What was the cause(s) of the Civil War?

[unionblue]

I have had the privilege and honor of conversing with and debating some of the sharpest people I have ever encountered in my life on this board.

Now I want to continue that honor by asking each of you what you personally think was the cause/causes of the Civil War.

I would like to kick off this thread with my own ideas and some of those from history, which I tend (but not always) to agree with.

One of Lincoln's secretary's wrote that after the war that it was his opinion that a few power-hungry men in the South, wanting to keep the status quo and maintain their power in the social order of things, were fully responsible for the war. I will expand my own views later after I have done a bit more research, but what are your answers, my fellow seekers of the truth?

I await your input,
Unionblue

[ewc]

Let me take a stab here, Neil.
THe single factor which DIVIDED the sections was slavery. Slavery existed in the South; it did not exist in the North. As slavery died out north to south, and as Whitney's gin promoted the sorting and preparing of cotton, thus expanding the industry, a 'terrible cycle' ensued. Cotton production exploded, becoming the staple of the Southern economy, and entrenching the necessity of slave labor,promoted a landed aristocratic class, which required political power to protect their regional economic base, which needed cotton to survive, which needed slavery....... and on and on. After a generation or two of this, the interests of the sections gradually became polar, which is certainly understandable. Unfortunately, developed sectional differences which could not see the needs of the other. The abolitionists loved liberty, feeling the sacred precepts of the nation were sullied by men held to bondage and not trusting men who could enslave and deprive liberty of another. They failed to see how the South was beholden to the system, and that it was not just economy, or slavery, but how to cope with a race in bondage. Whatever could happen if the slaves were free?!? There is already the example of Haiti! Disaster only and surely! The Southerners could not understand the true meaning of the Northerners, free trade, free industry, and this concept of liberty held by the abolitionists. The South felt secure in the protection of slavery guaranteed in the Constitution, but that guarantee could only exist provided there were enough slave states to protect it from revision, thus slavery MUST expand into the territories so the balance could be maintained. And finally too many in the North said no, no slavery in the territories.
But the differences in the sections had developed long before leading to this inevitable moment. The split must surely come sooner or later. Lincoln understood that for him and the country, sooner was best.
And this is just the beginning of this discussion....
Regards all,ewc

[rallyround]

I am not about to say anything because it is obvious that almost all of the people on this board are more knowledgable about what is being discussed here than I. I do not feel that I can make a meaningful contribution, so therefore my silence is a sure thing. I look forward to reading what else the others have to say. I am here basically to learn and ask questions. So post away.

[tamaroa]

Causes of the Civil War – Well on other boards I frequented in the past, this simple phrase often times caused another war to break out. If you get interested in this at an early age as I did, you retain your first impressions much longer than you probably should all the while believing you know all there is to know, then wham something hits you square in the face and you have an epiphany so to speak.

Such was the case with me, I grew up in the 50’s and 60’s. Believe it or not we actually spent time on studying the Civil War in those days. I remember receiving an A on an oral report on the Battle of Gettysburg in 8th grade. I was taught that the Civil War was the Irrepressible conflict to use the jargon of the era. It was unavoidable, it was going to happen because two different ways of life were at odds with one another, one agrarian and one industrialized. The Union must be saved at all costs was all I ever heard and if it took all those compromises to appease those nasty southerners than so be it. But tempers flared on a regular basis. Everyone was defensive and flinched at the slightest innuendo.

Well after a while, I came to the conclusion that had cooler heads prevailed it was not an irrepressible conflict. it was simply that no one was listening to one another. What happens in a marriage when you don't listen to each other? Well if you want to save it you learn to listen, right?

People had no concept of what was happening. The southern farmer who had a slave or two was worried because he wondered how would he be compensated for the loss of the field hand with which he shared a day’s labor if slaves were freed. What about the Northerner?. What was his concern? Was it tariffs or was it the fear of cheap labor competing with him for his job. Was he really concerned about the plight of the black man? Probably not. Was he an avowed unionist? Probably so. What was his conception of the slaveowner in the south? Did everyone own 1,000 slaves and sip mint juleps under Magnolia trees, or were they hard working farmers or a combination of both?

Some of the rich well-off planters no doubt wanted to see their plantations thrive and prosper with no changes at all. They wanted to stay at the top.Like Jefferson Davis who was decidedly proslavery but also had a beneficent attitude toward his slaves as well. Now, the stage was set. But what was it set for? In my judgement, the single most important factor in the cause of the Civil War was FEAR followed by pride in second place. Everyone was afraid of something. Southerners were afraid of Lincoln so they threatened secession. Lincoln was afraid of Civil war so he said, I will preserve the Union with slavery if I have to. The South was afraid that the north would not abide by the fugitive slave law, the North was afraid because they wondered what would happen to all the jobs if the slaves were freed. If they went north which many did, they competed against the factory workers in the city.

