was anti-slavery an reason for the civil war?

Question

I need to know was anti-slavery reason for the civil war because i have an project

Answer 1

There is often confusion about this question. Some act as if the question of someone's original REASON for doing something is the same as the CAUSE. But
"Did the North fight to abolish slavery?" and "Was slavery the CAUSE of the War?" are DIFFERENT questions. Slavery can, and arguably did, in many ways CAUSE the War, without it being the reason that those who fought chose to do so. I think a fair case can be made that slavery was the CAUSE of the war, and was also ultimately the main REASON for the SOUTH'S seceding (and eventually fighting a war to try to gain/keep their independence). . . . though it is not a cut-and-dried matter (few things are!)

Interesting way you put your question -- "is it because of ANTI-slavery?" (usually people ask "was it because of slavery?) In fact, as chipmunk suggests, that MAY be more to the point. The North did NOT get into the war because it was trying to get rid of slavery, but because they wanted to preserve the Union, though many (including, most importantly, Lincoln) later decided that this had to be done, in part because slavery was at the ROOT of the problem.

So, if by "anti-slavery" you mean -- did the North do this because it was seeking to end slavery, the answer is NO.

But there IS a sense in which the "anti-slavery" movement motivated the SOUTH.

If you look at WHY the South seceded (the step that led to the War), the specific EVENT that caused them to do so was the election of Abraham Lincoln. Note, they were NOT responding to any specific law or act by the government, nor even of any promise or stated plan of Lincoln or his party. They were simply convinced that the Republicans actually WERE planning to and/or if given the chance WOULD outlaw slavery in the South. This was because they identified the Republican Party with ABOLITIONISM. And there were indeed abolitionists calling for outlawing slavery throughout the land. The Republican Party view was, rather, a "free soil" view -- that slavery should not be allowed to EXPAND into the territory, and certainly not into states that had abolished it. Their hope, much like that of Jefferson and most SOUTHERNERS at the time of the Revolution and founding, was that slavery, if contained, would 'wither away.'

Do note that it was not ONLY the right to HAVE slaves that was of concern. It was also about:

a) whether Southerners could TAKE their slaves into free territory and continue to keep them as slaves (which would seem to make it CEASE to be "free" territory!) This was precisely what the Dred Scott decision supported and what Republicans were so appalled at.

b) the issue of FUGITIVE slaves -- if a Southern master's slave fled to the North could he count on the support of the Northern state in retrieving the slave? The Northern states were at best uncomfortable with this, esp. since 'fugitive slave laws' typically provided no protection for FREE blacks from kidnapping! if someone showed up CLAIMING them as their escaped slave! In response, they drafted "personal liberty" laws that demanded strong proof of the person's identity, that they truly were the slave claimed. These made it much more difficult for free slaves to be taken, but also (thanks in part to the role of abolitionists in pushing the legislation) for a master to retrive someone who WAS legally his slave.

Now it is true that the seceding states spoke of their action as being concerned with "states' rights", and there were indeed some other tensions (esp. that over tarriffs which seemed to hit the South heavily). But WHAT right was it they were so concerned about in 1860?? Certainly not simply 'the right to secede' -- you don't do something that radical just to show you have the right to do so! No, THE right they were concerned with WAS their rights concerning their slaves (to hold them and to retrieve them if they escaped).

So, for those who say it was fought for "political and economic". True, but what WERE the politics and economics involved?! Ultimately, they were tied to slavery. Not that no differences/tensions would have existed apart from slavery, but that if there had BEEN no slavery, these issues would not have led to secession and civil war.

In any case, slavery was certainly A reason for the war, even if you think it is not "THE" reason.

_________________

Charlienoble is, in fact, dead wrong in his notion that no Southern documents support the view that they fought for slavery.

Quite the contary (despite many attempts to deny this ever since) --there were a number OFFICIAL statements of Southern states and their officers that explicitly stated 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 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's 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

Many will argue that secession, not slavery, was the real reason for the Civil War; however, without slavery, it's unlikely that there would have been a secession attempt. Once Lincoln, who was seen as an anti-slavery candidate, was elected, states in the Deep South began seceding. It's pretty clear that people in those states saw him as a threat to the institution of slavery and chose to secede for that reason. And note that when Virginia seceded (after the attack onFort Sumter), the western counties, where there were very few slaves, chose not to leave the Union and ultimately became the new state of West Virginia.

Answer 3

The Civil War was actually a rebellion of the South against the Union. This action is not allowed under the Constitution. The South decided to break off and develop it's own government. It was the false assumption of the South that the North wanted to end slavery in the South that caused the rift. But, the war did not start because of slavery. In fact Lincoln offered the South to send members back to congress in 1864 and all would be forgotten. That they would be as they were before. But, the South did not realize this, and continued to fight.

Answer 4

There were 4 slavery states that did not secede from the union. Kentucky was one of them. The American civil war was waged more for political and economic reasons thet for the slavery issue.

Answer 5

No! At first it was all about states' rights vs. Federal power, and that was the origin of the war. Lincoln changed the argument later on, half way through, to state that it was really about slaves, because he now wanted to gain political power and backing. As Bruce Catton the famous Civil War writer said, when a was starts, pretty soon it goes it's own way and it may not have any connection to where it started. Wars have a mind of their own.

Answer 6

In my opinion, no.

There is no documentation from the Confederate politicians, officers, soldiers, or citizens, that the South seceded because of slavery. There are financial, monetary, banking, international, and political reasons to be considered.

Answer 7

It was only an excuse.