Top Five Causes of the Civil War
Tuesday January 13, 2009
What actually caused the American Civil War? Some people simplistically answer that it was a fight against slavery. While slavery did have an important part to play in the lead up to the Civil War, there were other causes that fed the fight between North and South that finally erupted into secession and Civil War with the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. Here are the top five causes of the Civil War.
Comments
Perhaps those who attribute “fight against slavery” as the cause of the Civil War are not as “simplistic” as indicated. A relationship is indicated in all 5 causes, so obviously they are not separate from slavery. It does seem central. Free labor in the North slave labor in the South. Major reason for nullification: maintain slavery. Conflict over western lands: slavery. Major reason South seceeded: slavery. Reason Lincoln could not maintain union of states: slavery. Production of cotton demanded: slavery. It is more simplistic that so many in the South maintain that it was a fight over state’s rights as indeed it was: a fight by the South to maintain slavery.
I wish people could understand the civil war would have happened with or without the institution of slavery. There were so many reasons. People need to open their eyes to view the world not just skim the surface. When you skim the surface you get the answer of slavery but if you research more you find there was so much more to this war.
I have to agree with Mr. Darrell on this. Many of the things Kelly stated came back to slavery. Slavery would not be “skinning the surface”. Slavery is much more bigger than that. Lets think, North had factories, and the South had plantations. They didn’t want to do the work so they had Slaves do it. So there is much more to the word slavery, in the Civil War.
Alex, you’re skimming the surface right there.
Further research would reveal that a political party had indeed based their campaign on the issue of slavery and wasn’t even able to get 200,000 votes in the election of 1852.
If slavery was THAT big an issue, why was this the case?
I agree with the other comments. The Fugitive Slave Law required the FEDERAL government to enforce it and that mandate flies in the face of the STATES rights claim. Furthermore, Roger Taney threw out all STATE restrictions on slavery with the Dredd Scott decision ending a states right to restrict it.
Laurence Bird - a bit pompous aren’t we? And perhaps I’d be more impressed with Mr. Bockhorn’s thoughts if his grammar wasn’t so atrocious. I think you’re too simplistic in your assertions. You might as well say the causes of the Civil War were money and power, which is the basis for slavey in the first place.
Slavery was not the big issue, when Lincoln himself owned slaves along with Grant, The issue was money and politics. The south sold cotton cheaper to Europe the south sided with England during the Revolutionary War So there was hostility that had been festering for a long time. Also slavery was not in Ill. because blacks were not allowed in the state before the war
I agree with Dow if any of you actually took a real history class you would know that the real cause was over the cotton yes money is a bases of slavery but that money was not delt with slavery it was over cheap cotton being sold to Europe. The real facts are Lincoln, grant, the south, and the NORTH all had slaves to so obviously it wasn’t over that!!! And the north continued to use slaves well after the civil war. You have to dig deeper than just in the surface of history. Being from the south and having relatives that fought in the civil war I find it very ignorant that people believe that it was all over slavery. That was not the reason. I’ll fly my confederate flag high.
The Civil War was about what the states felt was their right, primarily the right to secede from the Union. They felt that their rights were being taken away, as the colonies did resulting in the Revolutionary War. They were being cornered into choosing Northern products, which were more expensive at the time to other products, and they were losing out in political power as the anti-slavery politicians were fighting the introduction of new “slave” states. (Mass. even went as far as to deny that the new states were states, that the government didn’t have the right to introduce states period.)
Southern politicians viewed the Constitution differently than the Northern politicians did, that the Constitution should be honored as it is read. The Northern Politicians viewed it as an evolving and growing entity.
They also feared that their property, due to the zealousness of the abolitionists and their demands for lack of slavery, would be taken away from them. Had the Civil War occurred without slavery? Probably, but did slavery help it along quicker? Yes.
(This is also from a Southerner with ancestors who fought, though they fought on both sides.)
This is from Wikipedia under state’s rights concerning the idea of nullification and where it originated:
Nullification
One major and continuous strain on the union, from roughly 1820 through the Civil War, was the issue of trade and tariffs. Heavily dependent upon trade, the almost entirely agricultural and export-oriented South imported most of its manufactured needs from Europe or obtained them from the North. The North, by contrast, had a growing domestic industrial economy that viewed foreign trade as competition. Trade barriers, especially protective tariffs, were viewed as harmful to the Southern economy, which depended on exports.
In 1828, the Congress passed protective tariffs to benefit trade in the northern states, but that were detrimental to the South. Southerners vocally expressed their tariff opposition in documents such as the South Carolina Exposition and Protest in 1828, written in response to the “Tariff of Abominations”. Exposition and Protest was the work of South Carolina senator John C. Calhoun, formerly an advocate of protective tariffs and internal improvements at federal expense.
