How slavery came to be the central difference that would lead to the civil war?

Answer 1

DrIG sketched some of the big pieces -- beginning with the cotton gin. I'll elaborate below on some key historical developments he does not mention.

But apparently it's necessary first. to establish how central slavery WAS to the struggle from the start of the War... and long before.. (This will also provide part of the answer to your question.)

It's important to note, as DrIG has, that slavery did not exist in isolation. It was, rather the centerpiece of a whole economic SYSTEM and way of life. Thus it was bound together with other areas of dispute [e.g., the tariff]. But ONLY slavery had to power to so divide as to lead to secession and so, ultimately, to war.

Note that saying slavery was "the cause" of the conflict does NOT mean the North entered the war to get rid of slavery. On the contrary, they did so to save/restore the Union. BUT it IS true that the ESSENTIAL motivation for Southern SECESSION (which led to war) was to defend and keep slavery.

(The North added the goal of eliminating slavery for certain practical reasons, e.g., the need for more manpower in the armies.... but ALSO because they increasingly recognized the need to remove the CAUSE of the conflict to have final success. Just restoring the Union "as it was" would leave that problem unresolved, to come back another day.)

The evidence for slavery as the strongest motive for Southern secession is, in fact, overwhelming. It is found in the very actions, words and formal declarations of Southern leaders themselves. Throughout the 1850s they made if very clear that they felt SLAVERY was threatened. In particular, they believed the "black Republicans", should they be elected, would set out to destroy slavery.

As a consequence, beginning in 1856, a number began to THREATEN that, if a Republican EVER won the Presidency, they would secede. . . and of course that's exactly what they DID! And it had NOTHING to do with the tariff, or for that matter with anything the Republicans (who had not even taken office yet!!) had DONE or were seeking to do.

Further, when the states began to secede, they issued CLEAR statements of their REASONS for doing so. And slavery was explicitly declared to be a key part. (As "offenses" justifying secession they listed such things as the North's failure to adequately enforce the Fugitive Slave Law.) Just read the Declarations of Causes of Seceding States - South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia and Texas.
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reasons.html

Shortly after this we have the negotiations in Congress and with Lincoln's representatives during the winter of 1860-1, attempting to stem to secession tide, perhaps even to bring back states that had already seceded. ALL the significant points of discussion centered on protecting SLAVERY, enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law, etc.

So if slavery "was not really the cause", WHY was it THE thing Southerners constantly complained threatened over, the most prominent specific reason cited in their formal reasons for seceding, and the focus of the first 'reconstruction' negotiations?!?

Then there is a VERY telling speech by Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens. In his "Cornerstone Address" (March 21, 1861) he praises the draft Constitution for the Confederacy. You may wish to read it through (see the link). He notes the issue of the tariff, for examples. But note esp. the following section:

"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, going back to pick up your original question. I'll mention three key periods:


1) ca. 1800 - 1832 -- growth of two increasingly distinct systems/economies -

DrIG sketched the basics, such as the growth of labor-intensive cotton (possible because of the cotton gin), creating a plantation economy DEPENDENT on slavery. Meanwhile, the North was beginning to experience rapid industrial growth along with POPULATION growth from immigration, which pointed toward an eventual increase in POLITICAL power (though MOST of the federal government was firmly controlled by Southerners or those sympathetic to them, right up to the Civil War.)

Also, during this time, the position of many in the South was starting to shift, from the old position that slavery was a necessary evil they expected to die out, to beginning to DEFEND the institution, and to be less and less willing even to DISCUSS programs for gradual emancipation.

Their fear and defensiveness were also fed by prominent slave revolts (led by free blacks and the 'house servants' who had things best), and by the growth in the 1820s and early 30s of various movements for social reform --- including abolitionist societies.

I list 1832 as the end, because that was both the year of one of the great slave revolts (Nat Turner) and the LAST year before the War that any Southern state seriously discussed a plan for gradual emancipation-- the efforts (in Virginia) failed.


2) 1830s-40s -- hardening of positions, esp. in the South. During this period, the views of John C Calhoun exerted enormous influence. He argued, and many followed him, that slavery was in fact a positive GOOD, and that the Southern society was far superior to the greedy North.

