Double Helix: Blueprint of Nations
Welcome to 'Double Helix: Blueprint of Nations,' the podcast where we analyze and look at the events, people and actions that have shaped the nations of our world . From revolutions to treaties, conflicts to triumphs, we explore the historical blueprints that continue to influence the way nations think and act today.
Double Helix: Blueprint of Nations
The American Civil War: Original Sin (Part 1)
How did the United States reconcile the ideals of freedom and equality with the brutal institution of slavery? In this episode, we confront this paradox head-on, exploring the foundational contradictions that led to the Civil War. You'll gain insight into how the founding fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, navigated these moral contradictions, setting the stage for a conflict that would forever alter the American landscape. We promise you'll come away with a deeper understanding of how slavery was not just a Southern issue but a national one that implicated all levels of American society.
We also dissect the profound and lasting impact of slavery, particularly in the Southern colonies, where it shaped rigid social hierarchies and cultural divides. Figures like Frederick Douglass and Harriet Beecher Stowe brought the horrors of slavery into the public eye, intensifying the national debate and pushing the country to the brink of war. From the early legislative compromises to the Dred Scott decision, we unravel the pivotal moments that exacerbated sectional tensions. Join us as we explore this complex legacy, revealing how the echoes of slavery continue to influence America's ongoing struggle with racial injustice and national identity.
Like, Share, and Follow, Wherever you get your podcasts!
Twitter: @HistoryHelix
Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/Doublehelixhistory
Instagram: History_Helix
Email: DoubleHelixHistorypodcast@gmail.com
Welcome to Double Helix Blueprint of Nations, season 2, episode 2.1, original Sin. Welcome once again to Season 2 of Double Helix Blueprint of Nations. I'm Paul, and if you're here it's because you share my fascination with the DNA of nations. This season, we're diving into civil conflicts and wars that have not only altered the course of their own nation's histories, but have also sent ripples across the globe. We began our journey with the Colombian conflict, unraveling the complexities and enduring impacts of that struggle. Now we shift our focus to one of the most consequential and pivotal events in American history, an event so monumental that it forever changed the direction of the country and its relationship with itself. I am, of course, talking about the war between the states, more commonly known as the United States Civil War. The Civil War changed the face of the United States forever and continues, almost 150 years later, to provoke fervent debate. Now, if you know anything about history, you know that 150 years isn't that long. This means the Civil War and its impacts are still very much alive in the American psyche. Think about it. This was a conflict that pitted brother against brother, neighbor against neighbor. It wasn't just a war fought on battlefields. It was a war that cut deep into the social and cultural fabric of the nation. The echoes of this conflict are still felt today in debates over race relations, states' rights and national identity. Race relations, states' rights and national identity.
Speaker 1:We will explore the roots of the conflict, from the founding of the nation and the original sin of slavery, through the economic and social divides that widened over the decades, to the explosive events that finally ignited the war. We'll also look at key figures, the major battles and the strategies employed by both sides. We'll also dig into the personal stories, the lives disrupted, the communities torn apart and the enduring legacy of a nation striving to reconcile its ideals with its realities. In this episode, original Sin, we'll start at the very beginning. Original Sin will start at the very beginning. How did the ideals of freedom and equality coexist with the brutal institution of slavery? How did the founding fathers, who championed liberty, justify the ownership of human beings? And how did the compromises made at the birth of the nation sow the seeds for future conflict? We'll explore these questions and more, setting the stage for our journey through the Civil War. This story, like all stories, has a beginning.
Speaker 1:Just as we saw in Colombia, there are poison pills embedded into the very fabric of America. These pills were so toxic, so contradictory to the nation's ideals and rhetoric, that they became, and continue to be, the original sin of the United States. That sin, of course, is slavery. Now it's important to add nuance and complexity to this topic, to explain the pervasive grip slavery had over America, both as an institution and a deeply entrenched system. It is also crucial to acknowledge that America was not alone in its thirst for African slave labor. The French, the Spanish and the Portuguese enslaved and imported the majority of the people in bondage to the Americas. And, yes, some people of European descent endure forms of labor that were essentially slavery in all but name. But all of that context must be couched within the unequivocal truth borne out by the historical record and the facts.
