To what extent was slavery the key cause of the American Civil War?

well as ‘Bleeding Kansas’ and publishing’s such as Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin were turned into rallying calls, intensifying hatred for slavery and effectively the South who supported such an institution and only seemed to prove, to the north that their, “Slave Power” conspiracy was at work. For the South events such as in Haiti in the 1790’s where slaves who had won their freedom and massacred their owners and Nat Turner’s slave revolt killing 55whites most of which were women and children were used as propaganda to support the idea that slavery must be maintained to control the savage blacks. Such events and publishing’s should not be looked at so lightly as to how much of an effect they had on America socially and politically as Lincoln himself on meeting Stowe is alleged to have said, “so you the little woman who wrote that book that made this great war.” The second great awakening was another major reason as to why a compromise was so difficult. This was the north producing a biblical statement deeming slavery a moral sin, which the south then responded to by producing their statement, justifying slavery, claiming that the south was educating the blacks by taking them out of their own, “barbaric land and introducing then to a civilised society.” Eugene Genovese was another who argued that slavery was not as immoral as the north may see it and that the south was a “historically unique paternalist society” where although it maintained white supremacy slaves and their owners lived together and shared a cultural experience and that southern slavery was more humane and the “slavery” of the northern factory workers living in the slums of northern cities. As the issue of slavery could not be solved democratically or peacefully it led an emergence of more extreme groups and movements. One major one was the anti slavery, abolitionist movement, which had been in existence for a while but only gained supports in times of extreme tension and when sectionalism at its highest. For the first 3 decades of the nineteenth century it was thought by the group that a gradual emancipation of slaves was the way to deal with slavery and slaves should be encouraged to return to Africa. However of the 10,000 who were returned to Liberia, (west coast of Africa) in the same period the slave population increased by 2 million and of the 8million people in the south 4million were slaves (1860). The movement didn’t gain much support until the 1830s. One reason is due to hey figures such as Frederick Douglass and particularly William Lloyd garrison. The successes of this movement must not be exaggerated, as it was well known that even though against slavery many northerners were just as racist as southern states, even more racist according to Alexander De Tocqueville. The northerners also generally hated abolitionists because they feared how the massive influx of freed slaves would affect the northern economy. Obviously the south hated abolitionists and this further separated the North and South.The propaganda and conflicting arguments surrounding this polarised debate made a compromise almost impossible with neither side, North or South willing to back down to their cause we can only say that slavery and the tensions it caused was definitely a fundamental cause to the Civil War. Westward expansion and the indefinite compromises surrounding the issue was another major cause of tension between the north and south and undoubtedly increased sectional tension, making it an important factor to consider when talking about causes of the civil war. The blame for such problems can be placed on a number of people, not least the founding fathers who did not deal with the issue of slavery in the constitutional convention in 1787, which then became a long term cause of dispute. As America’s population grew and spread westwards new states that wanted join the union, before they could do so had to decide whether or not the state would be free or slave. Neither North nor South wanted to be outnumbered in Pro vs Anti slavery population and not least in the senate so as America began to expand westwards a series of compromises to balance slavery were set up. The Missouri compromise of 1820 highlighted the predicament perfectly. Missouri had reached the required population size to apply for statehood. Before 1820 the balance in the senate between slave and free states was even so when Missouri applied to join the union as a slave state favouring the south, the free states (north) opposed its admittance into the union, which triggered a series of enraged debate between the North and South. The Missouri Compromise stated that Missouri would be admitted as a slave state but to balance it out Maine was to be entered as a free state. It was also agreed that slavery was prohibited north of the 36.30’ line. Henry Clay’s solution merely postponed a conflict of greater magnitude until a later date. Tension was eased in the short term but as James M. McPherson said, “This only postponed the crisis”. A further dilemma arose after the Texan War in 1835. Texas now applying to become a state in America and was big enough to be divided into 5 separate states. The north vigorously opposed the idea of Texas joining the union, as they feared it would spread slavery and as a result tilt the balance between pro and anti-slavery within the senate. Texas was finally after almost 10 years of being put aside admitted as a single state in 1845 as a slave state. The north strongly opposed such a decision and it lead to an increase in sectionalism and fuelled hatred for the south and its slavery and spurred on abolitionists. Matters were by no means solved later in the 1850s either. America desperately needed a period of stability and calm. Though at the time Clays 1850 compromise seemed to solve all the problems concerned with the territory gained from Mexico in 1848, we can see that the final bill (Douglass modified it to appeal to both sides) only alienated the people and made opinion between north and south even more polarised. The north felt that congress had surrendered to southern threats and the south felt all they had achieved was their Fugitive Slave Act, part of the compromise. The decade that followed only worsened relations. One major event involved with western expansion in the 1850s that worsened relations into the downward spiral towards civil war was the passing of the Kansas-Nebraska bill in 1854. Stephen Douglass, chairman of the senate committee on Territories, believed popular sovereignty was the right way to decide whether the territory was to become slave or free state; let Kansas-Nebraska decide its own fate. He believed this would avoid a serious dispute but he was greatly mistaken. As the territory lay above the 36,30’ line, set out back in 1820 in the Missouri Compromise, the north saw it as proof of their ‘slave power conspiracy.’ They believed slavery and its expansion was abolished above this latitude. The consequences of his miscalculation were momentous, socially the divide polarised completely and it was sectionalised in congress too. In may 1954 when it became law 90% of the south voted for it and 64% against it. The only positive thing that came out of the Act was that civil war did not break out though it is worth mentioning there was a mini civil war, which was contained to, ’Bleeding Kansas’ You can see how western expansion caused a strong divide between North and South and simply fuelled hatred for one and other. The Missouri Compromise, 1850 compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 all delayed really, as long slavery existed, an inevitable face to face to solve the issue. As more and more vague, unpopular comprises were made civil war seemed more and more likely to be the only way to solve sectional problems in America. It definitely contributed as motive to go to war.There were also other fundamental differences that caused tension between the North and the South, perhaps contributing to civil war. The ever growing differences in their economies a major one. William Seward said in 1858 that, ‘the social systems of slave labour and free labour were incompatible.’ The north was modernising and industrialising all the time. This was due to western expansion, immigration and urbanisation. By 1859 the north had twice as much railway track and skilled workforce. The north wasn’t any more egalitarian than the south. Around 1850 the wealthiest 10% of northerners owned 68% of the wealth. But it was much more industrial, between 1800 and 1860 the percentage of labour force in agriculture dropped from 68% to 40% compared with southern states who dropped from 82% to 81%. The north was certainly much more urban too. In northern states by 1850 1 in 4 northerners lived in cities and only 1 in 14 southerners lived in cities. This was because the south was more backward, agricultural and traditional. The south was said to be, “an attitude of mind.” They felt they were different, that they had developed a distinct civilisation, which was culturally different from that of other Americans. The south resented the north for a variety of different reasons. They were angry about tariffs: they argued that it benefited Northern industrialists at the expense of the southern farmers. They also did not like the fact that really they were dependent on the north to market and transport their produce. Their ‘King cotton’ whilst being strong could actually be rendered unstable if something went wrong such as a bad harvest, a one-crop state. The north was geared towards investing in a modern and progressing America, they wanted the south to be more isolationist rather than trading with Europe. They didn’t like the fact that their money was so tied up in slavery and believed if they co-operated this would help benefit and strengthen America. The economic sectionalism made the north and south feel very different from each other; the fact that the south felt to different certainly gave them reason to succeed so makes the economic divide a point to consider when discussing causes for the civil war.Along with issues already mentioned, particularly slavery, state rights is also a main cause of succession from the Union, therefore a cause for civil war. Jefferson Davies, President of the Confederacy during the Civil War, claimed after the war that the south had fought for state rights rather that to save slavery. The dispute over a federal government or a government at state level arose because of the differences between the north and south. As Northern and Southern patterns of living diverged, their political ideas also developed marked differences. The North needed and wanted a central government to build and improve infrastructure of roads and railways, protect its complex trading and financial interests, and control the national currency, all in the aim of modernising America. The South depended much less on the federal government than in other regions, and Southerners therefore felt no need to strengthen and modernise it; they felt the north were abandoning their traditional values by adopting western European ideas. In addition, Southern patriots feared that a strong central government might interfere with slavery, which was the source of their economy. For these reasons they believed most issues should be solved at state level not national, so people could decide whether states had the right to abolish slavery or not. The issue of state rights became increasingly more important as America expanded westwards. As if the south did not get its own way it believed it was within its rights to succeed from the union. The 10th amendment stated that ‘the powers not delegated to the United States government by the constitution, are reserved for the rights of the states’ allowing succession. As America expanded westwards the role of individuals and agitators became more important as they certainly helped create a feeling of hatred and a bloody future for an unhappy constitution, indeed some argue that one reason as to why crisis lead to War was that there was a complete loss of faith in politicians at a national level. To begin with before the collapse of the old two party system (another reason as to why War occurred) two major agitators representing both ends of the polarised views, not the national followings were David Wilmot and James C. Calhoun. Wilmot proposed slavery should be excluded from any territory gained from Mexico and Calhoun that citizens from every state had the right to take their ‘property’ to any territory, slaves included; these views only increased sectionalism and made a compromise difficult, leaving War the only likely solution. During this period (late 1840’s) individuals such as President James Polk, a slave owner from Tennessee further worsened relations between the north and south. He a true believer of Manifest Destiny, committed himself to western expansion, and promised the annexation of Oregon, California and New Mexico. Even though many southern and western Americans supported the idea, Northerners saw it as an evil plot to spread slavery. In the 1850’s closer to the built up of civil war agitators such as John Brown, a fervent abolitionist have been deemed an important factor in the built up to war. Herman Melville described his raid at Harpers Ferry as, ‘ the meteor of war’ and even at the time Richmond newspaper recognised that, “The Harpers’s ferry invasion has advanced the cause of disunion more that any other event that has happened since the formation of its government.”I would argue that the causes of dispute and succession previous to the Civil War are not necessarily the causes of the war itself, though a cause of dispute none the less. We can recognise there were many problems in America involved with, differences in southern and northern economies, state rights, conspiracy theories and sectional politicians only interested in person gain. However slavery and the expansion of it in the 19th century was the main cause for war. All the other problems in America, socially, politically and economically are all closely linked to slavery in some way. For example the main economic difference between the north and the south was one depended on slave labour the other did not; Where politicians, agitators and conspiracists stirred up emotions was over the issue of slavery and Western expansion was only a problem because it meant the spread of slavery. All the other issues in America are not really causes for war as if slavery had not existed in America then the south would not have felt they had to succeed, preventing civil war.