I was wondering about this. It seems like the stereotypical view of the Civil War is that the North and South fought over slavery, and the North, the "good guys" won, and slavery was abolished and everyone was happy. I have also heard that the war was mostly fought over state's rights, i.e. centralized government (Union) to more independent states (Confederacy). The North them abolished slavery to give the Union something to fight for. Of course, this may just come from Confederate sympathizers. I apologize if this is common knowledge, but I'm just in 9th grade and the people in this forum sound extremely knowledgeable about history :goodjob:

Slavery did play a role, but the more important issue was states rights. But many of the debates about states rights centered on slavery - like if a state could say if it wanted slavery or not, as opposed to the national government as a whole.

Oh, that makes sense. Thanks cybrxkhan!

I would argue that while states' rights played a role, the more important issue was slavery. Quite simply, abolitionist sentiment was rising in the North, and the Confederates seceded to preserve their outmoded institution. There was a reason that they waited until the first Republican -- firmly anti-slavery -- candidate was elected to rebel, and it was no coincidence that Lincoln freed the slaves in the middle of that war.

To my mind slavery was the one issue which no-one could find a workable compromise. It was becoming ever more divisive and troublesome, the Civil War was effectively the catalyst for resolving the problem in favour of abolition. There is some suggestion that slavery would have died out economically anyway over time, but I'm not convinced it would have gone without a fight in the south. Most of the other issues raised to explain the causes of the war could probably have been worked out through compromise, so I would suggest that whilst slavery was not the only cause, it was probably the most important one.

As for the North using abolition as a war cry that just didn't work since most of the soldiers and high ranking generals didn't much care one way or the other. The North did however gain some benefits from emancipation namely it helped (with victories) to put an end to suggestions of European involvement and also provided the army with a very welcome group of highly motivated volunteers.

No one shot the first gun for or against slavery, but the issues of states rights, western expansion and nullification, which would start the war, ultimately all found root in slavery.

To my mind slavery was the one issue which no-one could find a workable compromise. It was becoming ever more divisive and troublesome, the Civil War was effectively the catalyst for resolving the problem in favour of abolition. There is some suggestion that slavery would have died out economically anyway over time, but I'm not convinced it would have gone without a fight in the south. Most of the other issues raised to explain the causes of the war could probably have been worked out through compromise, so I would suggest that whilst slavery was not the only cause, it was probably the most important one.

IMO it is entirely clear that slavery would die out in the South, war or no war. It did die out peacefully in other societies that were even more dependant on slavery than the American South, eg Brazil.

However valid an argument that is it is still a view from hindsight. I would say that from the prominence it played in the conflict and in aspects of the confederacy, slavery was not viewed as a dying institution at the time.

well slavery was the only real reason that the southern sates seceded, but the reason we(the north) went to war probably had more to do with bringing the union back together. Lincoln gave ample opportunity to the southern states to rejoin and keep the institution of slavery. Plus the institution of slavery in the southern states that didn't seceded wasn't abolished until later.

The stereotypical view is that south were slavery-lovers and northerns not, and that the entire war was over slavery.

No. Slavery played a decisive role, but the war wasn't just over it - not even a significant portion was over it - but a good portion, nevertheless.

Slavery played a decisive role, but the war wasn't just over it - not even a significant portion was over it - but a good portion, nevertheless.

That seems contradictory to me.

Slavery: Decisive Role
Slavery: A Good Portion
Slavery: Not Even A Significant Portion

its not contradictory, but i'll reword it:

one of most important issues for playing a role in the civil war was States' rights; however, slavery was the most important issue falling under states rights, but definitely not the only one.

its not contradictory, but i'll reword it:

one of most important issues for playing a role in the civil war was States' rights; however, slavery was the most important issue falling under states rights, but definitely not the only one.

Hooray, someone actually gets it.

Yes, the war was over States Rights.

What was the most important State Right at risk?

Slavery.

:thumbsup:

No. Slavery played a decisive role, but the war wasn't just over it - not even a significant portion was over it - but a good portion, nevertheless.

Incorrect. If slavery wasn't the main thing they were fighting over, why did the Southern soldiers sing songs like "****** Doodle Dandy" (evidently CFC censors that one), and the North sing the hymn of "John Brown's Body"? The war was over slavery first and foremost.

