10 ways to understand History

Causes of American Civil War

                                      Image Credit  Pixabay
                                   

 No issue dominates the history of early eighteenth and nineteenth century America like the problem of slavery. It is amazing that even today, over 130 years after the Civil War started, there is still passionate debate regarding the "cause" of the Civil War. The curious thing is that although slavery was the moral issue of the nineteenth century that divided the political leaders of the land, the average American had very little interest in slaves or slavery. Most Southerners were small farmers that could not afford slaves. Most Northerners were small farmers or tradesmen that had never even seen a slave. But political leaders on both sides were very interested in slaves and slavery. Leaders from the south argued that the Southern plantation was a benevolent and paternal institution, where Southern slave-owners generally behaved with fatherly concern toward their slaves (southern gentlemen). Political leaders from the north believed that slavery was a profit-oriented system, a capitalistic institution that was flourishing, not dying at the time of the Civil War. They saw slavery as a systematic method of controlling and exploiting labor. Whatever the case, the reasons a nation goes to war are usually varied and complicated, and the American Civil War is no exception. This essay will attempt to depict the differing views on what truly caused the Civil War, whether it was slavery, economic circumstances, or political issues. The following persons support the theory that slavery was the cause of the Civil War A historian who has a respected opinion about the Southern Slave Powers, Russell B. Nye believes that this southern mentality should not be underestimated. These Slave Powers were soon to become important in the North, where it helped to build up several anti-slavery settlements. Many abolitionists believed that the Slave Powers were simply exercised by a few southern slave owners and in no way compared to the other millions of free individuals. There were three main goals of the Slave Power: 'to re-open the slave trade; to extend the institution of slavery throughout the entire nation and beyond; and to remove from the free white man those constitutional and traditional guarantees of liberty which stood in the way of the exercise of slave holder and capitalist.' (p. 22) The South was obviously willing to compromise personal rights and morals to make this Slave Power a reality. However the abolitionists were not having it. They believed that the existence of these Slave Powers 'jeopardized the American tradition.'(p.24) Everyone is familiar with Abraham Lincoln and his 'Emancipation Proclamation,' which is many times viewed as being the speech that freed the slaves. However, many aren't familiar with the events leading up to this historically famous speech. Lincoln disagreed that it was political or economic circumstances, which brought about the war. He instead insisted that it was slavery that was breaking the country up and threatening the strength of the Union; 'All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war.'(p.146) Lincoln believed that slavery disrupted the interests of American society and that it disregarded any and everything that the Constitution stood for. Highly regarded as a most distinguished historian, specializing in the Civil War Era, Kenneth Stampp firmly believes that slavery was the epicenter of the conflict between the North and South. He believes that every event or occurrence during this time can somehow be linked to slavery. Northern abolitionists attacked the South directly, regarding it as immoral and a 'national disgrace.'(p.179) The North also hoped to eliminate slavery indirectly, by monitoring the Slave Powers and preventing further expansion. As an answer to the North's means of destroying the livelihood of slavery, the South expressed the importance of maintaining their honor. The South also benefited from the constant antagonistic ways of the North, buying time 'when natural forces would bring about its demise.'(p.182) No politician worked harder to keep the issue of slavery out of the everyday flow of national politics than Stephen Douglas. He understood the needs of his constituents and supporters as well as the social circumstances of the time. Douglas was against stirring up any further conflicts between the North and South, trying instead to mend the wounds already exposed. He felt that there was only one way to abolish slavery and that was to '...leave a State perfectly free to form and regulate its institutions in its own way.'(p.109) Douglas felt that so far the Union had been able to be successfully run by the principles on which the Republic was originally founded, therefore why change it drastically? Through the Kansas-Nebraska bill slavery disappeared from New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania. He believed that if this gradual emancipation of slaveholding states went on peacefully, eventually the whole nation would be free. Sectional agitation was not the answer. Instead a non-violent approach at securing peacefulness was all the Union truly needed. A freed slave and out-spoken black abolitionist, Frederick Douglas had a much-expected interpretation of the Civil War. Like Stampp, Douglass too believed that every aspect of the war held deep seeded roots in one and only one thing; slavery. That which threatened the good of the country 'sprung our of a malign selfishness and a haughty and imperious pride which only the practice of the most hateful oppression and cruelty could generate and develop.'(p.144) Douglass believed that those in the South blamed the cause of the war on the Northern abolitionists and that this was an ignorant or traitorous point of view. He saw no positivism in any aspect of the belief of the southerners. They simply wanted to continue their heritage of human bondage by revolting. Douglass viewed the acceptance of slavery by the South as a equal hate for 'the freedom asserted in the Declaration of Independence.'