Civil War Essay Question?

Question

"Slavery was less the cause of the Civil War than expansion of slavery into the territories" What side do you take. I'm not very good with history, and I want to hear other people's opinions and ideas about this topic

Answer 1

WRONGGGGG! The north wanted to have a monopoly on the cotton grown in the south, and was trying to pass laws forbidding sales to England. England under Victoria was trying to break up the States by sending spies like Prince Solms of Braunfels to New York in 1850's, and had sympathizers in some of the cotton planters, who had more in common with the English millers and weavers than with the Yankees. (Many of the original plantation owners were 2nd and 3rd sons of wealthy English landowners, so there was a filial and social connection.)They were also trying to forbid the sale of some of this weaving and milling equipment to the Southerners, by passing laws outlawing the purchase, operation or manufacture of them. The New England states had poor soils and weather for the growth of crops, and had to turn to manufacturing to survive. They were asking the Federal Government to legislate the future of the Southern states. This was a real threat, as Irish and other immigrants were pouring into the ports up north (look at a map to see how far north England is), and far outnumbered the Sounterners, both on the ground in fighting, and in the legislature. The Southerners believed that States rights were superior to Federal rights, and were protecting their land and livelihood. It's the classic Alexander Hamilton versus Thomas Jefferson arguments. Yes, some of it was about expansion of slavery into the new states, but that question was answered in a vote shortly before N. Carolina decided to seceed from the Union, as they felt they had a right to do. They were concerned that the Navy was forming a blockade in their harbor to prevent the sale of cotton to England. FYI 97% of the Southerners who went to war did not nor never owned slaves. It was not a slavery issue for them. They were invaded by the Yanks, who behaved barbarically robbing and raping as they went, and most of the battles except Penn. were fought on southern soils, hence the name WAr of Nothern Aggression. The Southerners were considered gentlemen, regardless of their financial or social positions, who took their honor seriously, and refused to take the war north and invade another's territory. All their fighting was to protect their homeland, as witnessed by the fierce fighting they were famous for.

You should look into history and learn more about it.There is much out there written by people who are willing to let history itself tell the story through diaries of contemporaries without coloring and injecting their OPINIONS into the equation. Ken Burns is not an accurate authority on anything, he just gives his version as he wishes it WAS. You are allowing modern sympathies to color your view and knowledge of life if you get your history from popular movies and books. Most of the estblishment who make the movies and publish the books have little vested interest in this history, being fairly recent immigrants themselves who have a political agenda of their own.

Answer 2

Someone else already asked this question, but here it is in a nutshell:

Your question is sort of flawed. The influence of slavery is inextricable from the movement west. Each new territory would have to take a side, either for slavery or against it. The northern states were terrified at the thought of new territories becoming slave states and unbalancing the power. The southern states were thrilled that new territories could possibly join them in welcoming slavery and possibly help them in their succession. So slavery cannot really be looked at as separate from the expansion as a cause for the war because they are mutually important, in my opinion. Check out more by looking up information on the Mexican American War, The Missouri Compromise, etc. But I guess if I had to answer your question, I would say that your question is true, because the north trembled at the thought of the addition of new slave states and if South Carolina had not fired the first shots, probably would have attacked first had more territories embraced slavery.

Answer 3

You hear all sorts of stories about "state rights" and I'm not an authority, but this is what I have come to understand.

The South had invested just about everything in it. Not the little people, but all the rich folks whether northerns or southerns. .

Most of the system in the South was based upon it and the agricultural system.

During the period that the slaves were being brought over everything was pretty calm. You see the southern states did not have any ocean going vessels. The north had all the ships. What happened is that the south ended up with about 4 million slaves and told the northern guys to stop bringing them. Next thing that happened is that the same people who had turned a blind eye because of greed now got religion.

There were more millionares in the dinky town of Natchrz Mississippi than all of New York. So more people began to speak out against it and they started doing like the democrats and republicans do now and joust for positions and ultimately it blew up becase of greed and enough people saying it's not right. The southern states' economy was based on it.

This ain't the gospel and it's only from what I have read, so I would do some searching on here and at the library. Try to find older books from that time, they are there and have not been corrupted. Take care.

England had banned it decades before.

Answer 4

The causes of the American Civil War were a lot more complex than slavery alone. The debate between the abolitionists and anti abolitionists was a major issue in the starting of the war but as i see it, the potential cost to industrial development in the union states led to the breakdown in diplomacy between Davis and Lincoln. The abolition of slavery became a moral high horse of sorts that Lincoln used in his propaganda, to justify the rising costs of the war to the people of the union. Slavery actually wasn't abolished in the union untill after the start of the war. Britain on the other hand had abolished slavery a good 50 years earlier as they saw it as morally reprehensible to treat human beings as machines and had approached Washington to do the same, but were flat rejected

Answer 5

this statement is true. the south wanted to keep their way of life, which included slavery... but the north did not allow slavery. long story short, the south wanted to seperate from the united states and become their own country. the north , however, wanted to preserve the confederacy (south), so whoever won the war would get what they wanted.

the north had a greater advantage in the war because they had more people who were eligable in helping the war effort. they also had more interconnected railroads which allowed supplies to be imported and exported. this is why the north was able to win the war

Answer 6

The South was concerned that, as various territories came
into the Union as "free" states, sooner or later it would be
outnumbered (out-voted in Congress) to such an extent
that it would be steamrollered on many different economic
and social issues. The South therefore decided to attempt
secession before the balance of power tipped too far against it.

Answer 7

Slavery was prevalent just about everywhere. Slavery wasn't at all the cause of the civil war at least not in the sense of morals.

Answer 8

Abe hated the slave issue but,that was not his reason for going to war.as a matter of fact his hatred of slavery actually came about from his reading of a true story written by Cap.Riley. called Sufferings across Africa (which has nothing to do with black people)so you see it was the slavery of "whites"that he was first introduced to.Freeing the slaves of the south was actually just his way of adding a slap to the faces of southern slave owners.He had no intention of doing anything about it before hand,but he did not agree with it.