During this time, the refusal to deal with the issue was manifest in putting a "gag rule" to prevent even the barest acknowledgment of petitions to Congress (mostly from New England, esp. from women) concerning slavery.... even in the District of Columbia, here Congress DID have power to legislate on this matter. (Through years of perseverance, John Quincy Adams, as a member of the House of Representatives, finally managed to get this rule overturned.)


3) (late) 1840s - 50s -- the great TERRITORIAL disputes

The issue of how slavery would be treated in new territories, esp as they became states, first became a significant problem with the addition of the Louisiana Purchase... though for a time it seemed to be manageable, by "balancing" the reception of slave and free states (most famously in the "Missouri Compromise"). BUT with the acquisition of Texas, California (which became a state VERY quickly because of the population boom from the Gold Rush) and other territories gained in the late 1840s, esp. as a result of the war with Mexico, tensions began to heat up to new levels. In a sense, this had already begun with the annexation of Texas, a move pushed for mainly by Southerners, who wanted to gain it as a slave state.

During the 1850s Northern efforts to LIMIT the expansion of slavery clashed with Southern efforts to gain new slave states to retain political power, including the power to continue to defend their slave system. (Many were ready, some even attempted, to take other lands in Central America and the Caribbean.)

To flesh this out, you'll need to look up such things as "Wilmot Proviso", "Compromise of 1850" [including the Fugitive Slave Law], "Kansas-Nebraska Act", "Bleeding Kansas" and "popular sovereignty" for the details. (By the way, "Bleeding Kansas" is another powerful proof that slavery was THE key issue. The struggle there --which was, in a sense, the first part of the Civil War -- was all about whether the state would be slave or free)

In fact, it was these struggles (esp. the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri Compromise) that caused the two major parties to split internally, in one case basically destroying the Whig Party... whose Northern members soon formed the bulk of the new "Republican" party... a party whose first defining issue was "free soil", that is, preventing the spread of slavery to new territories.

As seen above, it was finally the disputes about slavery in the TERRITORIES (hence in new states) that brought tensions to the boil and led to the Civil War.

Answer 2

It wasn't.

If it were, explain why the North was still heavily involved in slave trafficking, and why Lincoln waited until 1863 to even mention the subject of liberating slaves. Since the ink wasn't even dry on the Dredd Scott Decision (in which the USSC refused to analyze the Slavery issue as anything but a question of Property Law), it is downright preposterous to think that the Confederacy seceded over Slavery; there simply were no imminent threats to the institution in 1860.

Now, had the South not seceded, what are the odds that Lincoln would have ordered the invasion of Virginia, which is what REALLY caused the Civil War?

Does anyone think people of the North were so much better human beings back then than they are today, to go and fight for the liberation of the blacks in the South? It's a ridiculous notion. Almost as ridiculous as the notion that poor Southerners would go to war to protect rich people's right to own slaves, something that was economically out of reach for the majority of them.

Slavery came to be the central issue of the war later, when it became a plausible issue that laid the blame for the war on the South. It is also simpler to teach in school than the truth about the inequality of the tariff system with favored the industrialized North, and disadvantaged the agricultural South.

Answer 3

I respectfully disagree with the answer of open4one

Slavery was A major issue as a cause of the civil war.

Lincoln's election was a turning point where the South feared that he would free the slaves.

Slavery was very carefully intertwined with the different economic and cultural differences between the North and the South.

The invention of the cotton gun made cotton an extremely important product for the South. Slaves were used to pick the cotton which could now more easily be turned into yarn, material, and clothing.

The South continued its economic development in agriculture while the North due to the presence of flowing water which was used for power and its talented people who established factories and had many inventions became an industrialized area.

As an industrialized area the North favored tariffs (which is a tax on goods coming into our country) since the higher price of goods that it fostered would help industry since people would be paying more for imported goods and then turn to American made goods. This befitted the owners of factories and the workers whose jobs would be protected and increased. The South as an agricultural area was not in favor of having to pay more for its goods. These economic differences were directly related to slavery.

We also had the Compromises of 1820, 1850, and he Kansas Nebraska Act that showed that slavery was an important issue between the states.

