"Causes of the Civil War?" Topic

Hello everyone,
By the way, to me who has often asked myself the question, explain to me simply, even if it is not, the real causes of the civil war and who are those responsible?

The only thing I am certain of is that it is not the abolition of slavery as we have been told all the time since always, since Lincoln simply made the war to preserve the union, certainly not to change the fate of the slaves.

And yet it was the desire to ensure the preservation of slavery that led to several states wishing to secede.

I'm glad you're certain Pascal as reliable, scholarly sources place slavery front & centre.

@advocate
Oh really it's the desire to ensure the preservation of slavery that led to several states wishing to secede?

Not all of them then?

@ochoin
They were afraid of abolition?

But the vast majority of rebels didn't have slaves so they didn't care whether blacks were free or not, right?

Even if they didn't personally own slaves, they still benefited from their use in the economy. And personally owning slaves is deceiving. In Mississippi in the 1860 census, 50% of households owned slaves. Its a bit disingenuous to say a son didn't legally own a slave, when his father legally owned 50 and he benefited from their forced labor. And even poor whites benefited from not being at the bottom rung of society's pecking order.

Lincoln was the first President from a party of abolitionists. They favored restricting and disfavoring slavery in every way compatible with the US Constitution, and weren't even on the ballot in much of the south. There were certainly other points of disagreement, especially over tariffs, but I find it hard to believe matters could have gotten to civil war without slavery. I don't think a "free" south would have seceded, and if they had, I don't think Lincoln could have raised armies to suppress secession without abolitionism.

Note that the southern leadership class was almost entirely slave-holding, and states were a matter of immense emotional loyalty. You didn't have to be a slaveowner, or even favor slavery, to fight at the behest of your state.

I have just finished reading McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom which I should have read 30 years ago for my A Level History essay. Slavery is obviously the cause to rally around to attack or defend but I sometimes think that the ACW is driven by the same politics that was the driving force in the AWI and even going back to the ECW. That is the battle between a strong central government over regional government and who should govern who?

The basic cause of the ACW was slavery, despite what various confederate apologists have tried to argue since. The confederacy was created to safeguard the institution of slavery. Its membership were all slave owning states. You can see the evidence for this in the various states declarations of secession. They left the Union in anticipation of abolition, rather than any firm proposal to enact it. They started the war and thankfully lost it, paving the way for abolition.
You asked for a simple answer and you have it.
The more complex and nuanced arguements can be found in the various history books on the ACW and American politics. A better place to search these things out then a wargamers forum perhaps.

SLAVERY was the cause for the ACW.

money , trade, system of govt, and slavery. Slavery was the catalyst: the same issues still drive US political discourse.

Not just slavery, but the phrase "All men are created equal". Those 5 words made slavery in the United States, rightfully, doomed.

The reality is that it was more complex than today's hot take need a black and white answer culture can really comprehend. People want a If A then B answer and it's far more grey than that.

The road to the war wasn't simple or cut and dry. Individuals may have had simple cut and dry reasons, but as a whole they may even have conflicted with one another and came together in a much messier conflict that isn't so easily defined.

Questions like this ask for much simpler answers than reality allows. Nuance has to be part of the discussion if you want to know the answer.

Robert,

One point of disagreement. The Republicans were not a party of abolition. Yes, they did have abolitionist inside the party but the party was itself not abolitionist. Their position on slavery was very clear. It could stay where it was but could not expand.

We have been over this in several threads here, frequently and not long ago.

Slavery was the cause. The apologists can come up with all the other causes they want, but the simple fact is that if you take away slavery the difference between North and South vanish--as does any cause for war.

Point, Grattan54. But they were anti-slavery to a man. And remember all the southern rhetoric about slavery needing to expand to survive. Both sides thought a Republican government would be the slow death of slavery.

Which is not to say there were no Unionist slaveowners or Confederates who favored abolition. Real life is always messier than the "big picture."

Without slavery there would have been no Civil War.

^ AMEN to all that!!!

