Causes of the American Civil War

[swabian]

The American civil war was a secession war, not a war against a nonexistent fascist south and it's nonexistent genocidal ambitions. The secession war was also not fought over slavery and as far as i know, slavery went on in conquered confederate states (maybe even in some northern states, i'd like to hear Roma Victrix' opinion to that).

Thread moved from the discussion about the Charlottesville attack in the Political Mudpit. ~Abdülmecid I

[IronBrig4]

The American civil war was a secession war, not a war against a nonexistent fascist south and it's nonexistent genocidal ambitions. The secession war was also not fought over slavery and as far as i know, slavery went on in conquered confederate states (maybe even in some northern states, i'd like to hear Roma Victrix' opinion to that).

It was absolutely about slavery. It was not the only issue, and it was not what people signed up to fight over, but it was the central, unifying issue. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...s-over/396482/

But that's a different topic and suited for the VV.

[hellheaven1987]

It was absolutely about slavery. It was not the only issue, and it was not what people signed up to fight over, but it was the central, unifying issue. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...s-over/396482/

Yes and no, the central issue is "who has right to decide slavery as legal activity, state or federal government?"

[swabian]

It was absolutely about slavery. It was not the only issue, and it was not what people signed up to fight over, but it was the central, unifying issue. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...s-over/396482/

But that's a different topic and suited for the VV.

That was one of the consequences of the war, not the cause of the war. Certainly not Lincoln's cause. But we should really hear a resident historian to that.

[Acco]

The secession war was also not fought over slavery

Would you like to read primary sources from Confederate leaders about the rationale for their secession? Spoiler alert: slavery figures prominently.

Yes and no, the central issue is "who has right to decide slavery as legal activity, state or federal government?"

This is perhaps venturing too close to VV territory (fascinating topic in its own right), but it's worth pointing out that both North and South would swap sides on 'state vs feds' debate when it suited them to do so. Southern states applauded the Fugitive Slave Act (1850) because it protected the institution of slavery even in Northern states. The constant here is slavery.

[The spartan]

That was one of the consequences of the war, not the cause of the war. Certainly not Lincoln's cause. But we should really hear a resident historian to that.

There is a segment in the wiki article dedicated to the causes for South secession. Not only is it generally agreed upon that slavery was the cornerstone issue for secession, both sides thought that was the case during the war. Now, there were a bunch of additional political issues at play, but slavery was the dominating topic, hands down. Lincoln was willing to let the South keep slavery, but they didn't believe him and left anyway. Lincoln was more concerned with preserving the union, but the breaking issue was slavery.

[IronBrig4]

That was one of the consequences of the war, not the cause of the war. Certainly not Lincoln's cause. But we should really hear a resident historian to that.

Secession over slavery was the cause, making slavery the central cause. And I AM a resident historian. I got my PhD in history just last week. And next week, I start work as a full-time history professor.

Even before the war ended, many ex-Confederates tried to whitewash their culpability in starting the war by portraying themselves as martyrs fighting for a doomed Lost Cause. Part of that involved downplaying slavery as the primary cause. And until the 1960s, the rest of the country allowed them to do that.

I move that this goes into the VV. We're talking about neo-Nazis here.

[swabian]

Hm, alright, acknowledged. Thanks for enlightening me about the issue, i really wasn't aware.

[IronBrig4]

Hm, alright, acknowledged. Thanks for enlightening me about the issue, i really wasn't aware.

No problem. And yes, comparing them to Nazis is bogus up to a point.

[hellheaven1987]

This is perhaps venturing too close to VV territory (fascinating topic in its own right), but it's worth pointing out that both North and South would swap sides on 'state vs feds' debate when it suited them to do so. Southern states applauded the Fugitive Slave Act (1850) because it protected the institution of slavery even in Northern states. The constant here is slavery.

Yes, it was those confusing set up that actually brought civil war, as there was no clear division hence both pro-federation and pro-state gained hardcore support, resulted neither side willing to back down easily.

Lincoln was willing to let the South keep slavery, but they didn't believe him and left anyway. Lincoln was more concerned with preserving the union, but the breaking issue was slavery.

Rather no one believed the radical Republican behind Lincoln would let South keep slavery easily, particularly when Lincoln had little political experience (Lincoln, however, was a quick learner and by 1862 he pretty much master the art of White House political science and had fairly good sense of military matters).

[Cyclops]

No problem. And yes, comparing them to Nazis is bogus up to a point.

Nazism has a number of features not always shared by the various nationalist, right wing and "Southern" groups claiming to be the heirs of the Old South involved. We're comparing apples with a bowl of fruit, some are imitation apples, some are not. Specifically Southern secessionism is not in any way Nazism.

