America was a completely independant nation.
They eventually had to evict US troops via threat of deadly force.

A couple of U.S. troops were ACCIDENTALLY killed during a ceremonial surrender. The U.S. government took advantage of that incident and used it to lead the U.S. into an invasion of a foriegn country and war.

We haven't changed because it's not in our nature. It will always be the rich vs. the poor. The strong vs. the weak. The educated vs. the uneducated. The good vs. the evil.

It will not ever change.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
and defeat the British for freedom.

How's that turning out? Have you paid any unfair taxes recently? Felt you've been paying for a war you didn't approve of? Do you feel your government actually represents your interests? Any recent moves by your government that have felt tyrannical or draconian?

Hmm... I can not but wonder if the flag in your avatar has any correlation with the way you've approached this issue of civil war.

I don't believe the sociopolitical divisions in this country (liberal and conservative, rich and poor) are necessarily congruent with some notion of differing national identities. Most of us willingly adhere to the banal nationalism of everyday public discourse and don't complain. Many truly are patriotic. But it's almost as if we're fighting over the same flag, and that we've aligned ourselves within the social structures that bring out the greatest of our own strengths, and those that promote our own ideologies above others (for economic reasons mostly likely). I'm thinking that as long as the conditions, which cause these differences in groups, remains constant, there will also be political perspectives that struggle to change. We will continue to suffer from philosophical stagnation in politics as long as this is true.

reply to post by Merriman Weir


SO, you're saying that Britain does none of these things?
I'm guessing your British? Are you happy with the security cameras on every corner? We Have them too! The liberty minded people in the USA are not represented by our leaders, please remember that.