What was the main cause of the American civil war?

Question

What was the main cause of the American civil war also if you know any more reasons than include it only if u know the significance it had on causing the war.

Answer 1

slavery, un-unified nation

Answer 2

That seems like a very simple question but once you begin examining it the details get very complicated. Full disclosure.......I am a Southern Country Boy through and through. Unfortunately people try to find simple expansions to complicated problems. Volumes upon volumes have been written about the Civil War and its causes and that question still has not been clearly answered and space and time does not permit a thorough discussion here. But I will try. Folks in the North had plenty of opportunity to eliminate slavery going back to the Declaration of Independence era. For almost a hundred years they accepted it. So if it was solely about slavery why wait hundred years and why fight a war for something that they clearly had the power to eliminate by law. So something else must have been at the core and that something was Abe Lincoln's determination to preserve the Union. In the South 90% of the Southerners did not own slaves. Having no ownership of slaves most Southerners who actually fought the Civil War had no interest in the Slavery Questions. If they had no interest in the Slavery Question why did they fight valiantly? They fought valiantly because as one Soldier said "you all are here". I don't suppose that question will ever be satisfactorily answered but I do find The Civil War fascinated and could talk about it more than we have time or space here.

Answer 3

Most people will answer.....slavery. Actually the main reason was that the south didn't want to be part of the united states.
There were economic issues. The north had more power and also the north needed the ports and the crops of the south. The south didn't want to be part of the Union. They wanted to leave the Union. The North's economic success depended on the south. Which didn't benefit the south. The south wanted more control of their states and not be functioning for the benifit of the north.

It is nice to think that the North fought solely for the freedom of the slaves. It was part of it. But in a way it was used to rally interest and motivation for the fighting. The slavery issue was part of it. By the answers I see here many Americans don't realizle that fight against slavery was a small reason for the war.

There were some slaves in the north too. Many of the early father's of our country had slaves. I personally can't comprehend slavey. It is wrong and very primitive. Our country is rather young and our history is rather resent compared to other countrys.

Answer 4

Proctor: All right, here's your last question. What was the cause of the Civil War?

Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter--

Proctor: Wait, wait... just say slavery.

Apu: Slavery it is, sir.

The Simpsons, Episode: 3F20, "Much Apu About Nothing"

Answer 5

Southerners did not want to cede power to the national government specifically with reference to taxation and the perpetuation of slavery.

They have not given up that fight southerners still wich to cripple,dissolve the national government, that is why Republicans consistently attempt to bankrupt the government.

Answer 6

King George III called George Washington an idiot. That's how it started.

Answer 7

slavery, south vs north

Answer 8

There are those who say it was all caused by disputes over "states rights", "Lincoln's election" and "economics". All of these answers have something to them. But those who use them often fail to look at WHY these issues prompted secession and war. In every case, if you go back, it was SLAVERY that caused these other things to even BE issues, at least to be issues big enough to break up the Union.

In particular, when someone insists that "states rights" was the issue 'and not slavery' they seldom explain which exact"rights" of the states were at issue! (By the way, for those who say the war was fought over "the right to secede" -- that makes little sense; it is even circular. Who would secede ONLY to assert the right to do so??! On the contrary, every time any state or group discussed, much less threatened secession, it was over other specific disputes.)

In fact, 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 (esp. the Crittenden Comprmoise), demonstrating that they perceived this as THE key issue.
_________________

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