Concise Analysis of the Causes of the Civil War

gprussian · Corporal Joined: 24 Feb 2008 Posts: 2

Military history graduate student provides concise analysis of the causes of the American Civil War.

http://wigwags.wordpress.com/popular-series/exploring-causes-of-the-civil-war/

Exploring Causes of the Civil War

Part I: Introduction
Part II: Antebellum America
Part III: The Antebellum South
Part IV: The Antebellum North
Part V: The Rise of Sectional Disputes
Part VI: The Contribution of Constitutional Ambiguity
Part VII: Political Discord, Slavery, and the Fight for Political Control
Part VIII: The Influence of the Individual
Part IX: The Debate Over the War’s Inevitability

kevin · First Sergeant Joined: 19 May 2005 Posts: 31

Cache the other reasons as you like, but the fact remains slavery was the underlying cause of the Civil War.

One can argue states rights were violated. This is true. It was a constitutional issue. However, the states rights in question nearly always revolved around slavery. The right to own a slave, the right to return a slave, the right for a slave to be considered property when trasported across state lines, etc.

I would welcome anyone who can make a clear and concise arguement for other causes of the Civil War. I ask that if you do, please explain why that cause is not tied to slavery as an underlying or even contributing issue.

O'Bruadair · Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:53 pm Post subject:

“the fact remains slavery was the underlying cause of the Civil War”

You perhaps might possibly make a semi-plausible sounding argument (but even this would be wrong) that the primary cause of secession (of the original 7 States of the Confederacy) was slavery, but the war?

Horse feathers.

If you really believe that I have some ocean front property in Arizona I would like to sell you.

The war (and the secession of the remaining 4 States) was caused by only one thing; the naked aggression and out and out acts of war by Lincoln and his administration. Had freedom for the slaves been even a consideration for them then the easiest and surest way to obtain that goal would have been to let the 7 secede in peace. Had the 35th parallel become an international border the slaves in the Deep South would very quickly become worthless (any of them that could walk or run, anyway. It’s pretty easy to walk across an imaginary line on a map and if the north was a separate nation then they would be under no obligation to return runaways)

Lincoln needed a war in order to have an excuse to institute his policies of consolidation of power in the hands of the federal government and high tariffs for the support of those that elected him.

He got what he wanted.

I guess I might be charitable enough to say he may have hesitated had he known what the cost in blood and treasure was going to be, but I frankly doubt it.

kevin · First Sergeant Joined: 19 May 2005 Posts: 31

There really are two questions when looking at the cause of the war. Was slavery a factor? Certainly.

I have to disagree that out and out agression by the North was the cause, seeing that the South fired the first shot. If by agression you mean legislation, or presumed legislation, then I have to agree.

The legislation in question of course was dealing with the issue of slavery, or the right of a state to determine it's course in deciding whether slavery was legal or not within it's boundaries.

It is extremely myopic to think slavery was not therefore an underlying issue behind the cause of the war. Slavery was a motivating factor for most who fought on the side of the North. Not necessarily the politicians who drove the war, but those who fought the war.

Likewise, slavery was NOT the motivating factor for most of those who fought on the side of the South. Most southerners were not slave owners and most southern soldiers were not slave owners. I believe they were fighting for freedom more than anything else. Infact, Robert E. Lee was not a proponent of slavery.

It is probably this dychotomy of motivation which leads to the current day arguments. Those from the South understand their reasons for secession and what motivated their ancestors to fight. Those from the North have been taught something different.

The United States were founded as individual nation states banding together for common defense. In short order, those states gave certain rights to a central, federal goverment - a common currency, for instance. Within 70 years that federal government was exerting enough power over the states that the Southern states saw a threat to their sovereignty. And they were right.

The issue that brought it to a head was slavery. There were others issues certainly, however it was this singular issue that forced the hand of the "State's Rights" advocates. It was Lincoln's steadfast determination to not allow a State to depart the union which meant war.

What were Lincoln's motivating factors? What were those of the Congressmen who voted for war?

I do not believe they were the same in every case. Some saw slavery as non-negotiable - such as Salmon Chase and quite likely Lincoln. Others were more interested in maintaining the wealth of the nation (once again, Lincoln) and fearful of the claim to western territories that would arise if two countries were vying for the same lands west of the Mississippi.

By Northern agression are you referring to the fact the North resisted the Southern effort to simply leave the union peacefully, or to the Northen politics that swept Lincoln into office?

O'Bruadair · Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:44 pm Post subject:

“………seeing that the South fired the first shot”

Same tired old bogus argument.

It’s disingenuous and just will not stand up to a modicum of logic. South Carolina seceded (legally and peacefully) on 20 December 1860. From that point on any US troops within the borders of the State constituted an occupation force belonging to a hostile and aggressive foreign power. South Carolina and later the CS government showed great restraint in waiting four months to mount a full scale bombardment of Sumter.

Sumter was not even the first shot. The actual “first shot” was fired in Charleston harbour on 9 January 1861 when a warning shot was fired “across the bow” of the “Star of the West” (a US supply ship attempting to re-supply Sumter.) The ship continued on its course and was again fired on and struck twice at which point she turned and sailed out of the harbour. Naturally one has to ask why the war did not begin at that time. The answer is very simple. Lincoln had not been inaugurated and Buchanan chose not to start a war.

Lincoln on the other hand chose to attempt to not only re-supply but also reinforce Sumter and other posts in the South. This was a blatant and very deliberate act of war. The Confederacy chose to defend its self as Lincoln most certainly new She would. He certainly knew that the CS had not hesitated to fire on invading US forces the previous January so why would they have acted any different when a larger and more dangerous attempt was made in April?

Lincoln very deliberately chose to start a war that could have easily been avoided.

Again, you can argue that slavery was the primary cause of secession of the first seven States but the cause of the war is not in doubt.

The war started because Lincoln very deliberately chose to start it.

bob_rx2000 · Corporal Joined: 21 Mar 2008 Posts: 2

In my perhaps simple way, I rather think that slavery was the basic cause of the American Civil War. Sure, lots of tactical things are involved, but slavery was the issue. I had the pleasure of seeing Shelby Foote about 10 years ago at a literary convention, and he made the roughly the same argument that I espouse.

Essentially, all of the other issues that "caused the war" were settled by political processes after the war ended. They have changed over time too, as the economic and social conditions changed. Only slavery couldn't be handled through normal politics.

I've donned my asbestos underwear for this one, so flame away!

Leon · Sergeant Joined: 12 Apr 2008 Posts: 14 Location: London

Perhaps the question of slavery and its expansion did cause secession, but secession did not necessarily mean war. That's why there were so many attempts to reach a compromise.