Causes of Civil War

Mr. Zucker argues…

Well, JZ, I hope that you had an excellent Thanksgiving.

The immediate cause of the Civil War appears to be that of slavery. Most historians have argued that the Civil War was this great moral crusade against the institution of slavery. This has become part of the mythology of United States history. It allows for people to believe that the United States is a truly unique country. Unlike its European brothers and sisters, the United States is supposed a nation that is driven by intentions of morality, not self-interest. In this viewpoint, slavery is an exceptional problem that detracts from the greater story of American history. Abraham Lincoln is therefore portrayed as a great moral hero who reunited the country and ended the one great moral blight that threatened to end the basic foundations to the country. The end of the Civil War then appears to be a great moment in God’s guidance of a distinct country that is destined to follow a new path that will guide the rest of the world.

The Civil War was not about a crusade against the institution of slavery. Rather, it was an attempt to control the lifestyle and mode of economic organization of the South. The Northern dominated federal government was largely led by the philosophy of the Federalists and their predecessors. Even when the Federalists officially died out, the succeeding Democratic-Republicans, like Jackson, tended to compromise the states’ rights philosophy for a strong unifying centralized government. This wing of the states’ rights crowd was further pushed to the fringe with the creation of the Whig party and then its descendant, Republican Party. All of these parties basically agreed with tariffs to protect industry, a long term development towards industry, and a final faith in the unifying power of the centralized government.

The notion that Abraham Lincoln was attempting to end slavery is more myth than fact. Lincoln claimed that he was against slavery due to its dehumanizing effect upon black humans. However, he also stated that he had no intention of ending slavery. Rather, he simply did not want it to expand out into the territories. Why not? The answer is rather clear. If slavery remained in the South, then Lincoln and others believed that it would die out in competition with industry and manufacture. If he was truly against the institution of slavery, then he would have attacked it immediately before the Civil War and definitely during the war. However, note when he finally did attack it. His Emancipation Proclamation was given in the last couple years of the war. And, it only applied to the deepest Southern states in the Union. Why didn’t it apply to the states on the border of the North? These “border” states were pro-slave and pro-union (read here federal government power). Lincoln was obviously trying to bolster the unifying power of the federal government by not attacking slavery too strenuously.

The only group that truly saw slavery as an immoral institution was the religious abolitionist movement in the North. They made up the minority even in the North. Individuals, like William Lloyd Garrison, advocated for a moral separation from the South over the institution of slavery. However, most people in the North did not even favor a separation or a willingness to fight in the military. Most members of the Northern military tended to be Irish immigrants looking for some basic work. Wealthier members of the “Northern Society” cliché tended to pay $300 for replacements. And, this was done after Lincoln created a draft due to the lack of soldiers.

The real reason for the Civil War was Federal power in guiding an industrial economy. The Northern powers wanted to create stronger tariffs, an extended railroad system, and government investment in the infrastructure of the economy. The Southern states’ representatives kept opposing these moves. Without the Southern representatives in Congress, the Northern Republicans moved on all of this after the beginning of the Civil War. So, in the end, America appears to be just like any other country attempting to pursue economic self-interest.


JZ replies…

Wow, Mr. Zucker, I didn’t know that you found your true self over Thanksgiving. Can we say Confederate, traitor, or terrorist….

The Civil War was about slavery. Even most of your arguments admit to this. Lincoln did not go right after slavery at the beginning of the war because it was politically impossible to do so. Any politician knows that he must compromise in the short term to achieve his long term goals. Yes, it was true that Lincoln often appeared to be inconsistent in his program. When he ran for president, Lincoln would give different speeches to different audiences. He would tell Northern audiences that he was against slavery while telling Border State audiences that he was not going to attack the institution. However, the reason for this was that he had to create a coalition of political forces to get him into the presidency. He needed to find common ground amongst interest groups that were often in opposition. He found the common principle in a desire to create a strong federal government that would keep the nation united.

It was also true that Lincoln did not attack slavery even early on in the Civil War. However, the reason for this had to do with keeping his coalition viable and keep the European forces out of the war. He feared that the early efforts of the war were not going well. In fact, most of the Northern generals were failing in their military aims. Britain was considering entering into the war to help the Southerners. The Northern victories at Antietam and Gettysburg changed all of this. Once the Northern armies won these two battles, the British decided to stay out of the war. Now, Lincoln could call for a moral fight against slavery to unite the Northern states. However, he could not risk losing the support of the Border States. So, he created an emancipation for the slaves in the deep South to create confusion in the Southern armies while keeping the Northern coalition united.

Yes, it is true that the Republicans in the North attempted to enact their plans for federalizing the economy and infrastructure with the Democrats out of office. However, this says nothing about their intentions over slavery. In fact, one could interpret their moves away from agriculture as an assurance to never return to an economic mode of organization that depends upon slave labor. In fact, following the war, the Radical Republicans pushed for full political and economic equality for blacks in the South. Radical Republicans, like Thaddeus Stevens, pushed for black freedmen to have full citizenship, voting rights, holding political office, and even have some economic redistribution of land.