South Carolina’s Nullification Ordinance declared the tariff of 1828 and 1832 null and void within the state borders of South Carolina. It began the Nullification Crisis. Passed by a state convention on November 24, 1832, it led, on December 10, to President Andrew Jackson’s proclamation against South Carolina, which sent a naval flotilla and a threat of sending government ground troops to enforce the tariffs.
It might surprise a lot of people, that 80% of the people fighting on the side of the Confederacy did not even own slaves. Owning slaves required a LOT of money, that the majority of southerners did not possess. Slavery was an issue, and it did contribute to the war. And many Northerners believed they were fighting to simply stop slavery. Maybe like many Americans believe that invading Iraq was simply to stop terrorism. Southerners fought for the right to decide who they could trade to internationally, and to stop Northern-run elitist government from imposing tariffs on trade that hurt the Southern economy.
Much like the EU today, the US was designed to be an allegience of states. State= country. Like the EU has it’s own currency now that replaces Frances’ francs, and English pounds, and so forth, the federal government was designed to unite and help support the states economically and against threats. I wonder, do the European countries fully understand the dangers of entering into a union such as the EU, when the right to leave the EU might be taken away from a country like France or Italy. The parallel is very similar.
I’m glad slavery was ended. I’m glad that we have made progress socially to be more equal. Our founding fathers wanted an end to slavery from the start of the Revolution against Britain. They, however, also felt that states should be able to leave the union if the people wanted to do so. The Civil War changed that.
I wonder, if we stayed with the idea of state rights’ closer to what we were designed to be, then maybe more gays could marry without fearing a national ban that Bush attempted.
States’ Rights does not equal racism, I’m tired of that notion. Many states and people began to fight for abolition as early as the Declaration of Independence. Had they not been able to do so, the abolitionist movement might have not grown as it did. States’ Rights means that the federal government should not be able to force a diverse group of people into laws or ways that might not be suitable. If a state thinks that gays should marry, gays should be allowed to in that state. If a state believes in abortion, abortion should be allowed as the law of that state.
this is very interesting and it really helped me out but somethingz i did not understand
WOW people get to the basics here the Civil War was started because the south wanted to seceed from the north and the north would not allow that. Get to the basics
The Civil War wasnt just about slavery, money, and power. Its main purpose was to decide if states rights should be over federal rights. The north wanted it to be the federal rights over states right, and the south wanted it to be states rights over federal rights. Slavery was a BIG part of it, but it wasnt the main reason for the civil war, come on people get smart.
Andrew is right, the fight was states vs federal rights.
I personnaly think that we are over slavery and should not instigate it wherever we go, and constantly remind others of the actions that were taken to form the U.S.. Its not fair to the remaining Americans in the twentieth century, the people alive today in America are forming new and improved ways of getting our older and younger Americans to say no to racism and to get past the still strong barrier. What is also an issue is the election going on, not many people can even think of having a president of a different color but same mind, same heart, same functions, and emotions as everyone else. No offense to McCain supporters, I support McCain Strongly..and thats all i have to say about that…
But of course..
Andrew, you’re dead on, it was a fight against “Big Government” that the North was imposing. Yes, slavery was in the mix, but it was more of a political war than perhaps any other war we’ve had. The circumstances aren’t too far removed from what we’ll be facing in the near future with the Czar of Obamanomics.
The north and the south had different economys. the south focused on agriculture and the north was mainly industrial. this created a rift. because they focused on different industries each the north and south had different needs when it came to taxes, laws. ext. they each fought for equal representation in congress. up until western terrirories applied to become states congress was balanced between non slave states and slave states. there was issues and confrentation when they were deciding on weather or not to make these new states free states or slave states. yes these economic issues were based the industries, but what really defined the differences in industries was the use of labor. the north used immigrants, and the south slaves. for the decision for the south to ceceed wasn’t just based on the south wanting to keep there slaves, that was just one of the final straws. one of the last things that helped make the decision was when lincoln was elected president.
I appreciate all the great comments. I’m a freshmen in college and am reqiired to do an essay on the civil war. I must state i believe was the main cause and why. I believe i have made my decision after reading your comments. No offense, however, where did you people go to school? Most of you have the worst grammar and spelling i’ve observed in a while.
Many things led to the Civil war. Events such as The Compromise of 1850, The Wilmot Proviso, The publishing of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and John Brown’s Raid all poured fuel on the fire. But perhaps a critical event was when Stephen Douglas lifted the Missouri Compromise in hope of settling the Great Plains and spliting the Whig Party. But he was misjudged, and by doing this he sent the Union on a highway to war.
