Top Five Causes of the Civil War

[Lando Lincoln]

Top Five Causes of the Civil War
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm


The US Civil War lasted from 1861 to 1865 and led to over 618,000 casualties. Its causes can be traced back to tensions that formed early in the nation's history. Following are the top five causes that led to the "War Between the States."

1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.

With Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin in 1793, cotton became very profitable. This machine was able to reduce the time it took to separate seeds from the cotton. However, at the same time the increase in the number of plantations willing to move from other crops to cotton meant the greater need for a large amount of cheap labor, i.e. slaves. Thus, the southern economy became a one crop economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery. On the other hand, the northern economy was based more on industry than agriculture. In fact, the northern industries were purchasing the raw cotton and turning it into finished goods. This disparity between the two set up a major difference in economic attitudes. The South was based on the plantation system while the North was focused on city life. This change in the North meant that society evolved as people of different cultures and classes had to work together. On the other hand, the South continued to hold onto an antiquated social order.

2. States versus federal rights.

Since the time of the Revolution, two camps emerged: those arguing for greater states rights and those arguing that the federal government needed to have more control. The first organized government in the US after the American Revolution was under the Articles of Confederation. The thirteen states formed a loose confederation with a very weak federal government. However, when problems arose, the weaknesses of the Articles caused the leaders of the time to come together at the Constitutional Convention and create, in secret, the US Constitution. Strong proponents of states rights like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were not present at this meeting. Many felt that the new constitution ignored the rights of states to continue to act independently. They felt that the states should still have the right to decide if they were willing to accept certain federal acts. This resulted in the idea of nullification, whereby the states would have the right to rule federal acts unconstitutional. The federal government denied states this right. However, proponents such as John C. Calhoun fought vehemently for nullification. When nullification would not work and states felt that they were no longer respected, they moved towards secession.


3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.

As America began to expand, first with the lands gained from the Louisiana Purchase and later with the Mexican War, the question of whether new states admitted to the union would be slave or free. The Missouri Compromise passed in 1820 made a rule that prohibited slavery in states from the former Louisiana Purchase the latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes north except in Missouri. During the Mexican War, conflict started about what would happen with the new territories that the US expected to gain upon victory. David Wilmot proposed the Wilmot Proviso in 1846 which would ban slavery in the new lands. However, this was shot down to much debate. The Compromise of 1850 was created by Henry Clay and others to deal with the balance between slave and free states, northern and southern interests. One of the provisions was the fugitive slave act. Another issue that further increased tensions was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. It created two new territories that would allow the states to use popular sovereignty to determine whether they would be free or slave. The real issue occurred in Kansas where pro-slavery Missourians began to pour into the state to help force it to be slave. They were called "Border Ruffians." Problems came to a head in violence at Lawrence, Kansas. The fighting that occurred caused it to be called "Bleeding Kansas." The fight even erupted on the floor of the senate when anti-slavery proponent Charles Sumner was beat over the head by South Carolina's Senator Preston Brooks.

4. Growth of the Abolition Movement.

Increasingly, the northerners became more polarized against slavery. Sympathies began to grow for abolitionists and against slavery and slaveholders. This occurred especially after some major events including: the publishing of Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, the Dred Scott Case, John Brown's Raid, and the passage of the fugitive slave act that held individuals responsible for harboring fugitive slaves even if they were located in non-slave states.

5. The election of Abraham Lincoln.

Even though things were already coming to a head, when Lincoln was elected in 1860, South Carolina issued its "Declaration of the Causes of Secession." They believed that Lincoln was anti-slavery and in favor of Northern interests. Before Lincoln was even president, seven states had seceded from the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.

(Numerous reference links in original article.)

[Lando Lincoln]

Some may want to discuss... 

[Lando Lincoln]

Causes of the Civil War

[massadvj]

I think all five reasons are legit.  Either a civil war or dissolution of the union were inevitable as the differences between north and south were irreconcilable. 

[Bigun]

Here is a much better, yet still simplistic, explanation.

