I recently heard that slavery wasn't the only cause of the civil war. It's a little difficult for me to believe that. Do you think that the civil war was caused by slavery or state rights and other things?

While their were other issues dividing North and South (most prominently protective tariffs), the main issue was the states right to enslave a portion of it's populace. The other issues could have been peaceably settled. I believe that constitutionally speaking the South was right. Our Constitution had a near fatal flaw, the 14th and 15th amendments remedied this flaw.

Slavery was the a leading cause but tarriffs were also a major issue leading up to the war. The territories acquired in the war with Mexico were going to be nonslave states. The newly formed Republican party was strongly anti-slavery, Consider the reasons Georgia gave in their official, Declaration of Causes of Seceding States:

"The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose."


There were many economic considerations involved:

" In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade...

"Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects..

Declaration of Causes

Tarriffs were a critical issue. The Federal Government got money not from taxes but duties imposed on goods traded with other countries. In 1828 put high import duties on manufactured cloth and iron. But in protecting northern factories, the tariff raised the costs of these goods to southerners, who called it the Tariff of Abomination

Slavery was a major issue a profoundly emotional one. One Senator was beating severly on the floor of Congress because he was opposed to slavery being allowed in the new territories. The main issue, then like now are allways money, wealth, commerce and who controls it. Alice and Neo followed the white rabbit but in the real world we have to follow the money.

By saying “tariffs were also a cause” you give a woefully inadequate definition of “cause”.

Yes, tariffs WERE a major cause (as in any war, follow the money, as they say) but WHY were tariffs a major cause.

As Praxis above says, the federal government was funded exclusively by the tariff system in those days. There were no direct taxes on income which the government could steal away from the populace. But the government STILL needs money to build an armed force, money to pay officials, money to etc., etc. That came from duties on incoming trade from overseas sources.

A high tariff tends to protect local items. So, it becomes more expensive to buy an item from England than it does a similar item from New York, for instance. But this was NOT the only reason that the tariff was looked to be raised by the Republicans.

The Republicans of the 1850’s were a direct descendent of the Whig party which fell apart after the last Whig party candidate that won the presidency (Zachary Taylor). The Whig party in the 1830’s however, were a power house party in control of Henry Clay of Kentucky. He created an idea he called “The American System”. This idea postulated that the federal government should take control of internal improvements to the country, such as canals and railroads, etc. But to do this the government needed two things. Power over the states and MONEY! The tariff was the source of money and the power would come in the form of a stronger central government.

The south already paid most of the tariff fees in the country because they were the ones that had to import manufactured items far more than the north did. So, as the south saw it, they would not only loose power to the central government but also have to PAY for it to get done!

Then, when abolition of slavery became the Republicans rally call, that was about the last straw for the south.

I hope this helps a bit in your quest for some other issues that started the war.

Slavery wasn't really the cause of the war, although it had to do with it. Starting pretty much in the 1850's there were questions with what to do with the territories recently gained from the Mexican War, as well as Kansas and Nebraska. The South obviously didn't want the territories to enter the Union as free states, and the North didn't want them to enter as slave states. So, different compromises were made, popular sovereignty came about, and other such things like this. In 1860, Lincoln was elected into office. For the first time, the south had almost no say in government, and Lincoln favoring abolitionism more, would obviouslymake decisions harmful to the slave trade and the south's economy. So, for these governmental reasons (associated with slavery though) the southern states began to secede from the union.

Written during the heart of the Civil War, this is one of Lincoln's most famous letters. Horace Greeley, editor of the influential New York Tribune, a few days earlier had addressed an editorial to Lincoln called "The Prayer of Twenty Millions." In it, he demanded emancipation for the country's slaves and implied that Lincoln's administration lacked direction and resolve.

Lincoln wrote his letter to Greeley when a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation already lay in his desk drawer. His response revealed the vision he possessed about the preservation of the Union. The letter, which received universal acclaim in the North, stands as a classic statement of Lincoln's constitutional responsibilities.


I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/li...hes/greeley.htm

True, although generally trying to remain neutral on the slavery issue, Lincoln was more for abolition, and if not him, then at least there's no doubt that his cabinet members were anti-slavery.

I'm no student of American history, but when I recently (March 2003) visited Gettysburg National Memorial, my tour guide made a pretty convincing case that state rights were at the heart of the reasons for going to war in the first place, and that abolitionism was initially just a happy side benefit, turned afterwards into a major cause for the war in the first place as a post-justification to make the Union more comfortable with having put the constitution at risk for the sake of the wider Union itself.

Even so, I'd say that, with the benefit of hindsight, we can afford to judge the Union kindly, and the Confederacy harshly (while they were sticking to the letter of the law, it was at the expense of the people they were holding in slavery).

