Exactly this.
But all the differences in “attitude” and the “cultural differences” and the South seeing themselves as “oppressed”–the very idea that the U.S. was divided into “the North” and “the South” (as opposed to “the East” and “the West”, or just “several dozen different states”)–ALL of that is inseparable from the fact that one multi-state region had (however slowly and imperfectly) abolished slavery, and the other multi-state region still had slavery and was determined to keep it. “The North” and “the South” were, even then, often also called “the Free States” and “the Slave States”–Southerners were a bit more likely to use the terms “Non-slaveholding States” and “Slaveholding States” (although I recall seeing even some Southern document which referred to the “Free States”). The antebellum South’s enormous sense of grievance and “oppression” was totally rooted in the fact that “the non-slaveholding States” had assumed “the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions”–in other words, “the North” didn’t like slavery, and was increasingly assertive about it–and the post-war South’s continuing sense of grievance and “oppression” is fundamentally about having started a huge and destructive war to perpetuate slavery, losing that war, and in the process of losing getting stomped all over by the hob-nailed boots of the Union Army.
Without slavery, none of that happens and none of that applies. Maybe we have some different civil war, between “the East” and “the West” or “the big states” and “the little states”, but there IS no “North” and “South” as we understand those terms.
I’m highly doubtful of this theory. Sure, regions have differences. But you don’t see these regions threatening to secede.
All of the claims about other causes is just post-war attempts by the south to try to make it look like they were fighting for something other than a now discredited cause.
The people who were actually living at the time had no need to invent other reasons. They knew what their cause was and openly said so; slavery.
I know people often question whether wikipedia is a good source because it can be edited by people who don’t know what they’re talking about or who can’t provide sources etc. I like it, however, because there’s debate about what’s fair and what isn’t, what conclusions we can draw, etc. Its accuracy is pretty comparable to encyclopedias.
(Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica - CNET)
So looking at wikipedia isn’t the be-all-end-all, but for what it’s worth here’s how part of the outline reads:
2 Causes of secession
2.1 Slavery
2.2 Territorial crisis
2.3 States’ rights
2.4 Sectionalism
2.5 Protectionism
2.6 Nationalism and honor
2.7 Lincoln’s election
Each is then discussed as a potential cause. For instance under “States’ rights” it says:
A few of the states, in their lists of reasons to secede, had “Tariffs” in the fifth or sixth slot on the list (and even then, it wasn’t clear if they were for tariffs or against them). Even then, though, it was after “slavery”, “slavery”, “slavery”, and “slavery” on the list.
A few of the states, in their lists of reasons to secede, had “Tariffs” in the fifth or sixth slot on the list (and even then, it wasn’t clear if they were for tariffs or against them). Even then, though, it was after “slavery”, “slavery”, “slavery”, and “slavery” on the list.
Then there’s this:
Alexander Stephens’ Cornerstone Address, 3.21.1861, VP of the Confederacy, arguing for the adoption of the CSA:
"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.
…
"The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically…
Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. [Applause.] This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
I thought Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin. It covers many of the political aspects of the war.
Actually, they didn’t. Five of the seceding states issued official public declarations of why they were seceding. The word tariff never appears in any of them.
The word slave, on the other hand, appears eighty-three times in the same documents.
Tariffs were more of an issue during the Nullification crisis of 1829. That was the first serious idea of secession. Northern abolitionists started calling for secession in the 1830s because the power that the 3/5ths compromise gave the south. When western states started to be added, secession moved to the south.
I recommend “The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader” by James Loewen. It’s not a history, more of a collection of primary documents, with introductions and annotations, but it leaves no doubt what the Confederacy stood for, and why they should be despised.
Georgia’s secession declaration does make a glancing reference to tariffs (though it doesn’t use the word “tariff”):
The reference to “protection” is to the idea of using high tariffs to protect domestic industries–really, I think that whole section (“the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges”) is alluding to tariffs, though perhaps also to “internal improvements” (Federal funding for canals and railroads and so forth) with that “special privileges” bit. But, the Georgia declaration immediately goes on to say:
“Oh, sure, that dastardly Lincoln and his newfangled ‘Republican’ party believe in all sorts of Bad Things–protectionism, waste and corruption in the administration of Government, and probably kicking puppy dogs–but their REAL agenda is opposition to slavery! Those FIENDS!!!” [/The State of Georgia in 1861]
Is this the one he cowrote with James McPherson?
This would be my recommendation.
Read the sources and read about some of the views that people have had over the years about what the causes were, and see if you think those hold up based on what you just read.
The original sources are, of course, the final say on the matter but that doesn’t mean that later views can’t be more correct. People at the time might not have realized the biases they held or whatever else, where we might be less blind to those matters now. Similarly, we might have data to say that they were lying to themselves and others. Ida B. Wells, for example, used economic data to demonstrate that lynchings of African Americans happened in places and times where there was financial hardship for whites. If you asked the whites, they would say that they were lynching the people who had committed crimes.
Life isn’t cut and dried. Even if you think you have read everything about the subject and locked in on an answer, that doesn’t mean you couldn’t find an essay by someone, tomorrow, that makes you realize that there was a whole other layer to the subject that you’d never considered.
I don’t think “cowrote” is the best term. Catton wrote the book originally in 1960 as The American Heritage Short History of the Civil War and subsequently died in 1978. The book was republished in 1996 and this edition lists Catton as the author and lists James McPherson as the editor and the writer of the book’s introduction. I don’t know if McPherson’s editing extended to revising the main text.
I see. I was browsing Amazon for the title and it just shows a cover with both names on it equally prominently.
Speaking of Bruce Catton, the first volume of his celebrated Civil War trilogy, “The Coming Fury” provides an absorbing analysis of the events and factors leading up to the outbreak of war. I see you can get the entire three-volume series in paperback (used) on Amazon for $25, which is a nice bargain.
There isn’t much nuance when it comes to motivations of both sides. The South seceded and attacked Northern installations because it feared the eventual abolition of slavery and decided a pre-emptive strike was called for. Northern leaders had no such plans, and the overriding purpose of the North was to preserve the Union, a goal also backed by rank-and-file troops (at least, those who saw a moral/political necessity as opposed to factors like wanting to get off the farm and see some excitement).
Sooner or later someone will bring up Shelby Foote, a Mississippi historian who wrote a three-volume history of the Civil War and later gained fame for his appearances on Ken Burns’ televised Civil War series. I haven’t read Foote’s books, but based on interviews and the Burns series it’s fair to conclude his “nuances” favor the South, including his declaration that he would’ve fought for the Confederacy then and “today”. He tried to compare Jefferson Davis to the Founding Fathers. He argued that Nathan Bedford Forrest, a slave trader whose Confederate troops committed the Fort Pillow massacre and who led the Ku Klux Klan after the war was “enormously attractive” and “a fine man”. This interview will give you an idea of where Foote was coming from.