How ironic (not unusual) that some charge others should learn history while demonstrating much ignorance of it.
Not just the South’s economy based mostly on “king cotton” with indigo, tobacco and a few other limited products but also the political structure differed greatly from the more democratic North. The South was ruled by a slave owner aristocracy contrary to the promise of the Constitution: a government of the people”. It is “We the People of the United States” not We the States. The South was a plutocracy inside a democratic republic. Some still seem to want that? Yomen farmers were half the population, but they supported and were ruled by the quarter of the population that owned slaves. The non slave holder farmers were perhaps motivated by desires to be among the rich slave holders, what today might be called “wannebes”. There were some exceptions, such as the Jackson movement toward greater equality and fewer property qualifications and extended suffrage. But “king cotton” and those who produced 80% of it ruled. And, of course, it is significant it was produced by slaves. Also religious and appeals of white superiority were made by the ruling slave owner aristocracy to non slave owners and non land owners. Perhaps similar to appeals made by today’s affluent who use “moral majority” and other concocted but non-evidential slogans?
More attention was given to property than to equality as a determination, also similar to today’s appeals of supply side economics?
“States rights” does not appear in the U.S. Constitution; it has become popular only by much use. Some seem to think the Articles of Confederation and/or The Declaration of Independence the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution was accepted as the “law of the land”, of the Union; state laws have an application to things not addressed by the law of the land, including laws passed by Congress in keeping with the Constitution. President Jackson prepared to use troops against actions in the South contrary to the Constitution many years prior to our most terrible war. Neither nullification nor secession is a part of the law of the land. By the 1850’s, slavery was the most decisive issue in the U.S. and the Missouri Compromise, Wilmot Proviso and other things such as the conflict in Kansas, John Brown’s action were in direct association to slavery.
To:
4. The political party formed in 1852 elected an anti slavery party in 1861.
7. Lincoln and Grant did not own slaves, and blacks were allowed in Illinois before the Civil War (officially “The War of Rebellion”, the South coined “Civil War”). Many escaped to Illinois. The Dred Scott Deciion conflicted with the Missouri Compromise; you should read up on it? If you have evidence to the contrary, please supply it. There were free blacks in Illinois and other states including some in the South. Also, the South did not side with England during the Revolutionay War. Note the major battles in the South and who fought them.
8. Apparently, the “real history class” you took lacked reality. Thje cheap cotton exported to Europe was produced mostly by slave labor (80%). Dig deeper.
9.Yes, southern states thought they had a right to secede, and not only slavery in the South but a desire to extend it to new areas in the West is apparent. Poor farming practices that depleted the soil made slavery in new areas desirable. The federal government does not “introduce states”. People in territories petition to create additional states and Congress admits them when populations and other qualifications are met, including operation of democratic republican governments. See Article IV of the Constitution.
10. Yes,it might surprise many that 80% who fought for the Confederacy did not own slaves for evidence seems to indicate 25% did own slaves, and owning slaves was not a qualification for supporting slavery. Far more than 20% fought to maintain it? It might surprise many that 179,000 black men (10% of the Union army) and 19,000 blacks of the Union Navy were a part of Union forces; 40,00 died. Other blacks also contributed to defeating slavery.
20. Yes, many things led to the Civil War as alluded to. Which ones were not related to slavery?
Slavery was not the only cause of the war, but it certainly was the major cause?
To whomever said The War of Rebellion would have happened if slavery had not existed, evidence and logic please. Some might want more than mere declaration.
What’s really interesting is the definiton of the phrase “Causes of the Civil War”.
If you look at the incidents leading up the the MILITARISTIC confrontation between the Union and Confederacy, you will see that the cause of the Civil War was that the Confederacy was trying to force the Union off of Union owned (federal) land. The most notorious being Ft. Sumter in Charleston. Even though all of his top political advisors argued to release the forts to the Confederacy in place of risking open and armed conflict, Lincoln decided to uphold his platform promise (of not allowing the Confederacy to hold any federal owned land when the States seceded) by not turning over Ft. Sumter.
After repeated demands for surrender were not met, the leaders of the Confederacy granted permission to “reduce” Ft. Sumter by any means necessary. And you know what happened from there.
So if you define the Civil War’s start by the firing on Ft. Sumter and the subsequent series of battles, then there you go, Lincoln’s refusal to give up federal land in the seceded Conferacy is the singular cause of the Civil War.
Now if you are talking about why the Southern States seceded from the Union in the first place, then I see all the points about Slavery, States Rights, Politics, etc…
But if you are going to make a counterpoint, keep this in mind….
