What caused the American Civil War?

[Dean-o]

First off let me say there is too much politics and not enough history here. As soon as I restart college this fall (I took a year off to work) I will be majoring in Political science and minoring in Journalism, so I do enjoy good political discussion. But I also enjoy history; my favorite being colonial America to early American independence. And I would like to see some good discussions on history here.

That being said, I understand there are a lot here that are not American, but this was the first topic to come to my head for a post here. I doubt mind all of you Europeans and others chiming in at all. It gives me a good understanding how those who are familiar with some American history view it.

Now for my view on "the cause of the American Civil War." (TLDR at the bottom)

Too many people, no matter what their view is, only point to a single cause of the war. From states' rights, to slavery, or the difference between the North and the South (especially the economic difference). I, for one, do not believe any of these were the single cause of the Civil War. It was the combination of all of them plus other issues.

The North and the South did evolve to have very different economies. The south depended on agriculture. This caused the south to focus less on cities and more on rural developments. It also caused them to rely heavily on slavery. I used the term rely, as opposed to depend, because slavery was not, by any means, a necessity. But it gave them extra profit when they did not have to pay workers a constant wage. They could simply buy workers with a one time payment that went to someone else entirely. The north became industrialized. There, the people flocked to big cities to find works in places like factories, so the reliance on slavery was almost non-existent.

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.

[downbeatplumb]

Do you think it was right for americans to leave the british empire but not for the south to leave the united states?

[Pope Alfred]

You can certainly point to multiple issues, but IMO it is inconceivable that it could have got to the point of war without the issue of slavery.

Yes, I know Lincoln wrote that famous letter including the words "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." But that is deliberately disingenuous. Secession was essentially to preserve slavery and a way of life under threat from the abolitionists, and the pressure to prevent it was, at bottom, also from the abolitionists.

[Rev. Rye]

\

The North and the South did evolve to have very different economies. The south depended on agriculture. This caused the south to focus less on cities and more on rural developments. It also caused them to rely heavily on slavery. I used the term rely, as opposed to depend, because slavery was not, by any means, a necessity. But it gave them extra profit when they did not have to pay workers a constant wage. They could simply buy workers with a one time payment that went to someone else entirely. The north became industrialized. There, the people flocked to big cities to find works in places like factories, so the reliance on slavery was almost non-existent.

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.

That said, Lincoln wasn't really much of an abolitionist. On one hand, he personally didn't approve of it, but in 1860, he admitted that he was only against expansion of slavery into the west and not the instutution itself. Even with the Emancipation Proclamation, it only covered the states that the Union had no control over, and the border states which still had slaves were exempt from its effects. It took his successor Andrew Johnson to free the slaves in a legally binding way.

[DeistPaladin]

Do you think it was right for americans to leave the british empire but not for the south to leave the united states?

Of course. As Franklin put it at the time, "Revolutions are always legal in the first person. It's only in the third person, such as 'their revolution' that it becomes illegal."

Plus, they lost, and things are only illegal if you lose or get caught. Notice how Bush, Cheney, et al aren't currently at the Hague for war crimes.

[Cinjin]

Nobody likes being told what to do. The South was no exception.

When two groups refuse to come an understanding - violence is often the result.

[Faith No More]

The economical issues, state's rights issues, and the abolitionist movement were all a result of slavery, therefore I see slavery as the ultimate root cause.

[Anomalocaris]

Do you think it was right for americans to leave the british empire but not for the south to leave the united states?

Whether it was right for Americans to leave the British empire is debatable. It is nearly absolutely right to crush the south. If anything, they were not crushed thoroughly enough.

[Violet]

Why all the fuss about 'right' and 'wrong' anyway? Its almost religious how much people go on about these things pointlessly, but without the perceived benefit in the end to justify it -_-

America left the british for reasons ____, ___, ___, ____, and a few more ___blah___. 'Right' or 'Wrong' doesn't enter into what does and does not occur. And the same for the American civil war. Much more important than some petty vision of constant morality, is an understanding of what can be done, and better yet: why it can be done.

Just a little bit moody today, don't mind me, and carry on

[bozo]

May I air a view from abroad i.e. the UK?
Firstly, I don't think politics and history can be discussed in isolation.....they are entwined in my view because the history of humankind is about the struggle between the rulers and the downtrodden.
As regards the American Civil War, from my perspective the best side won because slavery was abolished, which wasn't about economics totally, it was blatant racism as well.
That racism still exists 2 centuries later, not so brutal and acceptable, but still existing.
Here's hoping the South never rises again! ( takes large sup of whisky as toast! )