The Dred Scott case which said that slaves were considered property was yet another emphasis of slavery as a cause.

While there were Southerners who wanted the slaves freed and Northerners who waned slavery to exist this was not the general feeling in each section of the country.

The South developed a culture of thinking that slavery was good and even sanctioned by the Bible. The North's culture tended more to at first stopping the spread of slavery and then to its abolition (elimination).

I think that the above is a fairly comprehensive explanation and answer to you question and if you like you may bring it into your class.

Answer 4

While DrlG's answer was thoughtful and well written, I must disagree with him as he disagreed with the previous post. Slavery was not a central issue that led tho the American Civil War. It was a subsidiary contributor to the economic and political rifts between North and South.

Answer 5

I agree with Blake...
Slavery was intertwined with many decisions - but these were made primarily during the War - not in its run up.
Lincoln saw it as an excellent marketing point, and it was helpful, but I posit that the differing positions vis a vis States' Rights was the primary reason we all went to war with one another in the first place.
Slavery was an evil institution - but it was not the primary reason for the beginning of the War.

Answer 6

Blakenyp was correct when he stated that DrIG was incorrect in his answer. Open4one provided a pretty clear answer and was correct in his answer. My answer is also that slavery was not ‘the’ cause of the American War of the 1860s. Certainly it was an issue but not the cause.

I suggest that you view this as primarily a Constitutional issue which had been growing since ratification. It was a Constitutional issue between a view in which the federal government of the union was the predominate entity and a different view in which the federal government was a servant of the States defined and functioning only with the delegated powers within the Constitution.

The war began with the actions of the federal government of the Union when it attempted to supply Fort Sumter subsequent to the secession of the State of South Carolina. The federal government had been informed prior to that act that to do so would be considered an act of war and the federal government disregarded that ultimatum. South Carolina fired on that ship which were the first shots fired in that war. The firing on Fort Sumter occur when the Union force stationed there stated it was with withdrawing from that Fort and used that subterfuge to remove Union civilians from that Fort and then under cover of darkness re-manned the Fort knowing that South Carolina would consider this act as another act of war.

President Lincoln had committed during his campaign to maintain the Forts and facilities in the Southern States and he was attempting to accomplish this commitment. However he was also attempting to raise the people of the North to stand against the South and enter the Union Army. Before any overt acts were committed General Winfield Scott (General of the Union Armies) told Lincoln that it would take 20,000 Union Troops to keep Fort Sumter under Union control and that the North didn’t have anywhere enough troops to accomplish that desire. His advice was to let it go to South Carolina and bring the Union Troops home. In other words, Lincoln knew he would be starting a war by supporting Fort Sumter and that he would lose it and through that act he believed that he could raise troops for the Union Army. He succeeded.

The effort to free the slaves became a major element when President Lincoln wanted to ensure the England would not enter the war and needed more troops, he got them.

One of the things accomplished by the federal Union with this war was to destroy the South. Sherman’s march to the sea through Georgia was directed at the civilian populace including women and children.

While freeing the slaves was also accomplish by this war, most significantly the war changed the Constitution. For example, prior to this war the Bill of rights applied only to the federal government as the Founders intended. Subsequent to the war the Bill of Rights was (and has been) applied to the States thereby diminishing the sovereignty of the States and transferring sovereignty to the federal government, something never intended by the Founders. Evidence of this can be seen in 1868 with the applying (by the Federal government) of the XIV Amendment which never met Constitutional requirements for ratification. This amendment was declared as acceptable by the federal government by removing elected members of several Southern State Legislatures (which had rejected it) and replacing them with selected individuals who (subsequently) ratified it. Although this was not Constitutional nor legal it was declared valid by the Supreme Court in Texas v. White [1869] by right of conquest. Since a country cannot conquer its own States, the court had to accept that the Confederacy was a Sovereign Nation by right of secession.

This was a war of federal Aggression to maintain all States within the Union even though they had the right to secede, for this right read the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

Answer 7

I bet this question pertains to your homework assignment. This link will tell you everything you would want to know about slavery.
http://www.innercity.org/holt/slavechron.html