To what extent was slavery the cause of the American Civil War?
To what extent was slavery the cause of the American Civil War?
Slavery or issues related to slavery and its extension caused sectional conflict for decades preceding the Civil War, with the effect of galvanising the north against the south. Although there was a long history of sectional antagonism; compromise had been reached repeatedly from the Missouri Compromise, to the Nullification Controversy, and finally to the Compromise of 1850. Such compromise became harder to obtain during the 1850s, and in the end the sectional disputes of old were settled on the battlefield instead of being kept within political channels. Thus we must question, when searching for the cause of the civil war, what made these political channels ineffectual where previously they had sufficed. In order to do this we will evaluate the extent to which slavery caused the break up of the 'second party system'1 primarily as this turning point represents the first real break of the political process. We will also examine the causal role slavery played in the secession controversy as well as in the motivation for Lincoln's declaration of war. Without the use of such turning points in our evaluation, we would lose any dynamic view of the sequence of events precipitating the Civil War. Furthermore, slavery will be compared with dialectic materialism, political agitation and states rights in its importance in causing the Civil War. By assessing these different viewpoints through looking at the part they played in the break up of political parties, the secession controversy and the call to war, we should begin to have a good idea of the extent to which slavery was the cause of the Civil War.
We will first examine slavery as a cause for Civil War. Slavery has been blamed for causing the Civil War by a large number of historians from James' Forde Rhodes to Allan Nevins2. To evaluate their standpoint we must start by examining the extent to which slavery brought an end to the 'Second Party system' and brought about sectional parties. Sectional schisms were already appearing at the time of the Missouri compromise in 1820 however it was only in 1848 that a separate liberty party really ruptured the old two party system. The liberty party attracted conscience Whigs and barnburner democrats to a conclave backing van Buren's candidacy for the presidential election.3 These splits were exacerbated when the vote on the 1850 compromise over slavery extension resulted in 'divisions mainly...along sectional rather than party lines'4. However, although slavery had an indubitable effect in causing political antagonism it does not quite explain why the ruptures happened when they did. One historian, Michael Holt explains the break as a product of 'the growing congruence between the old parties on almost all issues by the early1850's'5, 'there were [simply] no issues'6. Parties found it far harder to mobilise support, when there were few issues with which to differentiate between them. Consequentially, many lost faith in the political establishment as a place that offered true choice. What further exacerbated the old party lines, especially in the north was the 'anti liquor, anti catholic, and anti immigrant sentiment'7, which weakened the Whig party nearly completely out of existence. Thus consensual politics can be deemed as the cause of the break up of parties. Slavery had little to do with the break in the political system, although when the next controversy over slavery extension erupted in 1854, it provided a basis for new sectional parties.
It is necessary to examine the extent to which slavery caused the seven southern states to secede in 1861 following the election of Abraham Lincoln. 'The normal answer to these questions is that southerners regarded the Republicans as a threat to black slavery and seceded to protect it'8. Slavery had the potential for causing secession as it generated mass support amongst non-slaveholders who saw it as a means of social control9 as well as a necessary instrument for the defence of white supremacy10. Those who would not toe the line were subject to proscription and coercion11. Thus any threat to the institution would not be met with flexibility regardless of the fact that the Republicans neither had an effective majority in Congress to pass abolitionist policies, nor had pledged abolitionism in their platform. Slavery seemed in jeopardy to the whole south on a number of levels, concerning not solely the slaveholders. The primary threat apart from fears of aboilition was that 'a republican administration could shatter the unity of the southern defence of slavery by building up an antislavery Republican party within the south on the basis of federal patronage'12. Secondly there were fears, especially in the north that the election victory portended 'repeal of the fugitive slave laws'13. This portended dissolution of the already waning 'peculiar institution' in the upper south where slaves could easily run across the border. Thirdly the republican denial of slavery extension heralded the institution's decline from the south's point of view. However, if the fear for slavery's existence caused the states to secede, why only the lower south? Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri and Arkansas all had slavery and yet didn't secede. Some may explain this discrepancy due to the higher proportion of slaves in the lower south leading to the conclusion that the inhabitants were more responsive to calls from 'fire eaters'14 than upper southerners who were accustomed to the declining proportions of slaves. The problem with such explanations is that in such states as Missouri which did not secede, proponents of slavery had been as popular and vociferous if not more than the deeper southern counterparts especially throughout the Kansas Nebraska controversy. Moreover 'it is not clear that those who refused to secede were any less committed to slavery than those who did secede'15. In short secessionist sentiment was not proportional to slavery support. Quite simply there must have been other factors that can explain the why the lower south seceded and the upper south did not. Slavery however remains a prominent factor of secession. The fact that secession was such a major turning point illustrates the relative importance of slavery as a cause for war.