Speaker 1:The primary reason why the states of the new American Republic went to war against each other was slavery, full stop. Slavery was a central issue that divided the nation and ultimately led to civil war. The debates over states' rights, economic differences and cultural clashes were all deeply intertwined with the question of slavery. Ashes were all deeply intertwined with the question of slavery. And yet I know some of you listening will still want to argue it, deny it and say that there were other reasons, and I get it. The visceral reaction elicited by the notion that over 600,000 people died in a fight over whether one set of humans could preserve the right to keep others in bondage is jarring at best and terrifying and shameful at worst. But those are the facts.
Speaker 1:One way this becomes self-evident is by reading the declarations of secession from the various states. These documents clearly cite the preservation of slavery as a core institution of southern society and economy as the primary reason for breaking the bonds of the Union. The language is unambiguous. For example, mississippi's Declaration states Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery, the greatest material interest of the world. South Carolina's Declaration similarly emphasizes slavery centrality to their secession. Another compelling piece of evidence is the pattern of secession itself. It didn't follow any particular economic or geographic logic. Instead, it was determined by the percentage of the slave population in those states. The higher the number of slaves, the more eager the state was to secede. This correlation highlights the more entrenched a state was in the institution of slavery, the more fervently it sought to leave the Union to protect that institution. This is the reality we must confront as we explore the roots of the Civil War. It is a difficult, often uncomfortable truth, but understanding it is essential to grasping the full scope of American history and the enduring impact of this conflict on the nation.
Speaker 1:The story of American slavery begins in the early 17th century. In total, 550,000 humans were brought to North America between 1619 and 1808, the year the Constitution, on Article I, section 9, marked as the year in which Congress could legally legislate the slave trade. Afterwards, as many as 50,000 more people were brought in illegally. Illegally, the year 1619 is important because it marks the date when a ship carrying 20 African slaves docked at Point Comfort in the Virginia colony. This moment, though seemingly minor at the time, set in motion a chain of events that would shape the nation's history.
Speaker 1:Initially, african slaves in the colonies were treated similarly to indenture servants. They worked for a set period, often seven years, before gaining their freedom. The system, borrowed from the English practice of indenture servitude, allowed landowners to acquire labor cheaply. But here's a twist Over time, the status of African workers began to change. The line between indenture servant and lifelong slave blurred and then vanished entirely. The importation of people into North America constituted around 8% of the total slave population sold out of sub-Saharan Africa to the Americas and South Asia, a distinctive characteristic of the conditions in North America, which differ significantly from other parts of the Americas, where the hard labor, abuse and poor nutrition had made for short lives for the slaves. And in the United States the slave population actually rose to nearly 4 million by the eve of the war in 1861. This is when slavery apologists will surface and say it was because of the fantastic treatment given to slaves in America. The reality is that it was likely the result of concerted breeding programs by slaveholders and the natural desire of slaves to form families in order to better endure the ordeal. Anyway, back to the chronology.
Speaker 1:By the late 1600s, virginia and other colonies started to codify racial slavery into law. Laws passed in Virginia in the 1660s made the status of African workers permanent and hereditary. If you were born to a slave mother, you were a slave for life. These laws weren't just about labor, they were about control and power. The transformation was deliberate, designed to create a clear, racially defined underclass. One of the most striking examples of this legal shift comes from a 1662 Virginia law stating that children born to enslaved mothers would inherit their mother's status. This law ensured that the institution of slavery would perpetuate itself across generations.
Speaker 1:It was a system built on dehumanization, where African slaves were seen not as people but as property chattel to be bought, sold and exploited. Chattel to be bought, sold and exploited. Thus this type of slavery differs significantly from historical slavery as practiced since the onset of civilization. Since people have been people, there have been slaves, though often slavery was primarily based on subjugation. In other words, you were conquered, therefore you became a slave. Treatment and conditions were not less brutal. But the concept of racialized chattel slavery is a fairly modern invention, fully expressed in the New World Historian Ira Berlin, in his seminal work Many Thousands Gone, notes that these early legal codifications were pivotal. They marked the transition from a society with slaves to a fully developed slave society.