Causes of the American Civil War

A common assumption to explain the cause of the American Civil War was that the North was no longer willing to tolerate slavery as being part of the fabric of US society and that the political power brokers in Washington were planning to abolish slavery throughout the Union. Therefore for many people slavery is the key issue to explain the causes of the American Civil War. However, it is not as simple as this and slavery, while a major issue, was not the only issue that pushed American into the ‘Great American Tragedy’. By April 1861, slavery had become inextricably entwined with state rights, the power of the federal government over the states, the South’s ‘way of life’ etc. – all of which made a major contribution to the causes of the American Civil War.
 
By 1860 America could not be seen as being a homogenous society. Clearly defined areas could be identified that had different outlooks and different values. This was later to be seen in the North versus South divide that created the two sides in the war.
 
The South was an agricultural region where cotton and tobacco were the main backbone to the region’s economic strength. The area relied on exports to markets in Western Europe and the class structure that could be found in the UK, for example, was mimicked in the southern states. The local plantation owner was a ‘king’ within his own area and locals would be deferential towards such men. The whole structure was portrayed in ‘Gone With The Wind’; a strictly Christian society that had men at the top while those underneath were expected and required to accept their social status. Social advancement was possible but invariably it was done within the senior families of a state, who were the economic, political and legal brokers of their state on behalf of the people in that state. Within this structure was the wealth that these families had accrued. It cannot be denied that a huge part of this wealth came from the fact that the plantation owners oriented the work on their plantations around slave labour. As abhorrent as it may be to those in the C21st, slavery was simply seen as part of the southern way of life. Without slavery, the economic clout of these premier families would have been seriously dented and those they employed and paid – local people who would have recognised how important the local plantation owner was to their own well-being – simply accepted this as ‘how it is’. When the dark clouds of war gathered in 1860-61, many in the South saw their very way of life being threatened. Part of that was slavery but it was not the only part.
 
The North was almost in complete contrast to the South. In the lead up to April 1861, the North was industrialising at a very fast rate. Entrepreneurs were accepted and, in fact, were seen as being vital to the further industrial development of America. You did not have to stay in your social place and social mobility was common. For example, Samuel Colt was born in Connecticut into a relatively poor background. He had an inauspicious start to his life but ended up a very rich man who left his wife $15 million in his will. Whether he could have done this in the South is a moot topic. It was always possible but most of America’s premier entrepreneurs based themselves in the North where the straitjacket of social class was weaker. Cornelius Vanderbilt is another example. Whether a man who came from the Netherlands could have forced his way into the social hierarchy of the South is again a question open to debate. The North was also a cosmopolitan mixture of nationalities and religions – far more so than the South. There can be little doubt that there were important groups in the North that were anti-slavery and wanted its abolition throughout the Union. However, there were also groups that were ambivalent and those who knew that the North’s economic development was based not only on entrepreneurial skills but also on the input of poorly paid workers who were not slaves but lived lives not totally removed from those in the South. While they had their freedom and were paid, their lifestyle was at best very harsh.
 
While the two sides that made up the American Civil War were apart in many areas, it became worse when the perception in the South was that the North would try to impose its values on the South.
 
In 1832, South Carolina passed an act that declared that Federal tariff legislation of 1828 and 1832 could not be enforced onto states and that after February 1st 1833 the tariffs would not be recognised in the state. This brought South Carolina into direct conflict with the Federal government in Washington DC. Congress pushed through the Force Bill that enabled the President to use military force to bring any state into line with regards to implementing Federal law. On this occasion the threat of military force worked. People in South Carolina vowed, however, it would be the last time.
 
It was now that slavery became mixed up with state rights – just how much power a state had compared to federal authority. State rights became intermingled with slavery. The key issue was whether slavery would be allowed in the newly created states that were joining the Union. This dispute further developed with the ‘Louisiana Purchase’ of 1803 whereby Kansas, among others, was purchased by the federal government. Kansas was officially opened to settlement in 1854 and there was a rush to settle in the state between those who supported slavery and those who opposed it. The state became a place of violence between the two groups and Kansas got the nickname ‘Bleeding Kansas’ in recognition of what was going on there. However on January 29th 1861, Kansas was admitted to the Union as a slave-free state. Many in the traditional slave states saw this as the first step towards abolishing slavery throughout the Union and thus the destruction of the southern way of life.
 
