Yes, but the questionis: WHY were these two societies so distinct?
In 1790 they weren't nearly so different.
What changed?
The North was transformed by industrialization and immigration.
The South used the cotton gin to complete its transformation into a slave-based agrarian empire.
Take away the latter phenomenon. Would the remaining differences brought on by the North's changes be enough to bring on war? If so, why were there no similar tensions with the almost equally agrarian Midwest?
I just don't see how you can take away slavery as a key issue in the crisis of 1860-1861. Even if you somehow explain away the contentious history of the 1850's - which was at its most bloody and most vicious over slavery, not economic issues - suggesting it was all about economics and states rights really begs the question, since those economics were based on one prime phenomenon: slave labor on a vast scale.
You misunderstand me, slavery WAS a part of the issue. Taking away the major source of labor for one entire half of the country, would be a catastrophe, so the South had a reason to be upset. However, it came down as a part of the larger issue of State's Rights....