the cause of civil war?

Answer 1

Due to things like the Senate seats by state, rather than population, and unbalanced electoral votes in presidential elections, the lesser-populated slaver-controlled South had greater political power than the greater-populated North and non-slaver controlled sections of the South.

With this political dominance the slavers were able to put in laws giving themselves economic advantages over the manufacturers, shipping companies and bankers to whom they owed money. Thus, the economically-dying institution of slavery was preserved, by forcing the capitalists and other classes to subsidize the slave-owning planter class.

This state of affairs continued until just before the Civil War, when increasing population gave non-slaver controlled areas more seats in the House of representatives, and the new non-slave states in the West got more Senate seats and electoral votes.

Unwilling to accept the loss of their political power and their likely end as a class, the slavers threatened to secede if a non-slaver (not necessarily ANTI-slaver) president was elected. He was, and they did, posing a threat to the survival of the United States.

Essentially, the Civil War was a Second Revolution, to overthrow the slaver dictators who had dominated the Republic since the First Revolution against the British.

This analysis, as opposed to the traditional "North vs. South" version we all got in school, is supported by the fact that 200,000 blacks, mostly from the South, and 120,000 white Southerners, were in the UNION army.

Since the rebel army never had more than 900,000 men, this means that one out of every four Southerners who fought in the Civil War wore BLUE, not gray.

There were regiments in the Union Army from every Southern state except for South Carolina. Alabama alone had SIX.

There were ZERO "confederate" regiments from Northern states.

The fights between the free United States and the slaver-dominated areas were ongoing from the very beginning of the Republic. Check out President Andrew Jackson (a Carolina-born slaveowner himself!) and his threats of bloodshed to some Southerners who, even during the 1820s, were toying with the idea of secession ("you will have brought this upon yourselves!").

The slaver dictators felt isolated and threatened because they WERE isolated and threatened. They were far outnumbered by the people, both slave and free, North and South, who they were exploiting.

Their desperate attempts to maintain a stranglehold over the continent were the cause of the Civil War.

Answer 2

Many countries have had civil wars , not just America, however the reasons are generally the same .

They are usually motivated by political , religious or economic differences , though economic differences are usuallty more a cause of revolutions than civil wars.

Politics is probably the major cause if the democratic process is perverted or non existant. the English civil war was a mixture of religion and politics with a presbyterian parliament rising up against a pro-catholic king.

The American civil war was about States rights and Federal interventions.

The french revolution and the American revolution were about establishing a self determination for the people without a ruling class, taxation without representation was the cause of the American revolution , the French were about establishing a better economic outcome for all the people and the overthrow of the aristocracy.

The civil war soon to erupt in Iraq will be religious based as both the sunnis and the shiites have political as well as religious ambitions.

The civil war soon to erupt in Pakistan will be about politics even though there is an underlying current of religious intolerance as well.

I have taken your question as generic as you did not ask about any civil war in particular .

Answer 3

Well the reason the south left was for state rights. But the states rights issues started because the south was saying the states have the right to choose if it wants to be a free or slave state. But the North was fighting to preserve the Union. People do say it did swicth to freeing the slaves but the reason the north played the slavery issue up in the war was to prevent England or France from joining and fighting on the south's side. Plus the south was not fighting to keep slavery. Texas, Arkansas, Tenesess, Virgina, North Carolina, these states didn't really on slavery like Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi, Lousianna. And the states in the first list provided the most troops to fight in the war. So most of the south could surivive without slaves. So when those men who were in the confederate army died, i can almost bet that they wern't even thinking about slavery. In the north, slaves weren't cared for at all. Shermon was an extream racist. So the slaves were merly a political tool used by the north to keep the European countrys out of the war. Plus both sides had colerd men fighting in the ranks. Hope this info will help you, go easy on the backlashes to

Answer 4

No matter what Southern Americans say about states' rights, agricultural vs. industrial economies and so forth, the fact is that without slavery, there would never have been a Civil War. The South left the Union to preserve the "peculiar institution" of slavery and because they knew Lincoln would not allow it to be expanded into the territories not yet admitted as states. The North fought first to preserve the Union. Second, after the Emancipation Proclamation (Jan. 1 1863), abolition of slavery became an official northern war aim.

Answer 5

BRIANJ19 is on target but this is what gets lost in all the arguments....

Slave labor was dumb and compounded with slavery was a credit dependent economy that weakened the South. Ever since Virginnians began mortgaging their plantations on the sale of the next tobacco crop the South was in debt to European and later on Northern American Bakers Etc.... While the North pursued Ecomonic Independence and achieved Success, the South squandered opportunity after opportunity and never achieved the sort of economy possible.

