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.
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.
posted by JZFormidableOpponent at 3:23 PM
70 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
I agree with JZ that slavery was the foremost cause of the Civil War. Lincoln wanted the eventual abolition of slavery, but he knew that he could not achieve this goal immediately and still preserve the Union, which was another of his main goals. Lincoln needed to gain the support of Northern non-abolitionists to help win the war and preserve the Union. The North was in a rough situation in the war with Britain threatening to support the South, and Lincoln needed all the support from the North he could get. However, as Michael Mercurio (definitely a Civil War enthusiast, awesome!) pointed out, Lincoln instituted the Emancipation Proclamation as soon as he got the chance. Lincoln just needed to wait for the right moment to initaite his moral fight against slavery, as JZ called it. Also, as Michael pointed out, the North enlisted free black men, insulting the South and showing that blacks and whites could work together.
Even though there were economic self-interest reasons for fighting the Civil War, as Mr. Zucker argued, the root of the conflict came from the institution of slavery and the attempt to destroy it.
Sean Smith
Period 1
I’m going to have to agree with JZ again on this one. Slavery was in fact the cause of the Civil War. Michael, you say that another equally important cause was trying to preserve the Union, but why was the Union on the verge of dividing? Like we have recently discussed in class, all of the events leading up to the Civil War played a major part, most notably the many Compromises. However, these Compromises were all about slavery and which states would become slave or anti-slave states. So to argue that trying to preserve the Union is another issue is erroneous because it was in fact caused by slavery. As JZ states, it would have been political suicide for Lincoln to attack slavery at the beginning of the war when so many needed allies came from states on the border of the North and the South. To attack slavery would have given the Confederacy an edge and more support, as well as the fact that it would have been very unrealistic to do so. True, many people did not want to fight in the war and Lincoln had to initiate a draft, but quite honestly it was the abolitionists and people with hatred of slavery who ended up fighting. Michael you bring up a good point that Lincoln was an avid abolitionist and appealed to many people by advocating against slavery during the war. This does NOT mean that he liked blacks or thought that they were equal; quite the opposite actually—Lincoln disagreed with slavery but regarded blacks as inferior. Furthermore, I like your example of slave regiments. With the Emancipation Proclamation, virtually all slaves (in theory) were freed. As if this was not a bad insult to the Confederacy already, the North employed blacks and former slaves to fight in segregated regiments. This underscores the fact that the Civil War really was about slavery. Although Mr. Zucker says that the real reason for Civil War was Federal power to create tariffs, railroads, etc. these were simply some additional justifications for the war. We know this because the previous compromises were all about slavery as the primary issue. With the Compromises that were made, there were inevitable unintended consequences that pushed the Union to breaking up.
Matt Lee
Period 1
Edit: Sorry for deleting. Wanted to clean it up a bit.
Mr. Zucker and JZ both present valid arguments and examples. Mr. Zucker argues that the Civil War was NOT caused by slavery, while JZ argues that the Civil War WAS caused by slavery. I take the middle ground; slavery was not the sole reason for the Civil War, but it would be ignorant and crazy to say that slavery played absolutely no role.
I’ll argue my first point first: Slavery was not the only reason for the Civil War.
Aside from slavery, preserving the Union (or preserving Confederate independence) was the other primary reason for fighting in the Civil War. It was Lincoln who memorably quoted the Bible to support preserving the Union: “A house divided itself cannot stand.”
Furthermore, 2/3 of Southern families didn’t even own slaves. Moreover, several Southerners did not even join the war until after the First Battle of Bulls Run, Virginia (which was well after the very first conflict of Fort Sumter). Keep in mind that the South had a code of honor and shame; thus, the South viewed the North’s invasion of Virginia as the final insult to Southern pride and sovereignty.
The South also prioritized preserving independence over preserving slavery. The legendary Confederate general Robert E. Lee advocated freeing Southern slaves if they aided in the war effort.
Additionally, slavery was not the sole reason for the War since slavery was already in decline. Eventually, the South would be forced to adapt to industry and urbanization if it wanted to keep up economically at all.
Nevertheless, slavery certainly was a central (if not, the foremost) reason for the Civil War.
Lincoln is remembered as one of the North’s heroes against slavery. Granted, he needed to appeal to non-abolitionists to gain support in the North. However, these pro-slavery states and groups eventually agreed to abolish slavery so that the Union would be preserved.
Indeed, Lincoln was an avid abolitionist. However, he could not immediately abolish slavery, as JZ points out. He had no power or influence to do so; from 1861 to 1862, the North suffered embarrassing losses against the undermanned and under-equipped Southern armies (e.g. both Bull Run Battles,Lee’s Peninsula Campaign, Jackson’s Shenadoah Valley Campaign [correct me if I’m wrong]). To worsen the situation, Britain seriously considered supporting the South (they could have ended the blockade on Southern ports, allowing the Confederacy to trade again).
HOWEVER, Lincoln grabbed the chance to institute the Emancipation Proclamation as soon as he could, even when the reason was not so valid—right after the battle of Antietam (aka Sharpsburg). The North paraded that battle as a major Union victory (the first in the Eastern Theater of the War), but in reality, it was decidedly a stalemate (even though the Union army was three times as large as the Confederates’. The Union lost a few more thousand troops than the Confederates; in fact, Antietam is known as the bloodiest day in American history.) Even so, Lincoln accepted Antietam as a Northern victory and used the success to declare the Emancipation Proclamation (and thus free the slaves north of the Mason-Dixon line).
I disagree with Mr. Zucker’s argument that the majority of Northerners did not support the war or abolition, as well. Granted, initially Lincoln looked like he would lose the 1864 election to George B. McClellan, who advocated peace and offering the South concessions. However, Lincoln won the election, since virtually all the soldiers in the Union army voted for him; he had the support of those who were suffering the most from the War.
A final example is that the North enlisted free black soldiers. This served as two symbols: it was an insult to the Southerners, using their slaves to fight against them; and it showed that Whites and Blacks were willing to work together for one cause.
Slavery indeed was a primary reason for the Civil War, but preserving the Union was of equal importance.
Michael Mercurio
Period 2
(Sorry, I was a major Civil War enthusiast back in the day.)
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alright Matt. Let me begin with this: I agree with you. Slavery WAS a major, if not central, issue of the Civil War. However, I believe that preserving the Union was an almost, if not just as, important issue as slavery. Before the war, why did the North and South compromise on slavery in the first place? To preserve the Union between the states. For example, Henry Clay, even though he was anti-slavery, was more concerned with preserving the Union; he thus led the compromise effort between North and South.
As for Lincoln calling Blacks inferior, I'd like you to provide a quote or some evidence of this....I have one supporting my view: After Union troops captured Richmond, the Confederacy's capital, Lincoln visited Petersburg to meet with the recently freed Blacks. He PERSONALLY spoke to them, saying: "My poor friends, you are free...Liberty is your birthright....But you must try to deserve this priceless boon....Obey God's commandments and thank him for giving you liberty, for to him you owe all things." Does this make him racist? I think not.
Michael Mercurio
Period 2
This comment has been removed by the author.
I definitely agree with JZ. How can you say that Civil War was based on economic and self-interest? Slavery WAS the central concern for the civil war. It was the issue of SLAVERY that separated and disunited the north and the south. It was the issue of slavery that threatened to break the Union apart. In order to prevent this, Lincoln obviously wouldn't want to abolish slavery right away as it would cause the South to go absolutely berserk. At the time, the British were thinking of joining the war with the South; attacking the Southern way of life,i.e. slavery, would give enough motive and ammunition for the south to break away and get the huge British army to join their fight...
Lincoln was a genius; I believe he knew what he was doing. His goal as president was to preserve the Union. A strong, organized central government would do just that. I agree with Michael Mercurio. Once two major battles were won by the north, (Gettysburg and Sharpsburg) the British decided not to join and Lincoln immediately jumped on this opportunity and issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
I also agree with Sean Smith: one of Lincoln's goals was to preserve the Union. Matt also pointed out the symbolism in initiating blacks in the war as an insult to the Confederacy and as the proof that one of the core reasons for this war was slavery. Of course, the war was fought between the north and the south for deeper reasons. But think of how this tension began--from issues of slavery.
-Jason Jeffrey, Period 2
I agree with JZ in his argument that slavery was the main cause of the civil war. Lincoln's mixed messages to different people were just a political ploy to keep the public on his side. As long as the middle states thought that he wasn't going to do anything about slavery they wouldn't think of him as a threat and they might even support him. In addition, the North was constantly fighting the South through railroads, compromises, runaway slaves whose catchers are given no help, and some guy dragging his slave through free states. The Southern culture was built on racism and slavery, so the only way to break that social mold and unite the two halves of the country (not immediately, but in the long run) one had to get rid of slavery (because racism takes generations to go away). The fact that Britain was going to support the South also shows that Lincoln has to go in and stop the South before Britain comes in and splits the country in two because of the slave debate. Eliminating slavery would keep foreign countries from trying to play each side of the US against the other. In order to keep his political power, Lincoln strategically abolished slavery in states whose support would never be his in his lifetime; therefore saving the border states for his supporters.
