It is widely accepted that the cause of the American Civil War from 1861 to 1877 in which northern states fought against southern states was exclusively slavery. However, popular culture has oversimplified America’s history as the causes of the civil war began when the first settlers landed on American soil in 1607. The geographical differences contributed to growing social, political and economic irreconcilable differences between northern and southern states. In 1861, two hundred years from the seeds of the sectionalism the southern states left the union seeing Abraham Lincoln as an abolitionist — soon after, the start of the civil war. Slavery ultimately was the decisive issue, but slavery represented more than just the liberty of black men rather the pushing of one’s own socio-economic interests.
The climate in the northern states in contrast to the south was unsuitable for large plantations. The soil was thin and rocky making trade and manufacturing a better economic option than agriculture. Agriculture was mainly done for sustenance. Slavery was tried however wasn’t profitable and eventually disappeared. Furthermore, rivers ran throughout New England making water mills an alternative to slavery. Fishing also became a major industry with the north being created on “god and cod”. The south on the other hand has a climate suitable for large plantations of tobacco and rice; both of which are extremely labor intensive. To be profitable, slaves and indentured servants were employed. With geography being the first seed of a growing divide, the distinction between the types of settlers in the north and south was only a catalyst.
Northern colonies unlike their southern counterparts started religiously. New England life saw stability with immigration in families. Following Puritan ideology, town life was very ordered with towns requiring chartering and an organized layout — a town square surrounded by homes and the church. The “bible commonwealth” saw no need for slavery, as the priority was family and the marriage. This was in contrast with southern colonies with the exception of Maryland having vast acres of lands with plantations filled with slaves. After all, southerners were mainly profit driven, excluding Maryland, and for self-interests — proprietaries. Cash crops were grown and to maximize profit, slavery prospered. Society was far more hierarchical and divided, a rich elite then small farmers finally the landless white. Some could argue that the religious intent of the north was the main reason slavery didn’t blossom, however had it not been for geography, slavery would’ve prospered as it wasn’t until the 2nd great awakening its morality came under real question.
The combination of geological and ideological differences led to a division in political philosophy. The North’s economy favored a Hamiltonian political and economic model — a strong federal government to put protective tariffs and a federal bank supporting enterprise. The agriculture-based society of the south on the other hand vied for the Jeffersonian model — an agrarian society in which the states are the sovereign and there is a weak federal government. Though some may argue compromises were made by both ides, ultimately they both viewed themselves as embodying national interest hence made true, long-term compromise impossible. Daniel Webster once said “O, New England! How superior are thy inhabitants in morals, literature, civility and industry!” In 1835 France’s Louis Phillipe warned that the cultural divide between the Puritan North and Cavalier South meant that Americans, “as a people, have conflicting interests and ambitions and unappeasable jealousies.” This inherent, irreconcilable political divide and self-pride leading up to the civil war caused each side fighting for political power with the aim of their paradigm being dominant.
In the political power tug of war, slavery became a political battlefront in the lead up to the civil war. Slave states were Jeffersonian giving southerners more power in the senate and the House of Representatives. One of the first major infiltrations of slavery into politics came in the Northwest Ordinance by the Articles of Confederation. It stated that all new states above the Ohio River were free-states with the North seeing the non-necessity given their geographical situation and their intent to maintain political power — less of the morality of slavery as historians have argued.
The real clash however began when creating the House of Representatives. Southern states said that slaves should count as one towards their population, which would give them more seats — the north starkly opposed. Ultimately in 1787 the 3/5th compromise was met — every slave counted for 3/5th of a person. The ratio angered the north giving the south extra power and saw future slave states giving the south more seats both in the house of representatives and the senate. Testifying to the political power argument, the Hartford Convention of 1814 showed how both sides were self-serving. The convention came as a reaction to the southern power — it attempted to further northern interest by demanding the removal of the 3/5th compromise. The reaction to the convention was negative ultimately hurting northern interest. Further frustrating the northerners and increasing their fear of southern dominance was the “gag rule” of 1838 that tabled all antislavery petition and debate in the congress.
The push for abolitionism on political grounds became more prevalent when new states were being inducted. The Missouri compromise of 1820 saw Maine being inducted as a slave state in exchange for Missouri as free state allowing political power in the senate to remain balanced. It also demanded that slavery cannot exist above the 3630 line. Though some may argue that slavery itself was the divisive issue in the Missouri compromise but in reality it was the desire for maintaining political power.
The next political issue hinging on slavery was the annexation of Texas — a southern territory. The annexation was delayed until 1845 when it was scrutinized by northerners as an expansion of the evils of slavery. Arguably, they were more discontent that they were losing power in the senate. With the annexation of Texas came the Mexican war a year later in which America gained additional territories till the west coast. The states of California and New Mexico were finalized through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The irreconcilable differences were widening with the north unable to push its political agenda with its attempts to attach Wilmot Proviso to the treaty failing — the proviso would have banned slavery in the new territories. This only increased the fears of Southern power in the North’s eyes.
1850 saw yet another compromise in which Texas’s claims of New Mexico supported by the south and rejected by the north, were denied. In the compromise, South Carolina came in as a free state, the District of Columbia slave trade was suspended and arguably the most divisive was the fugitive slaw law was strengthened. The law stated that runaway slaves were “property” and that their owners could hunt them down both in the south and north. The non-enforcement by the north angered the southerners and by this time compromise was impossible. To only worsen matters; in 1857 the Supreme Court case “Dred Scott vs. Sanford” saw it ruling in favor of slavery. It said that federal government couldn’t deny the right of the people to move their “property” arguably ending the debate on slavery’s expansion, and voiding all previous documents on limiting slavery.
