"The main cause of the American civil war was undeniably slavery". Assess the accuracy of this opinion on the causes of the outbreak of the American civil war.

Josef Hrastelj

“The main cause of the American civil war was undeniably slavery”. Assess the accuracy of this opinion on the causes of the outbreak of the American civil war.

There has been endless debate over the causation of the American civil war. Many different types of historians have argued for and against slavery being the main cause. Elbert B. Smith wrote, “Slavery worked itself into a constitutional dilemma and became a symbol of disunion which must be destroyed for the salvation of America itself”. Other than Slavery there was also sectionalism, politics (which includes the original constitution), abolitionists, and Westward expansion. These have all been argued for main importance. Was sectionalism the product of slavery or did sectionalism go deeper rooted into American society?

Slavery was undeniably at the heart of sectionalism. Slavery divided the two sections. Slavery was the most clear-cut distinction between north and south, it had political, economical, social, moral and ideological ramifications. Alexander Stephens stated that it was the “cornerstone” of the confederacy. Slavery was the main feature for the growth of sectionalism as it directed the sections into accentuating the cultural differences. It led northern and southern people into stereotyping each other; to northerners, southerners were backward and to southerners, northerners were revolutionaries. This slip stream of rumours originated from the giant contrasts in ideology of the northern and southern states. Several historians have argued the relation between the ideology of each north and south and the growth of sectionalism.

E. Foner found hostility towards slavery in the north and also towards expansion through territories. As well he found that northern people were dedicated to their system and values and had full confidence that it was superior. Northerners started to feel stronger about the cessation of slavery and southerners were growing in determination to defend their ‘peculiar institution’. This widened the cultural and ideological gaps during the years leading up to the Civil War.

The economic aspect of slavery was probably the focal argument of pro-slavery southerners. Their argument was that if slavery was taken away then their economy would be massively reduced and not able to survive. This just highlights how deep slavery ran into southern American culture. Howard Zinn states, “It would take either a full-scale rebellion or a full-scale war to end such a deeply entrenched system (slavery)”. Howard Zinn is suggesting that slavery was so deep in southern culture that war was the only possible means of extermination. Only later on when the social and cultural differences were linked to the problem of ‘racial prejudice’ did this problem suddenly become more complex. Indeed, many northerners opposed to slavery were prejudice of Negroes; they wanted land free for white land labour. Although this is a contradiction of views to us in our generation, in that time everyone was racist, it was not a question of ‘are you or are you not racist?’, but it was a question of ‘how racist are you?’ These interpretations can be scrutinised about their validity when trying to determine what caused the Civil War. To decide whether or not slavery would have died out naturally is impossible. To pin it down to one cause like James Ford Rhodes did “…there was one single cause, slavery”, completely ignores many underlying causes of the Civil War.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Westward Expansion had been prevalent since 1778. It started with the Louisiana Purchase. This was when America had just fought and won its independence and was trying to buy back the land countries had taken. The Louisiana territory covered a lot of what we now know as states. This was bought by the U.S in a treaty signed with France. The trouble arose when the issue of slavery came into it. The question was ‘should slavery be permitted?’ This was the first time the constitution had come under real scrutiny. As years went on this question kept arising, in the Missouri Compromise and the annexation of Texas. The Missouri compromise (1820) was the deal that politicians made to equal the balance of slave and Free states. The problem with this compromise was that by its very nature it was going to increase sectional divide because by carving free states out in the north and then slave states in the south, the result was going to be a north-south divide. Also this compromise was not intelligent enough to keep both sides happy. Alan farmer states, “It was the issue of slavery expansion, rather than its mere existence, that polarised the nation”. This endorses the fact that at the time people were compromising over expansion and not its existence. The annexation of Texas was significant because of the dispute that it caused in Congress. When what we call now as Texas applied for annexation, it was met by big opposition in the Senate by northern politicians. The consequences of this treaty caused sectional strains. Texas was big enough to be turned into four or five states and that would tip the balance in favour of slave over Free states. Also in these debates the Senate became increasingly divided between north and south. Westward Expansion increased sectional tension to the point where the north and south were more separated than ever before. This, combined with later events caused a chain reaction which eventually broke into Civil War.

There are many aspects to the sectional crisis that faced America by 1860. By this time the north and south had been extremely polarised by widespread cultural and social differences. The north had experienced enormous urban growth and increased immigration whilst the south was completely bypassed by industrialisation. This social and cultural difference does not sufficiently justify the mass gap of the north and south and eventual Civil War. But this, accompanied by the economical inferiority in the south starts to reveal some reason for the intense friction. Historians have emphasised and some tried to diminish the extent of economical differences in sectionalism. For example B. Collins stated that the economic differences of north and south were minimal if any. Alternatively Charles Beard stated, “The periphery of the industrial vortex of the northeast was daily enlarging…area of virgin soil open to exploitation by planters was diminishing”. He is suggesting here that industry was increasing in the north and agriculture was slowing as a result in the south. Friction increased as the south started to loose grip of the Senate and northern politicians dominated. The differences in agriculture was also massive, Kenneth M. Stampp stated, “Differences in geography, soil, and climate created a different society in the south”. This is true because the land in the north was superior for building industry to the south. But also, land in the south was better for farming. So, in reality, because of these different geographical conditions the south developed into a society with different and distinct culture. Sectionalism encompasses a massive difference economically, socially, and agriculturally, it is from these reasons that it can be suggested that sectionalism was very important in the causation of the civil war. Although it is also fair to say that whilst these contributed to sectionalism the southern states would not have seceded to these conditions alone.