Evaluating the extent to which slavery caused Lincoln's call to war it seems hard to believe that slavery abolition was Lincoln's direct motive. Such a rationale opposed his whole platform as well as all his later claims that he had gone to war not to free the Negro but to save the union. Still the numerous failed opportunities of compromise over the issue of slavery extension in Congress following the south's call to secede on November 6, 1860 give the impression that war was over slavery. The problem with this interpretation is that although 'all the efforts at compromise in Congress dealt with the issue of slavery and only obliquely with the problem of secession...the secession crisis...was a crisis over secession and not in any direct way, over slavery'16. When the most important measure for compromise, the Crittenden Omnibus was voted in the Senate it lost 25-23 with those senators from the 7 states that had seceded or were about to secede, not voting17. The fact that the senators from the lower south weren't even present illustrates that compromise was no longer important to those that seceded. Even if compromise were reached in Congress, it would have meant nothing for the lower south that was now outside the political system. Thus the call to war was essentially in order to stop secession not to attack slavery.
Examining possible economic causes of the Civil War compared with slavery, we will judge their relative importance. Historians such as the Beards and Genovese claim that the differing economies of the North and the South had produced antithetical interests, which were the essence of sectional conflict and eventual war18. It will be necessary to test the thesis; that dialectic materialism was the cause of conflict, by firstly seeing the extent to which it played a causal role in the break up of the second party system. Some historians weakly contest that economic issues galvanised sectional tension however this ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Examining possible economic causes of the Civil War compared with slavery, we will judge their relative importance. Historians such as the Beards and Genovese claim that the differing economies of the North and the South had produced antithetical interests, which were the essence of sectional conflict and eventual war18. It will be necessary to test the thesis; that dialectic materialism was the cause of conflict, by firstly seeing the extent to which it played a causal role in the break up of the second party system. Some historians weakly contest that economic issues galvanised sectional tension however this is not a conclusive proof that this was the cause for the break up of parties19. The fact is economic issues such as tariffs; internal improvements; national banks; and railroads were all issues that had been in fact the basis for party rivalry in the first place, not the force that exacerbated sectional differences20. Holt's interpretation is a complete reversal of the view that economic sectional antagonism caused party fragmentation. He believes that it was in fact the lack of economic issues and the congruence of the two parties that caused their downfall21. Such consensus occurred especially due to the signing of new constitutions many northern states, which 'went far toward permanently resolving or depoliticising the major Jacksonian economic issues of banking, currency and the government's role in the economy'22. It was only when these issues had ceased to be important and the parties were grappling for issues that slavery aided in forming new parties. Thus Economic antagonism was not the cause of the break up of the 'second party system'.
