[emmahogg]

Thoughts on this issue... was the civil war caused solely by the contrasting views over slavery?

[Emland]

I have always believed it had more to do with states rights than slavery. The abolishment of slavery was one of the only good byproducts of a horrible time in our history.

[emmahogg]

Well I studied the subject at advanced higher level at school and am about to do it again at university, I took the position for my dissertation that the break down of the 2 party political system and other political issues at the time had more to do that slavery which was basically propaganda, I'm hoping to finish my degree and specialise in this area and was just wondering other peoles views and criticisms of other views and hopefully have a prouctive discussion in which I can learn a bit more about the subject

[sGt HarDKorE]

No it actually had nothing to do with slavery until later on in the war. Ill try to think of the real reason, and ill come back to you

[emmahogg]

Thot id just quickly mention that I love the killers as well and saw them live at t in the park it was awsone and they played a half hour after set... top class

[tomder55]

In my view slavery was the reason for the war and all other issues were ancillary to the main issue.

Refer to this link as it is a pretty good summary of my opinion on the issue
http://members.tripod.com/~greatamer...ry/gr02013.htm

[ScottGem]

Slavery was the spark, but states rights was the tinder. Its true that had slavery not existed the war would probably not have happened. But it was the defense of the their right to not have the north poke their noses into their affairs that was behind the desire to go to war.

[tomder55]

Actually it was expansion of slavery into the territories that were going to become new States and the balance of power disruption that would've resulted that was the primary cause.

Let's face it ; the union was until that time a series of fragile compromises ;some of them written directly into the Constitution like the 3/5th compromise... and others that were forged by grand negotiations in Congress like the Missouri Compromise. That compromise system fell apart around the time when Nebraska and Kansas were being considered . The debate about free or slave states broke out into open violence warfare there before the first shot was fired at Ft. Sumter.

Then SCOTUS fanned the flames with the ridiculous Dredd Scott decision which gutted key provisions of the Missouri compromise.

I still contend that all other regional issues would've been resolved without war if the issue wasn't slavery . Secession had been contemplated and peacefully resolved twice before when issues of States rights were the issue. It was slavery that became the one issue that could not be compromised away.

[emmahogg]

However president lincoln and the republicans were blamed as bringing slavery into politics before the war and the southern states seceded upon winning the election as a republican government was seen as being anti slavery where a number of other political issues were just as crucial such as the temperence movement, immigration and migrants and as tomder55 said the dredd scott decision which was heavily southern influenced yet the war was not started over slavery nor was it intended to remove the institution of slavery it was a biproduct of a war fought primarily over key political issues and immigration if you think about it, lincoln really didn't have a choice other than to free the slaves with so much hype and drama over slavery during the war it was the right time and really the only time to do so as if he didn't he would have faced mass critiscism from northern politicians

[Fr_Chuck]

Actually I will have to disagree with many here, slavery had little to do with the war, it was not even until closer to the end that Lincoln ever abolished slavery and most believe it was done only because of a fear of losing the war and that a revolt of the slaves may help in winning the war.

The biggest issue was the money, taxes and where they were being spent.
And this was a states rights issue, remember the US was suppose to be a republic and that only those powers specificly given to the federal government could be inforced to the states.

It was used of course as a political window dressing since even after giving them their freedom they still remained with no rights.

[tomder55]

slavery had little to do with the war

So you're the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war!
Abraham Lincoln, on meeting Harriet Beecher Stowie in 1862.

It is just simply an undeniable fact that slavery was the chief and primary cause of the American Civil War.

Fr Chuck talks economics. Cotton was the chief US export more valuable than all others combined. Slavery was the chief means of labor. The value of the slaves to the South was greater than all American factories ,and rail systems combined. It was the protection of this peculiar institution that propelled the South towards secession . It was the expansion of slavery into the territories that broke the fragile balance that years of compromised had produced. And it was the idiot SCOTUS decision in the Dredd Scott case;the South's belief that fugitive slave laws would not be enforced (and zealots like John Brown )that led to secession.

Fr.Chuck I am a big advocate of Federalism and I think the 10th amendment gets violated routinely . What I am arguing here is that prior to the Civil War issues of States rights that were not slavery related came up . Two examples.