If the federal land in the Confederate states was given to those states, there would never have been a capture of Ft. Sumter for Lincoln to muster his Army against.
I am not saying that the Civil War wouldn’t have happened, that would be assinine. but it sure may have started differently.
Perhaps we should note that the first shots of the conflict were fired by Citadel Cadets under the command of Major Stevens, head of the South Carolina Military Academy and that President Buchanan’s strengthening of federal forts enabled them to remain in federal hands.Ft Sumter and Ft Pickens were not the only federal properties involved.On January 10,1861 (some accounts indicate 9th), the unarmed Union ship “Star of the West” was heavily fired upon by South Carolinians from Morris Island and retreated unable to supply Ft. Sumter.
Anderson in command of Ft Sumter said for some time he required no reinforcements (after the Star of the West was fired upon)but
changed his mind and said a successful reinforcement required 20,000 men and much supplies. At that time the entire Union army was around 16,000, much of it in the West fighting Indians.
Buchanan’s final act as President was a letter to President Elect Lincoln explaining naval forces had been created in New York to supply Ft. Sumter. Lincoln’s inheritance?
Gen. Winfield Scott and some other army officers advised Lincoln that Sumter could not be held, but various navy officers presented a plan to reinforce Sumter developed by Capt.Gustavus V. Fox. And most of Lincoln’s advisors did not advise against reinforcing Sumter as some contend. Lincoln’s cabinet gave written opinions: Seward favored evacuating Sumter but favored holding Pickens “at every cost”. Chase and Welles favored reinforcing Sumter, and Blair said he’d resign if Lincoln took Gen. Scott’s advice to give up Sumter. A caucus of Republican congressmen warned that Lincoln’s failure to reinforce Sumter would destroy their party.
Lincoln informed Gov. Pickens of South Carolina that a peaceful reinforcement of Ft. Sumter would be done. Confederate President Jefferson Davis demanded Anderson’s evacuation and when he refused Gen. Bearegard fired on the fort. Perhaps that was the second shot that began the war? The Star of the West had been fired upon and hit earlier as previously indicated. “If” is conjecture, so why not conjecture that instead of allowing the South “to go peacefully” that the South should have peacefully allowed reinforcement of federal property? Consider the confiscation of much federal installations earlier by the South—-not too peaceful?
Also an argument that slavery was major: Before and during the Civil War (called different things by North and South), most Southern political leaders said the southern states seceded to protect slavery. The Confederate Vice President declared slavery the cause of the war and that the U.S. was founded on the false belief all men are created equal and that the Confederacy was “founded upon exactly the opposite idea; 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 moral condition.”
MANY COMPLEXITIES, BUT SLAVERY CERTAINLY DOES SEEM CENTRAL, PARTICULARLY FROM THE SOUTHERN PERSPECTIVE?
i disagree wif bofe of you.
Darrel…
Forgot all about the “Star” incident!
And definately Lincoln came in to a situation not quite all his making. But it seems funny that he was concilliatory to those Slave States that did not secede (in fact the Emancipation Proclomation did not apply to those states - and full emancipation didnt immediately come to the Slaves of the “Union” states until wars end), yet he would not give up federal property to help prevent war.
But absolutely I believe slavery was THE issue that led up to the war (just wanted to make a conjecture based on the militaristic causes). It’s funny that people who disagree with Slavery as being the main issue before, and during the war, have probably never read a single address by Lincoln (President of the United States) or by Jefferson Davis (President of the Confedrate States of America). They both agreed on one thing and clearly stated that on many occasions. They both agreed that slavery was the cause of the conflict, nothing else.
It’s fact, those who dont believe should pick up a book. Or better yet, just read the Constitution of the Confederate States. You will be enlightened.
Some say simplistically that the Civil War was fought over slavery. Unfortunately, there is no “simple” reason. The causes of the war were a complex series of events, including slavery that began long before the first shot was fired. Competing nationalisms, political turmoil, the definition of freedom, the preservation of the Union, the fate of slavery and the structure of our society and economy could all be listed as significant contributing factors in America’s bloodiest conflict.