Speaker 1:This transformation didn't happen overnight. It was a gradual and an insidious process as economic incentives and racial prejudice intertwined to create a deeply entrenched system of racial slavery. By the end of the 17th century the institution of slavery was firmly established in the American colonies. The labor of enslaved Africans had become essential to the colonial economy, particularly in the South where large plantations began to dominate the landscape. Tobacco, rice, indigo, sugar and eventually cotton plantations flourished, all built on the back of enslaved labor. By 1860, the entire apparatus of southern economic wealth somewhere near the $2 billion mark was supported on the back of slavery, literally and figuratively. On the back of slavery. Literally and figuratively, the legal foundations laid during this period would have profound and lasting effects. They created a society where racialized inequality was institutionalized and the seeds of future conflict were sown. As we progress deeper into this story, we'll see how these early decisions and laws set the stage for the immense struggles and conflicts to come.
Speaker 1:As the American colonies grew, so did their reliance on slavery. The economy of the southern colonies in particular, as we said before, became inextricably linked with the institution of slavery. Picture the sprawling tobacco plantations of Virginia, the rice fields of South Carolina and later the vast cotton plantations that stretched across the Deep South. All these thriving agricultural enterprises had one thing in common they were built on the backs of enslaved African laborers. The southern economy was an agricultural juggernaut. Tobacco was the first major cash crop, driving the demand for more labor. As historian Edward Baptist describes in his book, slavery was not just an economic system but a relentless machine of productivity and profit. The wealth generated from tobacco was staggering, and it was clear that more labor meant more money. Hence the demand for African slaves grew exponentially.
Speaker 1:In South Carolina, rice became the staple crop, and its cultivation was labor-intensive and arduous. Enslaved Africans, many of whom were brought from rice-growing regions of West Africa, provided the expertise and the labor needed to turn South Carolina into a rice powerhouse. The climate and geography of the Lowcountry were perfect for rice, but the work was back-breaking and dangerous. Yet for the plantation owners, the profits were worth every drop of sweat and blood shed by their slaves. Then came cotton, the crop that would transform the South and its reliance on slavery to unprecedented levels. The invention of the cotton gin by Eli Whitney in 1793 revolutionized cotton production, making it easier to separate the seeds from the cotton fibers. This innovation turned cotton into the South's dominant cash crop. Almost overnight, the demand for cotton in textile mills across Europe and the northern United States skyrocketed, leading to a corresponding boom in the demand for slave labor. Georgia is an example of this cotton explosion. In 1800, around 60,000 slaves lived there. By 1860, just 60 years later, the slave population had grown to 462,000, almost as many slaves as in all of Cuba.
Speaker 1:Slavery wasn't just a southern phenomenon, though. In the northern colonies slavery existed, but played a different role. The north's economy was more diversified and industrialized. Slaves in the north were often used in domestic roles, skilled labor and small-scale farming. However, the north was not immune to the economic benefits of the slave trade. Northern merchants and shipbuilders made fortunes from the transatlantic slave trade, and northern banks financed southern plantations. The interconnectedness of the North and the South through the economy of slavery cannot be overstated. Historian Sven Becker, in his book Empire of Cotton, illustrates how the global economy of the 18th and 19th century was intricately linked to slavery. Cotton produced by slave labor in the South fueled industrialization and economic growth, not just in the United States but worldwide. This created a system where even those who did not own slaves directly benefited from the institution.
Speaker 1:But let's not forget the human cost behind these economic gains. The slaves who toiled in the fields and workshops lived in brutal conditions, subjected to inhumane treatment and stripped of their dignity and humanity. Families were torn apart, individuals were treated as mere commodities, and the physical and psychological. So you might be saying, paul, this sucks, you're pulling a Columbia on us again. No good guys. And all that. And while you might be tempted to think that, I do think at some point in this story there will be a right side versus wrong side. But not yet. And certainly so as not to offend any hardcore real historians, I will say that this is my personal estimation, with my own moral values at play. But I digress. As we continue our journey through the history of American slavery, it is crucial to remember this duality, the immense economic benefits reaped by a few and the unimaginable suffering endured by many. This stark contrast set the stage for deep societal divisions and tensions that would eventually boil over into conflict and that continue to impact the blueprint of the American nation to this day.
