What caused the American Civil War?

[Minimalist]

The "cause" of the war was the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter. Recall Lincoln's First Inaugural address: In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors.


The reasons behind that attack are complex in the extreme. Certainly slavery was an issue but 95% of southerners were hard-scrabble farmers who owned no slaves. Of the remainder, most owned only one or two. It was the aristocracy (the planter class) which owned the bulk. How to explain the eager participation by the vast non-slaveholding majority is the problem.

[Rev. Rye]

The "cause" of the war was the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter. Recall Lincoln's First Inaugural address: In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors.


The reasons behind that attack are complex in the extreme. Certainly slavery was an issue but 95% of southerners were hard-scrabble farmers who owned no slaves. Of the remainder, most owned only one or two. It was the aristocracy (the planter class) which owned the bulk. How to explain the eager participation by the vast non-slaveholding majority is the problem.

I think the best explanation for this was that, the attitudes of the rich conservative men aren't too different from the attitudes many would have expressed at the time of Lincoln's election, and, while there was no Fox News, there would certainly be a lot of politicians with connections to that class who would have wanted to not alienate their friends.

[Chris_Zee_Great]

I think it should be added that IMO it was also a bit of an issue involving state's power verses federal power. Not much has changed when it comes to those two forces butting heads as even today people argue for both sides. Of course, it's not the sole reason, as war broke out due to many factors, but definitely an issue from my stand point.

[Minimalist]

Slavery itself was a complex issue. It could easily be argued that it was in its death throes by 1860. In the north as in the south small farmers did not employ slave labor. Slavery was abolished on a piecemeal basis in the north but it never had the agricultural base that it did in the south. However, if slave labor were economically efficient I have little doubt that it would have been employed more extensively in the north's factories. The waves of immigrants pouring in after 1848 depressed the labor market and employers were only responsible for the wages paid and could low-ball that as much as they liked. Slaves, expensive to buy with international slave trading outlawed, had to be fed and housed. The Uncle Tom's Cabin image of cruel slave owners abusing slaves is picturesque and great propaganda but slaves were important economic assets. How many people buy a car and beat it with a baseball bat? The truth of the matter is that in 1860 if you were a slave on a plantation or a factory worker living six to a room in a fire-trap tenement life pretty much sucked.

Still, I've read a lot of CW soldier's journals and diaries and listened to their songs. What is clear is that slavery was not a big topic of discussion on either side. The union soldiers were fighting to stop "treason." The Rebs were fighting for their "rights." What "rights" the Rebs thought they were being deprived of is the basis of the question.

[Anymouse]

It is interesting to note in many history books here in the States that the Civil War . . . uh . . . The War Between the States, was fought over "State's Rights."

They don't mention, however, the specific right being fought over was the "right" to own people.

Puts me in mind of the Texas school board debating how their history texts should be rewritten, so that the discussion of "the slave trade" is changed to "the Atlantic triangle trade." While both terms have been used to describe that trade, they are also both politically charged. "Slave trade" does not accurately reflect that crops and manufactured goods were traded, and "triangle trade" hides the fact that slaves were traded.

[Violet]

Ownership is not a question of legality but of how defensible a claim is. Small kingdom of Tipotya in a hyper-rich valley surrounded by 4 giant powers claims to own the land of the valley. Superpowerful countries around Tipotya test the claim, and find it lacking. The land is now claimed by Yuchaka, who has build walls around the valley and stationed an army there. The other three great powers test this claim, and come to the understanding that it is Yuchaka's land.

People are infact owned by other people, and by governments, and by corporations, and other things more powerful than they whom protect their claim. There are various means of protecting a thing that is owned, and various means of professing that claim, but all ownership is, at the root: that which is defended well enough to not be under continuous attack.

A fringe colony changing hands on a monthly basis is owned by nobody until it is defended to the point it is not worth attacking. A monopoly over a market is owning that market (As none dare challenge the power of the monopoly). The drug-addicted prostitute is held in an employer's power by numerous methods that similarly affect common wage slaves.

People are things, and things can be claimed, and claims can be defended.

Edit: still moody, as you can see. I demonstrated very recently to the entire galaxy that it was mine. Then I made a law (which I, owning the galaxy, could do) that everyone was to serve me from that day forth. The distaste of my peers was evident during the election... but I, owning the galaxy, took the polls by storm. The votes may or may not have been rigged. -Your new Meklar Empress, Aerzia Saerules Arktuos.

[Shell B]

Oh, fuck, Dean. You had to start a history discussion. At least it isn't another discussion about the Constitution.

