Although the American Civil War started after the Confederate States seceded from the Union and fired upon the American flag, was slavery the true cause of the War? If so, how?

Authors Avatar

Word Count: 3,409

Although the American Civil War started after the Confederate States seceded from the Union and fired upon the American flag, was slavery the true cause of the War? If so, how?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal”! The irony of the statement mentioned in the 1776 Declaration of Independence is which echoes the rallying cries of the anti-slavery protesters that campaigned for the abolition of slavery in the 19th Century.

When we look at the build up to the America Civil War, it is evident that there was one recurring argument that unmistakably divided the Northern states from the South. That is the issue of slavery, the North maintaining the consensus view that slavery was inhumane and therefore should be abolished. And the South argued that slavery was essential to Southern prosperity and should be expanded. This division in the United States culminated in the Confederate states seceding from the Union and declaring Civil War. Historians have often battled with what the true causes of the war were. Alan Farmer introduces this argument in The origins of the American Civil War, as he states that around the time there were many terms used to refer to the American Civil War some of which being ‘The War for Slavery’, ‘The War for Nationality’, ‘The War for Southern Independence’ and ‘The Confederate War’. Overlooking the question of which name is most appropriate for the Civil war, it could be concluded that each connotation offers a different explanation of what the struggle was about. Which brings us to the differing historical arguments. Was the Civil War a result of the slavery issue or where other contributing factors really to blame?

Ultimately, historians can generally agree that the North and South of America were deeply divided, especially in the attitudes towards slavery. For this reason, many historians use this to argue that the Civil War was irrepressible. Such a view on the origins of the Civil War may have been accepted by Abraham Lincoln, who said weeks before his death, that he believed ‘somehow’ that slavery was responsible for the start of the war. 

There is no denying the fact that the issue of slavery played a crucial role in the build up to the Civil War, how much responsibility it held however is a recurring argument amongst historians. Some suggest that the issue of slavery is the principal one lead Southerners to secede from the Union, others suggest that the divisions that already existed between the two sectors were too strong and that Civil War was an inevitable consequence. This argument is seen as Donald Herbert argues: “Southerners embarked on a course of action that was always likely to lead to war – and a war they were likely to lose.” When we look with hindsight it appears that the Southern politicians blundered into Civil War in 1861. Nevertheless it would be unfair to simply put the blame of war on the Southern politicians. On the whole, politicians corresponded to the vision of their constituents. The nature of thinking in the South differed greatly to that of the North. Farmer argues, “The United States had never been particularly united.” There were rivalries between the older, established states in the East and the newer states in the West. Far more crucial however, were the differences between the South and the North. Farmer adds that: “Rivalries between these two section had existed since the start of the ‘great experiment’.” Some historians often take too lightly the differences between the North and the South, choosing instead to focus on similarities between the two such as; the same language, the shared political system or the same religion. Which was based in Christian values despite differing in denominations such as Presbyterian, Methodist or Baptist. In spite of this, other historians believe that it was the deep social and economic differences between the two sectors that build the foundations for which the Civil War was to be brought on.

Farmer states that Marxist historians argued: “the Civil War was a conflict between a feudal South, still dependant on plantation agriculture, and a capitalist, industrial North.” Charles Beard and other progressive historians upheld such views in the 1920s. However the ‘progressive’ viewpoint of simple, rural southerners taking on the modern and industrialised egalitarian North is far too much of a generalised statement to make. It is important to address that fact that it was not one ‘South’ but many ‘Souths’ encircling several regions, each with different social and economic structures. For example, older, established states such as Virginia had stark differences to that of newer states in the west. And the colloquial term describing the ‘deep south’ was also different to the ‘upper south’. The same stand for the North, much of the north was industrialised, however not all of it was. For this reason it is unfair to define the North wholly as the north and the south wholly as the same. The same could be said for the Civil War, it cannot be simply describes as a South against the North.  

Join now!

It is evident that were we draw comparisons between the Northern and the Southern states in 19th Century American that there were significant differences between the two. In terms of industrialisation, education, society and economy. The North was changing, embracing industrial development, whereas south almost resisted change. The South was rural, and relied on slaves in the plantations. It is also true however that they shared many principles. However their shared commitment to Protestant values had become disruptive rather than a unifying factor. Seeing that the 1840s saw the major Protestant denominations dividing into hostile Southern and Northern branches over ...

This is a preview of the whole essay