Only to increase the sectionalism between states, the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854 negated the Missouri Compromise angering the north. Championed by Stephen Douglas, the act stated that Kansas and Nebraska would allow popular sovereignty in deciding on the issue of slavery. Both territories in the north above the 3630 saw the previous prohibition by the Missouri Compromise abrogated. Stephen Douglas thinking this would be a neutral act, as it would give the south the ability to expand slavery whilst allowing the North to ban ultimately caused more divide. The north saw it as giving the south leeway into expanding slavery — ultimately giving them more political power. As direct effect of the act, both northerners and southern flocked to Kansas to vote on slavery. 1855 saw a “mini-civil war” took place with both sides fighting one another leading to it being called “Bleeding Kansas”. The situation only aggravated when John Brown led a raid on Harper Ferry hoping to create a slave uprising. It acted as a catalyst to the civil war being treated as a criminal and hanged by the south, he was lauded in the north for his courage — the divide and the impossibility of compromise was evident.
Following political power as a cause of sectionalism, the battle for economic power was instigated the civil war partially hinging on slavery. Giving the geographical differences between the north and the south, the northern economy was manufacturing and trade whereas the south saw cash crops. The north fought for their interest employing the protective tariffs of 1828 that would decrease competition from foreign goods that hurt the south that depended on foreign goods for sustenance. These tariffs were called the “tariffs of abomination” in the south. Following was the nullification crisis of 1832 in which South Carolina threatened to nullify federal law championing state’s rights through John C. Calhoun’s “Exposition and Protest”. All was seemingly put to rest in the compromise of 1833 decreasing the tariffs however the South grew weary of an abusive federal power. The economic competition became clearer in 1853 through the Gasden Purchase. As a result, a railroad was put in the south through the gained territory allowing southern states easier access to the coast and trade. To combat this, the Nebrasaka-Kansas act was employed to allow a northern railroad to compete with the southern. This inter-country competition showed how divided and different the country was and how both were trying to push for their economic self-interest. Northern abolitionists further propagated this economic divide as southern colonies depended on slaves for their cash crop economy. When Abraham Lincoln was finally elected president in 1860, southern states saw him using federal power to abolish slavery — secession the only way to have their economic livelihood not threatened. Historians have argued economic power was one of the most significant factors as money is the biggest self-interests, however political power was more pertinent as by having it, wealth followed.
From the creation of the federal government, the conflict arising from irreconcilable political philosophies were also a definite cause of the civil war. In 1789-90, the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions were precursors of the inability of the South to compromise with the North’s political model. These resolutions secretly written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, southerners, actively undermined the federal government by saying that the Alien and Sedition acts were unconstitutional and thus can be nullified by states. This conflict between the southerner beliefs in state’s rights versus the northerners championing of federal government worsened in the tariffs of 1828. South Carolina threatening to nullify the tariffs — not apply the federal law — showed a growing irreconcilable divide between the federal government and southerners. The Supreme Court rulings in favor of federal power once again angered the south and made a long-term compromise impossible. For example, the case between McCulloch and Maryland established that the federal government has implied powers and that state’s actions cannot counter the federal government. Knowing the north mainly controlled the federal government as they were rapidly industrializing and their population was increasing far more rapidly, the south feared the government’s power and their inability to control it. As a testament to this, Abraham Lincoln won the presidency in 1860 without even being on the South’s ballot. Similarly to economic power, the political model cause is less significant as political power would allow the former to be employed.
In the lead up to the civil war, the state’s rights versus federal power became hinged on slavery. In 1808, the congress banned the international slave trade — slaves could not be imported to America or exported. However, the south seeing this as an infringement of their state’s rights continued to smuggle slaves into the country through the south. They believed that it was the state’s right to decide on slavery and the south could have slaves should it desire ‘” there should be no interference by federal powers. When Abraham Lincoln was finally elected and his demands on halting the expansion of slavery, the south feared his power and saw secession as the only means to keep their rights.
The years before the civil war also brought the morality of slavery to light. 1793 saw Eli Whitney’s cotton gin being created. This made cotton production more efficient making more slaves necessary to maximize profits — this set the foundations of slavery becoming a truly divisive issue. In the 1830s, the second great awakening occurred — a religious revival led by impassionate speakers similar to the first a century ago. As a result, many reform movements began such as women’s rights, banning alcohol and most pertinent slavery. Slavery was so divisive that churches split into northern and southern over it such as the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1844 and the Baptist Church in 1845. The 2nd great awakening made the abolitionist movement gain momentum painting slavery as a social injustice and immoral. It was followed by literature such as Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe in 1852, arguably the most influential book in American history, which gave northerners a sense of the immorality of slavery — the average northerner never has truly seen slavery as they never on average never travel farther then 10 miles from their home. Though some may argue the morality of slavery was the root cause, ultimately slavery acted for the most part as a proxy for self-serving interests of both sides.
By 1860, the sectionalism had hit its melting point and South Carolina seceded followed by other southern states creating a confederacy — to safeguard their socio-economic interests. In 1861 the South attacked fort Sumter and the hostilities began starting the civil war.
Slavery by face value was the decisive issue that caused the war, but it represented more then just the liberty of black men. It represented both sides pushing for their own political power, economic power and their political models — federal government versus state’s rights. Should slavery have not been the issue; the war was inevitable, as arguably all these causes would’ve hinged on some other proxy cloaking the fact both sides want their interests to be served.