Speaker 1:As the American colonies develop further into the nation, the United States, we begin to see how slavery didn't just fuel the economy. It shaped the very fabric of society. Slavery was more than just an economic institution. Slavery was more than just an economic institution. It was a social order, a cultural cornerstone that defined life in the colonies, especially in the South. In the Southern colonies, a distinct culture emerged around the institution of slavery. The South developed a society deeply rooted in agrarian traditions and hierarchical structures with slavery at its core, so that even if you did not own slaves, as most white southerners did not by 1860, you still benefited from the hierarchy and societal structures created by chattel slavery, plantations had become more than just economic enterprises. They were microcosms of southern society, reflecting its values, norms and power dynamics.
Speaker 1:Imagine a sprawling plantation, the grand manor house, surrounded by meticulously cultivated fields. This was the domain of the planter aristocracy, a small elite class that wielded enormous power and influence. They built their wealth and status on the back of enslaved laborers, and their entire way of life was dependent on maintaining this system. The planter class saw themselves as the guardians of a genteel agrarian way of life, one that was inherently superior to the industrial bustling North Historian Eugene Genovese, in his work Roll Jordan Roll describes how the southern planters developed a paternalistic ideology to justify slavery.
Speaker 1:They viewed themselves as benevolent guardians providing care and protection to their enslaved workers, who in turn, were seen as childlike or animal-like and incapable of taking care of themselves. This paternalism was a convenient fiction that masked the brutal reality of slavery, allowing slaveholders to see themselves as moral and upright while perpetuating a system of unimaginable cruelty. But the reality for the enslaved was far different. Of course, slavery imposed a rigid social order where African Americans were seen as property, not people. This dehumanization was reinforced through laws, religion and everyday interactions. The legal system stripped slaves of their rights and humanity, enforcing their status as chattel. Religion, too, was often used to justify slavery, with biblical passages twisted to support the idea that slavery was a divinely sanctioned institution. Frederick Douglass, one of the fathers of American emancipation and someone whom we will elaborate on later, wrote in his autobiography I should regard being the slave of a religious master the greatest calamity that could befall me.
Speaker 1:In the North, the cultural and social implications of slavery were more complex. While Northern states began to gradually abolish slavery in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the legacy of slavery left deep marks on Northern society. Racial prejudice and segregation persisted, and African Americans in the North faced significant discrimination. And African Americans in the North face significant discrimination. Abolitionist movements gained momentum, challenging the moral and ethical justifications to slavery and helped push it to its end. Frederick Douglass and Harriet Beecher Stowe brought the brutal realities of slavery to the forefront of public consciousness. Douglass, an escaped slave himself, became one of the most powerful voices against slavery, eloquently articulating the pain and injustice of the institution. Stowe's novel Uncle Tom's Cabin exposed the horrors of slavery to a broad audience, galvanizing anti-slavery sentiment in the North. It is said that Queen Victoria of England cried when she first read the book. It is said that Queen Victoria of England cried when she first read the book.
Speaker 1:The cultural divide between the North and the South grew increasingly stark. In the South, slavery was seen as an integral part of the social order, something that was not only economically necessary but also morally justified. In the North, growing abolitionist sentiments framed slavery as a moral abomination, a blight on the nation's conscience. The impact of slavery on class and social structure in the colonies and later in America was profound. In the South, a rigid hierarchy developed, with the planter class at the top, poor white farmers and laborers in the middle and enslaved African Americans at the bottom. This hierarchy was maintained through violence, intimidation and a pervasive culture of white supremacy. The concept of race was solidified, creating a racial caste system that would endure long after slavery itself was abolished. Historian Eric Foner points out that slavery's legacy in shaping American society is undeniable. The racial prejudices and social hierarchies established during this period laid the groundwork for the systemic racism and inequality that persisted long after the Civil War. The cultural and social implications of slavery created deep fissures in American society, fissures that would eventually erupt into the cataclysm of the Civil War.
Speaker 1:So what about the founding fathers. Did they not know this was an issue? What about the likes of Madison, jefferson, george Washington? What was their position in all this? We briefly mentioned Washington during the episode on his leadership, season 1, episode 1. We talked about how his position on slavery was typical for the time, if not slightly progressive. He thought slavery was unprofitable, morally dubious, but really did not do anything against the institution throughout his life. Only in his will did he free his slaves after he died. In other words, the economic advantages derived from slavery were too large to do away with during his lifetime.