We will now evaluate the extent to which economic divisions caused secession and whether this subordinates the role of slavery. Certain historians have cited the southern fear of economic subordination of their agrarian society to northern industrialism after Lincoln's election as cause of secession 23. Firstly such historians would claim that the election of the Republican Party portended "an unjust system of legislation to promote industry of the New England states at the expense of the people of he south and their industry"24. The problem with this argument is the fact that the republicans did not have a majority in congress to pass such one sided legislation. Secondly they contest that secession occurred from fear in the south that 'slave property must be greatly depreciated'25. However the problem with this explanation for secession is that the lower south, which did secede, and especially South Carolina were against slavery extension anyway as it meant an excess supply of cotton, which diminished the market price for the good. The third argument often used by economic historians was that secession occurred because the south was fed up of being subjected to a northern tariff. This, out of all arguments is weakest as 'The truth is [that] the south almost on mass, ha[d] voted... for every measure of general legislation that has passed both houses and become law in the last 10 years'26. In sum dialectic materialism seems an invalid cause for secession. The claim that conflict arose between agrarianism and industrialism does not account for the fact that purely agricultural states such as Iowa, Illinois, Indiana Wisconsin and Minnesota never threatened to secede27. The difference between these states and those that seceded was the principal that these did not have the institution of slavery .In sum the dialectic antagonism between north and south was merely derived28 and subordinate to the issue of slavery, and thus any part which economics did play in the secession controversy was based on slavery.
We shall examine claims that Economics were Lincoln's motivation for calling war. The rationale behind such claims was that Lincoln, in line with northern sentiment declared war on the basis that secession would be ruinous to the northern economy29. The north was still completely dependent on the south's cotton for clothing while cotton remained by far the biggest export for the United States. However just because it was in the North's economic interest to keep the south within the union there is little evidence that economic benefit was what pushed Lincoln to declare war. Such a motivation is unmentioned it his rhetoric and seems all too superficial a reason when other issues were at stake. Slavery, as shown earlier, had nearly equally little effect on Lincoln's call to war. With respect to dialectic materialism as a cause for Civil war, it therefore seems evident that slavery was not only more important but was also effectively behind any socio-economic differences that existed between the sections.
A large body of historians refute all sectional reasons as causes of the Civil War and prefer to hold political agitators responsible, thereby avoiding the complicated explanations of large social, economic or institutional forces that slavery as a factor may present30. They believe that in fact slavery had little to do with the controversy and that it just proved to be an issue that could be exploited for political gain. The main proponent of this school of though is Randall whose ideas seem to be based on his own experiences when writing of the Second World War. With this in mind his critics may go as far as to claim that his thesis of political agitators being the cause of war issues was anachronistic. Moreover, how can politicians alone be held responsible for bringing two sections to war or at least for inventing sectional antagonism? 'Politicians in fact can successfully politicise only those issues that have real or at least symbolic significance, and then only when external conditions make them relevant to the concerns of their constituents'31. Thus although agitation played a key role in getting moderate voters to stand behind extremist banners historians cannot divorce the agitators from the issues with the aim of showing that the issues had no importance32. Slavery was a real point of antagonism, and not manufactured by political agitators. It remains an important point in the cause of the Civil War.
Although they accept that slavery was a point over which sectional disputes arose, some historians argue that rights essentially caused war33. This transition from an sectional antagonism over slavery to one of rights can generally be seen as a product of the break up of national parties. The logic is that with a northern party bent on abolition, holding an inexorable numerical advantage, the south had to resort to defending slavery extension as a right, as shown by the Dredd Scott decision. Equally the claim that slaves were property meant that southerners, demanding the fugitive slave law be enforced began to defend their position on the basis of rights. Thus because the rights argument is based for the most part on the break up of parties it can hardly be given as causing the end of the 'second party system' itself.