(p.146) In other words, the South was a big contradiction amongst themselves and the North wasn't going to put up with it. The following interpretations will attempt to illustrate the idea that slavery was not the cause of the War A South Carolinian, John C. Calhoun believed that the division between the North and the South in regards to the War resulted from aggressions in the North. He felt that the North was overbearing upon the rights of the South and that these encroachments would eventually lead to disunion of our prized nation. Calhoun felt that these actions by the north were allowed to proceed without any punishment, thus putting pressure upon society (or the South) to react in a negative manor. He also believed that the Government that was described in the Constitution was now non-existent. To fix the problem of a quickly disassembling Union, Calhoun suggested simply 'satisfying the states belonging to the southern section.' If this idea was carried out in full, the anger from the South would cease and peace between the North and South would be restored soon thereafter. Like most other historians with Marxist point of views, Algie Simmons places much importance on the economic circumstances of the time and the eventual emergence of the capitalist class over the feudal class. Beginning as a small, tight-knit group with farsighted views, the capitalist class seemed 'destined soon to seize the reins of political power.'(p.98) This class was beginning to stretch its arms and impact more than just its small congregation. Where the political ties were the weakest, the capitalistic class adopted the beliefs of the Republican Party and built strength from there. They had an ambition to settle new lands, form new industries, and extend railroads. Eventually the next option was to secede. Southern traders owed a huge debt to the North. By seceding from the Union, the debt to the North would be 'promptly repudiated.'(p.100) Southerners of course supported this idea, with the North adamantly in disagreement. Indeed the economic status of the Unio! A representative from Texas, John H. Reagan makes his point plain and simply. He feels in short that the North has no reason to oppose slavery or condemn the South for their actions, because the South is essentially the workhorse to the North. The southerners build, manufacture, and contribute financially to the North. The South feels that they receive no thanks or reward form their neighbors to the north, but instead continue to remain unsatisfied with all the South has done. This tension persuades the South to break free from the economically controlling North and begin to handle things in their own way; after all they are doing the majority of the work for the North as it is. Reagan believes that the hostility fueled by this sudden urge for southern independence (not slavery) is what will eventually cause the sectionalism between the two groups. Louis Hacker focuses his views mainly on American labor and the working class citizens. Before the formation of anti-slavery mentality by northern abolitionists, the labor of America was greatly out of sync. It was so mixed up that the working class was not able to distinguish the fact that slavery was holding them back from power. Thus, before the problem of slavery was to be fixed, the issue of what could be attained by these workers had to be determined. The bewilderment in the North allowed for the South to 'frustrate every hope of the industrial capitalists of the North and block up their every possible avenue of expansion.'(p.103) A southerner at heart, Hundley felt strongly that that 'southern gentleman' was the single 'finest product of Southern civilization.'(p.205) He believed that coming from strong parentage and having a well-respected bloodline meant far more to southerners than it did to northerners. Ancestors of these southern gentleman held respectable positions and were looked upon very highly. In addition to family pride, southerners also had an exceptional physical appearance. Hundley believed this was due to always being outdoors; whether it be riding horses or working with their hands. Southern gentlemen weren't as lazy as everyone believed. They also possessed a docile demeanor; warm, kind, gentle and accepting in everything they did. This earned the south the reputation of having exceptional hospitality. They never raised their voice and very rarely became angry. Hundley wanted to illustrate the simple fact that in no way could the peaceful and honorable lifestyle of the South p! ossibly be responsible for turning slavery into such a wretched thing. Instead, the fragile, weak, argumentative northerners brought the hostility upon the southerners, forcing them to be unknowingly taken advantage of. Although the majority of the American people wanted to avoid Civil War and were content to allow slavery to die a slow, inevitable death, the most influential political leaders of the day were not. On the southern side people were willing to make war to guarantee the propagation of their 'right' to own slaves. On the northern side, abolitionists were willing to make war in order to put and immediate end to the degrading institution of slavery. These persons, through either words or action were able to convince the majority that it was necessary to go to war and in order to convince them, they justified the war with arguments that only indirectly referred to the subject of slavery (for example states rights.) Southern politicians convinced their majority that the South, if allowed to secede, was really striking a serious blow at democratic government. In these arguments, both southern and northern politicians were speaking the truth, just not in its entirety. They knew th! at to declare the war to be a fight over slavery would cause a lot of the potential soldiers of both sides to refuse to fight. So was the war about slavery? Absolutely. If there had been no disagreement over the issue of slavery, the South would probably not have discerned a threat to its culture and the southern politicians would have been much less likely to seek the right to secede. But was the war entirely about slavery? No. It was also about the constitutional argument over whether or not a state had the right to leave the Union and the continuation of antebellum southern culture. Although the majority of Southerners had little interest in slaves, slavery was a primary interest of Southern politicians and consequently the underlying cause of the South's desire to seek independence and states rights.