Speaker 1:It is here that we encounter one of the most profound and troubling paradoxes in history the founding fathers and their thoughts on this greatest of poisoned pills of American democratic experiment. We have to square that those revered champions of liberty, equality and the pursuit of happiness were themselves deeply entangled in the institution of slavery. This contradiction sits at the very heart of America's origin, casting a long, dark shadow over the ideals upon which the nation was founded on. Pretending this isn't the case actually diminishes the complexity and innovative nature of the American experiment. It is the ability of the nation and its framework to potentially correct its innate wrongs that honors the system designed by the framers.
Speaker 1:Take Thomas Jefferson, for example, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, who famously declared that all men are created equal. Yet he owned hundreds of slaves throughout his lifetime. Jefferson's Monticello estate was a bustling plantation sustained by the labor of enslaved African Americans. Despite his philosophical musings on the evils of slavery, jefferson never freed the vast majority of his slaves. In fact, jefferson wrote extensively about the inferiority of the black race and its ultimate incompatibility with whites. Historian Annette Gordon-Reed has dived deeply into this dichotomy, noting that Jefferson was never able to reconcile his lofty ideals with the brutal realities of his own life. His solution consisted of an eventual dying out of slavery and the eventual deportation of millions of black Americans back to Africa.
Speaker 1:James Madison, the father of the Constitution, had a more pragmatic approach. Madison acknowledged that slavery was morally wrong, but doubted the feasibility of immediate abolition. He feared that a sudden end to slavery would lead to economic collapse and social upheaval, especially in the southern states where the economy was heavily dependent on slave labor. Madison's role in drafting the Constitution was pivotal, and his compromises, including the infamous Three-Fifths Compromise, reflect the difficult balancing act between moral principles and political realities. Now, if you don't know what the Three-Fifths Compromise is. Let me explain it to you as succinctly as I can.
Speaker 1:During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, one of the many deals that had to be struck in order to ensure ratification called for a compromise for the purposes of representation in Congress and taxation. This agreement determined that each enslaved person would be counted as three-fifths of a person. In agreeing to this partition, the Constitution implicitly acknowledges the inhumanity of slavery. And yet there it lives within the founding framework of the nation. Another shameful compromise in regards to slavery was one we mentioned earlier in this episode. Regards to slavery was one we mentioned earlier in this episode. Congress was not allowed to regulate the slave trade until 1808, roughly 20 years from ratification. Without this provision, states such as Georgia and South Carolina would not have entered the Union. By counting enslaved people as three-fifths of a person, the southern states gained more political power than they would have otherwise, while still denying these individuals any rights or recognition as human beings.
Speaker 1:Benjamin Franklin, once a slave owner himself, became a vocal abolitionist later in life. Franklin's transformation from a slaveholder to ardent opponent of slavery underscores the possibility for change and redemption. He joined the Pennsylvania Abolition Society and used his considerable influence to push for the end of slavery, arguing that it was a stain on the new nation's conscience. And boy was he right. Unfortunately for America and for Franklin, the economic interests tied to slavery were simply too powerful for the new nation to sustain.
Speaker 1:And then there were those founding fathers who actively supported abolition. John Adams and Alexander Hamilton are notable examples. Adams, a Massachusetts native, never owned slaves and was a staunch opponent of the institution. He believed that slavery was incompatible. Staunch opponent of the institution, he believed that slavery was incompatible with the ideals of the American Revolution. Hamilton, an immigrant from the Caribbean, also abhorred slavery. His experiences growing up in a slave society influenced his strong abolitionist stance. These men, though in the minority, represented the growing anti-slavery sentiment that would eventually settle in the north of the United States.
Speaker 1:This dichotomy among the founding fathers reflects the broader national struggle. On the one hand, the nation was founded on revolutionary principles of liberty and equality. On the other, it was built on the back of enslaved people with economic and social systems deeply intertwined with slavery. This paradox would haunt the nation for decades, setting the stage for the intense and violent conflict that was to come. So now we are transitioning from the founding of the nation into the early 19th century and we see how the institution of slavery began to shape American politics and society more profoundly, leading to increasing sectionalism and setting the stage for the eventual eruption of the Civil War.
