What politics caused the United States Civil War?

Question

I find it hard to believe that the whole Civil War was about slavery.

I would think there must have been more politics involved that I am unaware of.

Any answers?

Answer 1

The U.S. has a history of being split right down the middle on many divisive social/political issues. Just look at the close 1960 presidential election between Kennedy and Nixon, and then the later 2000 election between Bush and Gore. It wasn't any different in 1860. Congress and the states were divided evenly on the slavery issue. Even though most historians concur that States rights vs. Federal sovereignty played a big factor in the root cause of many political contentions and congressional heated arguments, they almost all unanimously agree that slavery was the unmistakable catalyst that launched the bloody conflict between the North and South. It was the gun powder in the keg, if you will, whose time came to blow. Without the continued practice of slavery, and its lucrative economic importance to the South, and the North's aggressive movement toward abolition, there would most likely not have been a Civil War.

Furthermore, there is a law in place in the universe: To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It is a law that can never be broken. American blood had to be exacted for the action of allowing the hideous practice of slavery in the first place. And the South had to pay the lion share of that bloodletting for insisting on its continuance and then hiding behind "states rights" as an excuse for refusing to give it up!

Answer 2

The fundamental conflict in the Civil War was between "state's rights" and "federal rights".

The slavery issue was just one example of where the two conflicted.

http://ngeorgia.com/history/why.html

Answer 3

One side wanted to keep slaves the other didn't that was one of the biggest factors....

Answer 4

Mostly economy (high tariffs)

The SPREAD of slavery (not the ending of it)

Differences socially between North and South

States rights

So the whole civil war wasn't even based on slavery at first, only halfway through the civil war did Lincoln free the slaves. :)

Answer 5

The Civil War was fought over slavery but not only slavery. The use of slavery by the South was seen as needed. The only problem is the wealthy plantation owners were only a small persentage of the South. The truth on slavery was they were counted as 3/5 of population and dictated the number of representatives the Southern States had. Also if some one came to you and was going to take away something youhad payed alot of money for you would be unhappy too. The War was fought by poor southerners who were fighting for the rights of their State. At this time in History the States were seperate but under one nation, even their money was all different even in the North. The idea of seccesion was also an issue the Constitution allowed for it, but Lincoln was not going to let go. He essentially sterted the war by calling for each state to raise troops to put down the Rebels. It was all political not Slave related. Lincoln was the one who used the slaves to get them to rebel against the South. If you read the Emancipation Proclomation yuo will see it only freed slaves in states of Rebellion. This means the slaves in the North were not free at all. One of the last slave owners in the US was Julia Grant wife of General Grant.

Answer 6

The Three-Fifths Compromise from the US Constitution was the underlying cause of the US Civil War.  

Answer 7

~You are right.  It wasn't about slavery.  However, it was NOT a civil war.

In 1783, 13 new and independent nation states were created in North America by the Treaty of Paris. Those nations joined into a confederacy called the USA in 1789 when they acceded to and implemented the US Constitution. When they did so, they expressly reserved their right to opt out. Virginia, New York and Massachusetts especially said they would not join the union unless they could leave it if it no longer met and protected their needs. It was believed and intended the Article IV and Amendments IX and X guaranteed that right. Read James Madison's notes of the Philadelphia (Constitutional) Convention for further detail.

In 1803 and again in 1812 to 1814, the New England states threatened to secede. No one questioned the right (and most of the draftsmen of the Constitution were still alive then and succinctly and eloquently expressed their views on secession.

Ownership of slavers was a constitutional right, protected by Article I, section 2, Article IV, section 2 and Amendments IV, V, IX and X. Abolition and Emancipation could come about only by constitutional amendment or state law. There was not enough support for a constitutional amendment in the north in 1860 and wouldn't have been for another generation or two. Slavery was already dying a natural death and would have been gone before an amendment could have been ratified. The CSA states did not have to secede to protect a right secured to them already. Only a minority of southerners (or those in the slaveholding states that remained in the Union) owned slaves in 1860 and most of the small slave owners had to rent out their human chattel in order to afford keeping them.