I agree with Sean and Micheal who say that Lincoln was just biding his time to let loose the fury of the Emancipation Proclamation. While this wouldn't have done much in reality to change the black's situation at that moment, it would have caused some confusion back home in the deep south that the southerners would have to deal with. While the south was keeping their slaves in line, the north was sending their blacks to kick some southern rump!
Grant Ukropina
Period 1
I don't agree with Mr. Zucker's argument that the Civil War was driven by the Northern industrial economy. Many of these industries depended on some of the goods, such as cotton, produced by southern plantations. I agree with JZ that slavery was the main cause of the war. All of the compromises that attempted to keep the Union together were caused by slavery. The Missouri Compromise was used to establish the 36 30 parallel to determine where slavery could and could not be, although it was very flawed. The Dred Scott case was about whether or not slaves could go into free states and be free. All of the compromises were over the issue of slavery in order for the regions to gain power in the Senate. At the time, either the senators of a state were pro-slavery or anti-slavery. I disagree with Mercurio because I dont think that preserving the Union was a cause of the war. I think that the compromises attempted to preserve the Union. I also agree that Lincoln didn't want to go to war. He did everything he could to prevent it. But I dont think that preserving the Union could be considered a cause because the Union had to be preserved because of the issue of slavery. I agree with sean smith that slavery was the root cause of the Civil War.
David Dukesherer
Period 2
I agree with Mr. Zucker that the central issue surrounding the Civil war was not slavery. The southern states did not succeed because they thought Abraham Lincoln was going to end slavery; they thought he was going to favor the north and tip the balance of power in the Senate from the South to the North. I disagree though that the war was about to control the southern lifestyle and economic organization; rather, they were in a power struggle over representation in government and economic interest. For example, with the Galsend Purchase, the south intended to build a railroad across the southern states to unite them politically and economically. The North Tried to counter this by building their own transcontinental railroad by converting the Kansas-Nebraska Territory into a free state. I do agree with Jz when he says that slavery became an issue later on in the war; however, slavery was never the central issue and has exploited by the northern government to help foster support and backing from anti-slavery movements. Micheal Merrchio presents some very valid points in discussing that slavery was on it way to decline, and so the south was not trying to preserve it. But Micheal, Lincoln definitely was not an avid abolitionist. In his campaign, he said that he did not like slavery, but accepted it were it existed and did not want to abolish it. He changed his mind while in office, yes, to gain the upper hand in the war, but did not initially want to destroy slavery.
Nolan Welsh
Period 2
Upon reading both opinions I feel that JZ is correct in rooting slavery as the main cause of the Civil War, however I believe that not only the moral problems caused the war, but more importantly economic struggle. Nonetheless, the strong moral opposition of slavery was important as well. The northern religious views of slavery definitely had a profound effect on the south and morally degraded southern society and its way of life. However, I feel a more important cause may have been economics. The growing anti-slavery sentiment combined with acts like the Wilmot Proviso that would harm slavery, caused the south to feel economically threatened. Slavery fueled a large part of the southern economy, by selling cotton, tobacco, and other crops they provided not only America, but also Europe with an abundance of crops. Abolitionist, like William Lloyd Garrison, scared the many southerners into believing that the north was attacking southern economy. The abolishment of slavery would cause an immediate collapse of the southern economy and therefore was a threat to their way of life. Also, Southerners may have felt that the north was trying to impose industrialization upon the southern agrarian lifestyle. Overall, when southern states began to leave the union it was not due to morals as much as the economic consequences that would result from the abolishment of slavery.
In response to Jason: I agree that Abraham Lincoln’s main interest was to preserve the Union. Lincoln was not a staunch speaker against slavery throughout his career. He only recognized blacks as people, but did not believe that they were equal to him or even should have the same rights as whites. Therefore he did not fight over morals as much as in order to preserve the union.
Sho Tsubakiyama
Period 2
I agree with JZ that slavery was the ultimate cause of the Civil War. James Zucker argues taht if Lincoln really wanted to destory slavery, why didn't he attack it from the get go. Well James, Lincoln did not publically attack slavery at the beginning of the Civil War because he first had to create a strong Union to keep his forces united and the keep Britain from entering the war on the side of the South. Lincoln also had to as Sean SMith brings about, gain supporters from the non-abolitionists as well. As soon as Loncoln was able to rally his troops which also included free blacks, he provided the Emancipation Proclomation. Another obvious way to see that the civil war was about slavery is the whole idea of new territories entering the country as free or slave states. North and South states began to grow further against eachother when each new thought of a free state or slave state would enter the Union.
All in all it is evident slavery was the main cause of the civil war because it was the major reason for the whole economic divisions between the North and the South. It affected the Country morally and economically.
(Yes. I actually wrote a blog. It feels pretty good I guess.)
Erik Stahlheber
Period 1
JZ provides a more accurate perspective than Mr. Zucker on the predominant cause of the Civil War, though even JZ does not present nearly the whole picture of the partial disintegration of the American political system and ensuing Civil War. Issues surrounding slavery, if not the immorality of the actual institution itself, propelled the nation into war.
For example, Chief Justice Roger Taney's majority opinion in Scott v. Sandford (often known simply as "the Dred Scott case") enraged Northern abolitionists because it declared that slaves were merely property and could never become citizens; furthermore, it established the precedent that the federal government (i.e., Congress) had no legitimate authority to prevent slavery in the territories.
Also, even non-abolitionist Northerners contested the Southern states' respective decisions to secede from the Union and challenged the act as unconstitutional. Though the slavery issue was the rallying cry for many Northerners, far more united against the South because it had supposedly violated the Constitution.
The deaths of three men--Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, and Daniel Webster--in the last antebellum decade further pushed the divided nation toward the brink of war. These men, who were perhaps America's greatest compromisers of the early nineteenth century, helped unite the nation (at least temporarily) on a particularly divisive controversial issue: slavery.
Ultimately, I cannot completely side with JZ because slavery was not the sole predominant cause of the Civil War. Slavery and secession rights were two of the chief concerns. Proponents of the notion that slavery was the only key instigator of the Civil War have an erroneous argument because several slave states (e.g., Missouri) supported the United (not Confederate) States of America during the Civil War. Michael Mercurio's comments are particularly insightful, for he realizes the complex background to the Civil War's onset.
Last but not least, there is a notable contradiction in Mr. Zucker's argument. He writes, "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." What exactly was the mainstay of Southern lifestyle and economy? Slavery.
Brendan Folan
Period 1
I definitely agree with JZ on this issue that the Civil War was based upon slavery. The only reasons Abraham Lincoln did not abolish slavery completely and immediately right after he was elected into office was for political reasons; he compromised in the short term to accomplish his long term goals. In this case, the goal was the abolition of slavery. Also, America was founded on the ideals of equality, liberty, and individuality. It is true that slavery was not initially on the top of Lincoln's list, and for good reason; in order to become elected and to maintain the country as a whole, he needed to appeal to both the north AND the south. Also, Lincoln needed to keep his forces united and he had to make sure Britain did not join the war as allies with the South.
I definitely agree with Michael Merucrio and Sean Smith when they say that Lincoln enacted the Emancipation Proclamation as soon as it was reasonably possible. Lincoln just needed to wait until the time was right before he attacked slavery.
Brandon Alessini
Period 3
I believe that the main and chief cause of the war was without a doubt was slavery. Southern states, including the 11 states that formed the Confederacy, depended on slavery to support their economy. Southerners used slave labor to produce crops, especially cotton. Although slavery was illegal in the Northern states, only a small proportion of Northerners actively opposed it. The main debate between the North and the South on the eve of the war was whether slavery should be permitted in the Western territories. Opponents of slavery were concerned about its expansion, in part because they did not want to compete against slave labor.
I agree with Sean Smith as the same principles as I see them. I agree with him when he said Lincoln just needed to wait for the right moment to initiate his moral fight against slavery. Lincoln needed to gain the support of Northern non-abolitionists to help win the war and preserve the Union.
Garrett Cooper
Period 1
Though Mr. Zucker does indeed bring up some very valid arguments, I have to side with JZ on this one. The Civil War surrounded the whole issue of slavery. This crusade was, not as Mr. Zucker stated, not about controlling the lifestyle of the South just for the hell of it. Specifically, they set out to change the southern lifestyle of slavery. This does not mean, though, that all or even a majority of northerners were staunch abolitionists. In fact, many of them were incredibly racist. But the north did wish to fight against the expansion of slavery into the new territories. The fact that after the war was over northerners attempted to strengthen federalism and industrialism supports the idea that they wished to move as far away as possible from a system that encourages the institution of slavery. JZ's arguments about Lincoln's actions and inactions make more sense. Lincoln had to try to preserve the nation before the war broke out, so he was less radical. In the war he was soft on border slave states because they wished to remain in the union.