Easy to say:
1: Money.
2: Power. That of the Federal Govt. over that of the states.
3: The growing social, political, and ideological differences between essentially the North and the South.
4: The need for cheap labor to produce the cotton. Before that Yankee inventor Eli Whitney developed his cotton gin, slavery was a massive economic drain on the cotton producing states as there simply was too much cotton, not enough time or hands to remove the seeds. As a result, slavery was actually on its way out in certain area. However one the gin fixed the seed issue, and mass cotton production and baling was able to be done in speedier times, it all but ensured that the practice would continue.
5: The hypocritical morals and standards of the Northern States. Northern industrialists who were more than happy to take Southern Cotton into their factories, make cloth and textiles out of it, and then resell it back to Southerners for a nice tidy profit, but not happy with "how" the cotton was picked.
6: Northern Industry leaders not happy with the fact that many Southerners preferred English and European imported goods over the cheaper/poor quality high priced Northern goods peddled in the South. (Thus you got the Morrill Tariff).
7: Northern abolitionists, (many of them social upper crusters in New England), who decried the "evils of slavery in the South" because you know they ALL read "Uncle Tom's Cabin", (which the author admitted later on she wrote based on hearing stories, having never really visited the South and seen it firsthand), but completely ignoring the conditions of the European immigrants shacked up in ghettos in New York, Baltimore, New Jersey, and Philadelphia.
8: Northern abolitionists who while decrying the evils of slavery really didn't bother themselves with leaving their nice New England homes and be willing to help escaped slaves.
9: Northerners who showed their hypocrisy by telling newly freed slaves, after the war and the passage of the 18th Amendment, "You're free…just don't come up this way."
10: Northern abolitionists who decried "Slavery in the South" all the time ignoring that slavery was still legal in all of the US according to the US Govt, until the passage of the 18th amendment. Kind of a usual double standard for these folks.
11: Southern arrogance. The fact that most of the rich southerners saw themselves as genteel descendants of feudal lords and seemed content to live a lifestyle that was quickly becoming obsolete, or "Gone with the Wind…"
12: The US Govts. unwillingness to face the issue earlier on, thanks to Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, and James Buchanan in The White House.
15: The lack of industrialization in the South, due to the geography, the lay of the land, the population, etc. Cities in the South were spread far and ride and would often take 1-2 days to go from Atlanta to New Orleans or Charleston, whereas a person could go from New York City to Boston in a matter of hours by rail.

These are just some of the issues that all contributed.
For those that say it was "all about slavery" and that the basic cause was slavery, they are simply wrong. It was much more convuluted than that.

Slavery. The main cause by far. Almost all others lead to slavery. There were other causes, but they were minor in comparison.

"We have been over this in several threads here, frequently and not long ago."
Indeed we have, but I'm sure 'hi EEE ya' was aware of that. Wooden spoons and see what rises to the top.

Like Murphy said, it was all the fault of the North. The South was blameless. 🙄

Murphy has it.

The south was always a different economy and culture from, say, New England. Cavaliers vs Roundheads, climate and topography, staple crop agriculture, and on and on. Slavery was, or became, the visible and contentious point of difference, but not until after 1830.

If African chattel slavery had not been available as a labor system, replaced by, say, white Irish, or if there had been a native population large enough and immune to European diseases, there would still have been all the problems of staple crop agriculture and crops that debilitated the soil requiring constant expansion, resistance to protective tariffs, the feudal mindset with its touchy honor, etc. Plus the ambiguity of the federal relationship.

Expansion of slavery was the powder keg, but it is far more complex than even that institution. I would remind everyone that slavery disappeared in 1865 and yet the Solid South etc lasted until, really, electronic communication and consumerism and TVA etc etc wore away regional differences. So it was a peculiar south whose status had to be reconciled (after, don't forget, 32 of the first 36 years of the nation with a Virginian president) and would have had to be even without Africans. So slavery is an answer for those content with a superficial explanation.

Read Erik Larson's "Demon of Unrest." It centers around the events leading up to the firing on Fort Sumter, and covers the various state Succession Conventions, beginning, of course, with the first: South Carolina. Although there were several factors involved in the decision to secede, the overriding reason was the preservation of the institution of slavery.

