heh, guess no one bit at my last topic. At least people in UP will flame even if they don't care that much. Anyways, I was having a debate with some guy in UP about whether or not Slavery is what caused the civil war or not. I say it had everything to do with it, and was the sole reason the South split off. Anyone want to take me up on it? (preferably someone who knows a thing or two about a thing or two)

I would venture to disagree. The debate on slavery was not a cause of the civil war but in fact a symptom of what really caused the civil war.

To bad muztard got here first, this one is easy.

Comeo one muz' crush this punk.

hey - how about a tag match? 2 to a side, i'll go with the point "slavery had everything to do with it"?

Sorry, but I cannot resist jumping in. There are a number of factors which should raise some serious doubt about "slavery as the sole cause of the war between the states" or the sole cause for secession. It almost certainly was a factor, but more symptomatic of other problems of the time.

President Lincoln believed abolist societies were as big a threat to the Union as slavery. Further, Lincoln explicitly stated in a letter of his that his goal was to preserve the Union in the war. Whatever fate awaited slavery would be accepted, provided that the Union was preserved. A famous story is told of Lincoln in which a Yankee general remarks freeing slaves would get God on the side of the Union; to which Lincoln replies, "It would be nice to have God on our side, but we must have Kentucky."

A further note is to look at the Emancipation Proclimation itself. The Proclimination left out several border states - all of which had not seceeded. One of them (Kentucky) declared neutrality; another never got the chance, since its legislature was arrested (Maryland).

There is one more problem. I remember reading somewhere (though not exactly where) that Lincoln actually did make an attempt at reconsiliation with the States who left the Union before entering office: if they would return, he would do nothing to touch the institution of slavery. Surely, if slavery were the sole cause of the war, why should Lincoln even make such an offer? Or those states remain out? They would have won their objective without the firing of a single shot.

nice start adam

however you have only touched it from the perspective of the north and lincoln - and it was the south that took the initiative.
Now why did they do that? they did it mainly because they recognised that their society, based upon direct slavery, could not possibly survive in a union with an industrialised nation, in main part because they wouldnt have the consumer base with which to expand production.
And *this* was also the main reason the northern industrialists wanted the end of slavery - not for any specious reason involving Gawd or whatever, but because they recognised that, as in victorian England, the industrialists and the Landowners were involved in a struggle for political/economic supremecy - a struggle that would determine the fate of the nations future.

That the north had no, or little, moral problems with the institution of slavery is correct, many is the story of woe from the slaves who escaped north, only to be met with the same racial hatred as they did in the south - indeed northern industrialists understood well that in actual fact slavery was not to be abolished, instead wage slavery was to be the goal, an intermediate step towards capitalism, a system where the workers sold their labour capital to others for less than it is worth, a system proped up by state sanctioned violence towards organised labour, and the destruction of any alternative, cooperative methods of production.

Thus the fight between north and south was inevitable, however so much the cheaper for the north if the south would have stayed in the union, and slowly gone the way of history, its economy slowly sucked into the norths vastly greater production technology.

so that is why i say the civil war was directly related to the issue of slavery, because of the economic conditions that led to it.

Time to play devil's advocate.

QUOTE

they did it mainly because they recognised that their society, based upon direct slavery, could not possibly survive in a union with an industrialised nation, in main part because they wouldnt have the consumer base with which to expand production.

Not necessarily. The North was easily the more industrial part of the nation, and could easily have supported things such as cotton; or the cotton could be sold overseas. The combination of the Wealthy and what existed of a middle class in the South, as well as the North, could have formed a consumer base.

QUOTE

Thus the fight between north and south was inevitable, however so much the cheaper for the north if the south would have stayed in the union, and slowly gone the way of history, its economy slowly sucked into the norths vastly greater production technology.

I have to agree with you here - Slavery was going to die a natural death. It was already on the way out at the time the Constitution was being written, until some genius had to go and invent the cotton gin, making it once more worth the effort of the labour put into it for the product.

