What do you feel was the root cause of the Civil War?

Question

Mostly you just hear slavery, but does anyone have a different opinion, or want to add another reason besides slavery?

Answer 1

There have always been those who insist that "states rights" was the issue and not slavery. The problem is that they never do a very good job explaining what exact "rights" of the states were at issue!

A look at the formal documents of the time, and the statements of Confederate leaders make it clear that the CENTRAL "states rights" issues revolved around the right to own slaves! I am not saying that all who make the "states rights" argument are ignorant or deliberately misleading (though some have advanced the argument specifically to justify the Confederacy and condemn the North).

There are historical reasons for their misunderstanding of the issues, some of which can be seen during the Civil War itself. Some of this confusion has come from the notion that the North's PURPOSE in entering the war is the same thing as the REASON for the war. But why do they have to be the same? Wanting to restore the Union with slavery still allowed hardly disproves that the disagreement about slavery was what CAUSED secession and thereby the war. In fact, most of the Northern efforts before the war to bring Southern states back focused on assurances about the protection of slavery, demonstrating that they perceived this as THE key issue.

I would say the same in reply to Trailcook's remarks about the Emancipation Proclamation, the border states, etc., Again, the original Northern PURPOSE for fighting the war is NOT the same as the CAUSE!

But for those who believe slavery was NOT the true cause of secession,the best answer is to look at the OFFICIAL statements of Southern states and their officers. In fact, they make it clear that securing SLAVERY was central to THEIR purpose!

Look first of all at the statements of the states that LED the way in seceding, where they make very clear how central slavery was (the right to hold slaves, the fugitive slave laws, etc). Just read the Declarations of Causes of Seceding States - South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia and Texas.
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reasons.html

And note that the "violations of states rights" they refer to (noted by Trailcook) are specifically related to slavery issues!! So again, saying "it was about states rights" in the abstract, as if slavery was not THE central "states rights" concern, is at best misleading.

Note here that statements of various leaders of border states who joined the Confederacy LATER, or of officers like Lee, who followed their states, does nothing to disprove the causative role of slavery in the conflict. The reason for which these men (or even the states) joined the Confederacy, and their own purposes in fighting are not the same as the CAUSE of the conflict!

See also [Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens: Cornerstone Address (March 21, 1861)

Speaking of the draft Constitution for the Confederacy he notes the following:

"taking the whole new Constitution, I have no hesitancy in giving it as my judgment, that it is decidedly better than the old. Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another, under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old Constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. . . .

"not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the ***** in our form of civilization. THIS WAS THE IMMEDIATE CAUSE OF THE LATE RUPTURE AND PRESENT REVOLUTION!! [emphasis mine]. . . .

"Those ideas [of the founders], however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell." Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the ***** is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. . . ."
http://civilwartalk.com/cwt_alt/resources/documents/cornerstone_addy.htm


Now I made sure to include Stephens remarks about the revenue/tariffs issue, which had long been a bone of contention between the sections. Indeed, at an earlier stage of the North-South conflict THIS "states rights" issue was at the fore, esp. in the "nullification crisis" with South Carolina, John Calhoun, etc. So we can see that there was a BROADER clash between North and South about a set of economic issues (and policies based on them).

But by the time of the Civil War it is undeniable that slavery was the focal point of the clash, and what actually caused the break -- as Stephens himself explicitly states!!

Perhaps some of the confusion about this whole question is that some miss or forget that though 'slavery' was at the heart, we are NOT talking about some abstract issue of the right to own slaves, but about a whole integrated way of life and economic SYSTEM that had been built in dependency on slave labor and that increasingly clashed with the Northern 'free labor' system. To some degree BOTH sides felt somewhat threatened by the other (Northern workers were adamant about "free soil" in part because they feared slavery would hurt THEIR chances to compete for work). In other words, there is much truth to those who say it was a political-ECONOMIC clash. But make no mistake, at the heart of THAT clash was the institution of slavery. Not to say there would not have been the merchant vs. agrarian sectional competition, political clashes, etc., but would they ever have led to such extreme steps? To secession and Civil War? I think not. Only the issue of slavery could and di impel that radical a step... precisely as many had long predicted it might.

Yes, there was confusion about the cause of the war, but ultimately it should be clear. Lincoln summarized all this well in his Second Inaugural. Looking back at the situation four years earlier he remarks:
"One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves. . . . These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. ALL KNEW THAT THIS INTEREST WAS SOMEHOW THE CAUSE OF THE WAR. . . " (That "somehow" catches nicely both the point that this was THE reason and the confusion about how it all worked out.)
http://douglassarchives.org/linc_a74.htm

Answer 2

The "root cause" of your question is; in my opinion the same as many others.