Similarly, I think modern historians have exaggerated the importance of the Nazis extermination of Jews in the justification for WW2. Clearly, it was a just war (perhaps the last just war?), but for one thing, the Allies were largely ignorant of the death camps when war broke out (especially Britain, as the 'final solution' was not conceived of until a year or two after we went to war); as many homosexuals, disabled people, and Roma were murdered as were Jews, yet homophobia and discrimination against the disabled are still rampant, and the Roma didn't get given a homeland (even if they had wanted one); and the Japanese have not been demonised to anything like the same extent in the West for their treatment of the Chinese and Koreans under their occupation (which was as bad as anything the Nazis did in Europe. Possible a basic form of racism is at work here - 'they all look the same'?).

And more topically, we are already seeing attempts to post-justify the war in Iraq (since none of the initial reasons given for going to war now appear to have any merit).

I'm not trying to take the thread off-topic in making the last two points, I am just trying to illustrate that war is always a bit less Manichean and a bit more messy than it ends up being reported in the history books; and that it's human nature to look at the motivations of people in the past that we agree with rose-tinted spectacles, and at those of people we disagree with with a jaundiced eye.

Having read a fair amount on this subject, I'll lean toward slavery being the second reason for going to war. The first was to conquer a newly forming, rival nation that held major agricultural assets, most notably cotton. The textile mills of the North needed that cotton.

The South needed materials like brass for cannon. But, the general feeling was that enough could be scrounged to bust the North's chops. The North, meanwhile, suffered from arrogance as the industrial giant of the Americas.

The North built up troop strength in Fort Sumter, thus goading the South into what might have been an anticipated attack.

And the war began. In the North, near Manassas, VA, citizens brought picnic baskets to watch an early version of the Super Bowl. But it was no picnic. The South was looking pretty darn good in the early years; the North looked pathetic. Then things turned at Gettysburg with, among other bloody events, the insane Pickett's Charge. Historians still argue whether Lee blew it. I believe he did.

Later came Sherman's cruel and devastating march. Atlanta burned.

The South surrendered, but not right away. More blood had to be spilled. Along came Reconstruction and the aftermath of freedom for slaves.

It would take another hundred years before freedom was guaranteed through the Civil Rights Act.

We still, today, have the proponents of states' rights that the South used to justify secession and war. Not too far under the skin, the Civil War is still being fought in bloodless (usually) battles.

Out of the Civil War we got advanced trauma medical procedures, advanced weaponry, and a bunch of post-Napoleanic strategies. Were the underlying goals of the war won? The Union was saved, by force. Slavery was abolished, but freedom was a long way off. We would have to do Rough Riders and world wars to get closer.

So. Today, after a cold war and a bunch of other wars, the gulf wars, we stand as a divided nation yet. We've split between conservative and liberal, primarily, with various flavors of those stances promoted by individuals and groups. Rather than north and south, we have rural and urban, military and civilian. We have the economically stable and the destabalized, the movers/shakers and the disenfranchised protesters.

The Civil War was a penultimative expression of the democratic republic initially envisioned. The loose union of sovereign states went into a mutually destructive phase that pitted brother against brother, and slavery was definitely one horn on the beast's head. Remember John Brown? The other was the right of sovereign states to reject the Union and form its confederation of slave states--state's rights. But, the Civil War was a beast. Of that I have no doubt.

Some say you get reincarnated and carry with you certain lessons learned. Of these lessons, might the memory of men and animals dying on a battle field be one? Might the initial excitement and glory be another, to be replaced with horror and disgust? I've walked many of the battlefields and feel archetypical memories stirring, the most strong at Gettysburg. Illusion or reality? I don't know. But I do know that what came of the Civil War was the trading of one form of slavery for another.

It took civil law process to bring freedom, and it will take this same process to unite a divided nation.

What a bunch of *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***!

That is liberal spin and not true at all. A half million of our countrymen died for their freedom and I will not let a statement like that stand.

When the war was over, they were free. You are purposefully distorting freedom with segregation.

And as bad as segregation is (never mind that we continue to segregate ourselves), that is a far cry from being owned by another person.

Of course slavery wasn't the sole cause of the war. Only the elite owned slaves, most of the confederate soldiers didn't. They weren't about to rally around the motto 'The South needs its slaves!' Especially considering how up close and personal and bloody that war was.

I believe most of the civil war was an economic dispute. The Southern economy prospered on the backs of the slaves. Without them, the economy would collapse. This became a dispute over state government rights vs Federal government rights.

The war was about slavery. Plain and simple. States Rights? The states rights to do what. Go to the source. Go to the secession of the individual states. Slavery is mentioned in all of these states where people to this day try to claim that the cause of the Civil War was not slavery.

Why could the South and specifically South Carolina not stand the idea of the Republican party. Sure it was a regional party which is always dangerous in our democracy. But it had anti-slavery planks in its platform. Were those planks the abolition of slavery? No. It was a call for stopping the spread of slavery.

This should not be confused with the question of why did soldiers go fight in the war. Hundreds of thousands of small farmers went to go fight in the war for the confederacy who were not slave owners and were actually hurt by the practice of slavery as they had to work on more marginal land and work within a system that was politically and economically dominated by slave-owning planters.

These people went to go fight to protect their home. They were at war and they were going to do their honorable duty to protect against an army that would bring harm to their home and lifestyle.