The entire system of compromises was engineered to keep the calm but all it did was fan the flames. The 3/5th clause along with the southern population growth had to keep pace with the northern population growth in order to insure that there was a rough equality in both houses of government to keep one another at bay.

When it was all said and done, Lincoln won the election with less than a majority vote, southerners were now bound to secede because they said they would if he was elected. As prideful as some southerners are, secession became inevitable. The next step was to see who could play chicken. Lincoln gambled, the South fired the first shot and war was on.

Now I realize this essay may have taken a slightly different tack then some may have thought. It was meant to be that way. I am tired of hearing the old arguments of states rights vs. slavery vs the Tariff vs. the Union. Slavery was a projectile in a cannon tube, but fear and pride by a minority on both sides, pulled the friction primer out of the cannon. It is all balderdash. What is it that they say about pride? Pride goeth before fall? Well 620,000 soldiers fell and we are still arguing about it today. We try to glamourize it and apply all kinds of flowery words to their actions. The fact remains that both sides were stupid, prideful, stubborn and ignorant of how far the other side would move. Human emotions unchecked around an inhuman condition caused the Civil War.

Here is a kicker for you, all European Nations managed to outlaw slavery by the mid 1830’s. Russia freed her serfs in 1861. There was no Civil War there. Brazil freed her slaves in 1877, there was no civil war there either. Granted that in both Russia’s and Brazil’s case, it was a country wide issue, not sectionalized as in the North and South, but if only cooler heads had prevailed, we should have been able to pull back the dogs of war.

Returning to an earlier thought, was this really an irrepressible conflict? I think it was, if the country wanted it to be. Look at all the southerners who expressed a love of the Union, Davis, Stephans, Lee, Jackson, Calhoun. I think the real difference was that for the most part Southerners wanted to interpret the constitution strictly while the northerners were willing to bend the rules.

Regards,

Bill


(Message edited by Tamaroa on August 29, 2002)

[iron_brigade]

I have studied this issue for many years and when all the so called "causes" are examined there is always one common denominator...Slavery.

Regards,
Greg

[blackirish]

Bill,
Interesting comments as usual. I would agree that pride and fear were key in the blatant lack of communication that preceeded the war. The issue that actually caused the break was undoubtedly slavery; one side determined to protect it, the other determined to arrest its spread.
One point that I find interesting about this issue is that the great majority of people in the country in 1860 wanted nothing so much as the issue to fade into the background. However, the extremists on both sides of this one issue managed to pull the majority to opposite sides of the question. There was a steadily increasing influence in the north by a very small group that was determined to eradicate slavery and a radical group in the south that was just as determined to continue and increase slavery.
The two elements you touch upon, fear and pride, were particularly used by those in power in the south to steadily widen the gulf. Fear that slavery would be lost as the base that the ruling class in the south had built it's wealth upon. The planter class in the south were so heavily invested in slavery that it was impossible to envision a way out. Fear that a supposedly inferior race, widely believed to be barely removed from the savagery of the jungle, would be set free to flood the labor market with unskilled, uneducated workers unsuited for any work besides forced labor was widely felt by the working class of the south. Racial genocide had long been feared in the south. Haiti had erupted in racial based slaughter some years before and was seen by many in the south as a very real possibility were the slaves to be set free. Even barring a racial bloodletting, many areas of the south were so heavily populated with slaves that anyone who could count would realize that given the vote, blacks would soon control the government. Fear of economic ruin by the planter class paled in comparison to the fears that many non-slaveowners held in view of these concerns. Fears of racial violence and or racial amalgamation were very real in much of the south and were used with great effect by the ruling class of the south to control politics. Thomas Jefferson had summed up the problem of dealing with slavery in the south much earlier, "Among the Romans emancipation required but ONE EFFORT. The slave, when free, might mix without staining the blood of his master. But with us a SECOND is neccessary, unknown to history." It was plain to Jefferson, and many others, that unless the barriers that separated the races were to somehow come to be erased, the question of what to do AFTER emancipation was forever to cloud the issue.
Pride was also in abundant supply in the south. Pride in land ownership, pride in rugged individualism, pride in a polite society that rivaled any in the world for grandeur and all the finest amenities. The planter class in the south saw abolitionism as the worst sort of hypocrisy by northerners who foisted slums and the horrible working conditions of the industrial north upon its citizens while encouraging the efforts of men like John Brown to spread insurrection and murder in their midst.
One of the points often overlooked in discussions on this subject is just how completely a very small class of men controlled politics, economics, and society as whole in the south. The planter class and the business class that it supported completely controlled the south. An aristocracy of families held all the power in the south to the point that there was no other group with any semblance of enough power to oppose them on any issue. There were no labor unions, no farmers grange, no organized opposition of any kind to serve as a check or balance against their power. Absolute power in the hands of a small group has very often been the precurser of war in the history of the world for the simplest reason of all; people tend to see issues based upon how they affect them personally. If one group gains control then their interests neccessarily narrow accordingly. By 1860 such a group controlled the south and slavery became synonymous with the political interests of the south as a whole.

