Download What “Caused” the Civil War?

What “Caused” the Civil War?
How did southerners justify secession? How did southerners used the declaration of
Independence to support their position? What areas of the south remained bastions of
Unionism through the war?
The start of the southern secession began when South Carolina adopted “The
Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South
Carolina from the Federal Union” this legal proclamation was issued on December 24,
1860. It argued for states' rights for slave owners in the South, but contained a complaint
about states' rights in the North in the form of opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act,
claiming that Northern states were not fulfilling their federal obligations under the
Constitution.
At the time of secession, the South owed huge amounts of money to the North,
and this debt was getting larger every year. Another point is that a mercantilist and
agrarian economy are not compatible. For example, on the issue of Tariffs you have a
win-lose situation. Either the North wins and the South loses or vice versa. And in the
pre-Civil war days, the flow of the money was north. And perhaps worst of all, the
agrarian South, significantly poorer than the North, was paying 82% of federal expenses.
So why didn't the South stop this persecution? For the simple reason that the
North had a majority in both houses of Congress. Things did not get any better for the
South when Abraham Lincoln, a Kentuckian who openly declared that he was for
limiting slavery was elected president. While not hurting the South directly, this would
only increase the congressional advantage the North enjoyed.
So what about compromise? Well, if past experience was to be any judge,
compromise did not work. There had been three compromises passed since before the
Civil War: The Missouri Compromise, The Compromise of 1850 and The KansasNebraska Act. What did this lead to? The South was a minority in Congress. The territory
gained during The Mexican War was to become free, thus increasing the chokehold of
the North when these territories would become states. And The Fugitive Slave Act,
consolation to the South from the Compromise of 1850 was effectively nullified in the
North by 'personal liberty laws', despite the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that
stated that the first Fugitive Slave Act was constitutional.
To recap, the 10th Amendment provides, without doubt, a permit for secession.
Furthermore, the South, always was the losing end of the bargain throughout the ages,
and had good reason to secede, or else be dominated by the North. Thus, it was both legal
and justified for the South to secede from the Union.
In contrast many think the war was strictly between the North and South but neither
North nor South was truly unified. Lincoln was constantly beset by draft resistance, peace
sentiment, and resentment of the immense economic changes unleashed by the war.
Internal dissent was, if anything, even more widespread in the wartime South. Not only
did the four million slaves identify with the Union cause, but large numbers of white
Southerners came to believe that they had more to lose from a continuation of the war
than from a Northern victory. Indeed, scholars today consider the erosion of the will to
fight as important a cause of Confederate defeat as the South’s inferiority in manpower
and industrial resources. Even as it waged a desperate struggle for independence, the
Confederacy was increasingly divided against itself.
Construct a balance sheet identifying the social and economic differences due to
immigration and population growth as well as economic factors between the North and
the South on the eve of the Civil War.
North:
-The North had always been busier, and more in tune with entrepreneurs
-The economy of New England, and the upper middle states, were up to this period,
dominated by overseas shipping and agriculture.
-Now they were moving towards manufacturing, and "empire building" at home. They
created the Erie Canal, from the ocean to the great lakes and with this deep into the
Northwest.
-New York became the trading hub of a huge expanse territory and was soon named the
"Empire State".
-The northern soil and climate favored smaller farmsteads rather than large plantations.
Industry flourished, fueled by more abundant natural resources than in the South, and
many and many large cities were established (New York was the largest city with more
than 800,000 inhabitants).
-By 1860, one quarter of all Northerners lived in urban areas. Between 1800 and 1860,
the percentage of laborers working in agricultural pursuits dropped drastically from 70%
to only 40%.
-An overwhelming majority of immigrants, seven out of every eight, settled in the North
rather than the South. Transportation was easier in the North, which boasted more than
two-thirds of the railroad tracks in the country and the economy was on an upswing.
-The social structure of the north was people were considered relatively equal, at least in
the eyes of God.
-The economy for the north was mainly manufacturing.
South:
-The South kept up on their style of society. Here we had the self-sufficient gentlemen.
"Men of means" were ruling over mass dependents. Here in the south to be somebody
wasn't hidden, it showed by wealth displayed in great plantation homes, and control over
many heads.
-The fertile soil and warm climate of the South made it ideal for large-scale farms and
crops like tobacco and cotton. Because agriculture was so profitable few Southerners saw
a need for industrial development.
-Eighty percent of the labor force worked on the farm. Although two-thirds of
Southerners owned no slaves at all, by 1860 the South's "peculiar institution was
inextricably tied to the region's economy and culture. In fact, there were almost as many
blacks - slaves and free - in the South as there were whites (4 million blacks and 5.5
million whites).
