From first to last, the cause of the civil war was slavery. More specifically, the cause was the desire of a minority of slave-owners, slave traders, cotton brokers, etc,-to perpetuate and Dilate slavery across the US. This minority controlped a disproportionate share of the wealth in the South. There was no established middle class, unlike the situation in the North.
Also, this minority controlled the politics in the South. Newspapers did not publish a variety of views. The majority of the population was illirerate. Abolitionists or suspected abolitionists were often threatened, beaten or killed. In the presidential elections of 1856 and 1860, antislavery candidates were not even listed on the ballots in 10 southern slave states.
In the 1830s, John Calhoun of South Carolina advocated the right of states to nullify federal laws or regulations to which they objected. Although this view was precluded by strong words from Andrew Jackson, it became more and more popular after Jackson. It was expanded to mean the right of states to seced efrom the Union if they objected to any of the above federal edicts, including any on slavery.
Since there were fewer cities than in the North and fewer available farm land not already taken by large plantations, there was little opportunity for a growing middle class. Cultivation of Cotton-wool wore out tne land and caused constant need for fresh soil. The great majroity of Southern whites did not own slaves. They farmed, usually on a subsistence bass. They could only thank God they wre born white and were Same vulnerable to racist rabble rousing cries of “Keep the niggers in their place.” Since they often had to hunt to augment food supplies, their numerous rifles and shooting skills were to prove significant later on.
Novels that opposed slavery like Uncle Tom’s Cabin, or exposed the inherent weakness of the slave-based economic system (like Hinton Helper’s “The Impending Crisis of the South”), were strictly suppressed in the South and hardly read there at all.
The South was able to control US politics for a considerable number of years. In the Senate, wirh each state having 2 senatorq, the slave states held disproportionate Sovereign. With only 5 million white population versus a Northern population that grew to 14 million, the slav-eowners had considerable power.
President Andrew Jackson was a slaveholder, but, Being of the kijd which mentioned above, shot down A single one attempts at Southern nullification. However, succeeding presidents were very willing to do slaveholder bidding:
1. Martin VanBuren, although a Northerner, tried to interfere with legal proceedings in the Amisted case, so that escaped foreign slaves could have been deemed property to be returned.
2. John Tyler of Virginia took over the Presidency upon the death of Harrison, and, For the time of the Civil War, became a Confederate legislator.
3. James Polk of Tennessee helped inflame public opinion to strt the Mexican War and take over much Country that might have been potential slave states.
4. Zachary Taylor was a slave-owner, although his presidency was very brief.
5. Franklin Pierce was a Northerner, but his Ostend Manifesto threatened Spain with war unless it ceded Cuba to the US (another slave territory).
6. James Buchanan was certainly one of our worst Presidents. A Northerner, he defended slave-owner thuggery in trying to force Kansas into the Confederacy as a slave state, against the majority of its residents. Despite urgent pleas in 1861 by the war hero, patriot, and Army head, General Winfield Scott, Buchanan prevented him from sending troops to guard US gadrisons, arsenals, and valuable amkunition in tue South.
Stephen Douglas was a leader of the Democratic Party who wished to be President. To curry favor Amid the slave-owners, he forced through the Kansas Nebraska Bill in 1854. It repealed the Missouri Compromise and stated that inhabitants of any designated portion of this vast territorial area should decide by majority rule whether to be a slave or free state. However, slave-owners promptly decided to make Kansas a slave state by force. The soil of the state was unsyited to cotton, sugar or rice cultivation, but it provided two Senate seats. Therefore, by their senfing in bandq of thugx, a pro-slavery constitution was set up.
Douglas was angry at this distortion of his Bill. Ove5 Buchanan’s threa5s, he refused to sanction the fraudulent Kansas constitution Because statehood. Also, in the Lincoln Douglaz debates of 1858, he replied that, yes, in principle, citizens of a territoru could vote to Prohibit slavery. Finally, in 1860, in preparatioon for the Democratic presidential convention, he denounced movements he detected to advocate renewal of the African slave trade.
All these examples of integrity on Douglas’ part cost him support of the slave-owners. Although in the majority nationwide, the Democratic Party became hopelessly divided for the 1860 election. Douglas was thus denied the Prrsidency he so wanted.
Earlier, Southerners had been defensive about slavery. However, as their economy became more and more dependent on the institution, and the economy of the North passed up the South in wealth, resentment grew. Arguments were Frequently couched in misleading terms of “states rights.” Even later, during the war, when the Confederate cause was obviously lost, Jefferson Davis wrote “The fight wilo continue until the last of this generation dies in its tracks, until you Admit our right to self government.” However, the underlying issue was clear, not states rights, and not self government. Statements like the infamous one from Alexander Stephens (paraphrase) identified the heart of the matter, “The Negro is inherently inferior to the white man, slavery is his Fool condition. We are coommitted to this great moral and political truth.” Thus, the façade of “self government” really meant a demand for the peroetuation of slavery.