I disagree with Nolan's argument that slavery did not become a major issue until the middle of the Civil War. He is incorrect in saying that the Civil War was not induced because of slavery issues. These issues may have seemed at first glance to be unrelated to slavery, but indeed their underlying cause was slavery. For example, the railroad issue was not solely about economics. Yes, the North wanted a competing railroad. But both the north and south realized that building the railroad would have a symbolic effect for the Nebraska Territory. It would eventually become a free state. The pro-slavery South could not accept this, so they argued ferociously on this issue. The Civil War at its roots was caused by slavery.
Wil Heintz
Period 1
Mr. Zucker makes a good point that slavery was not the only cause that led up to the Civil War. This is true, but slavery was a definitely the predominant factor with regard to the reasons for the Civil War. Thus, I must agree with JZ on this issue. It is evident that Lincoln was anti-slavery and abolishing this institution was one of his main goals; however, as a politician, he knew he couldn’t accomplish this immediately because he also aimed to preserve the Union. Immediate abolition of slavery would cause dissension among the Border States and Lincoln wouldn’t get voted into office. As soon as he got a chance, Lincoln seized the opportunity to abolish slavery through the Emancipation of Proclamation.
Further, I agree with Michael Mercurio and Brendan Folan that of course the North was trying to combat Southern economy and lifestyle because slavery was the source of Southern economy and lifestyle. In turn, Slavery WAS the chief igniter in the Civil War.
Jaleel Reed
Period 1
11/30/07
Yeah, I agree with JZ in that issue of slavery started the war. I also agree with the idea that Lincoln could not just go and say screw slavery but he has to slowly ease into that because it would destroy any chance of ending the war early. Also, if he had done this then Britain may have entered the war. If this occured then there would be an even bigger problem. The north would have to fight the south and Britain who would most likely win because they had a stronger army and would take advantage of the weakened state of both the north and south. With the Republicans trying to get complete control of the government, the south would have done the exact same thing if they won. Also they were getting the people out of government who sided with the south on the issue of slavery because they didn't want any of the enemies allies in the government.Lastly, in response to Nolan the south did indirectly succeed because of the end of slavery that Lincoln wanted. If the northerners gained control of the senate then they would then outlaw slavery.
Andrew Bonanno
Period 2
Contrary to common belief (and in this case JZ's argument), slavery was not the foremost cause of the Civil War. Thus, I side with Mr. Zucker on this issue. Abraham Lincoln wasn't out to end slavery. Sure, as Mr. Zucker points out, Lincoln believed that slavery had a "dehumanizing effect upon black humans," but he was unwilling to do away with the evil institution until well into the Civil War. When he finally did attack slavery, Linoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which only outlawed slavery in the deep South (not the border states) Lincoln's "procrastinaton" in attacking slavery served several purposes. For one, it ensured a preservation of the union among the north and border states and a stronger federal government. With a strong central governemnt based on industry, Lincoln hoped that slavery would in essence become "out-dated" in America, as manufacturing took over farming.
In reality, the nation was truly drawn into war by the North's desire to create stronger tariffs, an extended railroad system, and government investment in the infrastructure of the economy. When southern representatives vehemently refused to back these propositions, the nation essentially split into two and war erupted. In essence, I agree with Nolan, who wrote that the south seceded because "they thought he [Lincoln] was going to favor the north and tip the balance of power in the Senate from the South to the North."
Andrew Santana
Period 3
It is ridiculous to argue that Abraham Lincoln was solely concerned with economic gain out of the Civil War. Yes, he may have portrayed himself differently in some states to get voted into office, but the fact is that after the end of the Civil War, Lincoln went out of his way to pass the Emancipation Proclamation freeing blacks from forced slavery. I agree with JZ because Lincoln was against the institution of slavery and fought the Civil War to end it. Ideals exist and they have immense power to affect decisions. Mr. Zucker wants to paint Lincoln as a man who made decisions solely for his own personal gain, but that argument could be made against any human being. Lincoln saw the division of North vs. South and the corruption of slavery, therefore, in order to unite the country under one moral standard and government, Lincoln started the Civil War.
I would have to agree with Sean Smith that Lincoln aimed to destroy the institution of slavery. The main difference between the North and South back then was over the issue of slavery. When settling the new lands to the west, huge disagreements occurred over whether the state would be slave or free.
Yes, Lincoln did wait to reveal his goal to end slavery until later on in the Civil War. However, he did this because he wanted as much support from the North as possible, so he wanted to get the support of the people who didn't care about the moral corruption of slavery before he revealed his true goal to end it.
Daniel Russell
Period 1
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I agree with Jay-Z on this argument that slavery was the main cause of the civil war because it created the main differences between the south and the north. I agree with Sean when he wrote that Lincoln needed the support of the abolitionists and important northerners, so that was an important part of why he didn't provoke the problem of slavery right away. Slavery was a main problem because of the moral implications it created and for other political reasons.
The south was obviousely producing money, but as the world began to industrialize, the farming community was becoming obsolete. Industrial factories and products were more profitable, and with the southern slavery programs, this wouldn't work because of the way people were spread out and there weren't densely populated cities.
Alex Ruddell
Period 3
JZ is definitely the winner in this argument. Of course Abraham Lincoln used some 'playing the crowds' to receive majority vote and get into office, most politicians have to do the exact same thing if they are to win an election. his reasoning for not immediately banishing slavery is completely valid, especially with the threat of Britain joining the south hanging over their heads. He acted out of logic, not out of his feelings against slavery. he realized there was only so much he could do at any given time without plunging the nation into chaos, so he had to manage his goals.
John Gunderman
Period 2
I agree with JZ in this argument as slavery was the main and ultimate reason why the Civil War was started. It would be complete nonsense to say that slavery did not play a significant role in the beginning of Civil War. I agree with Matt when he says that the multiple compromises regarding slavery led straight to war. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 led to the 36/30 parallel, which essentially cut the country in half, so the United States was already divided towards the beginning of the slave controversy. The compromise of 1850 required the North to participate in slavery; Northerners had to catch runaway slaves adn take them back to their owners. This stronger fugitive slave act then led to the creation of personal liberty laws that the North used to justify their not supporting of the fugitive slave act. It became impossible to return to slaves to the South. The North's rejection of this act was a heated conflict that progressed the North vs. South mentality even more. Finally the Dred Scott case sealed the demise of the country and the beginning of war. Blacks were not considered citizens and would stay property regardless of location. This ruling basically legalized slavery throughout the entire nation; state identities were destroyed and the possibility of compromising was eliminated.
I also agree with Jason when he says that Lincoln couldn't have abolished slavery right as he came to power. Lincoln needed to root himself in the country first, and the South would have erupted with rage if slavery was completely abolished so soon. War would have begun right then and there. As JZ states, the Europeans were about to enter the war and side with the Southerners to avenge their loss in the Revolution. In order to ensure that the British would not enter the war, Lincoln had to wait awhile to push the aboliton of slavert forward.
The North and South were so enraged with each other over the slavery issue that war had to be instituted to solve the dispute. If slavery had not existed, I am confident that the Civil War would not have happened so soon if at all.
mercurio brings up a good point about how the civil war wasnt entirely about slavery. There were other factors involved, including those mentioned by Mr. Zucker- that the two ways of life, north and south, conflicted and grew into part of the war instead of a silent feud. This is in part because the main difference was slavery, which also happened to be the main point which the civil war revolved around.
John Gunderman
Period 2
This comment has been removed by the author.
First off, Mercurio is a baller.
Second, I'm leaning JZ on this issue.
While it is ridiculous to isolate a single cause as the force behind an event, especially one of this magnitude, there are convincing arguments made that the most significant force was slavery. Lincoln had to approach slavery gradually due to the division within the nation. Attempting to end slavery immediately would have resulted in a long-drawn out conflict, so Lincoln waited until an opportune moment to issue the Emancipation Proclamation in order to avoid an intervention from Britain, which would have given the South a boost. There was serious tension over slavery, as evidenced by the various compromises that delayed the inevitable conflict between the North and South. Westward expansion pushed the issue and the two sides became more divided as time went on as the North felt they had to assume moral leadership and the South felt that their identity was being threatened. Slavery was at the root of the South's lifestyle and economy, and more importantly, the split between the North and South. The Dred Scott decision rendered further compromises impossible and made war the only real option. The North's moral standards rendered reconciliation impossible and set the stage for conflict.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I agree with JZ on this issue along with David, Dan and Sean. I believe the main purpose behind the Civil War was to end slavery and not the North’s economic concerns. As David points out, many of the North’s industries depended upon goods, like cotton, that came from Southern plantations. I believe that Lincoln was strongly against slavery; otherwise he would not have put the lives of soldiers on the line and gone out of his way to pass the Emancipation Proclamation, which he knew would cause resentment in the South. The issue of slavery was threatening to rip apart the Union and Lincoln wanted to ensure that the United States would remain strong. As David points out The Missouri Compromise and Dred Scott case were both attempts to find solutions to slavery, and when both failed, Lincoln knew that if one side did not prevail over the other the nation would not prosper. I do not think that Lincoln wanted to go to war because of the fear that European countries would take advantage and try to conquer the weak United States; however, he knew that if he did not go to war, future problems over slavery would be much great, and much more difficult to solve. The Civil War was fought to end the corrupt institution of slavery and reunite the country in order to save the Union.
