Download Lecture Notes on Forgies Five Categories of Causes of the

1
Five Categories of Ideas about Causes of the Civil War
For more than 150 years, people have been thinking, talking, and writing about why the
Union broke apart in 1860-1861, and why the two parts went to war against each other in
1861. Americans, even professional historians, continue to debate this topic. The purpose
of this activity is not to find a specific answer, but rather to think about the topic. Some
relevant questions are:
Why did the Union break apart? (Why did secession or disunion occur?)
Why did a war occur between the parts?
Why did these events happen in the early 1860s, instead of at some other time?
It is possible to organize many of the ideas that people have suggested on this topic into
five broad categories, which are described in the readings that follow.
Sources: The information in this lesson is adapted from lectures by Dr. George Forgie at
the University of Texas at Austin, mainly the following two lectures:
Forgie, George. “What Historians Have Said About the Causes of Disunion and Civil
War.” HIS 345J: The Coming of the American Civil War, 1829-1861. The University of
Texas at Austin. 31 Aug. 2010.
Forgie, George. “The Background of Disunion and War.” HIS 345L: The American Civil
War and Reconstruction, 1861-1877. The University of Texas at Austin. 17 Jan. 2013.
Idea #1: Slavery
Summary of what this idea says, and statements that support this idea:
Idea #1 basically says that slavery was the cause of the Civil War.
During colonial times, slavery had been legal in all 13 colonies, but by 1860, it had been
outlawed in many states and was most significant in the South.
Slavery was the most obvious difference between the North and the South.
In 1860, there were about 4 million slaves in the United States. About one out of eight
people in the United States was a slave.
Before the 1860s, the United States government had made numerous compromises on the
issue of slavery (Three-Fifths Compromise, Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850,
etc.). The proposed Crittenden Compromise was also about slavery.
The event that sparked secession was the election of a president from the Republican
Party, which opposed slavery.
During the secession crisis in 1860-1861, the issue of slavery got more attention than any
other issue as a cause of the conflict. Most of the reasons that people gave in favor of
secession involved slavery (they generally said that if the South stayed in the Union,
2
slavery would be doomed). Since the Civil War, this issue has continued to get a lot of
attention from people who are thinking about causes of the Civil War.
In 1860-1861, all the states that seceded were slave states; no free states seceded. Also,
states with a higher percentage of slaves in their population generally tended to secede
sooner.
During the secession crisis, Abraham Lincoln wrote to Alexander Stephens (who would
serve as Vice President of the Confederacy during the Civil War), and Lincoln said that
differing beliefs about slavery were the only difference between the two sides.
Many Southern whites who did not own slaves had ties to the slave system, such as
economic interactions with planters, the hope to own slaves in the future, and/or the
desire to keep blacks beneath whites.
Statements that oppose this idea:
In 1860, most white Southerners did not own slaves. About 2/3 of Southern white
families owned no slaves. Planters (people who owned 20 slaves or more) made up a
small minority of white Southerners. During the Civil War, most Confederate soldiers did
not own slaves.
Idea #1 does not explain why slavery would destroy the Union in 1860-1861 when it had
not done so before. (The election of a Republican president might not be a convincing
explanation.) Slavery had existed in the United States since the founding of the country,
and it had existed in the 13 colonies for a long time before that. The first African slaves
to be brought to England’s North American colonies arrived in 1619, more than 200
years before the Civil War. Slavery existed in the US when the Constitution was written,
and it did not prevent the Constitution from being created or ratified. Disagreements
among Americans about slavery had also existed for a long time.
In the 1860s, most white people in both the North and the South were racist by 21stcentury standards.
In 1861, as a last-ditch effort to try to save the Union, a Constitutional amendment was
proposed that would have guaranteed slavery forever in states that wanted to have it. This
amendment was passed by Congress and supported by Abraham Lincoln. (It did not
become part of the Constitution because not enough states ratified it.) This proposed
amendment did not convince the seceded states to return to the Union. Also, Northerners,
for the most part, did not intend to destroy slavery, at least not directly.
In 1860-1861, there were four slave states that did not secede (Maryland, Delaware,
Kentucky, and Missouri). Also, when some counties in western Virginia broke away
from Virginia to become their own state (West Virginia), this new state joined the Union
in 1863 but allowed slavery.
3
Idea #2: Economics
Summary of what this idea says, and statements that support this idea:
Idea #2 basically says that economic issues were the cause of the Civil War.
The North and the South had different economic systems. Industry and non-slave labor
were important to the economy of the North, while agriculture and slave labor were
important to the economy of the South. Each section wanted to control the US government
and pass laws that benefited the economy of that section.
The most famous economic issue was the protective tariff (tax on imports). Northern
manufacturers liked the tariff because it protected them from European competition.
Southerners who engaged in agriculture disliked the tariff because it made the European
imports that they bought more expensive. In the 1860 campaign, the Republicans said that
they would raise the tariff if they won the election; when they did win the presidential
election, some Southern states seceded.