South Carolina Declaration of Secession
note in the constitutional claims how slavery and the return of fugitive slaves dominates the argument

From the beginning of the Georgia Declaration of Secession



From the opening argument of the Mississippi Declaration of Secession




From the Texas Declaration of Secession


So it with me people. The Civil War was about slavery. Slavery and issues surrounding its spread, protection, or maintenance was the cause of the war.

Slavery was the lightning rod, but not the root cause.

States Rights is the root cause, and Slavery was just one manifestation of it.

Where in the original Constitution did it give the Federal government the right to give away someone's private property (in this case, slaves)? It isn't there.

The South was heavily hurt by the tariffs imposed as protectionist measures for Northern industry. They felt it was "taxation without representation". In effect, it was.

The original founders knew that when government did not work for the people, they had a right to rise up and cast off that government. It was the reason they gave behind the American Revolution.

The South, which felt that the government no longer had its best interests in mind, tried to legally withdraw from the Union. I believe this was their right. Lincoln obviously disagreed. The South started secceeding in Jan 1861, Fort Sumter occured in April.

The Civil War was the ultimate nail in the coffin for States Rights. Defy the federal government's will (no matter how un-Constitutional) and suffer the consequences.

Today, that is done economically rather than militarily and so everyone tries to "play the game" and get the most out of the federal Cookie Jar.

The Civil War was initiated by the North to "preserve the Union". Lincoln himself said that slavery was just a side issue and that if he could preserve the Union without freeing the slaves, he would do so.

Then states rights to do what? From the VA and KY resolutions to the Hartford Convention to the nullification controversy states rights issue arose on the national scene. But it was still the states rights to protect the property rights of slavery. So the states rights argument is the legal technicality to deal with the root cause which was protecting the survival of the institution of slavery.

This tariff stuff is a diversion. It was not taxation without representation, it was taxation with representation. Tariffs hurt Southerners more in the reprisals as their exports were met with reciprocal tariffs in foreign ports.

The delay in the start of the war was in part Buchanan waiting for Lincoln to assume office and in part Lincoln trying to negotiate without accepting secession. Yes the Civil War to kill the issue of the states right to secede, but the war was not caused because SC felt the right to secede needed to be proven. The secessions were triggered by the election of a Republican president.

The reaction of the federal government was to preserve the union not to free slaves. The fighting was begun by confederate forces not by union forces. They triggered the issue with secession, they fired on fort sumter.

The Northern economy didn't depend on the institution of slavery. The Southern economy did. If the North had depended on slavery they would have never went to war over the issue. If the Southern economy hadn't they wouldn't have either.

It seems to me a clear issue of economics, and human rights violations were secondary to that. The states rights to do what? I suppose it depends which side you’d have asked back then. The South would’ve probably said it was the state’s rights to survive economically. The North would’ve said it was about slavery.

States rights just mask the underlying issue. They wanted to have the right to keep slavery.

The civil war was initiated by the North? If I remember correctly the south succeeded from the Union, Lincoln didn't move federal troops out of southern forts and the south fired on fort Sumter. The issue is Why did the south choose to succeed. The core reason was that the south wanted to insure their right to enslave their fellow men.

DaytonRocker,

I understand, but consider that former slaves became sharecroppers. Many others moved north to become exploited factory workers. Then you had the disenfranchisment from voting in many areas with poll taxes.

But I do agree with you. The big nasties of treating people like, or worse than, cattle were immediately gone. This got traded for being treated like the Chinese, Irish, and other downtrodden minorities.

Didn't mean to indicate that the Civil War did not bring about significant change in the country, just that this change could have been accomplished without war. I know that the times were ripe for war and both sides were itching to do battle, but neither side thought it would take so long to finish once it started.

Washington's farwell address has an important point to consider when looking at the
Civil War:

"In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by Geographical discriminations--Northern and Southern--Atlantic and Western…You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies & heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations."

Take this in light of a statements that was one of the leadiing causes of the war. Keep in mind that part of the reason that the south had a minority in the Congress is that they did not attract immigrants, there were no jobs for them.

"But by 1850 only a third lived there and the disparity continued to widen. While northern industrial opportunity attracted scores of immigrants from Europe in search of freedom the South's population stagnated. Even as slave states were added to the Union to balance the number of free ones, the South found that its representatives in the House had been overwhelmed by the North’s explosive growth. More and more emphasis was now placed on maintaining parity in the Senate. Failing this, the paranoid theory went, the South would find itself at the mercy of a government in which it no longer had an effective voice. Never mind that slavery was protected under the constitution, and that it would have been impossible to make amendments to abolish it. Jefferson Davis, at the time a Senator from Mississippi, summed up the sectionalist argument himself. Speaking, in effect, to the people of the North concerning slavery, “It is not humanity that influences you… it is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the Government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement… you want by an unjust system of legislation to promote the industry of the United States at the expense of the people of the South.” There, in plain English, is the shrill, accusatory language of sectionalism.
http://www.swcivilwar.com/cw_causes.html

causes

I did my best to give the referance to my source. I looked at this and wondered if the warning of the Father of our country (as he has come to be known) was prophetic. Consider this when trying to understand the causes of the Civil War. What had the south did to make the bed they were forced to lay in? I'm trying to be open minded about this but the above piece made me wonder.