We shall also examine the importance of rights in causing secession. Proponents of the rights argument claim that, when Lincoln won the election on a completely northern ticket, the south rose up in indignation and seceded, as their basic democratic rights of equality and self-government in the union had been broken34. Essentially the decision to secede was based on disillusionment with the American political system as a guardian of the republican ideal35. Secession according to Jefferson Davis in his inaugural address as the Confederate president was in order to escape the "tyranny of the unbridled majority, the most odious and least responsible form of despotism"36. Some may believe that the use of words such as 'tyranny' and 'despotism' are overreactions to Lincoln winning the presidency. However, in the lower south where the Democratic Party had been in power in state legislatures for more than a decade and the northern Republican Party had been portrayed as the only real threat to the south's democratic ideals of self-government the republican victory understandably symbolised final submission37. This was not the same in the upper south due to the fact that a two party system had been maintained, and thus the people were used to the political comings and goings of those elected38. This gives an explanation, if only briefly, for why the lower south seceded before Sumter while the upper south did not. Therefore it seems fair to conclude that a desire to protect their republican rights to equality and self-government were what caused the people of the south to secede, whether moderate non-slaveholder or fire-eating oligarch while also accounting for the discrepancy between upper south and lower south. Slavery as an issue, remained a cause of sectional tension yet was no longer the south's paramount grievance.
We shall now examine the role rights played in Lincoln's call to war. One must not forget that the final call to war was due to the transgressions at Sumter by the southern forces, which may be seen as the final bid for secession. Secession and these attacks could not have been interpreted as a protest against a threat to slavery, or the southern economy, or even the work of mere political agitators. These cannons firing clearly resembled a repudiation of basic republican tenets of union and majority rule. Therefore Lincoln's consequential call to war was to protect, these fundamental rights, which were at the heart of every northerner's 'freedom and equality'39. However, we must beware, that his decision was private and it becomes extremely difficult to arrive at a definite conclusion on something that has little evidence. Nevertheless it seems logical to conclude that Lincoln's call to war was not directly precipitated by slavery.
Some have argued that dialectic materialism was the cause of the war while others may claim that conflict was due to a clash of cultures between north and south. Essentially these possible points of antagonism revolve around the fact that the south had slavery and the north did not. Thus whether labelled as economic, or cultural, sectional antagonism was based directly or indirectly on slavery.
However, sectional antagonism does not alone constitute the sole cause of the Civil War. Such sectional issues had been ongoing but were repeatedly resolved. It was the final manifestation of this disagreement by the press and politicians in both sections as an argument over rights that motivated Civil War. This manifestation was a consequence of consensus politics and the erection of sectional parties replacing the old Whigs and Democrats. From henceforth the stakes were far higher, and the victory of one party was no longer merely the loss of another, but the subordination of a whole section. Slavery was the one issue that incited true sectional conflict and thus can be seen as the underlying cause of the Civil War but not the sole cause. The eventual struggle was over rights.
Bibliography
. P. M. Angle, The Complete Lincoln Douglas Debates of 1858, (The University of Chicago Press, 1991)
2. W. & B. Catton, Two roads to Sumter: Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis and the March to Civil War, (Phoenix Press, 1963)
3. E. Foner; Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men, (Oxford University press, 1970)
4. W. W. Freehling, The Road to Disunion, Secessionists at Bay, (Oxford University press, 1990)
5. M. F. Holt, The political crisis of the 1850's, (Norton, 1983)
6. J. M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom; The American Civil War, (Oxford University Press, published by Penguin books, 1988)
7. D. M. Potter, The Impending Crisis, (Harper Torchbooks, 1976)
8. D. M. Potter, The South and The Sectional Conflict, (Louisiana State University Press, 1968)
9. E. C. Rowzenc, The Causes of the American Civil War, (D. C. Heath and Company, 1972)
0. K. M. Stampp, The Causes of the Civil War, (Touchstone, Simon & Schuster Inc, 1991)
Word Count:
p.1.272
p.3. 227
p.4. 256
p.5. 275
p.6. 277
p.7. 190
p.8. 194
p.9. 236
p.10. 167
p.11. 211
p.12. 280
p.13. 248
Total Word Count: 3,090
The second party system was that which lasted from around the 1820's to around 1854 and included the Democrats who's main ideology was states rights coming from their Jacksonian legacy and the Whigs who stood for a strong central government and were derived from the federalist party.