When South Carolina seceded from the Union on December 20th 1860, the first state to do so, it was a sign that the state no longer felt part of the United States of America and that America as an entity was being dominated by a federal government ensconced in the views of the North. Whether this was true or not, is not relevant as it was felt to be true by many South Carolinians. The secession of South Carolina pushed other southern states into doing the same. With such a background of distrust between most southern states and the government in Washington, it only needed one incident to set off a civil war and that occurred at Fort Sumter in April 1861.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/causes-american-civil-war.htm

[Bigun]

I suspect that this is going to be a long thread and will endure for some time. Given that, I'm going to bed!

I'll be back as time permits.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The Civil War ended 149 years ago, and here we are about to debate what caused it in the first place.

The fact that 149 years later there's probably going to be disagreement on the causes is a very clear indicator of what caused the war to begin with.

[Bigun]

The Civil War ended 149 years ago, and here we are about to debate what caused it in the first place.

The fact that 149 years later there's probably going to be disagreement on the causes is a very clear indicator of what caused the war to begin with.

The fact that there is still disagreement after 149 years is likely a good indicator that the war really didn't settle much of anything.  It is still ongoing to this very minute absent the shooting at each other which could, God forbid, resume at any time.

[Lando Lincoln]

The fact that there is still disagreement after 149 years is likely a good indicator that the war really didn't settle much of anything.  It is still ongoing to this very minute absent the shooting at each other which could, God forbid, resume at any time.

To the extent that the country was unified by force, it settled a lot.  Grant largely let the South suffer through Reconstruction on its own to keep them from rising up again, to take any wind they had out of their sails.  But through the subsequent wars, especially the World Wars, we indeed became unified in spirit.  The economic and industrial boom of the 50's and into the 60's created a wonderful comingling of our people. 

If we ever rise up again, it will be completely unrelated to the original War Between the States.  Our resident in the White House has it on some people's minds, and that is tragic.

[massadvj]

The fact that there is still disagreement after 149 years is likely a good indicator that the war really didn't settle much of anything.  It is still ongoing to this very minute absent the shooting at each other which could, God forbid, resume at any time.

I think the fact that we haven't had a civil war since then suggests that at least one thing was settled: the union will go to any length -- including the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people -- to preserve its institutions. 

[rangerrebew]

Actually, 1-5 should be slavery or the south's "peculiar institution," as it was known.  States rights didn't become an issue until after the war when it came out in "justification" by southern papers.  The issue of slavery was used by southern politicians and religious leaders to predict slave uprisings, rapes and murders of white women, blacks having equal rights and whatever else they could think of.  Don't forget the Dred Scott decision said blacks had no rights the white man was bound to honor and the south took that as gospel.  Though the vast majority of whites owned no slaves, they still felt completely superior to blacks and weren't about to give up the white privilege.  They were mostly illiterate and had little to no understanding of states' rights other than what they were told.

Lincoln's part was overplayed by southern papers and politicians.  They associated him with the abolition movement though he wasn't a member of it and he repeatedly said he could not do anything about it where it currently existed.   By the time he was inaugurated, seven southern states already had seceded.  The south was also keenly aware the U.S. Military was only about 17,000 and their militias were larger together than that.  Further, the south had begun seizing U.S. military and supply stations to build their readiness.  Since the southern militias had been training for slave uprising for years while northern militias were mainly friendly meetings by friends, they were aware they were superior in that area, too.

More later.  The wife is hounding me to get going with her.

[Lando Lincoln]

More later.  The wife is hounding me to get going with her.

We see how it is!

(Actually, I look forward to your comments.)