Racism? Check, the Nazis and many right wing US groups share an abhorrence of Jews and African "races". Southern slavery was built on an ancient system: a new feature was the association of African identity and slave status, but it was an outgrowth of the existing slave institutions and looks back to the intolerant and harsh Christian and Muslim polies of Spain, rather than pseudoscientific racism from 19th century Vienna.

Anti-intellectualism? Not so much: the Nazis were fiercely anti-intellectual, some right wing groups appeal to Nazi stereotypes but there's a strain of Southern revisionism that is steeped in historical research, and some right wing groups also appeal to highly legalistic discussions about the constitution. US Libertarianism is not Nazism. Southern secessionism appealed to European culture and education, not in a new fangled Fascist or revised Nazi way but as part of a broader European culture looking back to Rome.

Revisionism? Yes, having been beaten in war the Nazis, their imitators and some Southern groups indulge in endless revision of events to suit weird preconceived ideas. The fact that a lot of history is just propaganda ("Lincoln was a saint!" instead of "Lincoln was a stone cold political operator") plays into their hands (so "Lincoln was a beast! Lee was the saint!" becomes the cry).

Disregard for law? The Nazis destabilised the state but then cynically allied with elite factions to take power, then disregarded the law. Some imitators aim for the same goals apparently, others tread a fine line of legality but respect the law as they see it (as mentioned above) and others are law abiding in a sense almost everyone would acknowledge. Southern secessionism is all about the law, and respect for the constitution.

Nazism does appeal to a false past (pure Germans descended directly from Arminius), the past the South appealed to was less fictional and less distant.

[Love Mountain]

Disregard for law? The Nazis destabilised the state but then cynically allied with elite factions to take power, then disregarded the law. Some imitators aim for the same goals apparently, others tread a fine line of legality but respect the law as they see it (as mentioned above) and others are law abiding in a sense almost everyone would acknowledge. Southern secessionism is all about the law, and respect for the constitution.

Nazism does appeal to a false past (pure Germans descended directly from Arminius), the past the South appealed to was less fictional and less distant.

Can you elaborate on this?

[Cyclops]

I'm no specialist but the course of events went something like this. With the fall of the Second Reich the new German republic (known later as the Weimar Republic) experienced a lot of political turmoil. One of the chief causes was socialist insurgencies, some of whom sought to link up with Soviet forces pouring in through Poland. Freikorps and other irregular forces were raised by various other political players to violently resist these uprisings.

The NSDAP grew up in the aftermath of these desperate fights and continued the tradition of violently clashing with political opponents: this was also the aim and method of other groups including some Communists who were outright terrorists and at least as violent as the early Nazi Party. The Nazis did not appear in a political vacuum, there were genuine reasons for people fearing left wing violence leading to a coup: it had just happened in Russia.

Ultimately the Nazis were able to destabilise any other faction and make Germany ungovernable through their riotous behaviour, and Hitler was invited to form a government with the somewhat reluctant consent of the powerful Army faction. It is apparent Hitler gave undertakings to the Army which included disbanding the Brownshirt paramilitary organisation (whose leadership was liquidated). Momentarily Hitler and his party became an orderly and law abiding organisation sworn to give up violence and protect the state.

Once in power Hitler defied the German constitution and ruled essentially by fiat, arrogating to himself and his office all power in the state (using the excuse offered by the Reichstag Fire, possibly a socialist terror attack but also the perfect excuse for what amounted to a coup). The Nazi Party and its agents committed atrocities against German citizens and ultimately provoked a world war.

[hellheaven1987]

Southern secessionism is all about the law, and respect for the constitution.

Nah if South respected law there would be no civil war.

[Twido]

Secession over slavery was the cause, making slavery the central cause. And I AM a resident historian. I got my PhD in history just last week. And next week, I start work as a full-time history professor.

Even before the war ended, many ex-Confederates tried to whitewash their culpability in starting the war by portraying themselves as martyrs fighting for a doomed Lost Cause. Part of that involved downplaying slavery as the primary cause. And until the 1960s, the rest of the country allowed them to do that.

I move that this goes into the VV. We're talking about neo-Nazis here.

Congratulations for achieving your PhD.

I can only imagine how hard it is for a historian to get reliable information when the subject matter is so politically charged. I have heard arguments from historians on both sides as to whether the civil war was about slavery or not and interestingly enough these arguments don't really contradict each other. I would like to get your take on this question: If slavery was not an issue (ie the north wanted to keep it or the south remove it on their own volition) then would there have been a war?

It seems to me that war would have been likely anyway and some other issue would have been given as a cause. That is not to say that I am 100% certain of this, it is not a subject that I have studied in depth.

My line of thought is that if there would have been a war without the slavery issue then can we say that slavery was not what the civil war was about?

[IronBrig4]

Thanks. It took a long time, and I read through enough captain's logs and pursers' account books to last me several lifetimes. I now mentally convert prices into pieces of eight.

