What was the US civil war fought over?

Answer 1

The "simple" answer is SLAVERY. Many thinks that's TOO simple, "ignorant" or even wrong... but when you start to look at it closely you discover that it explains all the other answers. . . and there were leaders on both sides who made that very clear at the time.

The other answers tend to get on this --and I see some of this already-- are things like "states rights", "Lincoln's election" and "economics". Now all 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, to say "the right to secede" is absurd, even circular -- who would secede ONLY to assert the right to secede??!)

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 Compromise), 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

Answer 2

There is actually still disagreement on that. Some say it was over slavery, others preserving or separating the union. I say these issues are intertwined.

The south wanted to separate from the north and form their own nation and the north would not let them. The reason the north would not let them leads back to the slavery issue. So it can be argued actually that slavery or not so much slavery as the problems it created in foreign and
domestic policy caused the civil war.
In spite of America’s so-called idealistic beginnings,
U.S. policy often ran counter to those ideals because
it was the southern planters that wielded power and
they wished to act in their best interest. For example, when Haiti revolted against France in the 1790s, President Washington loaned hundreds of thousands of dollars to France so they could suppress the rebellion and keep their slaves. John Adams, wishing America to live up to its own ideals reversed these policies in favour of the Haitians. Jefferson reversed them back to favour the French, allowing them to reconquer the Island in 1801 because he and other slave owners like him preferred that Napoleon should hold sway in Haiti over a black republic. It was
against U.S. interests over all to have a French
presence so close to the border because had Napoleon
met success in Haiti he may have absorbed the the U.S.
into the French Empire. Remember the United States was
a young and vulnerable nation, not the powerhouse it
would become later. But Because the slaveholders in
the south did not want a successful slave rebellion
their own slaves might follow the example of or at
least escape and run away to Haiti, the U.S. risked
everything to placate them. Fortunately the Haitian
rebellion succeeded but it was a near thing.
Slaveholders also dictated policy when it came to what
to do with Cuba. They would have rather Cuba stayed a
Spanish colony than become a second Haiti. Jefferson
suggested annexing Cuba and keeping it as a slave
colony as the Spanish had done. Essentially
slaveholders’s sway over foreign policy made the
United States have imperialist designs on Latin
America only a decade after condemning the British for
their imperialism.

Slaveholders also ran domestic policy. As far as
slaves were concerned, the borders around the southern
states could be likened to those around the more
recent East Germany without fear of exaggeration. Even
if runaway slaves did get past the borders the Dred
Scott decision of 1857 and treaties with Indians
demanding the return of all “runaway property” they
were guaranteed no safety anywhere in the United
States. In fact, most U.S. territorial expansion
between the years 1778 and 1855 was done for the
benefit of southern states. They wanted to push
through what was still Indian and Spanish land and
make it into more slave states for themselves. Further
the slaveholders were the driving force behind the war
of 1812 because it gave them the excuse and
opportunity to nick Florida from the Spanish (even
though the Spanish had almost nothing to do with the
war) and turn it into a slave state.

Four lesser known wars took place within the American
continent for the sake of the slaveholders as well.
There was the First Seminole War from 1816-1818 (the
second took place from 1835-42). This war concerned a
small recently formed tribe of Indians, whites who had
“gone native” and runaway slaves. When the tribe
refused to surrender the runaway slaves, war broke out
for no other reason than slaveholders did not want a
free stronghold for their slaves to run to. The second
Seminole war was the longest and costliest war with
the Indians that had ever been fought. And the only
reason it was fought was because the slaveholders
wanted it. Plus it was largely unsuccessful from the
southern point of view. The treaty freed the slaves.
Slavery was the issue that started the Texas War
(1835-1836). American heroes like Davy Crockett fought
at the Alamo to be free...to own slaves. The Mexican
War (1846-1848) was once again driven by southern
planters who wanted the borders of their slave states
as far from the free states as possible.

Plus what the slaveholders wanted did not reflect the
desires of the United States as a whole. During the
Civil War (1861-1865) the Union and the Confederacy
had two very different foreign polices. The Union
recognized Haiti as a free republic and shared the
ideology of post-revolutionary Mexico. On the other
hand, the Confederacy actually threatened to invade
Mexico and welcomed Napoleon’s takeover of Mexico as a French colony.

So it seems likely that the reason the south wanted to
separate from the Union was not because it was being
oppressed by the north but because the north refused
to let the south run the country’s policy anymore.
Though Lincoln was hardly a rabid abolitionist he was
not on the southern ballot. The fact that he won I
think reflects the northern half of the United States
telling the imperialist south, “That’s enough!” The
south resented being usurped from their seat of power
and thus they tried to separate. Why the north did not
let them? Well considering how friendly the south was
with Napoleon, an independent south would have been
very dangerous to the survival of any republic, with
or without the south.

Answer 3

Keeping it brief, there were three issues.
1. Slavery, which is an anti-individual rights question.
2. States' rights--such as to permit slave-holding--as against the federal government of the Republic passing national legislation through Congress; the South wanted to keep their
"peculiar institution"; Northerners, more industrialized objected, for several reasons.
3. The Southern states attacked Fort Sumter, Sout Carolina, when Northerners tried to reprovision it and increase the garrison. This led to their calling a secession convention, forcing then president Abraham Lincoln to move decisively to secure border states and prepare for war if it became inevitable. So the third issue was the illegality if secession by states compacting in the federal union we call the United State.

Answer 4

It was mostly a result of the unresolved issue of states rights versus national or federal authority. This was left unresolved by the constitution. It took the Civil War to decide the matter.

Answer 5

Economics!! The South relied on slavery to support their agrarian economy. In addition, it was fought over states rights and who was going to control the rich lands of the West, the industrial North or the agrarian South.

Chow!!

Answer 6

The Souths use of slaves to up thier economic bottomline pissed off Northern Industrialists and so they came to the conclusion it had to go.

Answer 7

Most people would say it was slavery, but this is not entirely true. It was about State's rights, particularly, the right to own slaves. Only the rich plantation owners owned slaves...the average Southerner did not own slaves because they couldn't afford to.

Answer 8

Federal power vs. state power, manifested in the slavery and tariff issues.

Answer 9

Look in the set of encyclopedias you should have in your home. You should have at least one.

Answer 10

To put it simply, it was a matter of economics.