From the Louisiana Purchase to the beginning of the Civil War, politics was the key to every event. Politics’ connection with slavery goes right back to the beginning and the making of the Constitution. The Constitution never made the ‘slavery issue’ clear. It stated, “all men are created equal”. But it also says that Negroes are only three fifths human. From this Constitution came controversy and confusion. Some historians believe that if the Constitution had been clearer about slavery, then slave states then would have seceded and a Civil War would have ensued. This is the ‘theory of inevitability’ that is entangled within the politics of the time. Some historians have obviously argued against this view. Avery Craven has stated in his book ‘Coming of the Civil War’ “it was a needless disaster”. This is implying that the war was not inevitable. When discussing politics the ‘inevitability’ of the Civil War is highly topical. Some historians have blamed ‘blundering politicians’ as a cause to the Civil War, implying that it was not inevitable. Avery Craven states, “War was the breakdown in the democratic system…caused by the mistakes and failures…of political leaders and opinion makers in both sections”. He suggests that political leaders were not talented enough to deal with the situation at hand.

The Missouri compromise was one of the decisions made by the politicians at the time; this compromise has been investigated fully. Some historians (e.g. Avery O Craven) believe that war could have been avoided if both sides could compromise. Here the blame falls onto the shoulders of the politicians at the time. Their ‘revisionist’ view is that if the politicians were more experienced and generally more intelligent there would have been less political mistakes and better compromises. The Kansas and Nebraska act (1854) changed people’s attitudes towards compromises in the north and south. After the Abandonment of the Missouri compromise protests appeared in the north. This act was the first to cause violence. Northerners and southerners were aroused to such passions that sectional division reached a point that precluded reconciliation. In 1846, Dred Scott and his wife Harriet filed suit for their freedom in the St. Louis Circuit Court. This suit began an eleven-year legal fight that ended in the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued a landmark decision declaring that Scott remains a slave. This case increased sectionalism between north and south because the northern anti-slave fighters saw it as slavery spreading. After this event the southern extremists began to demand a change in the congressional law of the 14th amendment. Another historical legend for wrong or right reasons is Abraham Lincoln. His debates with Stephen A. Douglas were in a campaign for one of Illinois’ two United States senate seats. Although Lincoln lost this campaign he had grown into a national figure. These debates were described by some as the arguments between north and south formulated into two people. These debates were made public throughout America and this meant that sectional tension increased. This because the people in north and south thought of Lincoln as the voice of the north and Douglas as the voice of the south. In these debates Lincoln stated, “I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free”. This pressed the idea that only one system could succeed. More than anything it increased sectional divide by raising the idea of Civil War.

Another aspect to consider when calculating the causes of the American civil war are the Abolitionists and their influence over politicians and the public. Abolitionist movements rose in 1830’s. They were led by men such as William Lloyd Garrison and John Brown. Garrison was the founder of ‘the liberator’ a newspaper spreading distrust of the south plantation owners. This incited southerners to be more active in spreading slavery and northerners in destroying it. On the whole abolitionists worsened the situation leading up to eventual Civil War; there were ‘Fire eaters’ on both sides. John Brown was a definite ‘Fire eater’. One episode that was incredibly important in the trigger of Civil War was; John Brown’s raid. Brown’s effort to make a slave revolt ended in lynching for the blacks of the south. This heightened tension inside and outside Congress; they had fear of a slave revolution. The increasing paranoia meant that all northern policies got declined, the excuse “favouring the north over the south”. (Alan Farmer) A quote from a newspaper at the time, “The Harper’s ferry invasion has advanced the cause of disunion more than any other event has…since the formation of…government”. The event heightened paranoia and increased tension until one ignition would cause civil war. This cause was not mainly over slavery itself, but over the politics of slavery.

The final blow came when Abraham Lincoln was elected as the first Republican President of the United States. It was the last straw for the south and precipitated a secession crisis with the ‘deep south’ states deciding immediately to leave the Union, followed later by the other southern states to form the confederacy under the leadership of Jefferson Davies. Civil War had begun.

In conclusion, there is no doubt that slavery played a massive role in the causation of the civil war. It does not seem that slavery is the singular reason for war. Sectionalism played an important role, the differences in soil, climate and culture suggested from the start that something would polarise them. The politicians at the time were trying to fight an impossible battle to save the country from war; if it was not slavery then something else would have separated them. Although slavery made the battle in politics more intense, it was not the singular cause. Slavery caused the sectionalism but politics pushed America into civil war

Word count: 2,142

References