190 HISTORY OF AMERICA 



The problems of inter-provincial relations need study also. The 

 whole history of American politics needs to be interpreted in the 

 terms of a contest between these economic and social sections. 

 Periods when it seemed that there was no great issue dividing political 

 parties will be found to abound in evidences in the legislation of 

 Congress, for example that intense political struggles actually 

 went on between the separate sections, combining and rearranging 

 their forces as occasion showed the need. It is only when we get 

 below the surface of national politics to consider the sectional party 

 groupings that we are able to discover the lines on which new party 

 issues are forming and the significance of the utterances of the 

 leaders of these rival sections. Again and again, we shall find the 

 party candidates anxious to conciliate the conflicting interests of 

 the different sections and attempting to "straddle" upon vital 

 problems, which nevertheless continue to force themselves to the 

 front. The outcome is determined by the combination of these rival 

 sections for and against the proposition. Studied from this point 

 of view, the careers of J. Q. Adams, Clay, Calhoun, and Jackson, as 

 spokesmen of their areas (to take examples), acquire new meaning and 

 significance. Even more obvious, perhaps, is the slavery struggle. 

 When it is stated that, in one important aspect, that struggle was a 

 conflict between the Lake and Prairie plainsmen, on the one side, and 

 the Gulf plainsmen, on the other, for the control of the Mississippi 

 Valley, the Civil War acquires new meaning. Lincoln, Grant, and 

 Sherman were the outcome of the influences of the Middle West; 

 Davis, Yancey, and A. S. Johnston came from the Cotton Kingdom 

 of the Gulf Plains. We are forced to reexamine the political strife 

 with reference to the forces which conditioned the leaders of these 

 rival sections. We are obliged to study such problems as the develop- 

 ment of the industrial resources of the regions, both before and 

 during the war. 



The economic rivalries and industrial inter-relations of the different 

 sections of the country also are continuous factors in our history, 

 and are more familiar to business men and to railroad managers 

 than they are, as a rule, to the historian. 



Passing, with these suggestions, from the problems that arise on 

 breaking up our subject into provinces, let us next note that, for 

 the explanation of the United States, we need historical investigation 

 of a large number of topics as yet very imperfectly studied. It will 

 be possible only to suggest some of the more important. First, let us 

 inquire how far American historians have seriously attempted the 

 study of the formation and development of our national character. 

 The transition of the people of the United States from the conflicting 

 ideals and traits of the colonial period to the present ideals of the 

 nation, constitutes an important study in the evolution of the cul- 