1. In the early 1800s the New England States were angry with Jefferson's anti-trade policies ,with the Louisiana purchase . Timothy Pickering attempted to form a secession movement among the New England states and New York. Then they were very opposed to the war of 1812 . The New England states had suffered economically due to the ongoing hostilities with Britain and secession was thought to be a means of striking a bargain to resume northern shipping commerce.
Talk of secession again began .The Hartford convention was convened but the end of the War of 1812 cooled down the talk and ended the Federalist Party.

2. The Nullification crisis occurred during Andrew Jackson's Presidency .The issue in this case was clearly States Rights. S. Carolina wanted to nullify laws passed by Congress. Again the issue was trade and tariffs. The crisis was averted when Henry Clay and John Calhoun compromised .A new tariff satisfactory to South Carolina was passed by Congress.

The difference between these and the events that led to the Civil War was that the issue of slavery became an irreconcilable difference.

As for Lincoln ; he was desperately holding on to the border states. He could not make the cause of abolition the main focus or risk losing them. He no doubt believed that union preservation was his duty ;but the fact is that without slavery there would've been an issue that would've caused the South to secede.

[emmahogg]

I agree that politics and states rights were a big factor and slavery has been over played but I believe it has more to do with the breakdown of the old 2 party system and the dissolving of the whigs had this not happened and the controversial republicans, who were controversial on many issues not just slavery then negotiations between north and confederate might have been possible as the paranoia that southerners had from the republicans wouldn't have factored as much resulting in fort sumter which thriough political negotiatons could have been avoided

[tomder55]

I think you missed my greater point. The nation had survived the breakdown of the political party system prior to the Civil War with the rise of Andrew Jackson and the collapse of the Federalists Party . The only irreconcilable difference was the expansion of slavery into new territories. I guess it could be argued that so long as the political balance could be maintained by a fragile political system in a contained geographical area then there would not have been the conflict. I think however ,the more likely answer is that the compromise system was artificially keeping Humpty Dumpty together .

Historian Edward Channing wrote :

"Two such divergent forms of society could not continue indefinitely to live side by side within the walls of one government;even within the walls of so loosely constructed a system as that of the United States government under the Constitution."

James Ford Rhodes said "it seemed well nigh impossible to hit upon the common ground of opinion which was a necessary antecedent to compromise."Americans in both sections believed that their future and that of republican institutions everywhere were tied to the slave status of the territories.

Lincoln said in his 1858 house-divided speech "I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved . . . but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other."

[andrewyha]

The Civil War was mostly about state's rights. The Emancipation Proclamation was only issued later in the war, and only freed slaves in the states where Lincoln had no authority while leaving alone the slaves in the states under union control. The proclamation was also a brilliant political move to help hold the english on the union side. Lincoln played against the english' averseness to slavery, using it as a catalyst against recognition for the confederates

[andrewyha]

The states rights issue was basically solely that of self-government. The south wanted the power to deal with what they considered a purely sectional or local matter, slavery, without having the federal government step in and tell them what's right or wrong.

[tomder55]

Agreed ;without slavery there would've been no basis for the conflict.

[andrewyha]

This is true although I tend to think they would have found some other bone of contention, such as tariffs, or one of any number of things. Slavery just happened to be a major issue at the time. It wasn't really a big moral campaign to rid the us of the evil of slavery.

[emmahogg]

Territorial expansion and power balance were key states rights as the south believed sthy should have the right to territorial advancement bt I agree tarrifs were also key isues but you must alsgive some thought to the fact that at the time of the civil war, the cotton market was declining and moving towards and indusrial business a good bit later than most larger western countries and gthe decline of the cotton industry must have put some pressure on the southern states finantially and tarrifs on already declinig cotton wouldn't have helped state relations

[HistorianChick]

The Civil War was about states rights and one of those rights was slavery.

Basically, I've described it to students as such... When you were a kid, you built a tree house. That tree house was for you and your buddies. One day, one of your buddies wanted to make some "tree house rules" and all of you didn't agree with them. So, you and half of your buddies went to the next tree and made your OWN tree house with your OWN rules.

The United States was a club. Half of the club didn't like the rules. So, they rebelled and formed a new club.

[airborne82nd34]

My opinion is that it came down too the south feeling as if the north was threating their way of life the south felt as if they had no other choice but to sucede. When writing your dissertation make sure that you take the time to read some of lincolns speeches before the war and immediately following . I live in a paradox and will tell you that the general opinion of the people at the time immediately following was that the war was gods punishment for slavery.