I often hear people say the root of all evil is money. I am usually in a group situation, and a bunch of politically correct "yes men" nod knowingly.

Two simple facts here. I hope people can conclude correctly if they have straight information.

1. The correct statement that means so much, yet is almost always misquoted . The root of all evil is the LOVE of money.

This is very different than money. All of us need money. There is no inherent evil in an inanimate object.

2. This is as true today as it was in the mid 1800's. POLITICIANS SERVE THEMSELVES FIRST. There are a few exceptions. (Great Men) But the average politician requires/desires power, prestige and recognition. The Northern politicians wanted what is best for them (and The North). The same for the the South.

As much as it is said. I believe the American Civil War was not about slavery.

Yes, Slavery was first and foremost in the minds of some. But the MAJORITY of powerful men were interested in money. Black and White was irrelevent.

Answer 3

there wasn't just one root reason for the civil war. kids are taught that slavery was the only reason for the civil war. but the top three reasons were the fact that the south had the right to leave if they felt the need to leave or states rights. also that the government had no right to impose such high taxes on the souths cotton trade and slavery was another one but not the only one like i just said most people don't realize that this wasn't the first time that south Carolina tried to leave the union they also tried under jacksons term over the tariff's that the government was was imposing on them

Answer 4

State rights. The south said each state had the right to make it's own laws that could override a federal law. Slavery was only one of the issues. The Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves, and it did not outlaw slavery.

In September of 1862, Lincoln issued a decree that all slaves in those states that are still in rebellion against the Union on January 1 1863 would be considered free. He outlined the definition of what it meant to be in rebellion. Then he gave the South 100 days to give up their fighting. If they did, they would be allowed to keep their slaves since the decree would not apply to them.

The Emancipation Proclamation was the decree that defined the sections of the country that were still in rebellion (most of them) and to which the earlier decree applied. A few small areas stopped fighting and kept their slaves.

This entire process, therefore, was an attempt to persuade the South to give up the war and keep their slaves in return.

The fact that the South did not is evidence that slavery was not their primary reason for going to war.

1.

Answer 5

Most history books are being published these days without mentioning the state's rights issue. The books we read in high school history (60s) told a different story than they do today.
They also shy away from mentioning that Lincoln had reservations about making the emancipation proclamation because he knew it would alienate the northern states that allowed slavery. History scholars and history book authors seem to have different points of view because the latter are pressured to be "politically correct."

When the constitution was written, the individual states were separate entities. They were not in favor of giving up their identity, their governments nor their rights. The continental congress established the federal government with that in mind.

But the feds went beyond its boundaries and the states which felt most violated decided to secede from the union. They considered it a breach of contract and opted out.

" The 1860 South Carolina Declaration of the Causes of Secession quoted the states 1852 declaration, which said that "the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States," would justify the state in withdrawing from the Union. The South Carolina secession ordinance, following the procedure that Calhoun had prescribed, simply repealed the states ratification of the Constitution and subsequent amendments. The secession ordinances of other states did the same. "

There are many people who maintain that slavery was the sole issue and the South's motivation was nothing more than greed. I cannot argue against that point any more than I can argue our position on the American revolution. Our history books talk of the selfish and controling British who taxed us without representation. Our patriots were very brave and militarily skillful to have succeeded. The books published in America make no mention of England's point of view that we were greedy upstarts who objected to following the rules that were imposed at the beginning of colonization.

Answer 6

Slavery was the root cause. Arguments abounded on states' rights, which was true, but the states' rights issues were all based on who had the final say in slavery: the federal government or the state governments. Economic situations also worked into this, but this, too, boiled down to slavery. Plantations worked well with a slave system, but the same was not true of factories.

Answer 7

Financial loss and ruin
Racism
Fear of change
Laziness
Power & delusions of grandeur

America was threatened with division, becoming 2 countries instead of just 1. Abraham Lincoln's greatest motivation was to keep the United States "united". Still, slavery was the match that lit the fire because the white southerner enjoyed the muliplied benefits of this horrible institution while the northerners opposed it. War was the "necessary evil" that ended legalized slavery.

Answer 8

Economic changes--especially in terms of the industrialization of the northern states, who needed a cheap labor force (ex-slaves).

Answer 9

The states wanted to govern themselves.

Answer 10

greed. at that time most southern white people were living with the blood of slave labor. they were afraid that if slavery was abolished their way of life would be destroyed. it was better to destroy the lives of the black people than destroy the gentrified society they were used to.