Reading this thread makes me feel like I've wondered into a history class where everyone is giving a lecture on events that took place over a hundred years before they were born. That aside, I don't think its too wise to place the root cause of the Civil War squarely upon one issue. That is much too simple. While slavery is the famous reason, the righteous reason, the history book reason, and the hindsight-is-20/20 reason, I feel that the issue of states' rights has had a much more powerful and long term effect on the U.S. The freeing of the slaves is more short term. We can say that as a result of the war, the slaves were freed and we can pat ourselves on the back for doing the right thing. However, anyone who was ever an American slave is dead. All children of any former slaves are all dead. The Civil War ended only 138 years ago. That is not a long time. We have yet to be granted the ability of making educated historical observations about the long term effects of the war...primarily that of eroded states' rights since the war's conclusion. State governments used to have a lot more power. This is not so true anymore. The federal government has recently begun to realize that it can get away with pretty much anything despite what a state may have to say on the matter. State lines are beginning to fade, not on a map, of course, but politically. Our federal officials run the government as though states do not exist, as though the federal government is the only one that counts. States used to have unique cultures different than those of other states. Tennessee used to be a world apart from South Carolina which was wildly different from North Carolina which was the polar opposite of Texas which seemed like a foreign nation to New York which was a different planet from Oklahoma which......well, you get the idea. But in these times, culture and diversity have been cast away in favor of homogenization and conformity with an ever more basic "norm." I've travelled to many different places in this country, and the impression I get is that everything looks the same everywhere. It used to have meaning when a stranger would ask what state you were from. Being from Georgia meant something to people from outside of Georgia. Being from New York meant something to pretty much everyone outside of New York. Certain feelings and characterizations were applied to a person based upon what state they were from. It had meaning. Today, what state you are from means nothing. All it does is signify what geographic region of the country you're from. I suppose one could argue that these meanings were unfair stereotypes given to someone just because they were from a certain state, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a diversity in culture that does not seem to exist anymore. I'm talking about the current lack of importance given to states. The Civil War, to me, showed that the federal government is all powerful and is always right. The United States used to be just that....states that were united...separate entities, but acting together for the benefit of all. The federal government was merely supposed to maintain the military and engage in foreign diplomacy when need be. This is not true anymore as anyone can see. In a nutshell, freeing the slaves was great and all, but time will show that the erosion of states' rights will prove to be the major outcome and the ultimate issue at the heart of the war.

I am trying to keep up with this last post.



This implies that myself and my fellow history instructors in the world merely delude ourselves that we can find material to teach about the past because we weren't there.



Then we switch from the cause of the war to the longest lasting effect. Yes the US emerged with a much stronger and Hamiltonian federal government as a result of the war.



Then it turns out that we can not judge the EFFECTS of the war not because we weren't there but because we have not distanced ourselves from the event enough.



I remain convinced that slavery was the root cause of a complex issue that drove the UNited States into Civil War. It was the reason southern states called upon powers of states rights and put the union in jeopardy of fragmenting. It was the reason the Southern states seceded. The federal government led by Lincoln went to war to preserve the union. As the costs mounted, a greater issue became a rallying point for many in the north, the emancipation of slaves and driving the ownership of human beings from our society.

Slavery did have to do with the cause of the war. However, it was not over abolitionism that slavery made a problem. It was over finding a way to decide whether or not states entering the Union to should be free states or not. Secession was ultimately caused by Lincoln's election into office in 1860, because the South knew that his cabinet, being very anti-slavery, would make economic choices and the like that would only benefit northern industries.

I agree but the core reason for the civil war was slavery. The economic issue was about by slavery, the free/slave state issue was about slavery, the states rights issue was about slavery, the Lincoln issue was about Slavery... It was ALL about slavery.

While I am neither a historian or a Civil War buff, I'm going to have to say it wasn't about slavery, but money. And in having its roots in economics, the South simply had more interest in maintaining slavery than the more industrialized and federally supported North.

A book that I've skimmed through since a discussion with Wertz some time ago about Lincoln and the Civil War -- The Real Lincoln -- suggested this origin in money, rather than race. According to the author, DiLorenzo, the South was paying almost 80% of all the tariffs, and those tariffs were virtually the only source of income for the federal government.

As this is only one perspective, I'm sure there may be conflicting opinions out there. However, if it's true then it seems understandable that the South would not want to do all the work while the businesses in the North got all the profit. And if the South was being mistreated economically by the federal government, why would they want to abandon the driving force of their economy, whether they stayed or left the Union?

So that could explain why, beyond just the practice of slavery, the South would want to secede from the North. And if the North was truly that dependant on the South, it certainly explains why they wouldn't want the South seceding, which wasn't illegal as I understand it. Without the money coming from the southern states, the North would be left with little to no revenue.