[Luis Gonzalez]

Actually, 1-5 should be slavery or the south's "peculiar institution," as it was known.  States rights didn't become an issue until after the war when it came out in "justification" by southern papers.  The issue of slavery was used by southern politicians and religious leaders to predict slave uprisings, rapes and murders of white women, blacks having equal rights and whatever else they could think of.  Don't forget the Dred Scott decision said blacks had no rights the white man was bound to honor and the south took that as gospel.  Though the vast majority of whites owned no slaves, they still felt completely superior to blacks and weren't about to give up the white privilege.  They were mostly illiterate and had little to no understanding of states' rights other than what they were told.

Lincoln's part was overplayed by southern papers and politicians.  They associated him with the abolition movement though he wasn't a member of it and he repeatedly said he could not do anything about it where it currently existed.   By the time he was inaugurated, seven southern states already had seceded.  The south was also keenly aware the U.S. Military was only about 17,000 and their militias were larger together than that.  Further, the south had begun seizing U.S. military and supply stations to build their readiness.  Since the southern militias had been training for slave uprising for years while northern militias were mainly friendly meetings by friends, they were aware they were superior in that area, too.

More later.  The wife is hounding me to get going with her.

 

[Lando Lincoln]

Ohhh...

[MACVSOG68]

The Civil War ended 149 years ago, and here we are about to debate what caused it in the first place.

The fact that 149 years later there's probably going to be disagreement on the causes is a very clear indicator of what caused the war to begin with.

The debate continues because many still want to cling to the belief that the South had a moral rationale to secede, meaning it had to be something other than to preserve slavery.  If one can believe that secession was caused by the South being taxed to death, then secession would be easier to accept as a historical truth.  But of course, that wasn't the reason.

[MACVSOG68]

.  States rights didn't become an issue until after the war when it came out in "justification" by southern papers.

Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union:

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

The declaration continued to talk about violations of what was considered "states' rights", as the Northern states were refusing to send back the property of the slave states, and were in fact making them citizens! 

It was all about the ability of the South to continue to maintain the institution of slavery, require the North to recognize and respect its property rights, and to agree to allow territories not yet states to have the option to organize as slave states, referred to as popular sovereignty 

It wasn't going to happen and the South knew it.  Remaining in the Union would only assure that eventually free states would be able to have their way with the issue of slavery, as the various compromises, especially the 1850 Compromise were essentially falling apart.  That was certainly true of the Fugitive Slave Act, even with the Dred Scott decision.

The increased tariff didn't particularly help, but it wasn't even passed until months after South Carolina seceded.  By that time, even Lincoln's promise If you like your slaves, you can keep your slaves didn't influence the Southern states. 

[Bigun]

Actually, 1-5 should be slavery or the south's "peculiar institution," as it was known.  States rights didn't become an issue until after the war when it came out in "justification" by southern papers.  The issue of slavery was used by southern politicians and religious leaders to predict slave uprisings, rapes and murders of white women, blacks having equal rights and whatever else they could think of.  Don't forget the Dred Scott decision said blacks had no rights the white man was bound to honor and the south took that as gospel.  Though the vast majority of whites owned no slaves, they still felt completely superior to blacks and weren't about to give up the white privilege.  They were mostly illiterate and had little to no understanding of states' rights other than what they were told.

Lincoln's part was overplayed by southern papers and politicians.  They associated him with the abolition movement though he wasn't a member of it and he repeatedly said he could not do anything about it where it currently existed.   By the time he was inaugurated, seven southern states already had seceded.  The south was also keenly aware the U.S. Military was only about 17,000 and their militias were larger together than that.  Further, the south had begun seizing U.S. military and supply stations to build their readiness.  Since the southern militias had been training for slave uprising for years while northern militias were mainly friendly meetings by friends, they were aware they were superior in that area, too.

More later.  The wife is hounding me to get going with her.

Baloney! 100% USDA Grade A!

If anyone in authority had told Union Soldiers that they were fighting  to end slavery the vast majority of them would have gone home immediately!