2 James Ford Rhodes, an influential historian writing in 1913 declared that the civil war was purely due to a 'single cause, slavery' cited by Rowzenc, The Causes of The American Civil War, p. 233.2
Nevins who has written a multi-volume series on the civil war has concluded that essentially 'it was a war over slavery and the future position of the Negro race in North America' cited by Potter, The South and sectional Conflict p. 100.
In a very sincere letter to Alexander Stephen after the election of 1860 Abraham Lincoln seems to confirm both Nevin's and Ford Rhodes view that effectively slavery being the only difference between the south and the North was the eventual cause of war between the two sections. "You think slavery is right and ought to be extended, while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us" cited by Rowzenc, The causes of the Ame4rican Civil War p. 178.
What further enforces this argument is that Alexander Stephens, now vice president of the confederacy, in a speech in savannah, March 21, 1861 claimed that "[slavery] was the immediate cause of the late rupture and the present revolution" cited by Stampp, The cause of The Civil War, p. 152.
3 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom; The American Civil War, 60
4 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom; The American Civil War, 75
5 Holt, The Political Crisis of the 1850's, p. 13
6 Holt, The Political Crisis of the 1850's, p. 127
7 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom; The American Civil War, p. 135
8 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom; The American Civil War, p. 223 and Rowzenc, The Causes of the American Civil War, p. 237 - Rayson and Stephens seem to agree with this interpretation that the republican victory of the election of 1860 'held fateful consequences because it was involved with the issue of slavery, taking authority from a section, which believed slavery moral and healthy, and giving it to a section which held slavery immoral and pernicious'.
9 Holt, The Political Crisis of the 1850's, p. 224
0 Freehling, The Road To Disunion; secessionists at Bay 1776-1854, p.100
1 Potter, The South and The Sectional Conflict, p. 105
2 Holt The Political Crisis of the 1850's, 225,
Charleston Mercury (October 11 1860) description of the southern' abject prostration to abolition rule at Washington, with all the patronage of federal government, and a union organised in the south to support it'. Stamp, The causes of the Civil War, p. 150
3Charleston Mercury (October 11 1860), Stampp, The Causes of the Civil War, p. 150-51
4 Fire -eaters are referred to by most historians as southern extremists bent on secession.
5 Holt The Political Crisis of the 1850's, p. 228
6 Potter, The Impending Crisis p.529
7 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom; The American Civil War, p. 254
8 Karl Marx first inspired this idea of dialectic materialism and certain historians have followed his theory that class struggle explains the causes of conflict by using it to explain the American civil war.
Algie A Simmons, a Marxist historian claimed that the 'war was fought that the capitalist class might rule'18. Stampp, The Causes of the American Civil War, p. 100
Potter, The South and sectional Conflict, p. 118 - Proponents of this view are inclined to believe that south and north clashed in effect because ' one group was bourgeouis while the other, although not feudal was rebourgeious'18.
According to the beards, the 'south ward pressure of the capitalistic glacier'18 only portended an "irrepressible conflict" to quote William Seward. Stampp, The Causes of the American Civil War, p. 96
Other historians such as Barrington Moore and the former jacksonian (potter 196) Francis P Blair expound a similar view of civil war causation. Barrington Moore in The American Civil War, the last capitalist revolution - ' The south wanted a capitalism with fixed hierarchical status; The North wanted a "competitive democratic capitalism"'. Potter, The South and The sectional Conflict, p.116
9 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom; The American Civil War, claims that the 'tariff issue provides an illustration of how political fallout from the depression [certainly] exacerbated sectional tensions'19.
20 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom; The American Civil War, p. 53
21 Holt, The Political Crisis of the 1850's Page 105 - 'it seems safe to say that from the late 1840's on growing numbers of men became disillusioned with the Whig and democratic parties. By the end of 1852, their numbers were significant'. Page 118 in the lower south 'politicians [moderates] and voters were willing to follow them in jettisoning old party names because the traditional economic issues that had long provided rationale for Whig-Democrat rivalry disappeared more quickly there than elsewhere in the south, or at least they were not replaced by other state issues'.