Andrew Garcia
Period 2
I agree with JZ on this argument. Although Lincoln could not forsee the end of slavery, he knew that his job as president of the United States was to maintain and uphold the Union at any and all costs. I also agree with Jason Jeffrey with that Lincoln's appeasement to both the Northern and Border states demonstrates his versatile and commanding authority. However, it must be understood that economics was not the only contributing factor to the Civil War. Yes, the northern states were successfully making more money than the South, but there were also differing political interests, ideas of expansion, and infrastructural upgrades that should be taken into account also. When the time came for Lincoln to express his views on slavery, he took the leap of faith and gave the Emancipation Proclamation. Even though the Civil War led to much pain and suffering, it gave the US a chance to settle differences and find new ways to cope with others' opinions in a more democratic and civilized atmosphere.
Jason Watkins
Period 2
I also have to agree with JZ on this issue. The civil war was about slavery. like all Politicians, Lincoln did what ever it took to get into office. It would have been stupid to preach the ideas of the abolitionists upon the southern/border states. I agree with David that many of the early compromises were based upon the argument of slavery. The 36:30 Parallel created a divide not only for state boarders, but it also created a divide for the nation. this line separated the nation into two parts, Anti-Slavery in the north, and Pro-Slavery in the south. This was the ultimate precursor to the Civil War.
Although the north wanted to create a more industrial based economy and stray from the southern farming economy, the real root of the Civil war, was that slavery created a divide between the people, the states, and moreover, the nation.
Tyler Ricci
P-3
I agree with JZ in that the Civil War was mostly about slavery. Sure there might have been a few other focuses, but the main focus of the Civil War was it's attack on slavery. Lincoln wanted to get rid of slavery, but he could not attack it before the Civil War because it would have caused the Civil War. Lincoln wanted to get rid of slavery in the most peaceful way possible. However, when the Civil War broke out, Lincoln could now attack slavery. But, he still waited until the right moment to initaite his moral fight on the south and create confusion as JZ pointed out. I agree with Sean Smith in that Lincoln needed to gain the support of the non-abolitionist to win the war, preserve the Union, and end slavery. In the end, although Lincoln waited a while to attack slavery, he achieved his overall goal to rid the US of slavery and preserve the values of democracy.
Daniel Angeles
Period 3
I agree with JZ on this one. A major conflict that impacted/caused the war was definitely slavery. The Northern states were hardcore abolitionists that advocated for the complete and utter destruction of slavery. Contrarily, the Southern states wanted to maintain the slavery system in order to keep their economy up and running. The Northern states also believed that slavery was evil and it was completely against their religion. Unfortunately, this put President Lincoln in a very tough position. He gave speeches that appealed to the different states, but in the end, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation--starting the moral fight against slavery.
I definitely agree with Sean Smith and Michael Mercurio. With the Proclamation in effect, the North started to recruit black soldiers to insult the Southern states--showing also that blacks and whites could get along and get the job done. Finally, the root of the war WAS slavery, and if it wasn't for that conflict...war would have been more easily preventable.
Sean Fitz-Gerald
Period 2
It seems as if Andrew Santana (Period 4), Nolan Welsh (Period 2), and I are the only APUSH students who are siding with Mr. Zucker on this issue! I lend my support to Mr. Zucker's argument because I believe he presents an incredibly valid point about the North's economic interests in the Civil War. I'm not saying that the North did not care about ending slavery - they just cared about ending it for a different reason than one based only on moral grounds. I feel that Mr. Zucker's argument "trumps" JZ's argument because the North, simply against slavery to aid in its economic endeavors, was still extremely racist when it came to integrating African Americans into Northern society. I mean, consider the famous book by Harriet Beecher Stowe entitled Uncle Tom's Cabin. Although Stowe (a Northerner) touches on the issues of slavery in the South, she does not blame the South as the soul cause of America's racial tensions. For example, the slave-owning character in the book is a New Englander who manages a slave-trading network in the South, thus reinforcing Stowe's point that the institution of slavery has corrupted the people of the South just as much as it has the people of the North. This is the example that best reinforces Mr. Zucker's argument for me because it shows that the North was just as racist as the South. Even though I agree with the North's point that slavery was morally wrong, the North used slavery as a reason to destroy their Southern economic rivals more than they used it for its alleged purpose as the groundbreaking movement in human rights in the United States that it was intended to be.
Cody Busia, Period 3
Like usual i agree with JZ. The who notion of slavery is an economic, moral, and social problem. Therefore, slavery was the major factor in the Civil War. As a matter of fact, it was the only cause of the Civil War. Yes, a major part of the was was the economic stance of their north and their competition with the south, but, slavery was the prime cause of this competition. Slavery was the basis of the South's economy. In addition, the north saw slavery as an inhumane action that was so cruel that something needed to be done. Moreover, Lincoln's tactics literally saved the nation. By not renouncing slavery as a whole immediately, he allowed the union to become victorious by allowing the bordering states to keep their slaves, he tipped the balance heavily in the favor of the north, thus allowing the north to win.
I agree with Sho's case that Abraham Lincoln was just waiting for the right time, when the war was turning in his favor, to completely reject all forms of slavery and free all the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation. Although this seems to make Lincoln look like a racist, it was a political tactic to keep foreign influences out of the war and protect America as a whole country.
Brian Ulmer
Period 3
I agree with JZ on this one folks. Slavery did cause the Civil War. Lincoln did not attack it directly, because like most politicians he watned the union intact, and it was unrealistic for him to just take out the south. To add this the allies that were unsure of there position would surely turn if Lincoln just took away slavery over night. Like JZ said the Emancipation Proclomation was not made at the end of the war because the end of slavery was only Lincon's side want. IT was a strategy to help beat the south. I agree with Nickolas Donlan in that the war was not over the organizational aspects of the South, or there agricultrual roots, but was a much more moral issue.
Drey Liautaud
PERIOD 2
I agree with JZ because slavery was the main cause of the Civil War. Sure Lincoln didn't go after slavery right away but it was simply because he couldn't do that without causing the South to go crazy. Lincoln also had to worry about the British, who at the time were going to join the war on the side of the South, but all that changed after the Northern victories of Antietam and Gettysburg. Lincoln didn't unleash the Emancipation Proclamation on the border states, only on the deep south ones in order to cause some chaos and confusion. This is why I agree with Sean when he says that Lincoln was waiting patiently until the right time to use the great Emancipation Proclamation.
Lorenzo Alvarez
Period 3
I most definitely agree with JZ and how slavery was a main cause of the Civil War. The beginning of the war appeared to be caused by the succession of the southern states into the Confederate States of America, but this was caused because of the issue of slavery and the conflict it caused between the north and the south. Therefore, it can be said that slavery was the root cause of the Civil War. Root cause because no war has only one cause it is virtually impossible. As JZ has stated the reason why Abraham Lincoln could not abolish slavery at the start of the war is because not every northern American believed that slavery should be abolished and thus avoided the issue by stating the war was about the threat on the unity of the United States.
To understand why the war happened one must look back to the conflicts before the war and how they lead up to the Civil War. During the ante-war era both the North and the South were fighting over which states and territories would be slave and free. Each problem was “solved” by a compromise that eventually led to more conflict in the future. The first of these compromises was the Missouri Compromise which divided the North and the South at the 36 parallel. This was the beginning of the tension and conflict between the North and the South. B/c of this Compromise the New Territories that were established could not be divided by the 36 parallel thus causing more conflict between the north and the south. The north was doing everything in there power to keep the southern states from spreading slavery into the new territories. Thus the Compromise of 1850 was created making California free and New Mexico, Arizona and Utah under popular sovereignty. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was the last straw that could not be resolved under popular sovereignty or the Missouri Compromise and can therefore be considered as the last straw leading to the civil war. As one can see the root of ALL these compromises is slavery and its expansion.
Now, as a result of unintended conflicts the United States was left with only one decision—War. Abraham Lincoln the Commander and Chief of all armed forces believed that it would be impossible to united the north against the south if he declared the war as one against the institution of slavery therefore declared the southern succession as an attack on the constitution and the unification of the United States. Even during the beginning of the war he declaring the war to be one about the abolishment of slavery would have disunited the north and given a overall victory for the south. He, therefore, had to wait for the right time to declare the war to be a moral battle and as Michael Mercurio stated it was the battle Antietam, where President Lincoln declared the Emancipation Proclamation thus freeing all slaves north of the Mason-Dixon line and finally officially turning the war into a moral fight against slavery. As Sean Smith stated before Lincoln could declare the Civil War to be a war about slavery he had to win the favor of the northern non abolitionists.
