Who is right about the causes of the Civil War?

Hi,

I would really like to settle on one overriding reason for the cause of the Civil War. The abolition of slavery was certainly a polarizing and conflict-provoking issue but maintaining the Union for someone as pragmatic as Lincoln would have taken priority over slavery I would have thought. Who presents the stronger case today after 150 years? Is it those historians who claim anti-slavery or those who claim secession as the overriding reason for the war? I look forward to your feedback.
davidmich

“Regarding what caused the Civil War, or causes of the Civil War, the President of the United States – as commander-in-chief and chief executive – declared himself that the sole cause of the Civil War was secession. Lincoln chose war to suppress what he deemed a rebellion in the Southern states. If the South embraced and espoused slavery and if the South stated that the institution, alone, justified war, it was ultimately the President of the United States, possessing absolute responsibility and duty as chief executive for the nation, who, to the contrary, declared war on the South because of secession. As President, Lincoln declared that the South was guilty only of rebellion, and, without the consent of Congress and contrary to pleas from the Supreme Court, the President raised an army of 75,000 troops and subsequently invaded the Southern states. Moreover, the decision to declare war or to suppress a rebellion, and to state what caused the Civil War, was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln himself; and he stated his position for war clearly. See also Abraham Lincoln on Causes of the Civil War and Secession and Lincoln’s Call For Troops.”

Well, yes, your OP is right. The Civil War’s main reason for occurring, as stated by Lincoln and backed by the Northern States, was that secession was illegal and that the war was to suppress the rebellion in those states (which were still part of the United States).

But that was the major factor after the Southern States seceded and Lincoln called up those volunteers. Causes can mean things that led to the establishment of the Confederacy and may have been around for many years…such as Tariff laws that favored Northern Industrialists over Southern planters, The rights of the National Government versus the states (all the way back to Andy Jackson and John Calhoun), and yes, slavery, specifically the right of slavery to expand into the territories.

Trying to narrow down the causes of the Civil War (hell, any major historical event) to one ‘overriding’ reason is futile, IMHO. Humans and human interaction is complex, and that makes history complex.

There are several very smart people here in regards to this time in history, and I look forward to their comments.

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/secession/

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

“One method by which to analyze this historical conflict is to focus on primary sources. Every state in the Confederacy issued an “Article of Secession” declaring their break from the Union. Four states went further. Texas, Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina all issued additional documents, usually referred to as the “Declarations of Causes,” which explain their decision to leave the Union. The documents can be found in their entirety here. "

Both slavery and secession was the cause of the Civil War, in that the south seceded over “state’s rights,” namely slavery. If it wasn’t for slavery they wouldn’t have seceded, thus two are joined at the hip despite modern attempts to separate the two. There were other issues involved as well, but they are minor. The US Civil War was about slavery, full stop. Everything else was secondary.

The bolded bit, however, is erroneous. Lincoln never declared war on the Confederacy. In his eyes (and to much of the rest of the US), the Confederacy simply didn’t exist as a sovereign nation: they were a group of states in open rebellion, but still under the sovereign of the US. Lincoln was fighting to keep the Union intact, not fighting a foreign nation.

The extension of slavery was the main issue. Lincoln was fine with allowing slavery to continue , within the confines of the Old South. What he would not allow, was its extension to the new , western territories. Lincoln knew that slavery was a dead end for the USA, and that it would eventually have to end. The problem was that the old southern planter class saw slavery as its survival-they were not open to any changes. Had there been some way to transition out of slavery (with the Federal government compensating the slave owners and buying the freedom of the slaves), the war might not have happened. As it turned out, the South reverted to a new form of slavery (sharecropping), which left the old aristocracy on top, and doomed the South to economic stagnation, for the next 80 years.

Let’s move this over to Great Debates.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

Slavery had been an inflammatory topic for the entirety of the century. The South had nearly walked out of the Constitutional Convention over the issue. A compromise put off the subject by mandating that Congress could not block the slave trade for another 20 years. They did in 1808, but that made the South determined not to lose any more battles. A minority in population, they felt they could block legislation only by having a minimum of half the members of the Senate, assigned two seats per state. So the next fifty years were spent in ensuring that one slave state was admitted for every free state, although many battles, especially the ones known as the Compromise of 1820 and the Compromise of 1850, had to be bought to achieve that. Tariff battle were fought simultaneously, since the industrialized north wanted protection for their new industries but the south wanted protection for its raw materials, mostly cotton.