22 Holt, The Political Crisis of the 1850's, page 108. Other reasons may include Page 110 - 'the new availability of private capital [following great British investment in the wake of the European revolutions] helped undermine the entire rationale of the Whig economic program, which had been based on the dearth of capital and the consequent necessity of governmental promotion to achieve economic growth'.
23 Charles A Beard, The Rise of American Civilization cited by Rowzenc, The Causes of the American Civil War, p. 71 illustrates the south cowering in front of a hostile ' capitalistic glacier' that brought down upon them "the free labor system" of the north as a threat to their livelihood.
Stampp A Mississippian exclaimed vehemently that 'now this combined host of [industrial] interests stands arrayed against the agricultural states; and this is the reason of the conflict'. Page 100 - a cause for secession was the huge amounts of debt the south had got itself into completely regardless of the slavery question. 'These debts amounted to something between 200 million and 400 million dollars'. Thus secession was to the advantage of small traders allowing them to immediately repudiate their debts. The attacks of the northern republicans often tended to be focused on the economy of the south or of slavery thus giving a motive for southern agitators to fear the worst for their economy.
Eric Foner, Free soil, Free Labor, Free Men - page 44. Shows how occasionally the Republicans exploited economic issues to the advantage of the north and the disadvantage of the south.
24 C. A and M. R. Beard, The Rise of the American Civilization, II, pp.3-10 cited in Stampp, The Causes of the Civil War, p. 95
25 Charleston Mercury October 11, 1860, cited by Stampp, Causes of the Civil War, p. 151
26Allan Nevins, first volume of Ordeal of the Union cited by Rowzenc, in The Causes of the American Civil War, p. 234
27 An extract from Allan Nevins first volume of a multi-volume history of the American Civil War cited in Rowzenc, The Causes of the American Civil War, p. 235
28Genovese cited by Potter, The south and the Sectional Conflict page 118 - The fact is that slavery was 'an immensely powerful interest'.
McPherson, Battle Cry for Freedom; The American Civil War, page 56 - Slavery became the cornerstone of the southern economy after '1830 as the growing world demand for cotton fastened the tentacles of a booming plantation economy on the south'.
Rowzenc, The Causes of the American Civil War, page 185 - Thus even antagonism over 'lands, internal improvements, tariffs and expansion...sooner or later...became tangled with [the question of ] slavery and from it took new strength with which to wage their battles'.
29 K. Stampp, The Causes of the American Civil War, pages 91and 92
30J. G. Randall, The Blundering Generation, Mississippi Valley Historical Review 27 (June 1940): p.3-28 cited by Rowzenc, The Causes of the American Civil War, p. 172 - when nations stumble into war, or when peoples rub their eyes and find they have been dragged into war, there is at some point a psychopathic case'.
Claude G Bowers, Beveridge and the progressive Era, pp 561 -79, cited by Potter, The South and the Sectional Conflict, p. 93. Beveridge writing in 1920's put forward the idea that slavery had nothing to do with the start of the civil war and that it was merely the fault of Northern abolitionist fanatics.
Potter, The South and the Sectional Conflict, p. 93- Gerald W Johnson of the Baltimore sun published a small interpretative volume on The secession of the southern states. He claimed that 'dogmatic rigid adherence to principle' on the part of both antislavery zealots like Charles Sumner of Massachusetts and doctrinaire legalists like John C Calhoun of south Carolina had caused an unnecessary war in which "everybody was wrong and no one was right"'.