blackirish

[unionblue]

Friends,

Rediscovered this thread. Interesting comments and yet it died so soon. Curious.

Unionblue

[thea_447]

This is an interesting thread, Neil. I'm glad you re-discovered it.
I can't imagine why it didn't take off. Perhaps you needed a few more hot-heads on board. <grin>

I don't feel like writing right now but I just received this in a newsletter and thought I would pass it on. It is written by a British woman, her thoughts on our WBTS.

I'll return later though. YMOS,T.

I would like to make a comment to the gentleman who was so scathing about
the film "Gods &amp; Generals". I will make no comment about his views on the film as art is always a subjective issue and we all see things differently. I would, however, like to take issue on the point that the War between the States was always about slavery. I do not know how much of your American history has been re-written since the end of the war, considerably more by the victors than the defeated side I would suggest, if the history of all other wars is anything to go by. However, here in Britain, we have no need to alter your history or teach our children anything but the facts as far as we know them. It should therefore be considered that the British government, having already outlawed slavery in countries under their dominion, and having a very strong abolitionist movement in the 1860's, were prepared to consider supporting the Confederate States during the early part of the War. Having not long recovered from fighting in the Crimea, Britain was a little reluctant to send her troops overseas, but was prepared to
consider the notion to support the Confederacy to maintain cotton supplies. Also many British people found they had stronger links to the Southern States where many ex-pats had settles (Lee, Jackson, etc.).

The British Parliament eventually chose not to officially support the Confederate cause following the declaration of emancipation. Lincoln had made slavery an issue - a reason for the war - and now Britain could not support the Confederacy without supporting slavery. The fact that they had been prepared to consider offering support (they even had troops in Canada ready to attack the North as soon as the decision was made) indicates very clearly that they did not consider slavery to be the issue or the reason for the war.

Had they decided to support the South, and had Lincoln not made slavery the
prime issue (clever politician that he was), then both Britain and France would had blown away the Northern Blockade and helped the Confederacy maintain its freedom. I am sure that they would have also helped the South to continue to reduce its reliance on slave labour by applying their industrial know-how in exchange for favourable trade rights. But that is supposition and I would prefer to stick to facts. In its simplest terms my argument is:

If it was a war against slavery from the start why would both Britain and
France ever consider supporting the Confederacy?

Also, If it was always a war against slavery, and as abolitionism was so strong in Europe, why did not France and Britain support the Union from day one?

[eopfrank]

The Causes of the war will be debated forever... Was it slavery... was it state's rights.... what was it? Slavery was the underlying issue of the 19th century. everything (from a to z) had to do with slavery in some form or another. It was big business...

But don't take the word from people who live in this time period. Lincoln addressed it in his First Inaugural Address in 1861:
...It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that— I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so...
And in his Second Inaugural Address in 1865:
...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. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it...

So clearly slavery was the root to the war- there is no doubt. but we also can't forget that slavery was legal and it was very profitable. And lincoln's resolve to keep slavery from expanding to the western territories did not help; meaning the more non slave senators and representitives there were, they would soon be able to outlaw slavery and/or control the fate of the most profitable business in the country. The southerners had to do something about it. They knew that to keep slavery going, it had to expand west ( as lincoln stated above). In essence, it was an issue of state's rights-there is no doubt about that either; the tenth amendment was being violated by the government interfering in state affairs and dictating whether someone can't bring his property( a slave) from one state to another and also dictating whether a state can legalize slavery or not- as it was not a power given to the federal government ( and therefore given to the states and people respectfully). The southerners had a good argument.
But it was an argument that was morally wrong and not worth destroying a nation only looking to eventually live by the words that Jefferson wrote: ...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness....
Slavery was an institution that was dying; a time when enlightened people said this has to stop... There is really no one to blame for the war- it just happened. Lincoln said it best:
Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.

-Frank

[unionblue]

Thea,

So England stayed out of getting involved in the Civil War because of?

Unionblue