Also, it seems reasonable that if the war was about slavery -- "plain and simple" -- that would be a key factor for the North to go to war. Yet Lincoln wrote on August 22, 1862:
I'm only offering my opinion here, but it seems as though Lincoln wasn't too concerned with whether slavery was maintained or abolished. His only concern was with the preservation of the Union. As it was not illegal for the South to secede, my interpretation is that he and the North needed the South not to secede because the Union could not be maintained without the revenue coming from the South.

Also from that same link is a letter attributed to Grant:
Again, it is only my interpretation, but it seems as though slavery became a reason only after the intent to secede came about. Rather than a direct cause for war it became a political tool for the North in their attempts to "preserve the Union." Indeed, it's possible the North would not have succeeded were it not for the inclusion of freed slaves into the armed forces, never mind that they were still not treated as equals. While they may have been free in title, all they really managed to do was trade in their plows for Union uniforms and ammunition.

So, wrapping it up, slavery was clearly an issue of the war, but it seems to me to have been so only as the product of a lopsided economy. I think the war ultimately had its roots in money and that the dispute over slavery became for the North a means to an end. It appears there would have been no concerted effort to abolish slavery as long as the South had continued to bow its head and support the fiscal weight of the nation on its back.

Ranciduncle,



I'm going to take your side on this. The more I think about the Civil War, the more I feel that all the arguments about states' rights, economics, and on and on (including a bunch of Bible pounding morons), it does come down to slavery. Everyone was hedging that issue back then, except for the outwardly abolitionist radicals of the time and the outwardly racist pro-slavery defenders.

That the US treated Africans as something between servants and cattle is not defendable. Yet, humans, educated humans, people who should have known better, did so.

Unfortunately, it was not these humans who paid in blood and unimaginable pain. Or did some? Maybe so. The chaos of war touched (slammed) many during that time.

In any case, I do think that the core reason for the Civil War was slavery, not states' rights. That was just a rationalization, a hiding from the facts, in the mid part of the 19th century.

And now I wonder: Did Lee blow Gettysburg out of a sense of remorse? No evidence to that effect, but it is possible (as are all things). Eh, my speculation, nothing more. But did Lee see the inevitable coming? I think so. In my mind, this ties a lot together.

In quoting Lincoln's letter to Greeley, everyone's leaving off the last bit:



This letter, sent to Greeley's Tribune, was an effort to gain support from Northern supporters of slavery. If saving the Union had been Lincoln's sole concern, he could have accepted the Crittenden Compromise in 1860, intended to preserve the Union by preserving slavery in perpetuity. He had rejected it. And it should be noted that Lincoln had presented the Emancipation Proclamation to his cabinet one month prior to sending this letter.

That same summer, Lincoln encouraged the Unitarian (abolitionist) ministers to "go home and try to bring the people to your views... we shall need all the anti-slavery feeling in the country, and more."

During the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln had this to say the day after Douglas declared for white supremacy in Chicago: "I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it - where will it stop? If one man says it does not mean a Negro, why does another not say it does not mean some other man?"

As early as 1835, in the Illinois House, Lincoln cast one of five votes opposing a resolution condemning abolitionists.

Lincoln exchanged diplomats for the first time with Liberia and Haiti. He desegregated the White House staff in 1863. He accepted black visitors like Frederick Douglass in the White House. His second inaugural speech, in 1864, found Lincoln expressly identifying differences over slavery as the primary cause of the war.

"If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through his appointed time, he now wills to remove, and that he gives to both North and South this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to him?"

By 1862, Union armies were singing George Root's "Battle Cry of Freedom," with the following lyrics:

We will welcome to our numbers the loyal true and brave,
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.
And although he may be poor, not a man shall be a slave,
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.

We also cannot underestimate the effect John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry had on rallying both sides of the slavery issue. Whatever you have been taught about John Brown in school, remember this: His raid, arrest, trial, and hanging were huge news in America. Many prominent writers and public figures rallied behind Brown. At his eulogy, Henry David Thoreau said, "It seems as if no man had ever died in America before, for in order to die you must first have lived... These men [he was comparing Brown and Jesus], in teaching us how to die, have at the same time taught us how to live."


His supporters included Luisa May Alcott, Herman Melville, and Walt Whitman. Union soldiers marched into battle singing "John Brown's Body."

On the Confederate side:

Alexander Stephens, vice president of the Confederacy, said:



In 1862, Jefferson Davis denounced states' rights as destructive to the Confederacy. The battle over slavery was being fought amongst the southern states, not just between the Union and the Confederacy. Every Confederate state with the exception of South Carolina supplied a regiment or at least a company of white soldiers to the Union army. Confederate troops had to occupy east Tennessee to keep them from joining the Union. A parish in Louisiana refused to secede from the Union. In Alabama, Winston county declared itself the Republic of Winston. Armed abolitionist guerillas plagued every Confederate state. During Sherman's march from Atlanta to Savannah, his army grew as thousands of white Southerners joined along the way. 18,000 slaves also joined Sherman. Two-thirds of the Confederate army opposing him deserted.