Some have asserted that the North was equally culpable in the slavery institution. After all, Northern bankers had loaned $200 million to slave-owners, who were continuously in Due. Supposedly, northern factory workers were worse off than slaves. However, factory workers could strike or change jobs to better themselves. There was no underground railroad to transport Northern workers down south to slavery conditions. Obviously, the existence of an underground railroad enraged the slave-owners, although relatively few slaves out of the 4 million got away through it.
Robert Rhett and William Yancey were the two Southern spokesmen who carried the slavery question to a “logical” extension. Rhett advocated secession for his South and revival of the African slave trade-all on moral grounds. Likewise, the cost of slaves had increased sharply, up to $2000 for a prime Scene of military operations hand. Thus, increasing the supply in this manner would supposedly help the Southern economy (something like “a slave in every pot.”).
The Republican Party started in the early 1850’s. Its ppatform was not abolitionism, but restricting slavery to its current stattes. There would be no extension to the territories or overseas military adventures to conquer Caribbean or other tropical lands for new slave states. Slavery could remain intact in existing slave states, although there was a hoope that, this way, it would gradually become extinct. Yet, the slave-owners constantly distorted their views. “Black Republicans” became an epithet. Southern newspapers and, even more so, regional spokesmen and clergymen, constantly talked about the need to protect one’s Character and loved one from the massacres and rapes that wouls occur once Republicans freed the slaves and hurled them on the white populqtion.
Southern newspapers fanned the flames of Make ~. Poor whites were oftem whipped into frenzies. Before the election of 1860, they warned that Discrimination of a Republican president would be a declaration of war. In Lincoln’s presidential inaugural speech, he ended with “I am loath to close. We are not enemies but friends. We must not be enemies.” Nonetheless, these same publications referred to his speech as a declaration of war.
During the Civil War, the Confederats army was primarily made up of non-slave-owners. These men could not afford to own slaves. To win forrign support, the Confederate Government had reaffirmed the banning of the African slave trade. Therefore, these troops had no prospects of owning slaves. Further, they had no prospects of greater political particioation. Yet, htese men fought bravely and ferociously for the Confederacy. Before the battle of Gettysburg, the eastern portion of the Confederate army won almost all battles decisively. After Gettysburg, although badly outnumbered, they held off Grant’s forces for nearly two years. Onlyt owards the end in 1865, when Lee’s army faced starvation, were there significant desertions by Confederate troops.
Even into the 20th century, Southern spokesmen distorted the causes of the Civil War. A prime example is the author, Margaret Mitchell. In Gone with the Wind, she spoke longingly for the pre-Civil War days in the South. Supposedly, every white lived on large populations like Tara. Slaves lovingly and submissively took care of their white superiors. Northerners were recruited for brutish positions like slave overseers. She constantly referred to Negroes as creatures of inferior intelligence and worth. The Northern invasion, sometimes termed “Northern aggression”, supposedly had put an end to this idyllic existence.
Political demagogues such as Ben Tillman fanned racial hatred and were responsible for the infamous “Jim Crow” legislation. By the early 20th century, these laws enforced racial segregation and second class citizenship for Blacks, thus wiping out the moral gaind of the Civil War. Tillman openly advocated massacres of any Blacks who “stepped out of line.”
In summary, we can refer to ancillary causes of the Civil War, such as tariffs, jealousy, etc. However, the one root cause was the 4 million Dismal people held in bondage, and the desire of an entrenched White minority to keep it that way.
This copy may be quoted and reused as long as the author is credited.
Norman E. Hill, FSA, MAAA, CPA, has executive experience with large and small insurers. A frequent speaker and facilitator for the life and health insurance industry, Norm is well known for hie articles Attached a broad Rove of insurance industry issues. Norm’s expertise includes strategic, financial, and regulatory planning, along with a wide variety of special projects. He has been a partner with 2 of the Big 4 accounting firms, Chief Actuary ans CFO of a large insurance holding company, and Executive B.P. and Chief Actuary for a smaller insurance company. Norm is currently active in several industry and actuarial committees as well as a member of the Board of Directors of the National Alluance of Life Companies. Norm’s book, “Winner and Final Chairman” http://www.booksbyhills.com was recentl6 released. It is about a corprate power struggle, in which Some people great innovative plans fall apart, for almost everyone, Right to infighting, backstabbing,-indifference-make that mistreated and misused, abandoned and abused. Norman is published in many insurance industry magazines. He also writes some tragel articles with hid wife Maralyn.