Therefore the war’s root cause, obviously about many issues and conflicts also, was the institution of slavery and its links to the many Compromises and their unintended conflicts that brought about the Civil War.
James Calix
Per. 3
I agree with both JZ and Mr. Zucker in certain parts. i think Abraham Lincoln did want to get rid of slavery because he saw it as at least somewhat immoral as did most of the northerners; however, he also had ulterior motives because he wanted more strength for the federal government and the south had provided much resistance in a economic system with tariffs and the also believed in a stronger state government. The north saw the south as an immoral group of lazy people who didn't value free labor and the south saw the north as people trying to oppress their way of life. The North saw slavery as an attack on the country's economy because they believed in free labor and this was the only way to judge a man's worth and that the south was devaluing mankind by using forced labor. After several court cases such as the Dred Scott case it became apparent that compromise was no longer feasible and the civil war was inevitable. Lincoln was not able to outright abolish slavery because the border states still supported the idea of a union and to keep them on his side he had to give concessions. He wanted to what was best for the country for economic reasons and abolish slavery for moral but he didn't have the power to do this right off the bat so he did it gradually as his power would allow.
I do not agree with Justin Barnes when he says that slavery was the ultimate reason for the Civil war though its consequences were a major reason for it. It was when it was said that slaves were slaves wherever they were that made the North felt like their rights were not respected in that the south could just ignore the rules they set. They also saw the fact that the slaves were seen as both people and property as contradicting and that if they were considered human they had the right to be free eve though most northerners still wrongly saw them as an inferior race. With this contradiction so prevalent in society it would have to go one way or another but with neither side willing to back down conflict was sure to happen.
ward forthmann
Period 1
Mr. Zucker and JZ both make very interesting points; however, I have to side with Mr. Zucker on the issue.
The Civil War tore apart our country, and slavery was used as the scapegoat for the schism. Diverging viewpoints on the social, political, and economic level were the actual problems. By the time war exploded in our country, the North and South had become very different places each holding quite a bit of resentment towards the other. The Civil War was actually war war fought for control over the US, not control over slavery.
Socially, the North and South were split religiously speaking. The North was full of descendants of Puritans who held on to their ancestors teachings against slavery, and the South was the Bible belt of America full of Evangelical Christians who believed the Bible provided plenty of approval for slavery.
Politically, the North and South grew even further apart because the Whigs, who dominated the northern states, and the Democrats in the Southern states were constantly at odds. The Whigs were much more into social reform than the Democrats of the South. As the North closed in on the South and attacked everything the people had ever known, there was retaliation.
Along with the political issues came the economic arguments.The North became very industrialized over the years and could no longer relate to the agricultural South. If the North's economy had been based off of slavery, I doubt they would have been so harsh about slavery. Soon the North and South were vying for economic control of the nation, and things got messy.
Countless Proclamations and Compromises would be made over several years to try to hold the nation together. But the fragile balance could not be maintained, and both sides could only resort to war. Our nation still sees the effects from the Civil War to this day, and the racist attitude that developed from slavery still plagues our nation. In the end, the war eliminated slavery from the country, but it still didn't make lives better for the slaves for which the war was supposedly fought. If the war really was for the suffering slaves of our society, our country would have made it a stronger point to fight for equality and enable the African American to achieve a respected place in our society. Instead, African Americans had and still have to struggle to survive in a country that still has racist sentiments today.
Clay Busia
Period 3
The main issue behind the civil war was the conflict between the south's rural agriculture based society and the north's industrialized cities. Slavery was the controversial practice that was the cornerstone of the Southern economy while it had little use in the Northern economy. The issue of slavery had a cascading effect, a few northerners called for abolition and the south realized this would be fatal to their economy and way of life. They responded fiercely to abolition with their own ideals and more northerners got involved either because they felt it was an immoral practice or they realized that it was the cornerstone of the South's economy and if it was abolished, then the North would rule the country. The best example of this would be Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry, for which he was called a martyr by abolitionists but considered a terrorist who incited rebellion by the South This kept repeating until the South felt that North was trying to culturally conquer them and destroy their way of life and thought that the only way to preserve themselves and their way of life. Since the North could not outright declare they were declaring war on the South because of slavery, they said it was because the South could not secede. In doing this, they set up yet another case of state vs federal power.
I'll agree with pretty much everyone when they say that Lincoln did not want slavery but waited for political reasons before signing the Emancipation Proclamation. When the war actually started, the North was losing badly, if he had signed it then, 2 things would have happened. First, it would have sent the border states over to the South because the South was winning at the time and they had slavery, similarly to many of the border states. Secondly, it would have seemed like a act of desperation instead of that of a liberating conqueror and would have made Lincoln seem weaker when he couldn't enforce it.
Mark Gieseker Period 3
I agree with JZ. First of all, Zucker’s arguments on how the North was just plainly economic in its reasons is underscored through the speech of Daniel Webster who made Calhoun believe this notion that there was no possibility to be a union. Additionally, JZ raises a good point that Zucker fails to recognize the various movements and ideologies that were shaping the society; some people were beginning to accept the others. Additionally, although Lincoln did use the Emancipation Proclamation for the purposes of staying out of war with Europe and avoid a disunion, he did have some moral backing to his reasons of removing slavery. Also, JZ brings a good argument that states the movement towards manufacturing could be seen as a way to escape the ties of slavery. Additionally, the compromises and court decisions, although at surface level may seem as an act of competition within the economy, have this deeper level in which the North might have wanted to keep everything balanced even the economy so that the south could not further their idea of slavery.
In response to Cody Busia:
Although I do agree that some people in the North were wholly focused on the notion of economic interests, he fails to recognize those who disdained slavery in the north including one persuasive speaker, Daniel Webster, who provoked John Calhoun into coming up with the idea of disunion. Plus, Beecher’s story was told among many places. However, I believe he would have a stronger point to his argument if he were to bring up the compromises and court decisions that would have shown that each side wanted a balance of power in the Senate. Additionally, one decision that was crucial was one that included Nebraska and Kansas in which the North wanted to build a railroad to compete with the South.
Stephen Obal
P. 3
Bladimir Gonzalez, Period 1
For this argument, I’m going to have to side with JZ. The main argument from Mr. Zucker is that the country was divided and it had to be kept united. Well, why was it divided? It was divided thanks to Slavery. Not only were the north and south divided by the moral of the issues, but there were also economic disputes over the practice and what it did to the nation. Many of the people up north felt that for the nation to further develop they would have to switch to a more industrial economy, and that farming would have to go out. In the South, that was the only lifestyle they knew, so it would be difficult for them to transition, and slavery was a member of that lifestyle. The arguments that Mr. Zucker bring up aren’t as strong as JZ’s. What President hasn’t flip-flopped on many topics so that they appease the people of the region they’re speaking to? Lincoln in the end did the thing that felt most correct to him, and that was sign the Emancipation Proclamation. That’s why the Civil War was due to slavery.
I would love to agree with Mr. Zucker because I like to disagree with the majority... but this one is a blowout. JZ is definately right; slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War.
Mr. Zucker tries to question Lincoln's opposition to slavery, and say that he was making his decisions for political ends. His warrant is that Lincoln didn't attack slavery very harshly or universally. Mr. Zucker seems to forget that Abraham Lincoln was a politician, not a civil rights activist. Of course he has to make political decisions; he is the political leader of the entire country. He had to make the Americans happy everywhere, and that's what he tried to do to prevent disunity. Zucker seems to forget that the country is in the middle of a CIVIL WAR. Why would Lincoln make any radical decisions when the country is already at war with itself? Lincoln did the best he could to stop slavery, and his decisions ended in the abolition of slavery so obviously he got what he was aiming for.
Furthermore, if you look at the causes of tension between the north and south before the war, all of the causes pertain to slavery. Every single conflict in court and Congress dealt with slavery: whether territories would be pro-slave or abolitionist, whether slaves were free upon walking on northern soil, whether the fugitive slave law should be strengthened, etc. Disagreements about slavery are what made the people of the north and south ready for war.
Also, JZ puts a gnarly link turn on Zuckers argument that the north was only trying to make industry more powerful -- perhaps the northerners were trying to rid the country of an economic system which demanded slave labor. Therefore, the pursuit of industry wasn't a motive of the war, but it was just another means by which to get rid of the immoral system of slavery.
Nolan and Santana think that the north attacked the south because of pursuit of representation and economic benefit. However, the north and south had had conflicts about economics and representation before; remember the Virgina Plan vs New Jersey Plan? The south wanted representation by population, and the north wanted egalitarian representation. Did this lead to Civil War? No. Industry had long been developing before the Civil War, and no war had occurred. Only when tensions built up around slavery were people actually moved to pick up guns and kill other Americans.