I'd say slavery was the main issue.

(most of this is referenced from Stavis' "John Brown: The Sword and the Word," McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom," and Glatthaar's "The March to the Sea and beyond.".)

Yes, but Lincoln in the fourth debate with Douglas reaffirmed his belief in white supremacy.

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

Lincoln's views may have evolved as President, but he was hardly an enthusiastic supporter of abolition.

While some southrons did wish to preserve slavery, not all did. In fact, there were black regiments in the confederate army who often served as feared sharpshooters, dutifully assasinating evil Union Leaders. Jefferson Davis did support slavery and its preservation. Perhaps this is why at least five leaders from every confederate state have declared him an "idiot", "stupid" or "immoral". There were plenty of confederate abolitionists. I think you should all study a man named H.K. Edgerton. Also, it holds true that Virginia and Georgia both 1) voted against slavery during their birth as colonies but their gracious requests were denied by the British crown, and 2) these same confederate states were the first two to prohibit slave importation. Slavery was not the issue. The issues were a) the morrill tariff (ironic it should rhyme with moral, because it is not) imposed by Lincoln immediately after entering office that raised the import tax rate from 20 to 48%. Since the south imported finished products from Europe, where they were cheaper than in the north, the North imposed this unholy tax which served to bankrupt countless honorable men in the south. The southrons now represented 30% of the population, but paid 80% of these taxes.Another cause: the distorted Yankees were gradually increasing the government size. This process began about when all our forefathers died, wonder why. Confederists did and I still do want today less government. This is why they believe in states being united not by a strong federal government but by more of an alliance between the states, which basically govern themselves save for a few guidelines under which the states would be "united". I pity the individual who began this forum. It seems that they were genuinely confused to hear that slavery wasn't the cause. It goes to show that yet another cause was not slavery, but rather the insane and evil theories of such men as Lincoln who have now indirectly caused thw better part of the world to be ignorant about a period of 100 or so years in America. These grossly twisted men offered strange and absurd tales of slavery and an immoral, racist south that wished only to preserve the institution of slavery, when instead by manipulating the entire world, save for those such as me who believe the south shall rise again since they know the real truth, they have proven themselves to be comparable to the likes of Stalin; evil men who manipulate the mobs of people who rest at night thinking everything is fine, and the south got what they deserve for liking slavery. When in actuality, black southron, white southron, jewish southron, chinese southron, cherokee southron, all of which are veterans who have served their respective states, mourn together at the pitiful situation they are in, and the unholy results of the war. Because of evil men like Lincoln, honorable, religious men were left with nothing else to do but question their own faith, and wonder why god chose to try the southern race for so long. They wonder whether this spiral of oppression will rain down into the south for generations, and by sitting here in my Georgia home, not five minutes away from stone mountain, I look at Lee, Davis, and, Stonewall as I type, still in a mourning period, but now plotting the rise of the south just once more. Slavery was, once again, not the issue, and I apologize for my subjective tone. I no longer pity the topic starter, so long as they listen to what i type and understand how badly Lincoln screwed the south over.

While slavery was an issue and a cause of the Civil War, it was not the only, nor the main one. Lincoln was not an abolitionist (though he did not agree with slavery), nor did he go to war to end slavery. He went to war with the South to preserve the Union. A divided America would have made us more vulnerable to other nations.

Only a small percentage of the Southern people owned slaves. (19% of the population owned five or less, 1% was the aristocracy, with 50 or more. The rest had none.) The poorer people, like the struggling farmers and such, only liked slavery because at least then, there was someone below them on the class ladder. They could feel superior to someone.

Other causes have to do with money-the North was more industrial while the South was more agricultural. The South did not want to be dominated economically by the North.

Also, the civilizations of the two sides were different. In the South, it was very difficult to climb the economic ladder, while in the North, more opportunities were available.

Plus, both sides wanted control of the central government (naturally), but for the South this was not logical, seeing how the North and West were linked.

All of these differences between the two sides contributed to the growing conflict(s) between them, and ultimately led to the war. They couldn't agree on many issues, including slavery, and that's what drove them apart.

Nothing has changed in this debate for me to find any other source of the Civil War. Their were many tensions between the sections, but this the issue of slavery is what brought on the war. All of the Yankee name calling and claims of evil-doing will not change that fact.

Indeed, perhaps "slavery" was the issue. In fact, one could truthfully say that the north were basically holding the entire south as their slaves, due to the tariffs they imposed. The north was just upset to see the south thriving without having anything to do with the north. Actuallly, slavery didn't even effect the war, but only secession. The north's obstinance began the war. They refused to withdraw their troops from a southern fort, Fort Sumter, the gateway to the South for European products, and as long as it was held by the north, the south would remain economic slaves. And to say that the northerners wer not slaveholders is a falsehood; look at how Irish immigrants in the north fared compared to in the south.

Brice,
The Southern economy was completely dependent on slavery. The tariffs were necessary to fund the government and remove America's dependence on Europe for goods. The South succeeded to keep their economic system. According to Mississippi declaration of causes which justify succession

According to the state of Georgia

According to the state of Texas

According to South Carolina's address to other southern states after they became the first to succeed

It looks to me that all of the states, according to their own succession documents, left the Union to keep slavery.