For decades men such as Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens plotted rebellion. And aside from preserving their peculiar institition of Slavery the main reason was - - - SECURING LOANS & FINANCING from England & France & Germany, and whoever else wished to support the new nation.

Davis had the example of Texas which made some quick money by declaring independence from Mexico. Davis was literally banking on a World eager to embrace a new nation. Thnakfully it did not work out that way...
Peace................ p o p o p ooo pp oo pp ooo

Answer 6

Slavery.....As Lincoln said in his Second Inaugural Address "One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war"

Answer 7

which time? money was the cause of the american civil war. the south wanted to continue to use slave labor to make money from cotton and whatever other crops they had that the slaves would pick and harvest for free. the north wanted to abolish slavery and make all workers eligible for citizenship and the right to make a wage.

Answer 8

One Hundred forty-two years after the end of the American War of the eighteen-sixties, we still argue about that war. The wide difference of answers reflect that continuing argument. I suggest that although there is some degree of truth in all of those answers, the primary causative factors of the war are being missed.

Certainly slavery is an issue and one that had been growing by increasing political pressure in the North. However, it was not ‘the’ causative factor of the war, far from it. The economic differences was also a factor (probably more than slavery) but not the causative factor. The primary cause was rooted in the elements which were involved in the writing of, and ratification of, the Constitution. These evolved from the events and agreements preceding the Constitution.

Keep in mind that prior to the Constitution each State already had its own Constitution. More over, while still under the Articles of Confederation those States sign the Treaty of Peace with Great Britain in 1783. While ending the war between Great Britain and the various States acting under the Articles of Confederation, it also noted (on the world stage) in Article One (by naming each State,) that these States individually were Free, Independent and Sovereign. This was agreed to by all States and when these same States individually seceded from the Articles of Confederation to join the Union of States by creating a new federal government under the Constitution, that stated in Article One of the Treaty of Peace was never ceded. The only things given up by those State through the Constitution were the powers delegated to the federal government, primarily defined within Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 through 18.

One of the first acts of the new government was to propose a Bill of Rights, which was ratified in 1791. This enhanced the Free, Independent, and Sovereign role of the States in the form of the Articles of the Bill of Rights. The first eight were exclusionary by ‘excluding’ the federal government from doing specific acts. The declaratory in that they declared basic truths which supported the sovereign nature of the people and the States.

This was all subsequently enhanced by the Kentucky Resolution (written by Thomas Jefferson) and the Virginia Resolution (written by James Madison) which, among other things upheld the position of the States to initiate nullification of federal acts as unconstitutional and for the States to retain the power to secede.

Even though this power of the States was clearly a desire of the Founders, each year there was new encroachment on the powers and rights of the States and individuals by the federal government. During these years a number of events applied stress to the Union under the Constitution not the least of which was the near secession of the Southern States concerning tariffs.

During the Buchanan presidency the opinion of a growing number of States was that the federal government was continuing to intrude on the States and their citizens walking away from the desires and the Constitution of the Founders and separation by secession was a foregone conclusion. With Lincoln’s election this had become fact.

Lincoln had said himself that he would not intrude on those States holding slaves if they remained within the Union. It was the separation of the States through secession that led the federal government to initiate acts which led to war. A war that was not rebellion since the seceding States had no interest to rebel but rather only design to exercise their power of secession to initiate a new country. A country which would (in the eyes of the Southern States be more true to the Founders Constitution than the acts of the federal government under the Constitution.

This position of the States (that they had legally seceded to from a new country) was proven subsequent to the war in the period of reconstruction. Specifically with the justification of acting under the 14th Amendment (which never met Constitutional requirements for ratification) by the case of Texas v White [1869] which declare these acts as legal by the powers derived by conquest. That is, the federal government conquered the States of the Confederacy. Since you cannot conquer States of your own country these States were of a foreign country which could only be if they legally could secede and reform under a new country.

The cause of the civil war was the continued and expanding extra-constitutional acts of the federal government.

Answer 9

There are eye witness accounts of that period ... and check out the compressed timeline for an overall picture.

Both of these links are at the Leap Over Web Clutter section of New Free Books.

Answer 10

No matter what northern conservative slacker say , the north invaded the south to crush states rights and tax a healthy economy to support federalism and pay for mainfest destiny armies to kill the indians in the territories. Basicly a war of financial conquest hidden under the guise of freeing slaves. Today the blacks in the south are integrated and the ones in the north live in poverty.