As a result it can be said that slavery was the economic issue of the nineteenth centaury that divided the political leaders of the land. When the Constitution was adopted and the Union was formed, slavery existed in particularly all the states. The northern states however were going through an industrial revolution and as a result desperately required more labour. The industrialists believed that if the slaves within the south were freed, they would leave the south and provide labour which was required in the north. The political leaders of the south, such as Robert B. Rhett of South Carolina, William L. Yancey of Alabama, recognised that if the south lost their slaves then their entire socio-economic system would probably collapse. Hence any political action that took place that threatened the slavery system of the south received the undivided attention of the south’s political leaders, many of whom were themselves slave owners. Whereas the political leaders in the north were much more divided about the slavery issue. Many of the powerful abolitionists, such as William L. Garrison of Massachusetts, were either religious leaders or newspaper editors. Some of abolitionists were politicians. The north had equally powerful political leaders such as democratic Senator Stephen A. Douglas who were either indifferent towards or supportive of slavery. William Garrison was also emerged as one of the many figures in the organisation of the first Anti-Slavery Society in New York, which was established in 1831. The growth of the Anti-Slavery Society continued throughout the 1830’s and became a strong concern for the slave owners in the south, and feared that the activities of the abolitionists would make it more difficult to run their agricultural system
Today slavery is recognised as a moral issue, however in the early nineteenth century, it was seen more strongly as an economic factor. Political causes ever since the federal convention in 1787, there had been a tacit political balance between the two great sections. At the time of framing the constitution, the conflict was settled by deciding the percent of representation to the House of Representatives and accordingly only 3/5 of the black population would be taken into account and the senate would have equal representation from all the states irrespective of size of population. This system worked well so long the number of free states remained equal but towards the end of the 1819 tension between the two sections mounted again on the grounds of whether they should be admitted as free slave states, which was resolved by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 had been enacted by the Congress to put limits on the propagation of slavery. This compromise meant that the states above the 36 30’ were to be given the status of a free state and the states below this line were to be slave states. However this compromise later became the centre of controversy as it widened the conflicts between the north and south further. The south had an economic interest in the spread of slavery to the new territories so that new slave states could be created and hence the south’s political influence would remain strong. Whereas the North had an interest in limiting the spread of slavery into the new territories.
Up until the mid 18th centaury slavery was kept as a background issue that remained largely the concern for political leaders of the south, and the abolitionists of the north. However in 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, sponsored be Stephen A. Douglas, had brought slavery to the nation’s attention. This Act had eliminated the old Missouri Compromise and had made it possible for slavery to be introduced in virtually any new territory. This concept allowed residents of the territories to decide the slavery issue for themselves. The Kansas-Nebraska caused many great concerns for the north, awakening many people to the danger of the potential spread of slavery. Moderate politicians such as Abraham Lincoln became active in the cause of fighting both the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the spread of slavery.
However one can conclude that slavery was not the sole cause of the civil war, the issue was both an important factor in the sectionalism, which was one of the reasons for the war, and it symbolised and hid many other differences between the north and the south. The transcontinental railroad problem was another issue, which showed the sectionalism ‘rife’ in the United States. The northerners wanted a northern route for the railroad, which would run throughout Chicago or St. Louis while the south wanted a route through New Orleans along the Mexican boarder till Los Angeles.
Although the majority of the American people, including many moderate politicians like Abraham Lincoln, wanted to prevent the Civil War and were adamant to all slavery to die a slow, inevitable death, unlike the most influential political leaders were not. On the south side, Rhett and Yancey were willing to make war to guarantee their “right” to own slaves, whereas the northern side, the abolitionists like Garrison were willing to make war in order to put an immediate end to the institution of slavery. These leaders had convinced majority of the citizens that it was necessary to go to war. The southern politicians convinced their majority that the north was threatening their ways of life and their culture. Northern politicians had convinced their majority that that south if they were allowed to succeed, was really striking a serious blow at the democratic government.
The civil war in 1861 caused United States to enter into a four year struggle, which proved to be the greatest civil war in history and the first modern war in which victory was decided by industrial strength. The north had eventually won the war because they blockaded the confederate ports and imposed economic strangulation. Hence the dramatic effect of the war was on the south as it was demolished and has to orientate itself to a new economic and social system due to the destruction of their previous system. The war had freed the American slaves and immigration was encouraged after 1864. Economic expansion took place following the war, and the American West was opened by the construction of railroads, new industries were built up.
So was the war about slavery? Absolutely, because if there had been no disagreement over the issue of slavery, the south would probably not have seen a threat to its culture and the southern politicians would have been much less likely to seek their right to succeed. However the war wasn’t only about slavery, it was also over the constitutional argument over whether or not a state had a right to leave the union. Although the majority of southerners had little interest in slaves, slavery was still a primary interest of southern politicians, and unfortunately the underlying cause of the south’s desire to seek independence and state rights.
Word Count: 1, 815
Bibliography
An Introduction to Comparative Law - Zweigert & Kotz
Table of Cases
Dredscott v Sandford
Table of Statues
Missouri Compromise
Kansas-Nebraska Act