The growing U.S. seemed to be adding territories in places were slavery was not appropriate. That led to more battles, legislative as in the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and literal, as in the 1859 war in Kansas. John Brown’s Raid was in response to those.

By 1860 it was obvious that the South was playing a losing hand. They would be losing legislatively, losing in trying to force slavery in the territories, losing in industrial wealth, losing in popular votes, and losing in every other way you can think of. They had to acquiesce or explode. They chose, deliberately and with the loud support of numerous politicians, newspapers, pundits, and run-of-the-mill hotheads, to place slavery above everything else and leave the Union while screaming defiance - and not so incidentally, taking all the federal possessions within their boundaries with them.

All this was done before Lincoln took office. He had no chance to preserve the Union because seven states had already seceded and formed a new confederacy. Pragmatically, how does one preserve an already sundered nation? Lincoln did not cause the war as President. He merely symbolized everything the South had rebelled against. He also had the choice to acquiesce. He chose not to. When Fort Sumter was attacked he saw that as the act of war it was and active national hostilities started.

The South was the instigator in every facet of the war. All their impossible demands were created by one and only one thing: the need to retain the institution of slavery. The North “caused” the war only by not giving in.

The Civil War may be the only event in U.S. history that can be reduced to a single issue. But that issue - slavery - had been festering for nearly a century at that point and had metastasized into a Stage 4 cancer. It was so big and so deadly that all other issues were subordinate.

Except that everyone new if the balance was tipped towards more non-slave than slave states, that would end slavery. So it’s not really correct to say that it was “only” expansion. Without expansion, there is no slavery.

But Lancia got it right. The reason for the American Civil was different for the South and the North. For the South, it was slavery. For the North, it was secession.

BTW, we’ve done this debate multiple times on this MB. Use the search function. Here’s one.

Well, in education the preponderance of academics point at slavery as the reason. One has to realize that historians also point at that too.

The Election of 1860 & the Road to Disunion: Crash Course US History #18

What, are you guys a bunch of engineers? Many of you are talking like you’re analyzing the flow of electricity through a wire.

Human dealings, including historical events (and especially those with a political component), are usually far too multifaceted to be described in a black and white way.

Why did Southern states decide to secede? Lots of reasons, and not uniformly the same ones everywhere. What was the reaction among Northerners as to the disputes that led up to that point and about the decisions to split? There were many.

Personal motivations and aspirations on both sides? Many.

Political goals on both sides? Many

Of course there are many, but the main one was slavery and a good number of the other ones were related to slavery too.

[QUOTE] The Civil War was about slavery. Actual historians will back me up on this, like [David Goldfield who wrote, "Both northerners and southerners recognized slavery as the immediate cause of the Civil War."](https://books.google.com/books?id=JGPBpQ75wicC&pg=PA208&lpg=PA208&dq=David+Goldfield+%22Both+northerners+and+southerners+recognized+slavery+as+the+immediate+cause+of+the+Civil+War&source=bl&ots=UEGYlSiSh_&sig=De4morB2zlG-53R8vurhcS5RY9o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eIR0VemvIsiagwSujIGoBw&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=David%20Goldfield%20%22Both%20northerners%20and%20southerners%20recognized%20slavery%20as%20the%20immediate%20cause%20of%20the%20Civil%20War&f=false) Also, Lincoln said in his second Inaugural Address, "One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves not distributed generally over the union but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war."

That said, in comments lots of people will be like, “The war was about agriculture versus industry!” or “the states’ rights to protect themselves from the tyranny of a big federal government!” But if it were really about that, the Civil War would’ve started during the Nullification Crisis in the 1830s when, as I’m sure you’ll remember, Andrew Jackson said that South Carolina couldn’t declare a federal tariff null in their state. Why didn’t that cause the Civil War?
[/QUOTE]

Not really, at the end of the day the bottom line for secession was slavery. Some of the more union-inclined states had a later motivation of Lincoln calling up the troops up but even their secession and constitutions state that slavery is the main cause.

Anything else is leftover from history-muddying efforts of Southern states in the 20th century trying to make it seem otherwise. Its time we ended that nonsense.

Indeed. That and the bit I bolded here really give away the game:

Lincoln most certainly did not choose war; the South did with the bombardment of Fort Sumter. Lincoln did not issue the call for the raising of those 75,000 troops until after the first clear, overt act of aggression which came from the South, not the North.

Some of us. What difference does that make when discussing history? I assume you are not a professional historian, yourself.

And we will continue debating this as long as we have people asking this question. Perhaps the current attitude that everybody has an opinion of equal validity (like “teach the controversy”) is at fault.