^i reworded myself in the later post. please read that. :)

Slavery played a huge role.

If the CSA did not protect slavery, it is much more likely that they would have received substantial resources from European powers.

...and the North sing the hymn of "John Brown's Body"? The war was over slavery first and foremost.

The primary motivation for the average Union soldier early in the fight was the fact that Confederate forces fired on the American flag; although Confederates were fighting for slavery early on, the Union was not.

And, of course, it would be tough to say how much these issues mattered to the average soldier in the war; if you get drafted, ideology doesn't come into play nearly as strongly.

The main reason put forth by the north for declaring war was the preservation of the union and to get back the states which had seceded before the war started. Abolition wasn't a major policy of the north until a few years into the war. A big reason for this was to secure the border states because if they seceded as well it would have doubled the souths industrial output and endanger the Ohio River and Washington D.C.
Another reason for abolition not being a big part for declaring war was because of the need for the Irish immigrants to serve in the army. The Irish were already competing with free blacks for low wage city jobs and needed to be appeased to gain the manpower they had.

Your arguments of the North making a political decision to not free the slaves immediately was true. However, just because people lived in a time of less technology does not mean they were stupid. I would argue that the common man back then understood perfectly well the main issue that they were fighting for and against. It was not the mere act of secession. It was the cause of that secession.

I've written too much on this already on too many threads in this forum, so I'll so I'll be brief.

No matter how much Southern Apologists may not like to admit it, the CW is, at its core, at every turn, about slavery. Slavery is not the only direct cause, but every other direct cause travels on a road paved w/ the issue of slavery.

The sad thing is that the South going to war (and losing) over slavery hidden behind the pretext states rights discredited an otherwise very worthwhile principle, states rights, and now with an oversized centralising imperialistic federal government controlled by the very rich; US citizens are going to pay an increasing price for the loss of states rights.

Slavery supported the whole Southern agarian way of life.

And the southerners didn't want their way of life to change.

its not contradictory, but i'll reword it:

one of most important issues for playing a role in the civil war was States' rights; however, slavery was the most important issue falling under states rights, but definitely not the only one.

QFT

From this source (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/csapage.htm):

South Carolina (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm) seceded first. The first secession document was clear. The refusal of northern states to return slaves to bondage, for encouraging "servile insurrection", the presidential victory of the anti-slave republican party, and the "elevation of persons who are incapable of becoming citizens" to citizenship (i.e. former slaves) as some of the reasons given why South Carolina decided to secede. Georgia (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/geosec.htm) also added corruption of the federal government and claimed that the federal gov't. benefited only northern states. Mississippi (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/missec.htm) mainly mentions slavery and that the north wants to destroy Mississippi's economy and prosperity. Texas (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/texsec.htm) followed the pattern.

I was wondering about this. It seems like the stereotypical view of the Civil War is that the North and South fought over slavery, and the North, the "good guys" won, and slavery was abolished and everyone was happy. I have also heard that the war was mostly fought over state's rights, i.e. centralized government (Union) to more independent states (Confederacy). The North them abolished slavery to give the Union something to fight for. Of course, this may just come from Confederate sympathizers. I apologize if this is common knowledge, but I'm just in 9th grade and the people in this forum sound extremely knowledgeable about history :goodjob:

Some of the states in the Northern Union had slaves but fought with the North. So it couldn't have been all about slavery

Some of the states in the Northern Union had slaves but fought with the North. So it couldn't have been all about slavery

Only 4 states that "stayed" in the Union at the time of the war had slaves.

Delaware: small state, small population, # of slaves was something like 150.... in other words, insignificant
Maryland: Essentially kept in the Union by force
Kentucky: Treated by the Union as a neutral party until the South invaded.
Missouri: Stayed in the Union but pretty much decimated by guerrilla warfare on both sides, fairly lawless.

The North fought to preserve the Union, but they were put in that position by the South. All the reasons for Southern succession point, directly or indirectly, back to the legacy of slavery.

"If I could win the war AND keep the slaves, I would do it."
-Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln as an emancipist is overrated.

Delaware: small state, small population, # of slaves was something like 150.... in other words, insignificant
Maryland: Essentially kept in the Union by force
Kentucky: Treated by the Union as a neutral party until the South invaded.
Missouri: Stayed in the Union but pretty much decimated by guerrilla warfare on both sides, fairly lawless.