Statements that oppose this idea:
Idea #2 describes the North and the South in a way that is too simple; it ignores details
and nuances. It is too simple to say that the North equals industry and the South equals
agriculture. About 2/3 of adult white men in both sections were small farmers who owned
no slaves and grew mostly grain, especially corn. It is also too simple to say that the North
liked the tariff and the South disliked it. Northern consumers disliked the tariff because it
made them pay higher prices, and Southern sugar planters liked it because it protected
them from competition from Caribbean sugar growers.
From the early 1800s to 1860, Southerners very often controlled Congress and/or the
presidency. Therefore, they could usually make economic laws that they liked. This does
not suggest that they would secede because of dissatisfaction with economic policies.
Also, economic issues cannot be completely separated from the issue of slavery because
slavery was, among other things, an economic issue (and also a social and political issue).
4
Idea #3: Constitutional Issues
Summary of what this idea says, and statements that support this idea:
Idea #3 basically says that disagreement about the Constitution and the Union was the
cause of the Civil War.
The North and the South had different ideas about the Constitution and the nature of the
Union. The South believed in states’ rights and state sovereignty, and it thought that the
Union was like a club that the states joined and could quit. The North believed in a strong
central government, and it thought that the Union was like a cake that the states could not
get out of once they were baked into it. Many Southerners believed that states had a
Constitutional right to secede from the Union.
Statements that oppose this idea:
If a state thinks that it has a right to secede, that does not necessarily mean that it will
secede. (In general, you have a right to speak about gumdrops. But that does not
necessarily mean that you will speak about gumdrops.) Idea #3 does not explain why
some states decided to exercise the right that they believed they had. Idea #3 also does
not explain why or how Southerners thought states’ rights were threatened.
Disagreements about the proper role of the central government and the powers of the
states have existed since the establishment of the United States and still exist today. Idea
#3 does not explain why disagreements on this topic would produce a war in 1861 when
they did not at other times.
In the presidential election of 1860, Breckinridge was the only one of the four candidates
who took the position that a state had the right to secede from the Union if it wanted to.
Most votes cast in slave states were not for Breckinridge. In other words, most Southern
voters who voted for president in 1860 voted for a candidate who did not say that states
could secede.
5
Idea #4: Two Societies
Summary of what this idea says, and statements that support this idea:
Idea #4 basically says that the North and the South were two separate societies, and this
was the cause of the Civil War.
Idea #4 says that Ideas #1-3 are relevant but inadequate – the Civil War was not caused
by only one issue.
The North and the South were different from each other from the beginning of their
existence. They had different geology, soil, and climates. Therefore, they grew different
crops and engaged in different economic activities. Therefore, they used different labor
systems. These differences caused them to develop different values and personalities. The
North relied on commerce, manufacturing, and so forth. The South relied on agriculture,
especially plantations. The two sections were fundamentally different. They were like
two siblings who grew up and went their separate ways.
In the years and decades before the Civil War, sectionalism (feelings of loyalty to or
identification with a person’s section – North or South – rather than the whole country)
increased. Southerners and Northerners thought of themselves as being different from
each other.
Statements that oppose this idea:
Idea #4 exaggerates the differences between the North and the South and ignores their
similarities. People in both sections spoke English. Most people in both sections were
descended from people from Western Europe (especially Britain), and most were
Protestant. Most people in both sections were farmers. Most white people in both sections
were racist by 21st-century standards. Most people in both sections believed in similar
political principles and practices, such as voting, and most felt reverence for the
Founding Fathers and for founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence
and the Constitution.
Just because two people or groups are different from each other does not necessarily
mean that they will be hostile toward each other. Many people have friends who are
different from themselves in some ways.
Idea #4 does not explain why the differences between the North and the South would
produce a war in 1861, when they had not at other times.
6
Idea #5: Needless War or Blundering Generation
Summary of what this idea says, and statements that support this idea:
Idea #5 basically says that the Civil War was not caused by any important issues or major
differences between the North and the South.
Idea #5 says that a big event (like the Civil War) does not necessarily have to have a big
cause. For example, a fatal car accident could be caused by a short text message that
distracted the driver.
Abolitionists made slavery seem as if it were a big problem, and extreme proslavery
people responded, but slavery would otherwise have died out peacefully and gradually.
In the 1850s and 1860s, a “blundering generation” of ambitious, small-minded politicians
riled up the public, and the Founding Fathers were no longer alive to stop them. These
blunderers led the country over a metaphorical cliff, into war, but the issues could have
been resolved peacefully. In short, there did not need to be a war, and there was no good
reason for it.
Day-to-day events matter, and somebody decided to do each thing that happened. But,
people did not know what was coming in the future.
(Vocabulary notes: To blunder means to make a stupid, careless, or thoughtless mistake.
To rile someone up means to make them agitated and angry.)
Statements that oppose this idea:
Idea #5 depends on guesses about what might have happened but did not happen. (For
example, perhaps slavery could have either died out or expanded.)
Politicians probably would not have been able to get the public riled up if there was
nothing bothering them already. The public interest in the war, once it began, suggests
that there was more behind the war than politicians’ ambitions.
Like some of the other ideas, Idea #5 does not explain very well why these things
happened at this particular time in history.