help, please!

k, in case anyone cares, this is what i have written. (any help, suggestions, corrections, ect. would be great!)

Between 1819 and 1828, the North and the South were becoming more divided. As illustrated in the Missouri crisis and in the Tariff of 1828, there were many differences between the North and the South: Northern industry versus the Southern agriculture, Northern opposition to slavery versus the South’s dependence upon it, and the political goals of the North versus those of the South are all examples of sectional differences between the North and the South.

The economies in the North and the South, although they complemented each other, were opposites; in the North, the economy focused on industry, while in the South, agriculture dominated. When the Tariff of 1828 was approved by Adams, though, neither side was entirely pleased. The North, who had wanted a tariff in the first place, was unhappy that it protected raw materials also, not just manufactured goods, meaning they would have to purchase their supplies at a higher cost, but they would at least be able to sell their products at a competitively reasonable price. The South illustrated its feelings toward the tariff by calling it the “Tariff of Abominations.” The South disliked it because they had to purchase the manufactured goods at a higher price and sell their crops at a higher price, reducing both sales and profits and resulting in strong opposition toward the tariff. Therefore, the Northern industrial economy and the Southern agricultural economy served to separate the two regions.

The country was also becoming divided because the northern states abolished slavery, but the southern agriculture depended on it. When Missouri applied to become a state, a crisis emerged: should Missouri become a free state of the North, following the trend set by the Mason-Dixon line; or should Missouri become a slave state, as its occupants wanted? This event illustrated the fact that the northerners were morally opposed to slavery and wanted to prohibit it while the southerners saw its benefits to their way of life and wanted it to be legal. Either way, the balance of power between the North and the South would have been upset had not Maine become a state at this time also. While the Missouri Compromise seemed to solve the immediate problem, the fact still remained that the North and the South were indeed starting to become separate entities. In conclusion, the Missouri Crisis illustrated the tension between the North and the South due to their opposing ideals of the legality of slavery.

The North and the South were working towards different political goals, and these are illustrated in the Tariff of 1828 and the Missouri crisis. For instance, the North wanted a tariff passed to protect their industry, and indeed they did get a tariff passed, though it was not exactly what they wanted as it also affected raw materials. The southerners, however, utterly rejected the tariff. In response to the Tariff of 1828, the Southerners did not support Adams, who approved the tariff, but instead they supported Jackson, who won the election. During the Missouri crisis, quite a few northerners were philanthropists and reformers associated with the Federalist party. They seized this opportunity as a way to try to revive their old party through their strong opposition to slavery. The South, however remained mostly democratic. These are some of the ways in which the Northern Federalists and Republicans had different goals from the Southern Democrats.

The North and the South were developing many differences in this era. The North’s economy was based on industry while the South economy was based on agriculture. The North, for the most part, was opposed to slavery and wanted it to be prohibited in Missouri, but the Southerners relied on slavery and wanted Missouri to become a slave state. Finally, the North’s political goals of the revival of the Federalist party, the prohibition of slavery in Missouri and the rest of the Northwest, and a tariff on manufactured goods were opposite to the goals of the South. In conclusion, the North and the South were developing many different kinds of sectional differences.

ah, never mind good enough. k, no one needs to reply, i'm finished with my paper.