Michael Mezzatesta
Period 3
A comment that interested me while i was looking over them was Nolan's comment on how the war wasn't about slavery, but about the representation issues that came out. the southerners felt that if those states were northern states without slavery, the north would have more votes in the senate when it came to voting. this is related to slavery, but the central issue is the voting. this is important, but just like everything, it goes back to slavery. but it's a good point to bring up Nolan.
Bladimir Gonzalez, Period 1
This comment has been removed by the author.
I agree with JZ on this one partly because Mr. Zucker's arguments are void of the main issues. Slavery was the main cause of the Civil War between the conflicting North abolitionists and the South's pro-slavery. The Civil had finally started after a build-up of tension between the two sides. For various reasons, including the desire for power and economic purposes that dealt with slavery, the South and the North were constantly stuck in dissension in that new territories were always being competed to become either anti-slavery or pro-slavery. One new territory could easily cause an imbalance in the equal number of North and South states. Compromises were made as a result; however, these compromises augmented the tension between the conflicting sides. Over time, both "nations" then had two polar opposite views on slavery. In response to the previous posts, I don't see how Lincoln's mixed views on slavery in helping him win the election has anything to do with the cause of the Civil War.
I agree with Tyler Ricci that the 36' 30' parallel line divided the country, especially in its views on slavery. The notorious line helped cause the North and South to disagree on the status of free territories and eventually caused both sides to disagree with each other frequently.
Thomas Yu
Period 3
I agree with JZ on this particular issue in that slavery was the main cause of the Civil War. The whole reason as to why the North and South were thought of as different was not their placement on a map but rather their belief on whether slavery should be legal or not. The North were free states and the South were slave states. This war arose due to their conflicting beliefs about slavery. Lincoln feared the idea of Britain joining the South because the South was built on a slavery-based economy. If Britain were to join the South, America would be split into two smaller, weaker countries. To unify the country and prevent Britain from their plans of splitting up America (so they can easily manipulate either of the Americas due to its small and weaker status), Lincoln had to attack slavery. However, Lincoln had to attack slavery the states that wouldn’t ruin the Northern coalition: the deep southern states. If Lincoln were to try to eliminate slavery in the states near the 36’30 parallel, Lincoln would lose those states’ support. As JZ said, Abraham Lincoln could not attack slavery from the beginning because then he would risk the possibility of having Britain join the South and help them detach from the United States to create their own country. I agree with Michael Mercurio when he says that Lincoln ratified the Emancipation Proclamation as soon as possible without tearing the country apart.
John Ora
P. 3
I agree with Mr. Zucker that the true motivation for Northerners in the Civil War was the preservation of the Union. Southern States such as Virginia seceded because of a fear of Lincoln forcefully removing slavery, but Lincoln would have done no such thing. He would, as Mr. Zucker said, wait for slavery and agriculture to lose out to industry. There was simply not enough Northern sympathy for slaves to fight a war to free them. Many Northern soldiers were racists and didn't care about blacks, only about serving their country, preserving the union, or merely putting bread on the table.
I disagree with Sean Smith when he says that Northern use of black soldiers is proof of the slavery being the North's motivation. Northern use of blacks was not due to desire on the generals' part. Many many free blacks or even run-away slaves went North and attempted to join the Union Army. For years they were turned down by racist army officers, but finally, they were allowed to serve. Even then, black soldiers were not equal with whites. They were looked down upon as inferior. Ultimately, Northerners fought the Civil War to maintain the country as a whole, not to free slaves, which was not a desire of many Northerners and could have eventually been done through economics.
Jean-Michel Royall
Period 1
I agree with JZ here because the actual cause of the Civil War was to combat the institution of slavery in the South and its spreading throughout the country. Abraham Lincoln, at first, had to appease everyone so that he could be elected into office even though he despised slavery and its connotations. Therefore, after he was elected, Abraham spoke out against slavery because he saw blacks as people and not as property. Consequently, he made the Emancipation Proclamation which said that slaves were no longer bound to their slave holders and were now free to do whatever they wanted. This also helped the Northern cause by creating confusion in the South which then led to numerous problems such as a drop in the southern economy, and the draw of people that were in the army to now help others on the farm. I say this even though I agree with others such as Mr. Zucker, and Mecurio. The North wanted to abolish slavery and protect the solidarity of the Union. However, slavery was the issue that divided the Union. Therefore, if one were trying to protect the Union, one must take a stand on whether to allow slavery or not. Abraham Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery because he found it to be the right thing to do for the country even though it would cause conflicts in the short term.
Howard Limburg
Period 3
The disagreement between the North and the South on slavery was definitely one of the main reasons the Civil War began. Therefore, I agree with JZ. For starters, the North was full of religious abolitionists. People in the North all looked down on the institution of slavery. Thus, they were able to thrive in the world of industry. However, 1/3 of the citizens of the South truly believed that it was their duty to own slaves. Accordingly, many slave owners felt like father figures toward their slaves. Furthermore, the South was very agricultural. Thus, it is very logical why slave owners would still want to have slaves. However, people in the South weren’t content with just having slavery prominent in the South. They wanted to make pro-slavery citizens out of people in the new territories and newly annexed states. So, pro-slavery citizens began to head toward the territories and Border States. Abolitionists began to head toward the Border States and territories as well. However, when the Compromise of 1850 was reached, the South began to fear that the slave system might fall apart. California became a Free State, and Utah and New Mexico’s identities were decided through popular sovereignty. Consequently, most people are afraid of change. So, members of the South saw the Northerners’ attack on slavery as an attack on their independence as states of the U.S. So, to defend their independence and their old ways, the South decided to engage in a war with the North. Thus, the Civil War began.
Also, I disagree with Nolan when he says, “I disagree though that the war was about to control the southern lifestyle and economic organization.” Accordingly, the above lines are exactly what the war was about. The North didn’t agree with the Southerner’s lifestyle and wanted to change the South’s economic organization. First of all, most people in the North were abolitionists that were against slavery. So, of course, they didn’t smile on the fact that the South used the slave system. Furthermore, many abolitionists wanted immediate abolition. However, some people (gradualists) were just hoping that slavery would eventually die out when Southerners clearly saw that they could become more successful in industry rather than agriculture. Accordingly, slavery would then be abolished because it wouldn’t work in an industrial economy. So, in essence, the Southerners viewed the Northerners’ attack on slavery as an attack on their economic organization and independence. Consequently, the Southerners believed that their economy thrived just fine under the slave system. So, clearly frustrated with the North, the South engaged in a civil war to defend their free-labor run economy.
Mario Mottley II
Period 2
I would have to agree with both JZ and Zucker on this argument. First the primary cause of the Civil War was clearly the economic struggle between the North and the South. But, slavery was the main cause of that economic struggle. People in the North wanted slavery stopped both because they saw it as morally evil and because they saw that it would hurt the economy of the South to lose their slaves. Just because the Civil War's goal might not have been to be a crusade against slavery did not mean that it wasn't. The primary reasons for it might have been economic, but behind that economic reasoning there was a moral rational. Therefore, the North and the federal government at the time had both moral reasoning to fight a war and a legitimate concern with keeping the Union together.
Jesse Gaddy
Period 1
I'd have to agree with JZ on this one. Although creating a unified industrial economy was a reality, the main conflict behind the Civil War was indeed slavery. In antebellum America, slavery was pulling the nation apart, creating North v. South, instead of having a united country. It was arguably the biggest polarizing force in American history. Because of the slave issue, the North viewed the South as a bunch of immoral barbarians, because of the act of enslavement itself, not the fact that blacks were being discriminated against. The whole Sumner v. Brooks situation didn't help the South's cause at all, just giving fodder for the North's abolitionist movement. As stated by JZ, Lincoln's actions were merely those of a politician: to compromise in the short term to help achieve your longterm goals.
Sean Smith is correct in saying that Lincoln's ultimate goal to preserve the Union could only happen as long as he didn't come out swinging against slavery out of the box.
JD Blank, Period 3
I believe it is safe to say that without the issue of slavery, there would never have been a Civil War. Slavery was such a central issue to the problems between the North and the South that without it, most likely there would not have been such hostilities. Sure the North and the South would have had their disagreement about industry versus agriculture, but it seems like these would not have turned into a war. Also, most of the people in the South did not even have slaves. The South's agrarian economy still would have been able to succeed without slaves. This makes the argument that the Civil War was fought primarily for economics much weaker. The North motives could not have been primarily economic if slavery did not give the South such an amazing economic benifit. The war began because of the South's notions of honor, shame, and respect. The people in the South took the North looking down on slavery as a personal insult.