Potter, The South and the Sectional Conflict, p. 97. Potter shows that Randall Writing at the time when the second war was underway he cynically believed it had been politicians fault and that 'it is fallacy to believe that "fundamental motives produce war"'. He stipulated the importance of 'psychopathic factors' (10) (Potter),
Boucher, "That aggressive slavocracy", Mississippi Valley historical Review, VIII (1921, pp. 12-79 cited by Stampp, The Causes of the Civil War, p. 53 - Boucher tries to illustrate the defensive south as the cause of the war. He asks that although many of its actions may seem aggressive ' in most of such instances were they not in the mood of a small boy going down a dark alley whistling as loud as he can to keep up his courage? Just as the boy's whistling is so forced and strained that he hits many false notes, so the boasting of southerners gives one the impression that it was forced, unnatural, not sincere and hence false notes were struck'.
Buchanan, Mr Buchanan's Administration on the Eve of the Rebellion, pp. 9-14, 64. cited by Stampp, The Causes of the Civil War, p.113 'if the fanatics of the north denounced slavery as evil and only evil, and that continually, the fanatics of the south upheld it as fraught with blessings to the slave as well as his master...'
C. W. Ramsdell, The Natural Limits of Slavery Expansion, Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XVI (1929) pp. 151-71 cited by Stampp, The Causes of the Civil War, p. 118 At the time of Douglas' Kansas Nebraska Bill 'Northerner and Southern Politicians and agitators, backed by excited constituents, threw fuel to the flames of sectional antagonism until the country blazed into civil war...'
James G Randall, A Blundering Generation, in Lincoln the Liberal Statesman, pp.36-64 cited by Stampp, The Causes of the Civil War, p. 123 -Randall points out that 'The point is that sweeping generalizations as to 'war causation' are often faulty and distorted'
James G Randall, A Blundering Generation, in Lincoln the Liberal Statesman, pp.36-64 cited by Stampp, The Causes of the Civil War, p. 124 - 'if one word or phrase were selected to account for the war... it would have to be such a word as fanaticism (on both sides), misunderstanding, misrepresentation, or perhaps politics....'.
31 Stampp, The Causes of the Civil War, pp. 180, 161
32 Allan Nevins, The emergence of Lincoln, cited by Stampp, The Causes of the Civil War, pp. 180, "while hysteria was important, we have always to ask what basic reasons made possible the propaganda which aroused it"
33 Rowzenc 179'after years of strife the complex issues between the sections had assumed the form of a conflict between right and rights'
Holt, The political Crisis of the 1850's, p.258 - now 'those clashes [over slavery] in turn increasingly caused the constituents of those politicians to view people in the other section as enemies of their rights, and as they worried about their own rights they shifted their focus away from the institution of black slavery'
34 Holt, The Political Crisis of the 1850's, p. 242
35 "E Pluribus Unum" in James Russell Lowell, Political Essays (New York: 1888), pp. 57-58, 63-64 cited in K. Stampp, The Causes of the American Civil War, p. 191
36 Rowland, ed, Jefferson Davis, Vol. V, p.202 cited by Holt, The political Crisis of the 1850's, p. 243
37 Holt, The political Crisis of the 1850's, p. 231 In short 'there was no institutionalised check on extremism in the lower south'. Consequentially with no opposition party to fear 'fire eaters' needed to focus on the perceived outside threat of the 'black republicans'.
38 Holt, The Political Crisis of the 1850's, p. 255 "in four years from this day December 19 1860, Lincoln and his administration will be turned out, the worst defeated and broken down party that ever came into power. It is an inevitable result from the combination of elements that now exists" (34)
39 Chicago journal April 17 1861 cited by Stampp, The Causes of the Civil War, p. 192 'the southern rebellion has started with the contemptuous denial of the right of the majority rule'
Philadelphia Press - December 21 1860 cited by Stampp, The Causes of the Civil War, Page 189 - 'should the Cotton states go out in a body, we shall then witness the beginning of an experiment to establish, on this continent a slaveholding monarchy'
Holt, The Political Crisis of the 1850's, p. 257 'if the south could reject the results of an election merely because they did not like the victor, then the principle of majority rule that was the only guarantee of the freedom and equality of northerners in the union would be destroyed'
Nicoló Luccini A2 19/12/2007
History Coursework
1
