jamesrmaclean | Sectionalism has been used in two closely related senses. One refers to a regional division, such as a group of states (
i.e., divisions of a country) or provinces. The other refers to a division of
society
that makes its money a certain way. The two concepts are closely
related, since sectional divisions of a country usually correspond to
reliable generalizations as to the source of each section's wealth.
Sectional interests often come into conflict, but typically the
parties involved are aware of the unlikelihood of a victory in open
struggle. There are a few historical cases in which sectionalism has
erupted into
civil war;
this site takes the position that most allegedly "ethnic" or
"sectarian" conflicts are actually sectional conflicts caused by a
breakdown of sectional comity.
In the United States
The obvious example of a sectional conflict is the one that raged between the
CSA and the northern states, or residual of the
United States. Here, the most compelling difference between the two sections was that one relied heavily on
slavery,
while the other found slavery threatening. More schematically, one
relied on the endless expansion of exactly the same system (gangs of
slaves
working on freshly cleared land to produce the same cash crop in
ever-greater volume); the other was a diversified economy which ranged
from semi-subsistence farming to large-scale industrial enterprise. The
"sections" of the Union advanced fundamentally incompatible claims to
the vast amounts of territory that the USA either bought, seized, or
divided. Even when significant numbers of actual slaves were not
present (Kansas) or never could be (as was alleged with New Mexico and
Arizona), the dividing sectional principle was too basic to be resolved
peacefully. A crucial claim of the Southern partisans was that,
regardless of the merits of slavery, restrictions on slavery in the
territories (or, for that matter, the states themselves) represented a
violation of the equal protection of Southern slaveowners per se. Under
slavery, captive humans in servitude were
capital,
but if slavery was illegal in a territory—or even in a neighboring
state—then one type of capitalist was not allowed in. And while the
great majority of
Whites in the South owned few or no slaves, slaveowners were the politically decisive class.
[1]
The North also had sectional interests, ones that bound the East with the West: the
industrial system that united them depended on a much costlier system of public works, public education, and
governmental
regulation. Slavery typically faired best in cases where law
enforcement was cheap and crude, and dominated entirely by slaveowners.
In industrial systems where there was rapid innovation and complex
networks of contracts, patents, public services, and technical
competition from established foreign companies. The most obvious
example was tariff policy and public improvements, but additional
issues concerned the nationalization of state debts, federal control
over
banking and
securities, and
land policy.
[2]
The fundamental difference was that the survival of the Northern
economy required a reliable foundation for rapid technological
innovation and implementation, while the South was highly sensitive to
cost. Moreover, the South was threatened by the relative rise of the
North as a political counterweight.
After the Civil War, the sectional interests shifted somewhat. The
South was still hypersensitive to costs, such as taxes and rising wages;
the North was still responding to rapid changes in technology and high
fixed costs for plants. But Southern planters could no longer control
the entire political structure as easily as before; there were now rival
bases of political power (between 1868 and 1898, African American
voters were such a base). At the same time, the interests in the North
who had demanded a strong government hand in the economy to ensure the
creation of power industrial corporations, by the end of Reconstruction,
were increasingly at swords points with the burgeoning populism of
their workforce and small farmers. Tariffs were high, but labor was
militant and populist
democracy was corrupt; while the robber barons had
tended
to champion a strong government leading up to the Grant Administration,
and bribed the one they had on a prodigious scale, they were faced with
a sinkhole of malfeasance.
[3] In response, they favored the creation of the
firm as
surrogate to the state: the modern industrial
corporation. This was to be the ultimate counterforce to
social democracy
in the United States, and it meshed with the sectional interests of the
planters. Not only could planters form a permanent coalition with the
corporate elites to defeat social democratic legislation at the federal
level, they could also continue to use their rising economic
hegemony
as a unifying enemy for poor Southern Whites. The South remained
totally dominated by one political party (the Democrats) until the late
1960's, but in Southern states the party actually housed multiple rival
factions; the politically
conservative faction sided with Northern Republicans, while the
populist faction sided with the (weak) Northern Democrats.
Since the time of the
Civil Rights Movement,
sectional alignments have evolved further; they still have a decidedly
economic orientation, with the Democratic Party corresponding to
industry and the Republican Party corresponding to resource extraction,
farming,
financial services, and
business management. Casual observers usually assume the Democratic Party is
liberal (and
hypocritical),
while the Republican Party is conservative (and sincere). In reality,
both parties are conservative, but oriented towards different sectional
interests. The Democratic Party favors public education, public works,
and a robust regulatory regime; the Republican Party sometimes claims it
does also, but its position towards all three is hectoring and
unsupportive. The Republican Party, in turn, favors minimal government
role in the economy, and a compensatory maximal role of the state in
enforcing market incentives. These are compatible with the "night
watchman state" popular among extractive industries such as
factory farming,
mining, and fossil fuels; and the punitive enforcement of incentives
popular with financial services and business management (as a separate
political section).