BTW, the book is exceptionally well researched and documented, and as with all of Larson's books, highly readable.

Slavery was the cause of the Civil War. The other issues could have been worked out within the framework of the Constitution. Southerners said exactly that in all the succession conventions. It is even stated so in the Confederate Constitution. It is set out in Alexander Stephens's Cornerstones Speech.

We have been over this quite a bit. It would be easier to search the threads for causes of the Civil War.

"The other issues could have been worked out within the framework of the Constitution."

Then why weren't they?

"But the vast majority of rebels didn't have slaves so they didn't care whether blacks were free or not, right?"

Every white person in the South benefited from slavery.

Before the war, the institution of slavery was deeply embedded in the Southern economy and society, and even many Southerners who did not own slaves benefited from it in various ways:

1. Economic Benefits:

Lower Wages: The widespread use of enslaved labor in agriculture, especially in cash crops like cotton, tobacco, and sugar, helped suppress wages for free laborers, including poor whites. This made it easier for them to find work, even if it was at low pay.

Access to Land and Resources: Slavery allowed for large-scale plantation agriculture, which generated significant wealth. This wealth contributed to the development of infrastructure like roads and markets, benefiting the broader population.

Trade and Industry: Non-slaveholding Southerners often worked in industries that were directly or indirectly tied to slavery, such as shipping, warehousing, and trade in goods produced by slave labor. This created economic opportunities for many who did not own slaves.

2. Social Status:
Social Hierarchy: Even the poorest whites in the South could take solace in the fact that, regardless of their economic situation, they were still socially superior to enslaved Black people. This sense of superiority helped maintain social cohesion among whites and discouraged class-based unity that might have threatened the power of the Southern elite.

3. Political Influence:
The political power in the South was largely controlled by wealthy slaveholders, but even non-slaveholding whites benefited from the representation system, which was bolstered by the three-fifths compromise. This gave Southern states more influence in the federal government than they would have had based solely on their white population.

4. Cultural Identity:
Cultural Norms: The institution of slavery was tied to a particular way of life that many Southerners, regardless of economic status, saw as essential to their identity. The idea of a "Southern way of life," including values like honor, chivalry, and independence, was intertwined with the existence of slavery.

5. Economic Mobility:
Aspiration to Slave Ownership: Many non-slaveholding whites aspired to one day own slaves themselves. Slave ownership was seen as a means of achieving upward mobility and gaining social status, which kept many whites invested in the preservation of the system.

While these benefits did exist for common Southerners, it's important to note that the overall economy of the South was heavily dependent on slavery, which also limited industrial development and economic diversification, potentially stifling long-term economic opportunities for the non-slaveholding population.

It is important to note that Southerners were not the only ones who benefited from the slave system. Northern industrialists benefited from the lower cost of products provided by slave labor. Same for British textile merchants.

Smaller farmers could rent slaves from a plantation to provide labor for harvesting. A very common practice.

"Then why weren't they?"

When you have two sides polarized over slavery it is hard to get other things done. But nobody was going to go to war over tariffs or any of the other issues. Everything is filtered through the prism of slavery.

"One point of disagreement. The Republicans were not a party of abolition. Yes, they did have abolitionists inside the party but the party was itself not abolitionist. Their position on slavery was very clear. It could stay where it was but could not expand."

Lincoln made that clear to the Southern States. The Southern states replied that this was coming from the same man who gave the "House Divided" speech. The Southern States had enough of broken promises going back decades. Then there was the expansion issue. Most of the South was determined to leave the Union and no one was going to stop them. All of this was over slavery.

As far as the South was concerned the Republican Party was the
party of abolition. Perception is everything

@Cleburne1863
Yes, that is above all the poor whites benefited 'psychologically' because of not being at the bottom of the social scale.

If there is other Causes and if they were minor in comparison, which one were?

@Robert Piepenbrink
Without slavery no possible secession?

I do not think that the abolition of slavery was the first motivation of the Yankee little guys who engaged in the units of volunteers at the beginning of the war, even after when the war is well started.

But as you have written, we must not forget the responsibility of British textile merchants either.

alas everything is filtered through the prism of slavery.