The American story may not be a direct line of progress. However, Mr. Zucker, you have eliminated any of the ideals that America was built upon and its imperfect development over time. Of course, American history included elements of the typical human self-interest and economic desires for progress. However, American foundations also included desires for political equality, individual civil rights, respect of differing traditions, and accountability over government. The means at achieving these goals have differed. At times, the means to these goals have been through elite decisions in the federal government. At other times, the means were through social movements. At some times, war has been used to imperfectly gain unity and rights. While the movement towards these goals has definitely been imperfect, the elements of motives and desires have always been organized around and through the higher ideals of the Revolutionary and Constitutional period.

Jacksonian Democracy

Mr. Zucker argues…

Well, JZ its been awhile. You will notice that I am a man of the people. I believe that power ought to be dispersed as much as possible. I am sure that you agree unless you are some elitist snob…..

President Andrew Jackson coalesced and developed the movement of New Democracy that had begun to develop after the War of 1812. New Democracy was a belief that all individuals ought to be able to participate in the American System. Up to the War of 1812, the general belief on democracy was that the best leaders for America were those who had a specific stake in society. This included the educated classes and the investors who had an economic reason to see America either develop or deteriorate. Otherwise, according to the elitist form of democracy, the mob would take over and dominate.

By the 1820s, farmers had gained more power in the United States. Due to the victories of the Anti-Federalists through the Democratic-Republican party, the farmers had gained major footholds in the power of government. Also, as the farmers continued to expand western territories, they gained more voice in government. Farmers established territories that then became states. So, they were able to gain power in local governments and in representation for Congress. This eventually coalesced into their ability to unite and elect Andrew Jackson into the executive office. Jackson and his supporters believed that property requirements for voting needed to be eliminated. This would allow for the experience of the common farmer to be the deciding element in the process of law making. Also, it would place a check on the abuse of centralized power since farmers are usually distrustful of federal government.

This movement began the modern era of democracy that is still with us today. The principle that the common person should be able to participate in political decision making began with Jackson and has continued until our present principle of “one man, one vote”. Jackson’s movement helped to reign in the National Bank. The Bank had become too powerful and was known for corrupt management. Also, it was not providing the circulation of money needed for farmers to expand their investment. True, the economy suffered for a while due to the local banks. However, in the long run, the national economy continued to grow without centralized management.

Jackson’s leadership for the common man eventually led to the major democratic movements of the modern period. The Civil Rights movement, women’s suffrage, and all other moves for greater voting power owe their allegiance back to the Jacksonian era. Without this New Democracy, that emphasizes the experience of each individual to influence the system, we would still live in a Republic defined by elites.


JZ replies…

Oh, Mr. Zucker, you are so naïve. Oh yes, you are a “man of the people”. What does that mean?? Which people? Whose people? I think you are more of a legend…in your own mind!!!


First, I want to deal with your historical interpretation of the Jacksonian Age. How can you possibly refer to it as the beginning of the Modern Age. Jackson did not cause the movement of New Democracy. He rode the coat tails of a movement of western settlement. Since the farmers were the only ones to move out to the West, they of course took more political power. However, Jackson did not cause a change in mindset about the power of people. Rather, he utilized the social changes to ride a wave into the White House. This was evident through a number of his decisions that did not favor the rights of the common person. He did nothing to limit or get rid of slavery. He forcible moved the Native Americans from Georgia in a disastrous march during the dead of winter. And, his closest advisors were friends of his from the richest of the plantation owners. Jackson was not a promoter of the common man. He used them as a tool for his accession to power.

True, Jackson did dismantle the National Bank in favor of the farmers and smaller “wild cat” banks. However, Jackson over rode South Carolina’s nullification of an excessive tariff in order to protect the authority of the central government. By doing this, he created a principle of federal control over tariffs that would eventually anger the “common man” and push the South closer towards secession and Civil War.

But, this is the underlying problem with your entire argument. You assume that lowering the property requirements on voting instantly guarantees the growth of democracy. This assumes that democracy is largely an institutional practice of voting. But, it doesn’t look at the deeper values of democracy that must be developed in order to ensure a democratic tradition. Democracy needs a sense of individual empowerment and real influence over the process. Voting is simply a manifestation or ritual of the overall process.

Jackson did not create real institutions that would allow for common farmers to influence the democratic process. He did not raise the number of representatives for common farmers as shown by his refusal to enter the Republic of Texas into the Union. He did not include common farmers into his cabinet of advisors. He did not find a way to compromise with the states on their power of nullification. And, his ridding the country of the National Bank did not ultimately resolve the farmers’ need for a growing level of currency in the economy.

In the end, Mr. Zucker, you end up allowing for the tool of democracy. But, you do not see the need for the substance of democracy.