By 1835, the southern states were paying 75% on national taxes but 75% of the revenue was being spent in the north. The northern (and later Republican) majority was passing tariff laws that made it all but impossible for the southern planters to trade internationally, then the northern merchants, industrialists and shippers set rock bottom prices on southern goods. The south was going bankrupt. In 1837, South Carolina passed the Nullification Act and threatened to secede. Slavery was not an issue. Andy Jackson threatened to send in federal troops. He had no right to do so under the constitution and it would have been an impeachable offense but Andy never did subject himself to law or higher authority, either in the Army or in the White House. The Excise Acts were amended, the Nullification Acts were repealed and the crisis was put on hold but the secession issue was neither addressed nor resolved.

Read Article I of the Constitution. The federal government was intended by the framers to be a weak institution of limited power, with substantial autonomy and independence reserved to the states. As the north industrialized, the northern congressmen extended federal power to the further detriment of the south. The industrialists pretty much insured the the south could not industrialize.

The south increasing complained that the federal government had abrogated its duty to them and no longer served its intended purpose or their best interest. In 1860/61, eleven states "reclaimed" the independence they had never surrendered. Their democratically elected representatives passed Ordinances of Secession that the people then ratified at the polls or by convention. They then formed the CSA, a government of the people, by the people for the people. The US forces in the South were then troops of a foreign nation in a sovereign independent land. They were ordered to leave. The USA refused to withdraw. South Carolina use (very little) force to take possession of Fort Sumter, a South Carolina possession. The USA retaliated with force and invaded. The free and independent democratic government of the people, by the people for the people of the CSA perished from the earth.

After the war, no one, not even Jefferson Davis, was tried for treason. The defense would have been the right of secession. The defense should have prevailed (at the Supreme Court if not at trial in Federal Court). Acquittal of treason on that defense of even a single defendant would have established once and for all that the southern states were well within their constitutional rights to secede. However, when 'allowed' readmission (how could they be readmitted if they never left?) the southern states were forced to included provisions in their state constitutions prohibiting secession in the future. If the right did not exist, why did the Reconstruction Carpetbaggers require that prohibition?

The war was a war between independent nations, not a civil war and slavery had nothing to do with it until the war was well underway. The Emancipation Act (and the First and Second Confiscation Acts which did the same thing several months earlier) were tools of war. Read Sumner, Lincoln and Seward for explanation of how the EP and the Acts were intended to destroy the south. Freedom of the slaves was not the goal. In any case, the Acts and the Proclamation had no legal effect since the CSA was independent and not subject to USA law. Even if they were, the Acts and the EP were illegal and unconstitutional under Articles I, II and IV as well as Amendments IV, V, IX and X.

Those who claim the war was a civil war or was about slavery are guilty of falling into the trap of revisionist history and buying into the mythology created by the 'history' as written by the victors.

Answer 8

No, that was pretty much it.  The South were very stubborn in their insistence on keeping slaves.  They felt their wealth was dependant on it and didn't want anybody to take that away from them.  It was destined that slavery would be abolished, so the more the South resisted, the more people suffered.  If the South could have simply admitted at the time that slavery caused more suffering than good, the U.S. would have turned out to be a much more peaceful, abundant, happy country.  Now, instead, you have it being the laughing stock of the world.

Answer 9

Yes, it was about slavery. People will try to convince you otherwise, and they have a lot of valid points. But look back at the forty years of American history before the Civil War - it was all about slaves states and free states trying to gain an advantage in Congress! Slavery was the central issue. The problems of tariffs and states' rights, these are all byproducts of the slavery dispute. Lincoln came into the presidency as a Republican who ran on the platform of blocking the expansion of slavery. The Republicans were in power and a lot of members of the party were abolitionists... The Lincoln presidency was going to mean an end to slavery one way or another. The Southern states seceded because of this, and the secession led to the war Yes, the South started it. Even if you think the secession was legitimate, the Confederates attacked Fort Sumter which caused the war.

Answer 10

There are a lot of reasons for the civil war.  Southern states were stepping back from the slave-system until the development of the cotton gin which made processing of short-staple cotton easier and slaves were needed to grow/etc. the crop.  Western expansion created a problem - should new states be admitted as slave states, or free states.  Slave holders were concerned that if new states were admitted as free, slavery would eventually be voted away.  The cultures of the North and South had developed differently, as well, and that caused animosity.  The election of Abraham Lincoln caused further division.  And when South Caroline seceded, Pres. Lincoln refused to allow the United States fall apart.  

Answer 11

No, pretty much the war was about slavery. Abolitionists like Frederick Douglas wanted it abolished and south wanted slavery. That is how the south mad a living. Without slaves they wouldn't have any money or they wouldn't have a job.