[Bigun]

The debate continues because many still want to cling to the belief that the South had a moral rationale to secede, meaning it had to be something other than to preserve slavery.  If one can believe that secession was caused by the South being taxed to death, then secession would be easier to accept as a historical truth.  But of course, that wasn't the reason.

Those hastily written declarations were not and had no need to be detailed in scope and they all served their purpose very well!

As the article I posted above points out there were many causes, Chief among them the North's insistence on maintaining their tariffs!

[Bigun]

The debate continues because many still want to cling to the belief that the South had a moral rationale to secede, meaning it had to be something other than to preserve slavery.  If one can believe that secession was caused by the South being taxed to death, then secession would be easier to accept as a historical truth.  But of course, that wasn't the reason.

Here are a few quotes from those I have collected over the space of many years of studying this subject. Please note that not a single one of them is from a Southern source!


10 Nov 1860 from the _Albany (New York) Atlas and Argus_ " . . .We sympathize with and justify the South" because "their rights have been invaded to the extreme limit possible within the forms of the Constitution." If the South wanted to secede, the editors wrote, "we would applaud them and with them God-Speed."
The _Chicago Daily Times and Herald_ declared, eleven days later, that "like it or not, the cotton States will secede." The government will not then "go to pieces," but Southerners will be allowed to regain their "sense of independence and honor."

On Nov 24, 1860, the _Concord (New Hampshire) Democratic Standard_ complained of "fanatics and demagogues of the North" who "waged war on the institutions of the South" and appealed for "concession of the just rights of our Southern brethren."
Two days later, the _New York Journal of Commerce_ condemned the "meddlesome spirit" of people of the North who wanted to "seek to regulate and control" people in "other communities."
On 13 November 1860, the _Bangor (Maine) Daily Union_ defended southern secessionists by explaining that the Union "depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people" of each state, and "when that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their Union is gone." If military force is used, then a state can only be held "as a subject province," and can never be "a co-equal member of the American Union."

On the same day, the _Brooklyn Daily Eagle_ clearly explained that "any violation of the constitution by the general government, deliberately persisted in would relieve the state or states injured by such violation from all legal and moral obligations to remain in the union or yield obedience to the federal government." And while the editors saw "no real cause for secession on the part of the South, should any states attempt it there is nothing to be done but let them go."

The _Cincinnati Daily Commercial_ echoed similar sentiments by advocating that the southern states be allowed to "work out their salvation or destruction in their own way" rather than "to attempt, through forcible coercion, to save them in spite of themselves."

The _Davenport (Iowa) Democrat and News_ on 17 November 1860, editorialized against secession, but in its editorial it noted that it was apparently in the minority in the North, where most of the "leading and most influential papers of the Union" believe "that any State of the Union has a right to secede."

The _Providence (Rhode Island) Evening Press_ wrote on that same day that sovereignty "necessarily includes what we call the "right of secession" and that 'this right must be maintained" unless we would establish "colossal despotism" against which the founding fathers "uttered their solemn warnings."

The _Cincinnati Daily Press_ repeated this sentiment on 21 November 1860: "We believe that the right of any member of this Confederacy to dissolve its political relations with the others and assume an independent position is *absolute* -- that, in other words, if South Carolina wants to go out of the Union, she has the right to do so, and no party or power may justly say her nay."
The _New York Daily Tribune_ made the same point on 17 December 1860, adding that if tyranny and despotism justified the American Revolution in 1776, then "we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."

Once South Carolina seceded on 20 December 1860, dozens of northern editorialists viewed it as a confirmation of the principle of sovereignty and self-government, while others, like the _Indianapolis Daily Journal_ said "thank God that we have had a good riddance of bad rubbish."

The _Kenosha (Wisconsin) Democrat wrote on 11 January 1861, that secession was "the very germ of liberty" and declared that "the right of secession inheres to the people of every sovereign state."

The _New York Journal of Commerce_ reminded its readers on 12 January 1861, that by opposing secession, northerners would be changing the nature of government "from a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism where one part of the people are slaves. Such is the logical deduction from the policy of the advocates of force."

