US CIVIL WAR QUESTION: How did the development of the west (US) contribute to the US Civil War?

Question

I know how the industrial and "moral" development of the North and South contributed to the start of the US Civil War but I have no clue how the development of the west contributed to it. Anyone know? It would be VERY helpful.

Also, if anyone can give me more detail about the theory that the north got involved in the war to gain more control of the south, rather than to stop slavery, that would be good too. I've heard that the North used slavery as a moral excuse to start the war rather than a logical one and that the main goal of the north was to just gain further economic and political control of the south.

This is for an essay, thanks. If you can't get to both questions, answer my first one if you can't get both.

Answer 1

The development of the west had a lot to do with it because the southern and northern states could not agree on how the western states should develop (i.e. with slavery or without slavery). The Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act where hugely important pieces of legislation as things played out. Whig philosophy was to contain slavery and let it die on the vine, but the Kansas-Nebraska Act showed a lot of Whigs that the southern states weren't going to let that happen and that they wanted to continue expanding slavery westward. This contributed to some Whigs spinning off and creating the Republican party.

The theory "that the north got involved in the war to gain more control of the south, rather than to stop slavery" is totally bogus, as is the notion that "the North used slavery as a moral excuse to start the war rather than a logical one and that the main goal of the north was to just gain further economic and political control of the south." (Sounds like you're being indoctrinated with some revisionist history.) Lincoln said from the start that if he could preserve the Union with slavery in place, that he would do it. And if he could preserve the Union without slavery, he would do that too. His chief goal was to preserve the Union. Only later did the Emancipation Proclomation truly transform the Civil War into a war against slavery.

Answer 2

The Civil War was mostly about the south wanting to be on it's own and the north needed it it financially. The north needed the ports in the south. They needed the products of the south and the cheep labor of the south. Slavery was thrown in there to make it a more nobal war. And whenever Lincolin needed to gather up more support he made slavery an issue. I am not saying that slavery was not an issue, I am glad that someone in our country stood up for the abolishmnet of it. But, it isn't the main reason for the war.

As for the development of the west. Well, I know Colorado held off on joining the union to help the north. From what I have read and heard, the west needed the south to incourage it to be part of a united union.

Do you really think half a nation would be so honorable to fight JUST for the freedom of the slaves? There were some slaves in the north also. Some of our first presidents had slaves.

Those who write history books tend to insunuate things one way to sound good. I imaige that true history will never be fully known or understood.

I wish I could give you a place to prove this.

Where did I get my view point? From reading years ago. And from a Black man that I cared deeply for.

I hope this gives you some insight and helps you find some reason to dig deeper in to history.

Answer 3

the missouri compromise was an attempt to balance the political power of the two main groups in the US at the time.

The larger issue was "States Rights" or how much power does the Federal gov't have over the individual states.

The southern states wanted to have each state with strong central power at the state level and to be loosely confederated to provide military, central currency and banking stability, and international relations. In other words a small federal government with limited powers that protected and supported economic activity.

This is an issue that is still not fully resolved to this day: How much gov't is too much gov't?

Butthe outcome of the Civil War was the beginning of "big" gov't in Washington DC, as we know it, since the North won and they were in favor of the Federal gov't deciding on social issues for all the citizens of the US(slavery and the 14th amendment). They wanted to see a uniformity in all the states on certain issues. It was the precurser to the regulatory function of the federal gov't that we now take for granted: FDA aprroved drugs, the content labels on your furniture, minimum wage, voting age, just to name a few.

hope that helps point you in the direction you want to go.

Answer 4

Missouri Compromise