The North had the luxury of moral outrage over slavery, because they had already moved on to a more industrial economy rather than the agrarian economy of the South. Had slavery been allowed to die a natural, economic death, it is very possible (I think) the war would not have happened; or it would have happened over the tariff. South Carolina did threaten to leave the Union several times before, one of them over the so-called "Tariff of Abominations" passed under Jackson.

QUOTE

so that is why i say the civil war was directly related to the issue of slavery, because of the economic conditions that led to it.

One thing to note is that I have not been arguing for no relation between slavery and the war between the states, only for slavery as the sole reason. Neither of our positions need to deny the other - but I do think what you've argued for establishes the economic climate in general, which included slavery, and not slavery in particular as the cause.

QUOTE

Not necessarily. The North was easily the more industrial part of the nation, and could easily have supported things such as cotton; or the cotton could be sold overseas. The combination of the Wealthy and what existed of a middle class in the South, as well as the North, could have formed a consumer base.

yes and no. At the the time there was no, or little export market - what there was was completely dominated by the mercantile nations, with England being hugely in the lead. As for the consumer base, again yes and no. When there are seperate currencies then yes, such disparaties can continue - but where there is a single currency, then such institutions as slavery(ie ulta-cheap labour and near zero consuming) will ultimately work to the detriment of the overall economy.

Another factor was of course that slavery was beginning to be used as the reason for a form of economic pressure (sanctions) on american goods by britain - more reason for the yankee industrialists to be alarmed.

QUOTE

One thing to note is that I have not been arguing for no relation between slavery and the war between the states, only for slavery as the sole reason. Neither of our positions need to deny the other - but I do think what you've argued for establishes the economic climate in general, which included slavery, and not slavery in particular as the cause.

i agree. Yet for me the slavery *was* the primary cause for the war, not of course the moral implications, but the economic. Despite what our political 'leaders' claim, there are very rarely wars fought for moral reason - one in nearly all cases discovers economic causes behind them - look at it this way, if you were a leader of a country, would *you* go to war unless it benefitted you (either yourself, your friends, or the general nation) in some direct fashion? After all a war is a very expensive and risky business, and as we all should know, people who manage to climb to the top of the greasy pole are very rarely moral, ethical or truthful people - it is unlikely they would risk such a venture unless there was a direct gain.

so as i see it, the war was indeed about slavery, because one part of the nation had moved on to the industrialised, wage-slave economy, whilst the other was attempting to remain true to platonic principles and stay gene-based agrarian aristocracy.

Noone has meantioned tarrifs, yet, many could argue that the tarrifs were the main reason. I myself believe that there were many reasons in unison...

The south had an ag based economy, and used it's money to buy foreign goods most of the time, while the north produced goods of it's own. The tarrifs created a strain on the south, while enhancing the north's selling ability.

But I digress: This is only speculation by all sides.

It was fought over money.

Tariffs were the main sub-cause, with slavery being extremely trivial in comparison.

You have also neglected to mention that during the time preceeding the civil war the Republicans were in power. The Democrats who looked out for Southern interests were disappearing. As a party they were on the verge of extinction. This would've led to yet another period in which there was only one party, unfortunately for the south this one would focus on the needs of industrializing the US unlike the previous lone party Republicans of Jefferson.

This made most of the Southern states feel like they were being taxed without fair representation (sound familiar anyone?) so they declared their independance from this uncaring government.

Adam: You were correct, Lincoln did try to comprimise with the Southern defectors, but the Radical Republicans wouldn't allow slavery to continue to expand so the comprimise fell through.

QUOTE (Famder @ Dec 27 2002, 11:59 PM)

You have also neglected to mention that during the time preceeding the civil war the Republicans were in power. The Democrats who looked out for Southern interests were disappearing. As a party they were on the verge of extinction. This would've led to yet another period in which there was only one party, unfortunately for the south this one would focus on the needs of industrializing the US unlike the previous lone party Republicans of Jefferson. This made most of the Southern states feel like they were being taxed without fair representation (sound familiar anyone?) so they declared their independance from this uncaring government. Adam: You were correct, Lincoln did try to comprimise with the Southern defectors, but the Radical Republicans wouldn't allow slavery to continue to expand so the comprimise fell through.