your all wrong… i started the civil war
Donald: Is it likely Lincoln was conciliatory to those states so as not to reduce Union support? There were those in the border states that supported those states remaining in the Union but also supported slavery, particularly if they owned slaves and perhaps hoped their manumission would be by them being paid for them by the Union government, a plan supported by some. As you recognize all things are not not like a football game which, with doing away with ties, is an either/or affair. My contention that slavery was the major issue that caused the war is not a statement that it was the only issue. The other issues do seem associated with slavery to large degrees, and despite the contention of some that a civil war would have existed without slavery seems based on little evidence and logic. West Virginia and Maryland passed state laws after Emancipation Proclamtion legally abolished slavery, but despite that there were pockets in West Virginia that maintained slavery. Anyway the 13th Amendment legally manumitted slaves, but of course Jim Crow laws continued many aspects of slavery for a very long time. Perhaps it has taken two centuries from Lincoln’s birth to the election of Obama to do away with most of the concept that Blacks are inferior. Lincoln seems to have long believed they should be free, but perhaps it is not certain he believed they were equal in all respects. He favored their education to help them be so. I certainly agree with Dani that things were complex; however, I repeat my belief that slavery was central to the conflict. Jefferson opposed slavery; he also thought he could not afford giving up his property. Should we contend that was because his wine bill was so high or that Sally needed new clothes? Either or thinking is the common fallachy of false dilemma, an illogical approach that can result in a real dilemma?
Re: Today’s Jefferson subject: Jefferson did not sign the Constitution for at least two reasons: he was not a delegate and was in France, and he like others demanded a bill of rights to garner his support. Federalists and Anti-Federalists did not disagree on all things, thank whatever powers that be! Let us hope there is enough bipartisan agreement to help us out of our present dilemma.
“African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.”
quote from Alexander Stephens Cornerstone Speech.
It was over slavery, cotton prices were directly related to slavery cause slaves worked the plantation. they didn’t want to have to pay the employees.
I take more issue with how slavery ended than with whether it caused the war. I am disturbed when I hear that in Government schools today our children are being taught that President Lincoln freed the slaves when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation. That is a blatant falsehood since in the document it clearly states “all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free”. That means any state in the CSA, where Lincoln had no authority because he was not the president there. It did not free slaves in he northern slave states of Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, Missouri or in the southern areas already under Union control like most of West Virginia, New Orleans, and Large portions of Tennessee. If the President was so anti-slavery and willing to send hundreds of thousands of men to there deaths why wouldn’t he end slavery in the north BEFORE going to war to end slavery in the south? Politics is the answer to that question. Slavery was a key issue of secession and Lincoln’s main motivation was to preserve the union and Lincoln used Great Britain’s disdain of slavery to his own end as well. If Britain had recognized the CSA as an independent nation then it would have made Lincoln’s job much harder so he used slavery as a needling point with England. The only thing that ended slavery in this country was the surrender at Appomattox and the passage of the thirteenth admendment to the US Constitution. Lincoln preserved the union but at what cost over 600,000 Americans dead and state sovereignty all but destroyed. I must also take issue with something said by Darrel in an earlier post, yes the Constitution is the law of the land and the legal document of this nation but the Declaration is the FOUNDING document of this REPUBLIC and in tht document it clearly states right there in the opening sentence “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”. When it becomes “necessary” not politically expediant or socially acceptable 200 plus years later but “necessary” as determined by the sovereign entities which make up a VOLUNTARY UNION OF STATES. My apologies for the lenght of this post but I had much to say. Thanks for your time.
My My how times have changed. I am 36 years old and I was taught that there were many causes of the Civil War. Yes one of them was slavery, but as my teacher pointed out, slavery was going to die out on its own without the war. Technological advances that were on the horizon at the time made much more sense than slavery-my history teacher taught us that given another 15-20 years, slavery would have been obsolete in the South. This may have not been true for the North, but it was for the South. My 8 year old son is now being taught that slavery is the ONLY cause of the Civil War and he had points taken off of his test for answering that states’ rights and economics were causes of the Civil War in addition to slavery. This madness must stop-history has not changed since I was in school 20 years ago-only the people who choose to be politically correct. I can not believe that people can be so blind to think that just because they say it it is so. Wake up and think for your selves. I have not seen any news articles showing that some new evidence has come to light in the past 20 years about the cause of the Civil War, so why are today’s children being taught only part of what really happened?
I spend a great deal of my time deprogramming my students:
• that Slavery is the reason for the Civil War
• All Northerners were good and wanted to end slavery
• All Southerners were bad
• Plantations were everywhere in the South
• Southerners were lazy and did not want to work
Slavery is tied to a number of events that will bring about the Civil War – it is not the only one. It might be argued that it is not the main reason for Northern and Southern tensions and only becomes a major reason in 1863.
Northerners were just as capable of being racist as Southerners, you could legally own slaves in Delaware in 1861.
Not all Southerners were bad – logical fallacy
Plantations were not located everywhere throughout the South – about 2/3 of Southerners in 1860 could not afford to own slaves
Southerners were not lazy – do we call businessmen lazy because they manage a number of people? Also, a number of slave owners could afford only one or two slaves and spent their days working alongside their slaves.