The _Washington (D.C.) Constitution_ concurred, stating that the use of force against South Carolina would be "the extreme of wickedness and the acme of folly." It further opined the desire "that all the Southern states will secede."

On 5 February 1861, the _New York Tribune_ characterized Lincoln's latest speech as "the arguments of a tyrant -- force, compulsion and power." "Nine out of ten of the people of the North," the paper surmised, were opposed to forcing South Carolina to remain in the Union.
"We ought to let them go," said the _Greenfield (Massachusetts) Gazette and Courier_, once additional southern states began to follow South Carolina's lead.
The _Detroit Free Press_ declared on 19 February 1861, that "an attempt to subjugate the seceded states, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in extent."

The _New York Daily Tribune_ argued once again that "the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration . . .Is that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed." Therefore, if the southern states want to secede, "they have a clear right to do so."

On March 21, 1861, the _New York Times_ intoned "that there is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
"The people are recognizing the government of the Confederates," the _Cincinnati Daily Commercial_ wrote on 23 March 1861, and "there is room for several flourishing nations on this continent; the sun will shine brightly and the rivers run as clear . . .when we acknowledge the Southern Confederacy as before."

"Public opinion in the North," said the _Hartford (Connecticut) Daily Courant_ on 12 April 1861, "seems to be gradually settling down in favor of the recognition of the New Confederacy by the Federal Government." The thought of a "bloody and protracted civil war . . .Is abhorrent to all." (Howard Cecil Perkins, _Northern Editorials on Secession_ (Gloucester, AHA, 1964)

[MACVSOG68]

Those hastily written declarations were not and had no need to be detailed in scope and they all served their purpose very well!

As the article I posted above points out there were many causes, Chief among them the North's insistence on maintaining their tariffs!

The tariff was relatively low until 1861, when Buchanan signed the just passed Morrill Tariff into law.  This tariff did increase the tariffs on some imports by about 10%, but was still lower than the tariff that led to the nullification crisis in the 1830s.  That tariff was lowered substantially and remained so until 1861, well after the Confederacy was formed, and years after it was being seriously contemplated.  And it should be noted that the South then instituted its own tariff to finance the war.

BTW, that tariff that led to the nullification crisis didn't spread far, and no state seriously considered seceding.

[Oceander]

*  *  *

The increased tariff didn't particularly help, but it wasn't even passed until months after South Carolina seceded.  By that time, even Lincoln's promise If you like your slaves, you can keep your slaves didn't influence the Southern states. 

[Bigun]

The South had been resisting  punitive tariffs imposed by the North since at least 1832 and knew that Lincoln's election would bring an even higher and more punitive version. But you go ahead and continue to delude yourself!

[Oceander]

The South had been resisting  punitive tariffs imposed by the North since at least 1832 and knew that Lincoln's election would bring an even higher and more punitive version. But you go ahead and continue to delude yourself!

Take a load off.  I'm laughing at MAC's subtle poke at Obama.


I'm from the South and I hate slavery, so I see both North and South as having been engaged in the most grotesque of greek tragedies, with more hubris than Oedipus ever possessed.

[Bigun]

Take a load off.  I'm laughing at MAC's subtle poke at Obama.

Ok! I missed that initially and agree it is a very good poke!

I'm from the South and I hate slavery, so I see both North and South as having been engaged in the most grotesque of greek tragedies, with more hubris than Oedipus ever possessed.

I'm from the South as well and also hate slavery but it was not the entire and sole proximate cause of the War between the States as many would have you believe.

[truth_seeker]

Slavery was increasingly viewed as immoral around the world. Britain had ended slavery ahead of the US.

How do Southerners convince others that their forbearers were not members of an immoral culture, society?  By claiming the CW was about something besides slavery, when most people know that is a diversion, a ruse.

The Southern Baptist church even supported, defended slavery for Christ's sake.

Slavery was the primary, major issue and all others were secondary, with intent to absolve Southerners of the immoral nature of the slavery that they meant to continue.