Did the US Civil War get its unofficial start when Lawrence, KS was sacked by pro-slavery adherents in 1856?

Answer 1

SHORT ANSWER -- it COULD very plausibly be, though a good argument could be made for the "Wakarusa War" of Nov - Dec 1855. (I think one or the other of these certainly deserves the label.)


First, a few observations (related to previous answers):

a) it looks like some have missed the key word "unofficial" in your question, which clearly allows us to consider events BEFORE Fort Sumter. "Bleeding Kansas" is the natural place to turn

That includes the comments about Quantrill -- obviously someone has confused the 1857 SACK of Lawrence with the 1863 Lawrence MASSACRE (part of the "official" war).

b) the comments about whether the struggle was about slavery or not are interesting, if not all on point. I actually think the events in Kansas, along with other events from 1854-60 (right up to the outbreak of the official Civil War) help to underline that slavery WAS the underlying issue, despite what Southern apologists started trying to claim AFTER the war ended. So your question actually helps to clarify this issue.

c) very odd to suggest that you can't have a "civil war" (official or not) without secession. The usual debate is whether you can have one WITH secession!!

Perhaps a dictionary definition will help-- here's a typical one

"1. A war between factions or regions of the same country."
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=civil+war

___________________

Now for the question. Clearly the struggle in Kansas brought focus to the issue of slavery in the territories (and from thence in new states) that was THE key North-South issue that propelled the nation into war. Indeed, it was PRECISELY the Republican Party's stance on slavery in the territories (wanted Congress to keep it OUT) that made ANY Republican President unacceptable to secessionists.

So I think referring to the whole "Bleeding Kansas" business as the 'unofficial beginning of the Civil War' is very apt.

What remains is to decide at exactly what point the struggle in Kansas could be labeled "Civil War". I believe there are TWO plausible answers to that --

A) The Sack of Lawrence - May 21, 1856 - This event certainly "capture the nation's imagination" - one of the THREE main events of "Bleeding Kansas" to do so, along with the soon-to-follow Pottawatomie Massacre and the later Marais des Cygnes Massacre (1858).

That's how it is presented in a recent online exhibit by the Kansas State Historical Society -
http://www.kshs.org/exhibits/territorial/territorial4.htm


I believe ONE reason this specific event gained so much attention was its connections with the events that followed, not only Brown's actions, but also the caning of Charles Sumner by Preston Brooks the VERY NEXT DAY. Of course, Brooks's actions were in response to Sumner's speech ("The Crime against Kansas") of May *19* -- so obviously NOT related to the sack of Lawrence at all. But it was only natural that the two would become associated in the public consciousness. Insofar as public perception is considered key to "when it began" you could argue for this event being the start of "civil war" type hostilities.

But historically, that's not quite accurate. The sack of Lawrence was ITSELF generated by PREVIOUS hostitilies, in particular, clashes that began precisely six months earlier in the same vicinity, viz.:

B) The "Wakarusa War" - Nov - Dec 1855

"The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 allowed the settlers in the Kansas-Nebraska territories to determine whether they wanted slavery or not by popular sovereignty (the vote of the people themselves). Pro- and antislavery groups in Kanas set up separate constitutions and rival governments at Lecompton and Topeka respectively (1855). The murder of an antislavery man ... November [21] 1855 brought on the so-called Wakarusa War, a series of clashes between pro and antislavery forces along the Wakarusa River near Lawrence, Kansas (November 26-December 7, 1855). A few casualties occurred, and armed pro-slavery Missourians, called "border ruffians," made plans to attack Lawrence, Kansas, which was defended by Free-Soilers (opponents of the extension of slavery in the western territories). The attack and the "war" itself were aborted by the intervention of the territorial governor. In 1856, border ruffians did raid Lawrence, causing a retaliatory attack by abolitionists on the settlers at Pottawatomie Creek [the Pottawatomie Massacre]. Hostilities between free and slave interests erupted into civil war, referred to as "bleeding Kansas," which lasted until federal troops and restored order in 1860.
http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/whiskey/wakarusa1855.htm

compare:
http://skyways.lib.ks.us/genweb/archives/1912/w/wakarusa_war.html
http://cwar.nps.gov/civilwar/abcivwarTimeline.htm


I note that the clip above itself gives some support for the Sack of Lawrence option

The following link, which also explains the connection of these two events, actually does argue for the Sack of Lawrence.
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/us/A0859094.html

I'm not entirely sure why -- perhaps the "bloodless" part and the fact that this "war" was so small. But that ignores that fact that the major "Bleeding Kansas" events did not cause very many deaths or casualties, and that INCLUDES the Sack of Lawrence. (For that matter, the only casualty at Fort Sumter was one ACCIDENTAL Union death.) Again, it may be the sense the THIS event (esp. because of the retaliatory Pottawatomie Massacre) clearly began an ongoing series of clashes. I guess you pay your money, you take your choice. . . and since it's all "unofficial" anyway (no formal declarations, etc as in the official variety). . . !

At any rate, if you DO choose the Sack of Lawrence, I guess the other piece of trivia would be that the first shot of the "unofficial" war was fired, on May 21, 1856, by a former U.S. Senator (David Rice Atchison of Missouri)

Answer 2

No, the Civil War was originally fought for States Rights. Slavery was the problem that states wanted the right to choose to have or not have. After a while the States Rights issue has been forgotten and slavery is thought to be the cause. By the way, when Robert E. Lee surrendered to U. S. Grant that did not end the Civil War. The Confederate States of America never signed an armistice or a peace treaty. The civil war is technically still ongoing.

Answer 3

The southern states wanted to reseed from the union, become independent states. This was actually not as much to do with slavery as it was taxes. The southern states were very wealthy from tobacco, the union wanted their share, so taxes were applied aggressively leading to the civil war. The civil war was the bloodiest war we ever fought more Americans died in it than any other war. It was a horrible loss of life.

Answer 4

No - if you assign the beninning of the Civil War to every conflict between pro- and anti-slavery groups, then we would have to go back to before the American Revolution. Those were happening all the time, every year, in many places. There could not be a war until there was someone to be at war with, so until there was secession, there was no one to be at war with - they were crimes, yes, but not the start of the Civil War.

Answer 5

the project of slavery replaced into basically made a important historic effect of the Civil conflict interior the previous couple of years; The British government on the time of the Civil conflict replaced into campaigning for the finished abolishment of slavery. They sided with the Confederates through fact it replaced into politically and economically greater helpful for the rustic; The North had close financial ties with different eu powers, customarily France on a similar time as the south, with its great grant of uncooked cotton replaced into waiting to grant the uncooked fabric for the vast English cotton fabric industry: sarcastically a huge customer of cotton fabric replaced into the Union military!!!!

Answer 6

yes. slavery was the cause of war. Yes states rights was a huge issue, but the southerners wanted the right to protect SLAVERY! without the issue of slavery there would have been no war.

Answer 7

The "official start" was when the Confederates bombarded Ft. Sumpter protecting the harbor to Charleston, SC.

Answer 8

William C. Quantrill (I spit on his name!) was a merely a looter.
I am a graduate of KU and consider Hell too light a punishment
for him and his goons.

Answer 9

no io belive it was more about the southern states not paying taxes. and declaring independence or how ever they speel it down there