War is always complicated. There is never one reason to go to war. Lincoln was not a stupid man by any stretch. He would not have viewed war as an option if slavery or even state's rights were the only issues on the table. You, Min and a few others have outlined every issue that was at hand fairly well. However, I would like to add that the cultures of the North and South were very different. However subtle the forces are, cultures that are that different will always find reasons for fighting. Now, I am not getting into details, but merely talking about human nature. The southerners were different than northerners and vice versa. They were finding reasons to piss each other off for decades before the war began. That kind of nonsense always escalates, enters into politics and then becomes war, without proper resolution. There could be no proper resolution. The idea of a part of the south separating from the union was as old as the union itself. It had to come to a head and it did.

Oh, and the British, Canadians and Indians weren't giving the rabblerousers of 19th century United States enough to bitch about anymore. They needed something to slake their thirst.

[Violet]

hat kind of nonsense always escalates, enters into politics and then becomes war, without proper resolution. There could be no proper resolution. The idea of a part of the country separating from the union was as old as the union itself. It had to come to a head and it did.

War is a very proper resolution... and it's so very formal. I don't even bother to declare a state of war when I attack people, so you can see that I totally lack propriety.

I don't care for unions that are bound only by contract... and I don't consider america to be any sort of federation that has come together for the time being for mutual gain. It is simply one being with the minor differences one would expect in any other country that controls much territory. United states is only in the way they organize these little differences, it's america

[Anymouse]

hat kind of nonsense always escalates, enters into politics and then becomes war, without proper resolution. There could be no proper resolution. The idea of a part of the country separating from the union was as old as the union itself. It had to come to a head and it did.

And it also shows that when state governments, or their people, came to value an ideal over the nation's unity and its Constitution, they were willing to kill each other over it.

Amongst other justifications for the war, the Book of Philemon was used by both sides to justify the war.

[reverendjeremiah]

Right off the top of my head I would say the main cause of the civil war was an economic disagreement between the industrialised north and the agricultural south.

As far a slavery, it was THE MAJOR factor of the war...not a minor one either, like the modern day confederate flag waving southerners try to suggest.

As my citation/proof, let us look at the article of sucession from South Carolina to see what the reasons were:

(http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/South_Caro..._Secession)

---

DECLARATION OF THE IMMEDIATE CAUSES WHICH INDUCE AND JUSTIFY THE SECESSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA FROM THE FEDERAL UNION.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The People of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A. D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.

In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."

They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."

In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments—Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defence, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first article, "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

Under this Confederation the War of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3d September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definitive Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the Independence of the Colonies in the following terms:

"Article 1.—His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establisement of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country as a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended, for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.

The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed, the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then to be invested with their authority.

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were—separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.

By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers were restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But, to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On 23d May, 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her people, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.

Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government, with defined objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert, that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused for years past to fulfil their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its 4th Article, provides as follows:

"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio river.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from the service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constitutional compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which this Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of Slavery; they have permitted the open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the Common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the Common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that Slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the subversion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons, who, by the Supreme Law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its peace and safety.

On the 4th March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced, that the South shall be excluded from the common Territory; that the Judicial Tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The Guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanctions of a more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the people of South Carolina, by our delegates, in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

---

Right off the bat we see that there is an issue of "states rights". This is what the modern rebels always suggest. But, as always, they stop short of WHY the states rights issue was such an issue. With a specific mention of "in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States", made the number one reason being an economic strugle between the industrialized north who was moving away from slavery, to the agri-south who still needed slaves to compete economically.

So I would say the cause of the war was an economic battle, with the issue of slavery being the major economic frame work of the south at the time.

So yes, the war was fought over "the slavery question", but not just slavery... it was economic AND slavery combined

---

States' Rights was another cause of the war. I want to make it clear right now that, while I am a major proponent of states' rights, the issue of slavery was not a states' rights issue...it was a human rights issue. Therefore, I believe it was absolutely necessary for the federal government to get involved. But the southern states, at the time, did not view it that way. They viewed slaves as property, not humans. That means that they viewed anyone who would take away their slaves as people who were taking away their property. This, of course, made the south weary of any "tyrants" that wanted to steal their property.

The growing abolitionist movement made the south more paranoid. So, when an abolitionist was elected as the president of the United States, the south really began to worry about their economic future, property rights and states' rights. Even before Abraham Lincoln actually took office, while he was still president-elect, southern states began to succeed.

TLDR: There was no single cause of the Civil war. Multiple issues played into the situation that caused the war.

Very good point.. When confronted with those "states rights" rebel flag wavers, I ask them if they ever read the sucession articles from South Carolina. They always answer "what articles?" .. well, South Carolina specifically outlined the reasons why the pulled away, the biggest one being the economic differences between the north and south, and specifically with slavery being the reason for states rights.