The main thing you need to remember is that the United States (or the North if you prefer) didn’t cause anything. It was the southern states that seceded and the southern states that then declared war.

What’s at fault is widespread sympathy for the Confederacy and their cause in the southern states. No different than Japanese and German nationalists who pine for the old days and white wash their crimes and goals.

Useful historical information in your post? Little to none.

http://oyc.yale.edu/transcript/543/hist-119

The causes of the Civil War are a bit more complex than some people like to make it out as.

In the South, you had two main groups, the big plantation owners and the little farmers.

Initially, the little farmers were opposed to slavery, since only the big plantations could afford to buy a lot of slaves. That made it difficult for the little farmers to compete against the big plantations, and the little farmers would have gladly gotten rid of slavery to even out the playing field.

The big plantation owners based their entire way of life around slavery. Slaves provided cheap labor, and by keeping the lowest class enslaved, that also kept them from having any political power and any say in how the South was run.

In the North, the two biggest groups were the abolitionists and the industrialists. The abolitionists wanted to free the slaves for humanitarian reasons. Unlike how the Civil War is portrayed in a lot of history classes and textbooks, the abolitionists were not the majority and did not have the majority of political or financial power in the north. They were a constantly rising force though, and had been gaining in strength and numbers all through the 1800s. One thing to keep in mind though is that blacks were still considered to be inferior beings, even by the abolitionists. They just felt that even though blacks were inferior, that was no reason to keep them as slaves and to treat them poorly.

The northern industrialists wanted the country to focus on industry and abandon its agricultural roots. They felt that the world was moving to an industrial economy overall. In their eyes, the southern agriculturalists (which included both the big plantation owners and the small farmers) were holding back the entire U.S. economically. In general, the industrialists didn’t give two hoots about slavery one way or the other. Their focus was more on the economy.

These four distinct groups started fighting against each other politically in the early 1800s.

Back then, as now, instead of trying to come together and reach any kind of compromise that would satisfy everyone, whatever group ended up with the most votes in Washington basically forced their agenda down the other group’s throats. Sure, there were some compromises, just as there are today, but overall, these four groups kept fighting against each other.

As time went on, the small southern farmers realized that the northern industrialists were basically trying to ruin their entire way of doing things economically. So the southern farmers began to ally themselves with the big plantation owners, since they both wanted to keep an agricultural focus on the economy.

In the North, the industrialists and the abolitionists started teaming together, so that they could have more political strength.

Now you’ve got basically a north-south split.

As time went on, slavery began to become more and more the focus of the arguments, but there were other arguments too. When the industrialists and abolitionists managed to get enough votes in Washington to enact trade tariffs that benefited industry, South Carolina said that Federal trade tariffs didn’t apply to them, and this brought forth the issue of state rights and who had ultimate control of what.

Throughout the 1840s and 1850s, the two sides were roughly balanced, with the votes in Washington sometimes swaying one way and sometimes swaying the other, depending on which side happened to control more seats in Congress at the time. As time went on, more and more folks in the South started talking about secession. A lot of folks in the North, whether they were fine with slavery or not, did not want to see the country split in two.

Even though a lot of the causes of the Civil War were all in place by 1840 or so, folks back then weren’t all pissed off at each other enough to actually go to war. By the end of the 1850s though, that was no longer true. There had been so much political fighting for so long that everyone was pissed off and ready to fight.

What set everything in motion was the issue of the western territories. These territories were about to become states, and that meant that they would have votes and political power in Washington. Most people in the South really didn’t care whether or not people in the western territories had slaves or not, but they did care how these people would vote. If the western territories became slave states, then they would be allied with the other slave states in the South, and the balance in Washington would tip towards the South’s favor. If the territories became free states, then the balance would shift towards the North.

Lincoln did not start the war. He also did not tell the South that they couldn’t keep their slaves. While Lincoln was opposed to slavery, he told the South that he was willing to let them keep their slaves if it kept them in the Union. What Lincoln wouldn’t compromise on was the issue of the western states. As soon as Lincoln was elected, the South could see the writing on the wall. The western territories would become free states, and the balance of power would shift to the North. Once the North had control of Congress, they would enact laws, tariffs, etc. that would all benefit northern industrialists and abolitionists, which meant an eventual end to slavery and the entire southern way of life. At that point, the South felt that they had no choice, and seceded before Lincoln even took office.

And with that, the war was on.

Good answer engineer_comp_geek. See what happens when you let a real engineer handle the question TallTrees?