The tariff Lincoln imposed didn't effect the north at all; they didnt import hardly anything from another country. The southrons were forced to keep slavery because of the grave conomic situation they were put in by the yankees. They had no choice but to keep the institution. In fact, there were many black slaveholders. Blacks, too, wanted to preserve slavery. One example is New Orleans. In that city during the 1860 census, 28% of black males held slaves, which is completely disproportionate to the 4% of whites.
Slavery had nothing to do with causing the war. It was an unfortunate effect of the evil acts committed by yankees. also, you have the word succession mistaken for secession. I dont think you undrstand the situation mephistopheles (lincoln) put the south in.

I am aware that there were some black slaveowners, just as there were some native american slave owners.
But could you please cite a credible reference for your claim that blacks wanted to preserve slavery?
And calling Lincoln (whom I'm not a huge fan of) every incarnation of the devil that you can think of, is not furthering your debate credibility.

I honestly wish i could think objectively about this topic, but i am incapable. i'll just shut myself up and go become a hermit now. Goodbye all. Come and visit if you wish.

How about a source?
Slavery was much older than the tariffs. How could the tariffs forced them to have slavery? If you read confederate documents you can see why the South left the Union; they admit it was to keep the institution of slavery. While the North wasn't intent on ending slavery, they didn't start the war.

The bulk of the South seceded before Lincoln became president. By name calling and asserting unsubstantiated claims you lose credibility here.

Nobody forced slave owners to own slaves. There were other labor options available. Cotton farming survived the emancipation of slaves.

Claiming that slavery had nothing to do with causing the war is pure comedy.

Tariffs didnt force slavery in the colonies, the british crown did. Jefferson Davis, In his book The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government stated that Georgia And Virginia, when began as colonies, voted against slavery but their requests were denied by the British crown. It was wealthy Africans who began slavery, not Americans or brits for that matter.

Faulty facts and logic.

Because the British crown refused to let the colonial governments declare slavery illegal (if that is the case) I would be surprised if any evidence exists to show that any person was forced to use slave labor by the British government.

Do you have proof that wealthy Africans invented the practice of slavery?
Being that is existed in the Roman Empire I am certain that Americans didn't invent it.

Virginia was never a big advocate of slavery and wanted to abolish it, they had a big slave revolt and couldnt get the legislation passed before the Civil War started. The commerce was an issue as far back as Washington and he discusses this conflict of interest in his farwell address. He first however describes the Union as the main pillar of the country:

"The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize..." (Washington's Farwell Adress)

He, like Lincon was stressing that all American: independence, tranquillity, peace, satety, prosperity, are supprted by unity. When the Civil War started if you asked the soldiers fighting what it was over the North would say we are preserving the Union. If you asked one of the Southern soldiers he would have said cause your down here. The main cause was to preserve the Union. The people in the South were fighting to protect their state, slavery was an issue of the status quo. Still the conflict of interest with regards to commerce cannot be overestimated. Notice the ideal of 'equal laws' its critical to understand the South's anger at the North:

"Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the Union of the whole...The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds, in the productions of the latter, great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand... "(Washington's Farwell Adress)


These tarrifs were taxes plain and simple and how the Federal made money right up until the income tax replaced it. This money was mostly spent to improve industries in the North and money begets money. The fact that manufactoring was emphasised in the North while it was agriculture in the South should not be ignored. The South didnt have jobs for white people, especially immigrants (Irish, Scots etc) so they settled in the North these people eventually developed into political activities groups and were more interested in jobs then they were in seeing the 2% of the population in the South have 80% of the land and income. This smacked of aristocracy and there was a growing sentiment that slavery in the South had to go. As a start it was prohibited in Kansas and got one Senator nearly beaten to death with a cane:

"In 1856, The brutal beating of Massa­chusetts Senator Charles Sumner by a political foe turned the Sen­ate into "the Chamber of Assassins." Sumner was a highly educated, cultured egomaniac. While his personality was not the most congenial, his oratory was certainly the most commanding. At one o'clock on May 19, 1856. he delivered one of the most extraordinary speeches of his career. If it had been up to his politi­cal enemies, it would have been his last.
The focus of the speech was the Kansas territory, where he claimed judges had been bullied and ballot boxes stuffed to illegal­ly impose a pro-slavery legislation. His target was South Carolina Senator Andrew Pickens Butler. Using a plethora of sexual meta­phors, Sumner spoke of Butler's "Mistress Slavery,'' the "rape of a virgin territory" and more. But while some arguments were powerful and visionary, other comments were personal and vi­cious. One cruel barb was aimed at Butler's speech impediment, which had been caused "by a stroke. 'With incoher­ent phrases, discharge; the loose expectoration of his speec...It is libel on South Carolina and Mr. Butler who is a relative ofmine, He (Representative Preston Butler of South Carolina) then beat Sumner with his cane until it was reduced to splinters and the Senator from Massachusetts fell to the floor, covered in blood."
(Fall from Grace, Shelly Ross)

Dont you ever let anyone claim that slavery was not an issue. But the larger issue was commerce, like Plato said, all war is over money. Dont let anyone tell you it was to free the slaves either, it was to preserve the union. Thats my story and Im sticking to it.