I've heard many trained historians comment on the causes of the Civil War, and the general consensus is that slavery was the cause. There really is nothing left to debate, and I'd examine the credentials of those who cling to the states' rights myth because they are likely not trained. Slavery was not the only cause, but the primary cause. States rights... to keep slavery. Property... that property being slaves. Northern oppression... which prevented the expansion of slavery. Preserving the Southern way of life... which kept slaves at the very bottom of the South's social hierarchy. Even in 1820, Thomas Jefferson compared slavery in the US to holding a wolf by its ear. It could not keep holding onto it, nor safely let it go. Either way, the issue was going to blow up.

If slavery was not an issue, then there would have been no gag rule, Missouri Compromise, Kansas-Nebraska Act, Wilmot Proviso, disputes over tariffs or the Fugitive Slave Act, or Bleeding Kansas. There would not have been any of those events that gradually, inexorably brought the free and slave states into conflict.

My committee chair accurately refers to the Civil War as the Great Slaveholders' Revolt, and the American Revolution as the War of Colonial Ingratitude.

[dogukan]

I am neither American, nor I know a lot about the civil war but I don't believe north was as antislave white knights as it is understood in the pop culture but slavery was the main area of friction.

AFAIK the colonization of the west caused a lot of friction, the political organization of USA that was growing was constantly being debated. The country wa struggling to to sort out its values and political system and the slave issue kept coming up. Especially with slaves escaping from southern states to free state which made inter-state political handling of things come up often.
I can imagine political factions trying to envision a long-term future for the country getting confused with the whole slavery thing.

It is also worth noting that these were two different economic orders clasing. One based on slave labor and plantations, the other urbanizing industrial middle class production new stage of society.
When I think about it, these two should feed each other, on the other free-man produce more and they also consume. But this kind of thinking would be toooooo orthodox Marxist Still, its worth thinking the world-outlook of two different political economic systems and their class structures and the formation of their ideologies.
An industrial manufacturing giant vs an rural landowning aristocrat heaven. The elites of this two different system were more than opposing each other on issues other than slavery as well probably.
Just my two cents, not saying this is the reason for the war.
I remember crashcourse mentioning about the Americans at the time having these concept of a jeffersonian nation or another one...I would not underestimate the clash of visions people hold regarding the future of their countries.

[hellheaven1987]

I am neither American, nor I know a lot about the civil war but I don't believe north was as antislave white knights as it is understood in the pop culture but slavery was the main area of friction.

Well, there were some slave states in North side, and main reason why Reconstruction was a failure largely because many Northern elites were on same side as South after the war (Sherman's last "march" already foreshadow the coming storm).

[daelin4]

Technically the cause would be certain states unilaterally seceding and the Union didn't find it acceptable.
The underlying reason (that is, why the states seceded) was because Lincoln was elected, to which they presumed would work against their interests.

As for slavery, well you can't ignore the fact that all of the southern states seceded pretty much because of their vested interest in slavery. I mean, did any of the states that abolished slavery secede? No. Was the single uniting factor among all seceding states being upholding slavery? Yes.
Secession is the primary catalyst yes, but what was the reason for their secession?

Think of it this way: if the entirety of the United States abolished slavery before the civil war, would the southern states have seceded at the time they did? Because if the answer is no, then you simply have to conclude that slavery is the key issue at hand.

Or think of it in this way: was German rearmament the cause of WW2? Not the biggest reason, but damn sure it's a pretty big one, since the lack of remilitariziation would have made belligerence by the Nazis entirely impossible. Hell, considering the state of the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS by 1939, they were already making quite a political gamble!

[conon394]

The CSA vice president made crystal slavery was the issue:

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew.""

Alexander H. Stephens was perfectly accurate and deserves credit for his intellectual honestly and proper record of how the nation came to its impasse. A fair majority of the Framers who owned slaves saw it as a dying institution and washed their Pilot like and there were simply too few willing to carry a strict abolitionist message at the risk of breaking the country, since the UK was likely to end the slave trade and so was the US in due time. They could see that slavery was dying out in the Northern states just as indentured servitude and prison transportation was as well. So could assume they were just waiting it out. They really could not anticipate what would happen with the modern cotton gin and the fact that for all its vile brutality and overt racism slavery in the US was no the death sentence of the tropics and so it would explode in scale and wealth for the south.

A subtle point the Insurance of slaves was crucial. A complexity American Ideal it allowed owers to feel free to lease slaves to say the Growing Tredager Iron works in Richmond or others im Bama. And they were making money, that worried norther Industrialists. Also co related was the fact the South simply did not to face the fact that the North finally had enough p[people to win out of the 3/5ths rule and take back control of politics it lost (should not have) in 1800. Bu

But in all goes back to slavery.

THe war of course was than inevitable because of a lack a good formal way of leaving the Union outside of a new Convention which they would have lost so...