There are a number of reasons for why the Civil War was fought.
“States’ Rights”: is a Political direction and desire of a state to put forth its own ideals over the forced supremacy of a federal government. This traces its roots to the Federalist / Anti-Federalist foundations of our nation. Nationalized banking, interstate business, taxation policy, military obligations, right to broker international trade agreements, legal precedents and supremacy of federal court system just to name some examples. “States’ Rights” is not about slavery, it is a bigger issue than just slavery.
Modern vs. Traditional – Will the main political forces in the United State dictate that the nation becomes an Industrialized (Modern) Nation or will it remain an Agrarian (Traditional) society? This is not only an issue of economic foundations but also of societal structure. A reference comparing the Plantation system of the South with Feudal Europe is an easy analogy. Swap names such as Master, slave and plantation with words like Lord, serf, manor and your see the old world European flavor of Southern Culture.
Political Authority: The North was divided between different groups (social, political, ethnic) who held authority within cities and or countryside, while the Southern political system was controlled completely by the minority Aristocratic Planter society.
The Election of 1860: Lincoln was not on the ballot in a number of Southern states – Southerners feel they have no voice in the election process therefore no voice in Washington D.C.
Following the secession of the Southern states, Lincoln asks them to return to the Union during his inaugural address. Lincoln clearly articulates his determination to preserve the Union. Slavery is not the way to preserve the Union in 1861.
Lincoln writes the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862 with the hopes of enticing Southern states back into the Union and allowing them to keep their slaves if they rejoin the Union. The Proclamation goes into effect January 1, 1863 – with no real teeth as slaves are still property and Southern Slave owners need not listen to Lincoln until Union troops pass by their plantations
Yes, slavery is a reason attached to a number of events that help bring about the Civil War (Compromise of 1820, Compromise of 1850, Dred Scott, Bleeding Kansas…) but slavery is not a main force in Lincoln’s decision to enter the Civil war. He wanted to preserve the Union. It is during the war that the freeing of the slaves becomes a major factor.
Oh, and one more addition, Lincoln did not own slaves. I cannot say it simpler than this.
During the Civil War, Lincoln clarified his position on the war and slavery. “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not to either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also so that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.”
reasons of the civil war
-slavery (was not as big of an issue that people think)
-sectionalism
-taxation
-states rights
Those who think slavery was an issue in the civil war simply need to read the Emancipation Proclamation. First note, the war started in 1861. The Emancipation Proclamation was issued in late 1862. It only freed the slaves in those states that were members of the confederacy, NOT slave states that had joined the union, and it exempted parts of Virginia that were siding with the Union. Tennesse was joining back with the union so it was exempt. New Orleans was exempt. Hardly anyone owned slaves there but it was a major market place for trading slaves. Doesn’t sound that Lincoln was that serious about stopping slavery. Any of the states that left the confederacy and joined the union, were to be allowed to keep their slaves.
There were a couple of reasons for Lincoln issuing it. The war was not that popular up north. Making slavery an issue gave him a “cause” and improved his support. The main reason though was that the south was winning at that point. England was financing them. England had outlawed slavery. Issuing the proclamation put England in a bad political position making them look as though they were supporting slavery, so they cut funding to the confederacy. That was the turn in the war. We would have won otherwise.
you state that thomas jefferson was not present during the signing of the US constitution…where did you get your source?
I am an eight grader, moving on to ninth next year, and even I am completely aware of the causes of the civil war. Slavery was a portion of it, but you can’t avoid to think about the fact that the Southerners felt they were being controlled(they supported states’ rights), and that even though the first shots were by a confederate you have to understand that the fort was in Southern land. Think about it for a second…what were Union soldiers doing on Southern land? The South had taken a defensive position in the war. If shots were fired it was only because Union soldiers were to attack. I’d appreciate it if people would stop making comments knowing they are clearly either misinformed, or just not stating the contrary arguments to persuade people into believing what you’ve written.
this is very helpful…thank you8 4 everything!
David (#32) thank you for that
To back up his info:
*The 1860 census records show that only 25% of southerners owned any slaves at all? 7/10 of 1% owned over 50 slaves, and 1/10 of 1% owned over 200. Beyond that, only 2.5% of the 4 million slaves of the south actually worked on plantations.
in August, 1861 (after the war had started mind you), General John C Fremont officially ordered that slaves in his military district be freed. Lincoln demanded that he rescind this “emancipation proclamation” (if you will). When Fremont refused, Lincoln removed him from office and revoked the proclamation.