-There were no large cities aside from New Orleans, and most of the ones that did exist
were located on rivers and coasts as shipping ports to send agricultural produce to
European or Northern destinations.
-Only -one-tenth of Southerners lived in urban areas and transportation between cities
was difficult, except by water - only 35% of the nation's train tracks were located in the
South.
-Also, in 1860, the South's agricultural economy was beginning to stall while the
Northern manufacturers were experiencing a boom.
-The social structure for the South was a 3-part social structure: Aristocracy, Middle class
farmers, and Slaves.
- The economy for the South was mainly agriculture.
Examine the political and sectional conflicts over slavery and state’s rights and
compare how the Missouri Compromise, Doctrine of interposition, Nullification Crisis,
Wilmot Proviso, Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the Dred Scott case polarized the North
and South.
Missouri Compromise ~> 1821
•
•
A question of where slavery would be permitted came into play when Missouri
was finally allowed to enter as a slave state.
To keep northern antislavery activists satisfied, as part of the Louisiana Purchase,
slavery was prohibited north of latitude 36 30. (The southern border of Missouri
territory)
Doctrine of Interposition ~> 1828
•
•
Calhoun’s theory~> the procedure of nullification would follow the pattern that
the original 13 states had used to ratify the Constitution of 1787.
First, a special state convention would be called to draft an article of nullification.
Two possible outcomes came from this action: 1) the federal government would
abandon the law or 2) an amendment would be added to the Constitution.
Nullification Crisis ~> 1832
•
The south didn’t like the high-tariffs and the congressmen who issued them were
ignoring southern threats of “endangering the Union.”
• November, South Carolinians called a state convention which adopted an
Ordinance of Nullification.
• The Ordinance null and voided the 1828 tariffs~> it forbade the collection of
those duties after February 1, 1833; also it threatened secession if federal
bureaucrats tried to collect them.
Wilmot Proviso ~> August 1846
David Wilmot proposed to prohibit slavery in any new territories acquired from
Mexico.
• The House of northern Democratic supporters of Van Buren joined forces with
antislavery Whigs to pass the proviso.
• The Senate that was made up of southerners and proslavery northerners didn’t
want the proviso and killed it.
•
Kansas-Nebraska Act ~> 1854
Douglas amended his bill so it repealed the Missouri Compromise and organized
the region based on popular sovereignty.
• 2 territories were formed: Kansas (slave state) and Nebraska (Free State).
• The bill was to extinguish American rights on the central Great Plains and
organize Nebraska.
•
Dred Scott Case ~> March 1857
•
•
Scott (African American) claimed that his residence in a Free State and free
territory made him free.
• 7 of 9 members of the Court responded that: Scott remained a slave.
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney declared that blacks could not be citizens of the
U.S. and that Scott therefore had no right to sue in federal court.
Analyze the party platforms in the election of 1860 and the reasons that people voted as
they did.
Moderate Republican Abe Lincoln won votes of smallholding farmers and wage earners
because of his strong egalitarian image. He also gained support of the Midwest after the
Panic of 1857 because he endorsed the old Whig economic development plan. The
overall republican platform was more extreme, but their candidate was Lincoln so they
supported his views, including his plans to keep all of the territories free of slavery.
The Democrats had split into two factions: Moderate Democrats and Radical Democrats
The Moderates endorsed ironclad commitments to protect slavery in the states as well as
in the territories. I.e. Jefferson Davis
The Radicals promoted succession from the Union and wanted “all or nothing.”
Both of the Democrats drew support from the southern states because without slavery,
their economy would fall apart.
Is it justifiable to call Lincoln “the rail splitter who split the nation?” Should he have
supported the Crittenden Compromise? What should he have done with Fort Sumter?
How did Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address reflect both a “carrot and stick approach” to
southerners?
Yes. He did cause the country to split, but I believe that it was inevitable. When people
believe in something, they continue to believe in it, even if it becomes illegal.
I think it was right for Lincoln to disagree with the Crittenden Compromise. If put into
action, the whole country would be even more divided. The division needed to be
resolved, and the sooner the better.
Lincoln decided to continue to possess Sumter, even though it was in succeeded territory.
After it was shot down by the Confederacy, he called 75,000 militiamen to the scene.
After this, the upper South took sides with the Confederates, leaving Lincoln without 4
states to help preserve the Union. I think he did the right thing to keep Sumter occupied
in order to keep the Union connected, but because they were already succeeded, it just
caused more problems. He could’ve saved a lot of lives by leaving Sumter alone, but he
wanted to save the Union.
To me, the “carrot and stick approach” that Lincoln takes in his Inaugural Speech refers
to his decision to go one way or the other with the Union. It can’t be both ways and he
knows that, so he tells the people that the country needs to be “all one thing, or all the
other.” All carrots, or all sticks.