Jesse Gaddy
Period 1
With a stroke of genius, Warren remembers to do his blog with mere minutes to spare before midnight. Ok, JZ has clearly got the better arguments for this one. Not only did JZ basically undermine every example that Mr. Z had, but also there is a common sense element to it all. I am not going to bust some farmer with my musket just for growing crops instead of working in a factory. It also ties into the same reason why America can exist today with two different policies parties. Americans who share the same heritage and heroes are not going to attack each other over very similar forms of government. However, the institution of slavery is so powerful that it caused the nation to split apart.
After turning to religious roots, both the north and south found reason to attack or defend slavery rooted in God. The belief in God, your culture, and what you’re doing is 100% right can lead a nation to split. When we look at Lincoln’s true motivations for attacking the south it was with the overall goal of ending slavery and keeping the country together. The best way for him to keep the country together would be to try to keep as many allies fighting against a common evil, such as what he did with the Border States. With the war coming to an end, Lincoln put out the Emancipation Proclamation which ended slavery in the south; simply, he must have been targeting slavery because he did not put out a proclamation to end the Jeffersonian ideals. Howard said something about Lincoln abolishing slavery because it would keep the union together…what? Abolishing slavery was what split the country. Lincoln had decided between two evils: either splitting the US, or continuing with slavery.
Warren Williamson P1.
I disagree with Nolan because he says the Civil War was fought over the issue of representation, not slavery. Slavery was clearly the main issue of the War because the issue of representation was encompassed by the issue of slavery. The war was fought over slavery which included the moral, economic, and representational issues. Even saying the war was fought because of slavery is limiting, so says the war was fought over representation is even more limiting because it is a sub issue of slavery.
Jesse Gaddy
Period 1
I agree with neither Mr. Zucker nor JZ, however, if the only way I can get credit for this blog is to choose a side, I will have to go with Mr. Zucker (actually, mid way through I realize that I agree with JZ, nor Mr. Zucker). Mr. Zucker’s argument is that slavery was just the quick and easy go-to answer for the start of the civil war, when asked. You’ve got to admit, it sure sounds great to think that millions of Americans in the 1800s were so fed up with the moral and ethical wrongness of slavery that there was a giant split in the county between the evil inhumane slave owners and the holy, civilized, and enlightened northerners, and that then they were compelled to battled it out for the future of the slaves. There is no one or two answers that encompass the entire reason for the American Civil War. To say that the struggle over slavery was the cause of the civil war certainly does not encompass the other ones. Wait. I regress, I’m changing my support for JZ. JZ, is what I believe in and support much more than Mr. Zucker. JZ is less one-sided that Mr. Zucker. While Mr. Zucker believes it was 90 percent politics and 5 percent slavery, JZ on the other hand believes it was roughly 50/50. The north and the south were just split. There was a multitude of things that made the two different. They were on opposite ends of the county, and on the average, nearly opposite land and geographical positions. The south was highly dependent on slaves, because it was the closest thing to completely free labor possible; that can’t be easy to give up, can it? They opposed in industry and agriculture—like Mr. Zucker said—which each had different motives. The reason Abe Lincoln didn’t immediately abolish slavery was because at this time, after decades of bickering and strong tension between the north and south, if he were to immediately abolish slavery, he knew that it would immediately send the country into war. Taking the stance of an abolitionist certainly help Lincoln politically (no so much can be said about helping him “physically” as in, his “physical body”, as in, getting shot….. but that’s another tangent), but that by no means actually means that he truly didn’t have any abolitionist feelings. “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.” I disagree with this, from Mr. Zucker. I believe that they war was very political but had a lot to do, also, with the incompatibility of the opposing north and south. The way Mr. Zucker makes it sounds, the war was a conspiracy by the north Federalists to control the country and imbed Federalism in it. Eh. Like JZ said though, Mr. Zucker’s argument doesn’t leave room for, or say anything in regards to slavery actually being a factor. The war was, A, for the north and south not likening each other and possibly wanting to succeed, B, abolitionists not liking slaver-owners, and C, industrialists not liking agriculturists. Some of A and C did root from B, but much of it was political. So in conclusion, I agree with the argumentative stance presented with JZ, and disagree with the one brought by Mr. Zucker. American morality and ethics might not have been the reason for the war, but it was certainly imbedded deep within the citizens, popular religions, and laws, which all pointed against the inequality and inhumane-ness brought about by slavery. Therefore, I agree with Mr. Mottely Sean Smith, and JD Blank and basically every account. The reason for the war was a long build up of political, economic, and certainly moral issues and discrepancies between the sides.
Umberto Marsella, Period 2
This comment has been removed by the author.
Excellent arguments, Mr. Zucker and JZ, and I hope both of you enjoyed your Thanksgiving as well. To the point, while both of your arguments circulate around whether slavery played a main goal in the cause of the American civil war, Mr. Zucker win's out on this one. Falling back into the argument of mythistory, the argument of having slavery as the main cause of the Civil War attempts to justify it and erase the much darker reason for the bloodiest conflict held on American soil. To make ourselves, in postbellum propaganda the victorious American Union and the South, "those rebellious hicks," look like good and evil seems all too simple of a historical method, and as deeper looking shows, is a total facade. While Mr. Zucker's arguments are correct, in that although slavery was a big issue that lead up to the civil war, the bondage itself of people who were generally considered inferior forms of human life by both sides of the slavery argument was in itself not the fuel for the wildfire but only the spark that set off the nation into the cataclysmic four years known as the American civil war. While the north would come to use slavery as a moral front for the war (emphasis on USED as), the real reasons for going to war and causing what politicians as early as Thomas Jefferson and John Adams had feared, a splitting and weakening of the country, falls into growing socioeconomic changes between the North and South that resulted from the North's industrialization infection from Europe, growing cultural and identity schisms, similar to perhaps balkanization, between the North and South, competing political ideologies, different standing and interest in the international market, and growing but parallel drives for expansionism, which although budded from the issue of slavery, became bigger beasts in their own right.
Looking at the history of bondage, slavery, as southerners had argued, was a common historical practice and perfectly aceptable. The bondage of slaves based on their race that passed down from generation to generation and was far more rigid, however, in a country that had originally sought to 'avoid being slaves to Britain,' as a Revered Isaac Silkman had argued, was a long drawn hypocrisy that only mouse squeaks like Samuel Johnson ever pointed out. Looking deeper into the subject, compromise even in the writing of the Declaration of Independence came about out of fear of losing southern delegates because the Southern region was still highly agricultural. STEPHEN OBAL, you make an interesting counter towards the socioeconomic aspect of abolitionism, but you still end up falling back unto the whole "North Good, south BAD," mentality. Yes, religious abolitionists came about on a moral ground, but only because their northern environment bred a culture that allowed them to do so. With the exception of a few people who are on total spiritual grounds seeking reform, social reform comes only out of a necessity for change and a lust for political dominion, not a sudden awakening of morality that comes out of no where or lacks political agendas. Its not morality, then that created abolitionists, but complete variables that would mold Northern society. The various reforms that resurrected out of the second great awakening didn't shape society, for society shaped those reforms and movements. Necessity is the mother of inovation and progress, but the mother of necessity is the variability of having the capacity to create said need, not the other way around. Look at the pattern of abolitionism. Denmark, followed by Britain, banned their own slave trades in 1803 and 1807, respectively, not totally out of the religious motives, such as growing Quakers who were the loudest complainers, but it was ultimately the boom caused by their Industrial Revolution and the radical change to the need of a freely flowing labor pool that allowed any such abolitionism to take root. This similar pattern repeats itself like a multiplying virus in the Northern states thanks to larger and more numerous ports, greater dependency on said trade that came out of those port cities, preexisting religious radicals who made roots in the region, and a lack of the right climate for plantation style crops all added into the balkanization that started from the get go. The South, in contrast, remained widely rural and agricultural through out the beginning of the North's industrial revolution, lacked large numbers of ports and was dependent on Northern ports to export their crops well until after the Panic of 1837 (a fact that likely caused more bitterness), and a semi-tropical climate under which plantation style crops like tobacco and cotton (which REALLY boomed after the invention of the cotton gin) would flourish and would create a demand for stable, consistent labor pool that would ultimately emulate the Spanish colonies and institute slavery. Even more so, southerners viewed slaves as an exponentially growing investment. In the all, the inherent weakness of slavery within the North as an institution and economic necessity is why Abolitionist existed as early as the days of Franklin and why the Northern States could abolish slavery by 1804. The North, focused on protecting industry, as Mr. Zucker correctly argued, is why the Northern states as a whole were heavily for a centralized government. The south, on the other hand, would not only create the need for slaves, but also argue against abolitionists on the grounds of race, well into arguments against wage slavery (a high lulz counterpoint), and with a parentalist mentality of that they are "benevolent guardians to an inferior race," all of which ties itself to cultural clashing. The southern states remained pro-state out of their legacy of the agrarian dream, courtesy of Jefferson, and pugnacious towards an imposing North due to their culture which valued honor and autonomy and a dislike of outside control. While, as several others have reminded, only 1/3 of white southerners owned any slaves, the elites manipulation of poorer, "Yeoman" farmers, created a Southern white identity (abet, specious), who would see the north hurting even on of there own as hurting all of them, as seen by the fact General Robert E. Lee, although opposed to slavery on moral grounds, would side with the south because his state did, as well as the foreshadowing of conflict when Sumner was attacked by Brooks for insulting the South. Therefore, Obal, while the religious movements and ideologies (as well as abolitionist's opposition) were not illegitimate, they were still only byproducts of several other, perhaps more key changes and differences between the North and South, not the causes schism or changes.