But if Lincoln and the North were in some moral crusade to end slavery than certainly it would not matter if the slave population was small, or if the state was kept in the Union by force. If it was a moral crusade slavery in the Union should not be tolerated at any level.

I think it is accurate to say that Lincoln fought to preserve the Union and used the abolition of slavery as a propaganda tool when it advanced his interests. He knew how to speak to the pro-slavery crowd in the Union when he needed to.

"If I could win the war AND keep the slaves, I would do it."
-Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln as an emancipist is overrated.

And that quote is not only overquoted, you have misquoted it, and left out most of the context to boot.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."

He was hardly endorsing slavery. He was endorsing saving the Union. Numerous other quotes showed him to be a firm opponent of slavery; people who try to paint him as pro-slavery are usually Southern apologists who are more interested in justifying the actions of their long-dead ancestors than getting to the bottom of things.

The civil war was all about states rights vs federal rights and the right to secede. Slavery exacerbated that issue. Lincoln used slavery to help him win the war. He emancipated the slaves in an effort to dominate the south. It was more that than actually wanting to free humans from a corrupt institution. Note that the emancipation only freed slaves in the south not the north.

The civil war was all about states rights vs federal rights and the right to secede. Slavery exacerbated that issue.

I think you've got it the wrong way around. Slavery was the main issue; no one would have seceded if it wasn't.

Lincoln used slavery to help him win the war. He emancipated the slaves in an effort to dominate the south. It was more that than actually wanting to free humans from a corrupt institution. Note that the emancipation only freed slaves in the south not the north.

He didn't free slaves in the border states because that would have possibly caused him to lose the war. Surely we can agree that waiting longer and getting all slaves freed is better than charging blindly forward and getting ourselves killed? Just because people are righteous doesn't mean they have to be stupid.

As for him "not wanting" to free the slaves:

It is the eternal struggle between these two principles — right and wrong — throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, "You toil and work and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.

Lincoln hadn't been inclined before the war towards emancipation. Whilst he certainly hated slavery, hoped and believed it would eventually fade out, and wanted to prevent its expansion to the territories he did not believe in attacking slave holders, nor in actively trying to bring slavery to an end in places where it had already taken root. His experiences during the civil war changed things somewhat. Even during the war however he still talks about colonisation of freed slaves rather than emancipation followed by living on US soil.

Slavery supported the whole Southern agarian way of life.

And the southerners didn't want their way of life to change.
And for those who didn't own slaves, which was the majority of people, slavery seemed to hurt them economically. Whether they knew this or not, I don't know, but they were still committed to that "way of life".

Well, not without exceptions... plain folks in the hills weren't big on slavery. Much of East Tennessee, for example, was Unionist. The people in the western part of Virginia split off from Confederate Virginia to form their own state within the Union.

I was wondering about this. It seems like the stereotypical view of the Civil War is that the North and South fought over slavery, and the North, the "good guys" won, and slavery was abolished and everyone was happy. I have also heard that the war was mostly fought over state's rights, i.e. centralized government (Union) to more independent states (Confederacy). The North them abolished slavery to give the Union something to fight for. Of course, this may just come from Confederate sympathizers. I apologize if this is common knowledge, but I'm just in 9th grade and the people in this forum sound extremely knowledgeable about history :goodjob:


The American Civil War was about the consolidation of power of the federal government over the states and an end to state sovereignty.

"If I could win the war AND keep the slaves, I would do it."
-Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln as an emancipist is overrated.

At the time he wrote that to Greeley's newspaper, he had already decided to issue the Emancipation Proclamation and was waiting for the right moment to do so; i.e. a Union victory, which he got at Antietam. In other words, he wasn't being totally honest, although in this case being totally honest would have been bad strategy.

The civil war was all about states rights vs federal rights and the right to secede. Slavery exacerbated that issue. Lincoln used slavery to help him win the war. He emancipated the slaves in an effort to dominate the south. It was more that than actually wanting to free humans from a corrupt institution. Note that the emancipation only freed slaves in the south not the north.

He didn't have Constitutional authority to do it in the North. That required amending the Constitution.