The Republicans were not a party of abolition and the Democrats?

As far as the South was concerned the Democrate Party was the
party of the non-abolition?

@Ianwillcocks
So for political reasons is it also a war of independence?

@John the red
For me no better place to look for things that TMP which is not just a wargamers forum because some players are much more than that.

@mahdi1ray
And nothing else?

Yet I bet that in the union many people played blacks as much as in the south.

Amen to all that ???

@Mildbill
I do not think that the abolition of the esclavage was the first motivation of the little guys Yankee who engaged in the units of volunteers at the beginning of the war, even after the When the war is well started.

@Col Dernford
But maybe the rebels did not consider blacks as creatures of the good Lord?

@Tgerritesen
Yes I believe that reality is that it was more complex than what the With the wind … "no other" cultural "reasons?

@Silurian
There you are very mistaken.

@doc MCB
Yes, let's say that the South has always been a different economy and culture from New England and that it did not want to die.

It is therefore also cultural.

@Extrabio1947
How many residents of the South were against war?

How many residents of the South have fought in the Northern armies?

How many inhabitants of the North were against war?

How many residents of the North fought in the southern armies?

There are some.

@ hi EEE ya: I stand by everything I have said before!!!

hi EEE ya, if you're simply going to say "I don't believe your answer" there's not much point in responding. Nor can I find any point at which I mentioned, let alone blamed, British textile manufacturers.

Democrats. In the south, in the run-up to the ACW, the Democrats were the party of government. There were still a few Whigs here and there, but nothing of consequence. And there was no opposition to slavery within southern politics. I would not say northern or border state Democrats were necessarily in favor of slavery, but as a party they knew that any legal opposition to it risked a constitutional crisis, which they avoided at any cost. They were working on "The Compromise of 1860" even after Lincoln's election. Only secession and and the firing on Fort Sumter brought the "war Democrats" to the northern cause, and for the most part they opposed abolition even then--the argument being it would make for a longer and more bitterly-fought war.

The seceding states explained in their articles of secession exactly why they were seceding. All list slavery, and its preservation as the primary reason.
It's rather difficult to explain that away by blaming Northern industrialists.
Southern society needed slavery, and they believed that a Republican administration imperiled that.

We have been over this in several threads here, frequently and not long ago

I am with Don on this one. No need to go over old ground again so soon.

Too deep of an issue to be covered in a few posts. Entire college courses exist which attempt to cover the issue but seldom is a conclusion reached.
In regards to saving the Union was a real concern. Most forget that most States in the South were far younger than the core in the north.
So the possibility of separatist feelings in Texas, California where most of the gold hunters were Southern,.
You had South Carolina try to secede in the 1830s.

Timeportal,

Hmmm no, I am a college professor of the Civil War. I reach a conclusion on what caused the war, slavery. Any college professor worth his or her salt will tell you the same thing. It is fact in the academic world.

" Any college professor worth his or her salt will tell you the same thing. It is fact in the academic world."

Oh the routes we could go with THAT statement there…lol…

@ Grattan54: I agree with you 100%.
I was a part time instructor for Modesto Junior College until 1978 and for Merced College until 1986.
I was an Assistant Adjunct Professor for Chapman University at their Castle Air Force Base facility until the base closed in 1995.

@mahdi1ray
Slavery is not the only cause.

@robert piepenbrink
Can't you find a passage where you mentioned British textile manufacturers?

Yes the Aug 15, 2024 you wrote in paragraph 5. Economic Mobility: "It is important to note that Southerners were not the only ones who benefited from the slave system. Northern industrialists benefited from the lower cost of products provided by slave labor. Same for British textile merchants.")

Were you complimenting them?

In fact, apart from the majority of slaves, no one and a few white idealists, was anyone against slavery?

@Marcus Brutus
Slavery is not the only cause!!!

@TimePortal
It's normal that we rarely come to a conclusion.

@Grattan54
There were so many differences between the south and the north that even without slavery, couldn't the war have finally broken out later?

@Murphy
It's a fact in academia.

But maybe not elsewhere.

This whole thread could be a college textbook lesson on logical fallacies. 😄
Before anyone asks, "Who, me???" 😱
Yeah. You.