Now, JZ, your argument makes a a few interesting points, namely the fight the north held on not spreading agriculture and a need for slavery in western states. However, you come into this argument in which "progress" is achieved through any means necessary, however imperfect those methods are. (which by the way, is Machiavellian and unlike you...). While this argument has some legitimacy in admitting that no political polices or changes are achieved effectively, I mean perfectly, the reality of the fact is that fight for individual rights, regardless through what medium, is ultimately going to lose its importance about he people and will inevitably evolve into a fight for political dominion. Such can be said about the civil war itself. The South's cession might have rained praise from southerners, but it would hurt them in terms of casualties that far outweighed those of north, economic strain, and ultimately put Southerners in a worse position then where they were antebellum. The leaders of the Confederates, after all, were not common farmers, but the elites of the South. JZ, you are also persistent in believing that the motive of the civil war was to uphold the ideals of the Revolutionary and Constitutional Period. The constitutional era, for all it accomplished, were still just compromises made by several elites, for elites. While it is true that the Confederates viewed themselves as revolutionaries against an oppressive north, and indeed used the closer resources and sparingly (for home holding hierarchy) guerilla- (like) tactics to their advantage, but Lincoln's act of emancipation and several key Union victories kept European powers out of the war. The Trent Affair might very well have thrown Britain into war with the US, but it came down to favoring "The corn King" (Union as high producer of corn) over the South's presumptuous position as "Cotton King" (South as a high producer of cotton) because Britain's own colonies could and did provide cotton when the urgent need arose. In that sense, economic interest, over silly little ideals, kept the South from being recognized at all internationally. Now, SHO TSUBAKIYAMA, you also make some pretty good points, but yet you still side with JZ? The motive of the civil was to perserve the Union of Lincoln's part, and you make an excellent point of Lincoln's abolitionism, yet lower view of black people. This view, however, was not uncommon for the north, and indeed, several northerners were pro-imperialism in wanting to create black colonies to send the unwanted, freed black people (how true to the ideals). Lincoln, as a politician, however, only spoke out directly against slavery when it suited his cause. He only went in that direction to prevent European meddling, for otherwise even he believed chocking clearly out through competition would have worked better. The fate of black people, and slavery as the institution, were not what Lincoln was trying to annihilate,e but instead the old world agricultural society that all those things were a part of. Lincoln was sympathetic to the south after the war only because it is easy to impose opinions on weak, beaten, desperate foes. The growing level of expansionism, Mr. Zucker, was also a key in your correct example of expanding life style. Playing out in the Bleeding Kansas crisis, the want to spread domain overshadowed slavery. Both sides tried to buy the border states, while the north succeeded, and few, as you said, were truly in it for the slavery. However, this was a crusade. If referring back to the Crusade against islam during the middle ages, the union's use of slavery as an excuse is perfect and is a "moral crusade", the oxymoron.. For political and economic gain over a culturally and economically different enemy, exploiting all moral reasons to drive unknowing people into war while diluting them into thinking they are the just cause is exactly what the civil war and the Reconstruction period became.
Edgar J. Tejada, Period 2.
I agree with JZ on this one. The Civil War was fought over slavery, that why each court case and compromise created more and more tension towards war because of the the North and South's ambitions towards slavery. Cases like Dred Scott and the Compromises of 1820 and 1850 that led directly into the Civil War. And i agree with Sean Smith Lincoln could not have done away with slavery as soon as he took office. this would have destroyed the country, probably leading us back to being a colony of some European Empire. Instead he took the chance and did away with it the second he could.
I agree with Mr. Zucker in that slavery was not the central theme of the Civil War, rather, the preservation of the Union and economic self-interest was. Yes, slavery was an important factor of the Civil War, but the institution of slavery was used as an excuse to go to war for to hide the real reason: power. Both sides wanted to have more power in the Senate than the other so that they could control the major issues of the time. The North and South's desire for power was evident through the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The North wanted to control Kansas so that they could build a railroad to compete with the expansion of the South. The South of course wanted to gain control of Kansas to deny the North easy access to build their railroad.
I agree with Nolan when he states that the real cause of the Civil War was about representation in government and economic self-interest.
Sean Grimditch
Period 2
I agree with JZ that the Primary cause of the war was slavery. It at leat most certainly was for the South. Many today claim that secession occurred due to that fact the Northern states and the federal government did not respect their states' rights, but it was the state right to own slaves. the south seceded in order to maintain the Institution of Slavery. They feared Lincoln, a northern republican would abolish slavery and significantly set back there economy which depended on slave labor and threaten there culture. And while the original goal of the union may have been just to maintain the Union, after a few years the goal became to eliminate slavery as seen by the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863.
In conclusion, the Civil War occurred due to Slavery, the South seceded in order to keep there slaves and the North's goal eventually became to abolish it.
I'm going to have to side with Mr. Zucker on this argument that the cause of the Civil War was the North's want to control Southern lifestyle and its economy. Although I do agree with Nolan that President Lincoln and the North were pushing to tilt the representation in the Senate towards a Democratic-Republican majority, but I disagree with the fact that the North did not want control of the South's economy. Instead, I think that by tilting the balance between the states towards a Democratic-Republican majority, the North attempted to gain control, since as Mr. Zucker says, they supported industry over slave manufacturing. Because of this, I believe that Lincoln did not directly attack slavery since he believed that through the majority, slavery would slowly die out. The North attempted to gain power in the Senate by trying to make all the newly acquired territories such as California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah, which were acquired after the Mexican-American War into free states. By doing this, the South would slowly have to adopt an industrial approach to the economy, thus giving the North power over their ideals and way of life in a sense. In addition to this, I believe that the North did not directly attack slavery right away because of the problems with representation: basically, if blacks were freed, the representation in the house of representatives would be upset in favor of the South and its proslavery ideals.
James Sherman Period 2
I'm going to have to side with Mr. Zucker on this argument that the cause of the Civil War was the North's want to control Southern lifestyle and its economy. Although I do agree with Nolan that President Lincoln and the North were pushing to tilt the representation in the Senate towards a Democratic-Republican majority, but I disagree with the fact that the North did not want control of the South's economy. Instead, I think that by tilting the balance between the states towards a Democratic-Republican majority, the North attempted to gain control, since as Mr. Zucker says, they supported industry over slave manufacturing. Because of this, I believe that Lincoln did not directly attack slavery since he believed that through the majority, slavery would slowly die out. The North attempted to gain power in the Senate by trying to make all the newly acquired territories such as California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah, which were acquired after the Mexican-American War into free states. By doing this, the South would slowly have to adopt an industrial approach to the economy, thus giving the North power over their ideals and way of life in a sense. In addition to this, I believe that the North did not directly attack slavery right away because of the problems with representation: basically, if blacks were freed, the representation in the house of representatives would be upset in favor of the South and its proslavery ideals.
James Sherman Period 2
I am going to have to agree with JZ on this issue. Slavery was the most important cause to the Civil War. The North and the South was torn apart because of their beliefs and way of living. The south was agriculture based and believed in the need of slaves because they did the labor and provided the economy with capital and work. However, the North was more industry based and believed that slaves were needed and were to be seen as equal people. When Lincoln came into position, he was focused to resolve the problem of slavery over the years. To do this he had to tell the states what they wanted to here, he told the North that slavery should be abolished and the middle states that he would abide to the institution. Lincoln tried to prevent the north and south dividing by resolving the problem. Due to the face that Britain supported south and was willing to go to war to make the south independent, Lincoln had to come up with a plan to solve the main problem of the time, slavery.
Andres Diaz
Period 1
I agree with what sean wrote. He believes that the main cuase for the civil war was the slavery. It was such an important issue that Licnoln addressed the issue so that the states would not depart from the union. Slavery was a problem becuase the north did not support, and the south were in favor of slavery and were defended by Britain.
the comment posted at 5:31 P.M. on Friday November 30, was posted by
Justin Barnes
Period 1
sorry for forgetting the period
The Primary (not exclusive) Cause of the War for Southern Independence was the 1845-1860 sectional (North, South AND West) dispute over where to place the footprint of the first transcontinental railroad. Pure and simple.
James Lutzweiler
stjimbow@gmail.com
The Primary (not exclusive) Cause of the War for Southern Independence was the 1845-1860 sectional (North, South AND West) dispute over where to place the footprint of the first transcontinental railroad. Pure and simple.
James Lutzweiler
stjimbow@gmail.com
Post a Comment
<< Home