Famder, try to read a little history before posting, this is wrong in so many ways.

The Republican party only won because the dominant Democratic party split along North/South lines. The Democrats were far from disappearing, they were in fact even more prominent with the defeat and dissolution of the Whigs.


Adam,

Yes, Lincoln tried to make a deal to keep the seceeding states in the United States in the months between his election and his inauguration (I had an AP history question on that). It ultimately failed because the states that formed the CSA didn't trust Lincoln to follow through on his promises and basically things had already deteriorated beyond recovery (Democrats had split, federal property being seized, etc...).

QWOT: I must have been mixing my sources of info again. I knew the whigs were dying out, some joined the democrats others the Republicans. Now that you mention it I remember the split in the democrats. I might have been getting the timeline confused and thinking of the reconstructed south before the federal troops were withdrawn.

The North was far more advance then the south, with far larger population as well. The North was gaining large amounts of seats in the House and was able to control that house quite well. The peacekeepers from earlier times were dieing off. Henry Clay and Daniel Webster had many times brought the nation back from the edge. The Great Compromise of 1850 that alowed Missouri to come into the Union as a slave state and Maine to enter as a free.

Politics caused the war. Radical Republicans took a firm stand against the dissenters while South Carolina could stand no more of the bullying. Webster was gone. Clay was gone. The Orpheus' that cooed the monster of war had died.

Slavery was just a pawn in the war. It may have been a part of the armament but was by no means the black powder.


With the Great Compromise of 1850, the so and so line, the Southern straight line of Missouri would be the deciding point of Slave points, until Webster opened Kansas to popular soveriengty. A Civil war raged in Kansas for quite awhile before Sumpter. John Brown (Kansan) tried to start a slave rebellion in Virginia with the notorious Harpers Ferry Raid, which Lee put down. The tempo was set for war long before. The Kansan Civil War simply added to the powder keg.

gamma: unless i misread your post, you seem to be claiming that the civil war happened because "the peacekeepers were dieing off" - are you implying that the US population is constantly on the virge of war, and if a couple of the more peaceful citizens die it automatically goes off like a dead-mans switch?

i mean, whilst such an explanation would cover the current world crisis quite well, it does seem a little extreme description of the US...

gamma? was i correct or not about the meaning of your post?

I have to say that slavery was just an excuse for Lincoln to invade the South. If it was all about slavery then why did it take Lincoln 18 months after the civil war to set his slaves free? The civil war was about the South wanting to succeed from the Union. They did not want to be governed from afar. It has been proven over and over again that slavery was brought to America because the Northern States were greedy and lazy and did not want to get their hands dirty.

Wow, how deep did you have to dig to bring this up?

The United States had been moving towards a fractured, divisive society for a number of years. Cultural and economic differences served to widen the rift. Battles among North, South, and West grew divisive society for a number of years. Cultural and economic differences served to widen the rift. Battles among North, South, and West grew more heated, especially after 1850. Politicians and the judiciary sent conflicting signals trying to appease each of the groups involved, yet all remained dissatisfied. Georgians saw a federal government controlled by Northern industrialists who were unresponsive to the problems of their state. Tariffs paid by Georgians bought improvements in northern and western states. Now the federal government, they thought, was going to take away personal property without compensation, a clear violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. The South was wrong to assume Lincoln intended to free the slaves. He had never advocated action to abolish slavery nor did he speak out against the Illinois rules prohibiting blacks from testifying against whites. In his inaugural address Lincoln made it clear he would not interfere with slavery where it existed. Southerners had abolished the African slave trade in the Confederate Constitution. In the North "Preserve the Union" was the battlecry and Lincoln quoted "A house divided shall not stand" from the Bible. It was a control of power thing that start the war! Lincoln wanted to control all of american! Lincoln was a segregationous! He had a plan to free the slaves then send them back to there country where he thought they should be but his plan failed because he had free the slaves but the goverment couldn't afford to send them home.

So the civil war happen because "control of power" Not because of slaves.