Ken Burns placed slavery at the center of the conflict that caused the Civil War while McPherson places the socio-economic divide and the perception of this divide between North and South at the center. Other historians have argued for other factors like extremism or political sectionalism. Based on what you read, what was the central cause of the Civil War? Explain your thesis citing some specifics from your reading.
December 15, 2008
7 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Although the Civil War had an amalgamation of causes, the central issue was slavery because all other factors including socio-economic divide, extremism, and political sectionalism connected back in some way or another to slavery. Yes, it is arguable that the conflict rose out of the differences between Northerner’s industrial way of life and Southerner’s agricultural way of life. However, Southern agriculture depended heavily on slavery, which proved to be extremely profitable for the South, which scorned industrialists. In fact, during the financial crash of 1857, the North was hit much harder than the South. The South still enjoyed favorable cotton prices abroad while the north suffered as over five thousand businesses failed within an year. Had the South not had slaves to continue cotton production, it would have been met with a similar dismal fate. In addition, extremist activities including both Northerners and Southerners rushing to Kansas, causing a “civil war” there in 1856 also linked to slavery since people went to the territory in hopes of either making it a free state or slave state. Finally, political sectionalism had everything to do with slavery. John Brown would not have sacrificed his own life for that of Southern slaves had he not believed in the inherent evil of slavery. Congressman Preston S. Brooks of South Carolina, similarly, would not have gone to the extremes of beating Sumner with a cane until he was unconscious had he not felt genuinely wronged and insulted by the Massachusetts’ senator’s view on him and on the Southern way of life, of which slavery constituted a major component. Although multiple factors paved the way to the Civil War, slavery was at the core of all conflicts.
Comment by Meng — December 16, 2008 @ 4:46 am
I believe that the cause of the Civil War was the competition between the North and South over land, such as California, Kansas and Nebraska. California really caused a lot of tension by becoming a free state, which turned the odds against the South in the mind of the South. The Kansas-Nebraska Act also caused a lot of tension by giving them the right of popular sovereignty. This ability to choose led to the burning of the town of Lawrence and the Pottawatomie Creek Massecre. These skirmishes led to many other conflicts between the North and South and eventually in the Civil War. At this time, the issue of slavery was starting to become very troublesome aswell, however it was the tensions caused over land that really brought this issue into the spotlight. Thus I believe that the main cause of the Civil War was issues over territory more than slavery.
Comment by Marguy — December 16, 2008 @ 9:56 pm
I think the main cause of the Civil War was over economic prosperity and growth. Each smaller issue which ultimately feeded into the cause of the Civil War can be traced back to the South and North’s issues with money. During the Financial Crash of 1857 hit the North hard, yet left the South almost untouched, if not more sucessful with their cotton industry. The constant competition between the North and South over land and currency is evident. The sucess of the South during 1957 gave the South somewhat of bragging rights to having a stronger and more sufficient economy compared to the North. When it is ironic that the North actually wanted California in the Union, whereas the South did not. And in the end, the gold rush benefited the South. Money also played a huge role with the tariffs which were favored by the North and hated by the South. Slavery is also stemmed off of the money issue because slavery is what provided the South with its wealth, without slavery the cotton industry would fluxuate due to the lack of labor; cotton was the main source for the economy.
Comment by Jaclyn — December 16, 2008 @ 11:28 pm
There are many causes for the Civil War. Many of them somehow relate to slavery though. Slavery was the central cause of the war in my mind. Don’t get me wrong, there was socio-economic divide and the perception of this divide between North and South at the center. There was political opposition between the north and the south. The north wanted the extension of slavery to come to an end and the south wanted the opposite. There were actions such as the ones John Brown took that made the south hate the north even more. There was the fact that the north was industrializing itself and the south stuck to its old working ways. The south used slaves and the north was trying to abolish that. The fugitive slave act was the only thing the south got out of the compromise of 1850 and even then the north just passed the personal liberty laws to fight against the fugitive slave act. Bleeding Kansas did not help bring the south and north together but made them hate each other even more where people were the fighting was between the pro-slavery and the anti-slavery people.
Comment by Ramin Pena — December 17, 2008 @ 12:45 am
Based on my reading, I think that the central cause of the Civil War was sectionalism; however, not just politically, but in many aspects. First of all, political parties were increasingly veering away from being national to solely being sectional. After the election of 1852, the death of the Whig party marked the end of the last national party. The Democrats were prevalent in the South and several parties combined (the Free-Soil party, the Know-Nothings, the Liberty, and the Conscience Whigs) to form the Republic party. This party was prominent in the North. The Republicans wanted free soil, manufacture, protective tariffs, and an end to the extension of slavery. These are all the things that the Southern Democrats were AGAINST. Besides politics, the two sections had very different moral standards. The South was set into a certain way of things and did not welcome change; in fact, the South regarded their slave labor way of life as more MORAL than the northern factory worker system. This was basically a situation of industrial vs. agrarian (North being industrial and South being agrarian). Additionally, the North and South had very tumultuous economic issues. With the financial crash of 1857 came feelings from the South that the North was completely reliant on the South and mooching off of their wealth. The government was not exactly working to bury these sectional differences. This is shown by Bleeding Kansas (specifically the Sumner-Brooks beating story) and the frequent changes in the law regarding slavery (the Dred Scott decision).
Comment by Suzanne Zakaria — December 17, 2008 @ 2:19 am
I think that the Civil War was caused by slavery. At first, I thought that sectionalism might have been the main cause. However, when looking closer, it seems as if all of the possible causes of the Civil War are either the effect or are interconnected with slavery. The differences in industry led to conflicting view points on slavery. Slavery was an extremely valuable part of the southern economy, while it had little use in the north. While the north was able to abolish it without too much difficulty, it would have had a major impact on the southern economy. Another example is the western territories admission into the Union. It became an issue only because of slavery. The south did not want non-slave states to outnumber slave states. California’s entry into the country took so long because of the balancing problem. Overall, I believe that the true major problem with the issue of slavery – and why it caused the Civil War – is that there was no good compromise. Popular Sovereignty, a very democratic policy, started major conflicts such as bleeding Kansas, the Pottawatomie Creek Massacre, and the killings at Lawrence. Compromises such as the compromise of 1850 and the Missouri Compromise turned to be only short-term solutions. Politicians’ negotiations and debates on this issue, such as the Sumner beatings, even turned violent. While it does seem a bit cliché, the issue of slavery seems to be the foundation for the other issues in America during this time.
Comment by Sarah — December 17, 2008 @ 2:30 am
I feel that slavery is the core issue that caused the Civil War. Of course there were many different aspects that caused the war but mostly everything that had a part in starting this war was somehow connected to slavery. Political issues were a reason of the conflict but those too had roots in slavery. The presidential election was crucial and a main campaign point was about slavery. The economic seperation between the north and the south even was based off the slave system. The north relied on labor workers while the south relied on slaves. Another issue was expansion which slavery was a part of. Western states entering the union had to either become free or slave states which caused much conflict. Popular sovereignty was created for Kanses and Nebraska. Slavery was the the central cause of the Civil War.
Comment by Kara Troutman — December 17, 2008 @ 3:52 am