"...what is of inestimable value, they must derive from Union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighbouring countries not tied together by the same governments,"(Washington's Farwell Adress)

The north did fight to preserve the union and Lincoln was quite open about that. Emancipation was a key policy in keeping the British out of the war. They desired southern cotton for their mills, but they did not want to be fighting to preserve slavery.

But why was the north fighting to preserve the union? Because southern states seceded. Why did southern states secede? States Rights? States rights to do what? The right to keep slavery and the right to have slavery continue to expand to the west. (The Republican plank was not to abolish slavery but to keep it where it was in 1860 and not to let it spread to additional states or territories.)

Slavery not a major factor in the Civil War?

The second sentence in Declaration of Causes Secession issued by the Georgia House and Senate (as well as similar documents issed by other seceding states) is unmistakable:

Even the Confederate Constitutionexplicitly states,

Yes, there were other factors, but claiming that slavery was not a factor is ridiculous.

The way I see it, the civil war was mostly about the rights of the states vs. the rights of the national government. Think about it, the majority of the southern states disagreed with the national government about Slavery, The Tarrif, our forign policy with England and France, and the south was more liberal in giving state government more power. Correct me If I am wrong, but slavery was not the start of the civil war, but it caused problems like the Kansas-Nebraska act, the Missouri Comprimise, and the fugitive slave act, and a combination of these things made the situation worse, and that is what started the war. So in a way, slavery did not start the war, the government started it in trying to make the situation better.

States rights meant the right of states to have slaves.
So if the government did nothing about slavery and didn't have the Missouri Compromise the civil war wouldn't have happend? It would have probably happened sooner if there were no compromises on the free soil issue. That's like saying slavery didn't cause the civil war, the south leaving the Union did. The question is why did the South decide they're only choice was sucession. It wasn't because they reached compromises about slavery years earlier.

No, States rights meant the right of states to do anything, yes that includes slavery, it also includes having their own trade policy, their own tarrif system (or not using the tarrif), it included the states to decide how much government, it included alot of things, so don't sit there and tell me that states rights is all about slavery.




Exactly, the compromises did nothing but make people more upset. It will tell you that in any history book.

Here I sit typing the statement that the states rights that were called upon as a reason for taking the drastic step of exiting the union without using there representatives in the federal gvorenment to try to secure a peaceful exit had to do with slavery.

Where was the call to arms to get rid of the tariffs? In the prveious posts there are links and quotes from the declratations of secession of the vasrious states. the sattes right they were all mentioning was the right to continue to have the institution of slavery.

There are various issues involved in addressing the genreal issue of states rights. The specific complaint of states rights violations that was strong enough to bring on the civil war was the right ot continue the institution of slavery.

Eeyore is pretty much right, within the context of the Civil War. The Constitution settled the matter of tariffs and trade policy, those were not "states rights" issues after 1787, the Framers having already tread that risky path with the Articles of Confederation.

Tariffs and trade policy were never within the purvue of individual states after the Constitution was ratified. Tariffs and trade policy WERE a factor in the Civil War, as the North was driving a tariif/trade agenda that looked remarkably like mercantilism, protecting domestic manufacturers against lower priced imports, a policy that was harmful to the South, and a policy that the Congressional representatives in the South were unable to stem. They correctly viewed that they wouldn't be able to stem the rising tide of abolition either. The key was the border states. They were voting with the North on trade/tariff issues because they were industrializing, but they were still holding the line with the Confederate states to be on the slavery issue, but they were showing signs of cracking....

The war ultimately boiled down to the South's desire to set their own economic policy. That policy was one of free trade and unfree slaves, versus the North's policy of unfree trade and free workers. The Southern leadership recognized that they had already lost out on one of their issues, and the writing was on the wall for the other if they didn't take radical measures.

http://apollo3.com/%7Ejameso/secession.html

this is very interesting reading on the legality of the civil war

Coercive force is a very dangerous power because the use of it does great harm. Slavery is the coercion of an entire people and is wrong, yet it is no worse than the coercion of the “sovereign states” by the federal government.

The American Civil war decided firmly that the federal government and not the states or the people would be supreme in this country no matter what the constitution says about reserving power.

[QUOTE] 2% of the population in the South have 80% of the land and income. This smacked of aristocracy [QUOTE]


I think the numbers are about the same today.

If coercive force is wrong when it comes to slavery then how is it right when it comes to keeping the states in a union they no longer wish to be a part of?

Plainsight - welcome.

Please avoid posting two posts in a row. If you were the last person to post and are looking to add more information, you merely need to edit your post. If 12 hours have passed, you may make a new post because your edit window will have closed.

Any questions, PM me.

Thanks.

slavery was just one of many reasons,