That was Old Contemptible, hi EEE ya. We each have individual names and personalities.

But apart from idealists--who were not few--no one cared to compete against slave labor.

OC said:

"Every white person in the South benefited from slavery."

As did practically every white person in the North too…don't forget that.

No, without slavery there would not have been a war. The issue dividing the country for decades was slavery. The north was firm that slavery should not expand and was economically and socially wrong. Abolitionists went farther and said it was morally wrong.

The south demanded that it expand. They maintained slavery was a positive good and they had a constitutional right to expand slavery anywhere.

This is what finally brought the war. It was the Republican position on slavery, that it will not expand, that made states in the south, convinced the Republicans were also an abolitionist party, they had to seceded.

Murphy,

As I said above, the North benefited as did the British and French.

@robert piepenbrink
But apart from idealists--who were not few--no one cared to compete against slave labor.

Yet before conscription, masses of men signed up freely to go to war even though they had no interest in the fate of slaves, especially in the north, was there a reason?

@Murphy
I don't think it was good for the working classes of the time that there were slaves.

@Grattan54
If both parties, Republicans and Democrats, were "abolitionist," instead of seceding, the Southerners should have created a third political party,who would have been against the abolition, if only to gain time before the war, and they should have let the Yankees take the initiative for military aggression.

@Old Contemptible
The North benefited as did the British and French and who else?.

Neither the Republicans or the Democrats were abolitionist.

Republicans were anti-slavery and there were some abolitionists in their ranks. They were firmly a northern party who felt southerners had too much control over the federal government. Their position was the slavery will not expand into the West.

The Democrats were more of a national party. But the issue of slavery was causing it problems and starting to divide them. Yet, they did hold it together until the 1860 election.

There was no way the South could have created an anti-slavery party. Slavery was too important economically, socially and culturally. In order to be elected Southern politicians had to support slavery and it's expansion and that the South had the right to secede. Much like today Democrats all have to endorse and support abortion and Republicans have to pledge their support Trump. Otherwise, in both cases, you won't be a politician for long.

Abolition of slavery was not the cause. It was one of many factors that led to eventual war. I feel @IanWillcocks described it best when he said it was a battle over "who should govern who".
In his post-war book, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Davis goes on in considerable detail over several chapters to describe many reasons (historical, legal and others [yes, slavery is one of them]) behind secession. In Chapter I he sums up the reason for the Civil War (and earlier conflicts) saying:
"They were essentially struggles for sectional equality or ascendancy—for the maintenance or the destruction of that balance of power or equipoise between North and South, which was early recognized as a cardinal principle in our Federal system."

If slavery was the root cause you would not have had any slave-holding States in the Union. Neither would you have had, in 1865, laws passed and General Order 14 issued where enslavers signaled their approval by manumitting them before enlistment ("No slave will be accepted as a recruit unless with his own consent and with the approbation of his master by a written instrument conferring, as far as he may, the rights of a freedman").

"Yet before conscription, masses of men signed up freely to go to war even though they had no interest in the fate of slaves, especially in the north, was there a reason?"

One more time, and then I give up. Idealism is a reason. Loyalty to the United States or to one of the loyal states is a reason. And--Murphy to the contrary--white men working in farms and factories had to compete against slaves. The income of a white farmer was lower because other people growing crops weren't being paid. If you cared nothing about black people as such, you still wouldn't want to be a farm hand in a place where you could be replaced by a slave.

We keep giving you reasons, and you keep asking "was there a reason?" If you want a reason we're not giving you, please have the decency to tell us what it is.

robert, as I've pointed out before, there is a difference between "why" any individual fought, and "what" they fought for.

To many people want to conflate or combine the two when they were often different.

Why one man fought could be because they genuinely wanted to preserve slavery and their way of life. Why another man fought could have been because he was conscripted against his will. Why the next man fought could be because the Yankees were invading his home state and he thought it was his duty.

What they fought for was the preservation of a nation that depended on human slavery for its economy and continued existence as it was in November 1861. Every effort, no matter the individual reason, all goes back to this one "what."