Impending Crisis

Although not recognized initially as a war to free the slaves, the ultimate Northern victory in the Civil War brought not only an end to chattel slavery in American but also a renewed faith in the indestructibility of the United States Constitution.

The Northerners rallied to arms to preserve the Union – not to free the slaves.

Aims

Southerners joined together under the umbrella of “states’ rights” to protect their homes from the Yankee invaders – not to perpetuate their “peculiar institution.”

When it was over, slavery no longer existed, the slaves were freed, and the nation soon became a true democracy where the white race and the black race would live together, no longer as one superior race owning the other.

Historian Bruce Catton proclaimed the end of the war as a beginning, a new beginning in which all Americans, black and white, are called to task to further the “ideal of human democracy.”

Considered the first modern war, the American Civil War was a total war in which civilians became victims and the economies were drastically affected.

The conflict also spawned a new era of warfare, which made use of the exploding technology resulting from the Industrial Revolution.

Causes

The events that spurred the nation towards a seemingly inevitable bloody civil war, combined with the South’s failed attempt at independence, defined American history.

The causes are still debated today, and the “Lost Cause” myth continues to be revered throughout the South.

Kenneth M. Stampp wrote that attempting to identify the causes of the Civil War is “most exasperating,” and that historians “will never know…what caused the Civil War.”

Many complex issues precipitating the ultimate schism

No one definite answer to any one causal fact

Historians continue to examine the evidence postulating scholarly interpretations as to what they believe, in fact, caused the war.

Stampp noted that although no one cause can or will be found, it is important that writing about and research into the subject continue.

New material and new interpretations add immeasurably to the understanding of America’s most crucial period.

Stampp and other historians organized causes into seven “broad categories” which taken together present a plausible progression of causes.

The North’s fear of a “Slave Power” and the South’s fear of the Republicans;

States’ rights verses nationalism; Problems of economic sectionalism; Inept politicians and “fireeaters” on both

sides; The right and wrong of slavery; Majority rule and minority rights; and

finally, the differences in cultures.

The Seven Causes

Each of the seven categories mentioned, although appearing to stand alone as a single cause, has certain elements interwoven with the others.

Most notably the issue of slavery is permeated throughout.

The North developed the concept of Southern “Slave Power,” an aggressive, well-organized conspirital group of influential Southerners whose aim was the establishment and perpetuation of slavery throughout the entire nation.

This Northern concept of “Southern Nationalists” bent on secession was vehemently denied by Southerners and later dispelled by historians sympathetic to the South as have no basis for truth.

1 Slave Power and Radical Republicans

The South on the other hand, viewed the “Radical Republicans” as the party attempting to gain power and dedicated to violating Southern rights.

They were the aggressors bent on destroying the Union.

This presents “conflicting interpretations of the Constitution.”

South Carolina’s “Declaration of the Causes of Secession” is an excellent example of this concept.

Editorials in leading newspaper, however, dispel the idea of secession and voice their support for the unity of the nation.

South Carolina was alone in her condemnation of the attempt to deny states rights, proving the lack of unity among the Southern states.

2 States rights vs. Nationalism

The agrarian South and the industrialized North were extremely diverse

National monetary policies were alleged to favor one section over the other.

This economic difference created a class struggle between capitalistic and a feudal society which tore apart the nation.

3 Problems of economic sectionalism

The image of “fire-eating” Southern politicians and radical abolitionists stirring up their respective populations is a common scene depicting the antebellum decades.

These “blundering politicians and irresponsible agitators” make up the fourth category.

These extremists have been given credit by “revisionists” as providing the catalyst for separation with their fiery rhetoric.

Even Northern newspaper like the New York Herald acknowledged the effects of Northern agitators on disunion.

4 Inept politicians and "fire-eaters"

The most singular issue became the most controversial.

The attempts to label slavery either right or wrong were leading factors in bringing about secession.

Slavery evolved from an institution protected by the Constitution to an abstract ideal with inherent problems which could not be rationally resolved.

5 the right and wrong of slavery

There are many examples of speeches condemning slavery by such notable figures as Stephen A. Douglas, William H. Seward, Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, as well as those from slavery’s champions, Alexander H. Stephens and Jefferson Davis.

Stephens went as far as to declare the cornerstone upon which the Confederate government rests was the “great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man, that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.”

With beliefs as intense as these voiced by the Confederate vice-president, the issue of whether slavery was right or wrong could never be answered short of force.

These two have been argued on both sides.

Newspapers either supported or denounced the fundamental principles of a constitutional government when respective sections viewed their rights being threaten by either the majority of by the minority.

6 & 7 Majority rule/minority rights and cultural difference

The cultural differences between the North and the South were great and many historians examining them have concluded that these differences made each section unique.

As such, radicals kept the pot boiling with fiery rhetoric condemning each other’s way of life.