Speaker 1:The seeds of conflict were sown in these early years and they grew into deep-rooted divisions that would ultimately tear the nation apart. As I said before, the seeds that would eventually lead to open war were sawn all across the economy, social structures and political compromises of the nations. I've already mentioned the Constitutional Convention as a key moment that set the tone, but it is worth exploring this a bit further. The compromises made during this convention, particularly regarding slavery, were critical to placating southern states and ensuring their participation in the new government. The Three-Fifths Compromise and clauses regarding the slave trade and fugitive slaves, as we discussed earlier, were key components of these negotiations. However, these same compromises also entrenched slavery deeper into the American political system, making future conflict almost inevitable.
Speaker 1:As the nation expanded westwards, the issue of whether new territories would permit slavery became a flashpoint. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was one of the first major legislative attempts to balance the interests of free and slave states. The Compromise allowed Missouri to enter the Union as a slave state while admitting Maine as a free state. Maintaining a balance in the Senate, it also established the 36-30 parallel as a dividing line. Territories north of this line would be free and those south would allow slavery. This compromise temporarily eased tensions, but it was clear that the underlying issue remained unresolved.
Speaker 1:Then, later, the Dred Scott decision of 1857 further inflamed sectional tensions. Further inflamed sectional tensions. In this landmark case, the US Supreme Court ruled that African Americans, whether free or enslaved, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court. Moreover, the court declared that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, asserting that Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in the territories. This decision emboldened pro-slavery advocates and outraged abolitionists, deepening the national divide. Chief Justice Roger Taney added fuel to the fire by further stating that African Americans were quote so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect. End quote. That same guy would swear in Abraham Lincoln just a few years later, the man who was bound to start the process of the destruction of slavery.
Speaker 1:The Compromise of 1850 attempted to address the issue of slavery in territories acquired during the Mexican-American War, a war that, one could argue, was fought for the expansion of slavery in territories acquired during the Mexican-American War, a war that one could argue was fought for the expansion of slavery. This complex package of bills admitted California as a free state, while allowing the territories of New Mexico and Utah to decide the issue of slavery through popular sovereignty. It also included a stricter fugitive slave law, which mandated that citizens assist in the recovery of escaped slaves and the night accused runaways the right to a jury trial. In addition, the law stated that any black person in a free state could be accused of being a fugitive slave, and US Marshals were obligated to assist in the apprehension and capture of anyone accused. This law was particularly controversial in the North, where it was seen as an egregious violation of personal liberties and states' rights. Historian James McPherson, in his book Battle Cry of Freedom, argues that these compromises were merely temporary solutions that failed to address the root cause of the conflict, that irreconcilable differences between a society built on slave labor and one moving towards free labor and industrialization. Each compromise was a band-aid on a festering wound, postponing but not preventing the inevitable clash.
Speaker 1:The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which allowed new territories to decide the issue of slavery through popular sovereignty, led to violent confrontations known as Bleeding Kansas. We'll talk more about that in our next episode. But one could say that this was the first true salvo of the Civil War, as Kansas was embroiled in open warfare between pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers who flooded into Kansas, each side determined to sway the vote by any means necessary. The resulting violence was a grim preview of the national conflict to come, demonstrating that compromise and legislative measures were failing to contain the growing animosity between the North and the South. The political landscape also shifted dramatically during this period. The Whig Party disintegrated largely over the issue of slavery, leading to the rise of the Republican Party, which was founded on an anti-slavery platform. Abraham Lincoln, a relatively unknown lawyer and politician from Illinois, emerged as a prominent voice against the expansion of slavery. His debates with Senator Stephen Douglas during the Illinois Senate race of 1858 brought him national attention and solidified his position as a leading figure in the anti-slavery movement.
Speaker 1:As tensions continued to rise, the nation hurtled towards a breaking point. The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, with his platform of preventing the spread of slavery, was the final straw for many southern states. Viewing his election as a direct threat to their way of life and economic interests, these states began to secede from the Union, leading to the formation of the Confederate States of America, the stage was set for the most devastating conflict in American history. Seed from the Union leading to the formation of the Confederate States of America, the stage was set for the most devastating conflict in American history. The political, social and economic differences between the North and the South, deeply intertwined with the institution of slavery, had created a powder keg ready to explode. We will leave things here for now. Next time, on Doval Helix, we will deep dive into the immediate sparks that ignited the Civil War, from Lincoln's election to the attack on Fort Sumter. Stay with us as we explore how the nation plunged into a war that would forever alter its course Until next time. We will see you soon.