On April 25, 1862, Union General David Hunter, commander of the district based at Port Royal, South Carolina (covering S.C. Georgia and Florida), declared slaves in those states “forever free.” Lincoln revoked the orders and wrote that he would only free the slaves if it became “a necessity indispensable to the maintenance of the Government.”
March 4, 1861 - Lincoln’s inaugural address: “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…the power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government, and to collect the duties and imports; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.”
Slavery played a part in the war between the states, but not the type of role most hear about.
Im 14 and in 8th grade.
Heres what we learned
North South
Big cities Population Small towns
Industry Economy Agriculture
Liberal Attutude Traditional
Catholic Religion Protestant
Diversity Ethnic Same Ethnic Groups
Slaves Bad Slavery Slaves Good
Strong Gov’t Polities State Capitols
1. North changes
2. Land out west
3. Rise of slavery
The south began to need slaves for farming labor, social system, and cotton gin
Keep the Union thats was Abe’s purpose for the war. Slavery can as a by product to put more pressure on the South for internal fears. Slavery could exist if Abe had to have it, he wanted to keep the Union at all cost. He felt that a inventions grew it would be only a matter of time till machine replaced the slaves in the south. Slavery would drain the economy of the south and they would be ended by the south on it’s own.
Abe’s purpose for the war was to stisfy the wants of the american pulic and to save the US from economic downfall of a split nation, and to save his own butt.
guys,
I am 14 and in 9th grade and i can see how, even after the war this issue still contenues to rip us apart! There were so many issues that caused the civil war that we looked for one common, evil thing to blame the war on. that minor issue was slavery. “slavery” was not even the acctual issue! It was the mistreatment of humans. In middle school i was taught that slavery was the ONLY cause of the war. As I read more and more books i saw that this was not the case. Slavery was the focus but not the main cause. Please if you are going to post somthing check your facts first? please?
~Ivy
Nice Ivy
Haha,
yep..this argument is pretty much over..
the 5 main causes are posted..we dont need to argue about it any longer..it is tha past.
Its not that people are wrong about the causes..its that they see it through their own eyes. We dont all agree with what everyone says, but we need to just suck it up and read between the lines..and find our own meaning.
There were causes of the civil war. We all pretty much know them. So why dont we just get over this..Honestly. It’s stupid, we are all right. just different perspectives
the civil war waz really caused over state rights i believe… everything else (like slavery) waz an issue that revolved around state rights.
after reading much i would say that the civil war was caused by state rights ….. all the other issues REVOLVED around that main reason (slavery for instance) the confederate states wanted the right to allow slavery and union wanted federal government…….
as someone said before u have to go deeper than deep in history
If Darrell and alex are correct then why Did the South Abolish the Slave Trade before the Union? Mar 11th 1861, although they kept slaves they Abolished the import of slaves 4 years before the North 12-18-1865. The Emancipation Proclomation was strategy of War.
I am the author of Rebels of the North, How Land Policy Caused the Civil War. The cause was not slavery, states rights, save the union, etc. but what to do with the western land.
The cause of the Civil war was not slavery, but what to do with the western land. The western land was there for the taking. The population was rapidly expanding. The South was dominated by aristocratic interest that owned slaves, The North had industry, but it also had farms. The South grew cotton. The north grew, corn, hay, oats, and wheat.
In the north the idea of giving land to the people that cleared and worked the land was not new. It started in Colonial New England. In New York the aristocrats owned most of the land and used feudal leases and lived a life of ease. Giving land free to new settlers was not in their interest. This clash of the two northern cultures started because of a border dispute. Colonial New York claimed all the land east to the Connecticut River, while Colonial Massachusetts claimed their land extended to the Hudson River. When Massachusetts started expanding west it was giving 100 acres free to new settlers. By 1750 they were giving title to land that was already under leas on Livingston and Rensselaer Manor. This lead to what became know as the Anti-Rent War. This dispute changed land policy in New York and the small farmers emerged as a political power.
The Southern aristocrats interest was not served buy giving land free to new settlers. . When the Homestead Act was proposed that gave a quarter section of 160 acres to new settlers they opposed it. They looked at homesteaders as no better than squatters. They had no intention of living on the land and doing all the work themselves. They favored selling the western land by the 640 acre section and keeping it open to slavery. .
The matter came to a head under President Buchanan. A Homestead Act passed Congress, but Buchanan, a Democrat, vetoed it hoping to hold the South that had other demands as well. Up until that time the farmer of the North voted Democratic because of Andrew Jackson. In the election of 1860 the Democratic Party split with Steven Douglas ruining in the North against Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln proposed a homestead act and was against opining up the west to slavery. Douglas’s platform was more favorable to the South. Douglas won New Jersey and Lincoln took ever other northern state and won the election with about 40% of the vote. The difference was the farm vote. The farmers were not opposed to slavery as long as they did not have to compete with them on the new western land. Bell and Breckinridge divided the southern vote with a combined total of about 30%, about the same as Douglas. Lincoln easily won in the Electoral Collage 59% of the votes. Lincoln signed the Homestead act in 186
I wrote Rebels of the North, How Land Policy Caused the Civil War.
The cause of the Civil war was not slavery, but what to do with the western land. The western land was there for the taking. The population was rapidly expanding. The South was dominated by aristocratic interest that owned slaves, The North had industry, but it also had farms. The South grew cotton. The north grew, corn, hay, oats, and wheat.
In the north the idea of giving land to the people that cleared and worked the land was not new. It started in Colonial New England. In New York the aristocrats owned most of the land and used feudal leases and lived a life of ease. Giving land free to new settlers was not in their interest. This clash of the two northern cultures started because of a border dispute. Colonial New York claimed all the land east to the Connecticut River, while Colonial Massachusetts claimed their land extended to the Hudson River. When Massachusetts started expanding west it was giving 100 acres free to new settlers. By 1750 they were giving title to land that was already under leas on Livingston and Rensselaer Manor. This lead to what became know as the Anti-Rent War. This dispute changed land policy in New York and the small farmers emerged as a political power.
The Southern aristocrats interest was not served buy giving land free to new settlers. . When the Homestead Act was proposed that gave a quarter section of 160 acres to new settlers they opposed it. They looked at homesteaders as no better than squatters. They had no intention of living on the land and doing all the work themselves. They favored selling the western land by the 640 acre section and keeping it open to slavery. .
The matter came to a head under President Buchanan. A Homestead Act passed Congress, but Buchanan, a Democrat, vetoed it hoping to hold the South that had other demands as well. Up until that time the farmer of the North voted Democratic because of Andrew Jackson. In the election of 1860 the Democratic Party split with Steven Douglas ruining in the North against Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln proposed a homestead act and was against opining up the west to slavery. Douglas’s platform was more favorable to the South. Douglas won New Jersey and Lincoln took ever other northern state and won the election with about 40% of the vote. The difference was the farm vote. The farmers were not opposed to slavery as long as they did not have to compete with them on the new western land. Bell and Breckinridge divided the southern vote with a combined total of about 30%, about the same as Douglas. Lincoln easily won in the Electoral Collage 59% of the votes. Lincoln signed the Homestead act in 186
I still think slavery was a secondary reason at best. One thing I have not seen any comments on. Why has no one commented on the confederate emacipation plan for the slaves? It was proposed by Duncan Kenner [Kenner la. ascension parrish] He was rebuffed in 1861 by Jefferson Davis because there were too many other things going on, but was called into Jefferson Davis office in 1864 to discuss the enaction and planning of the emancipation in return of recognition from France and England for the CSA. [GOOGLE ‘DUNCAN KENNER’S SECRET MISSION] i THINK IT MAY STILL BE POSTED SOMEWHERE.SORRY ABOUT THE CAPS I CAN’T SEEM TO GET THE DAMNED THING UNSTUCK!!!!! LOL
One more thing everyone here may find of interest. Check out ‘’the 2 just wars'’ a lecture By the nobel prize winning economist Murray Rothbard. If you agree with him or not, I’m sure some of the content will be very enlightening.
Keep the Union thats was Abe’s purpose for the war. Slavery can as a by product to put more pressure on the South for internal fears. Slavery could exist if Abe had to have it, he wanted to keep the Union at all cost. He felt that a inventions grew it would be only a matter of time till machine replaced the slaves in the south. Slavery would drain the economy of the south and they would be ended by the south on it’s own.
Slavery was the excuse to get the War started. How bad would Lincoln look to start a war to inslave the southerners? The real reason for what he did. There had to be a good excuse to achieve what he wanted to do and slavery gave him the excuse. Because most slaves in the south were white anyway. Always in history we have learned to win you first must make the opposing side look like the enemy of mankind.
GET REAL!!!!!! Clinton bombed the heck out of Serbia for their refusal to give up states and Lincoln bombarded the South for their refusal to accept Northern tariffs. Slavery is and was evil but has very little to do with the secession movement. Lincoln was no great progressive as the African Americans have been led to believe but a man hell bent on forcing his will on southern states no matter that the cost was over half million dead and the progressives go crazy over 4000 in Iraq. Lincoln was a pig, pure and simple.