What is the main cause for the American Civil War?

[Smidlee]

It seems the Civil War was bound to happen from the beginning of the nation. Even Ben Franklin brought up the slavery issue yet drop it in order to keep the parties together. As United State grew it was just a matter of time before there were a power struggle between the Federal government and the States. Even today some in the South feels they get screw by the Federal government more, as in NAFTA.
One of the tricky things about starting a rebellion is to keep those rebels from eventually rebelling again as often one rebellion leads to another.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

There were many factors, mostly economic, and many of them closely related to slavery.



I blame the founding fathers for not creating a constitutional way for a state to secede peacefully, preferably requiring a clear majority or supermajority in a statewide referendum so as to minimize the chance of it actually happening.

(I tend to be sympathetic to Lysander Spooner's argument that the southern states had a right to secede grounded in the right of a slave to be free. I don't think I'd go so far as to advocate that slaves try their best to kill their masters though.)

 

[Labtec600]

I'm from the north and I dont believe the Civil War was about Slavery per se, it was more about the Southern States feeling the Federal Government was overstepping it's authority. Slavery just happened to be the final straw.

 

[Ulyaoth]

Well really if you look at the early history of the nation, it seems a good bit of the whole history leading up to the Civil War was to try to keep the South from seceding over and over again. Of course the first people to threaten secession were actually northerners but whatever.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm from the north and I dont believe the Civil War was about Slavery per se, it was more about the Southern States feeling the Federal Government was overstepping it's authority. Slavery just happened to be the final straw.

No, the reason the South thought the North was overstepping its authority was over issue of abolition. It wasn't the final straw. It was the straw. The rest is merely rationalization after the fact.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

They admittedly had the most to lose, but the south was majorly agrarian at the time and they were facing intense economic pressures from competition abroad, etc...

You are missing the point. Who was in control of the south? That 5%, who had a lot to lose if slavery was abolished. Plus, in all the rhetoric emerging from the period, it mostly centered around slavery.

 

[amadeus]

You are missing the point. Who was in control of the south? That 5%, who had a lot to lose if slavery was abolished. Plus, in all the rhetoric emerging from the period, it mostly centered around slavery.

No, I'm saying it probably also mattered to the other 95% whose livelihoods were threatened at the time. Remember, their votes counted just as much as the large plantation owners'.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

No, I'm saying it probably also mattered to the other 95% whose livelihoods were threatened at the time. Remember, their votes counted just as much as the large plantation owners'.

What mattered to the other 95% and what caused the Civil War are two different things.

And in all fairness, even though both were technically equal, you have to admit that in the 1860's south, the Planter class was of paramount importance, and if King Cotton fell, so would they.

 

[Miles Teg]

The tipping factor was the Morrill tariff and Lincoln's promise of protectionism, ie tax the hell out of Southern exports and European imports. In his inauguration Lincoln said the only reason he'd send Federal troops into the South was collect taxes - 37-47% tariffs on trade. Thats why Charleston SC led the way, just like Charleston led the way in the 1820s when Jackson was playing the protection card. Slavery became the cause after the fact, preserving the Union was Lincoln's stated "cause". Cant tax the hell out of the South if it leaves.

Again, given the absence of this complaint from any writings contemporary of time, you have to provide some significant reason why the Civil War was over taxes, as opposed to the question of a state's right to keep slavery legal. Especially given the fact that over-taxation would have been a far more palatable justification than slavery. Oother wise, you're cutting yourself on Occam's Razor.

Ignoring the lack of evidence however, your timeline doesn't fit. The Secession was organized before the Morrill tariff was even passed, and tarriffs were simply not a Southern issue. They were unpopular in South Carolina and Georgia, but were a non issue in the rest of the south. In fact, some in Virginia actually proposed that the Confederates issue their own version of the Morrill tariff. Since tariffs (the only major type of tax in the day) was not a significant issue outside of of some of the Southern coast, we have to wonder why the other, less trade reliant states were onboard, if in fact slavery was the key issue.

As for the war, the North should have let the South go or rescinded the Morrill Act and started behaving like a Union instead of using Congress to screw other Americans. Slavery would have died in the South of its own accord and millions wouldn't have had their lives ruined "to save the Union".

As has been noted time after time, the South fired first, and had no justification for firing upon Ft. Sumter. The Union's retaliation was perfectly in accord with international law, custom, and common sense.

 

[Theige]

That's true.

A lack of sensible people in charge of the USA was an equally important factor.

But we had Lincoln, who was sensible. Unfortunately the southern leaders didn't see it that way.

 

[Patroklos]

The debate was, and obviously so, about the Federal goverments ability to supercede the wishes of state government. The issue, amonst many being contested at the time, that brought it to a head was slavery. Slavery was the sympton, not the cause.

No, the reason the South thought the North was overstepping its authority was over issue of abolition. It wasn't the final straw. It was the straw. The rest is merely rationalization after the fact.

I suggest you look up who the players in the debate about interstate commerce regulation at the time. You know, one of a hundred issues that came to a head long before slavery divided between state and federal power advocates. Or contunue to live in your fantasy land, your choice.

 

[Cutlass]

There were many factors, mostly economic, and many of them closely related to slavery.



I blame the founding fathers for not creating a constitutional way for a state to secede peacefully, preferably requiring a clear majority or supermajority in a statewide referendum so as to minimize the chance of it actually happening.

(I tend to be sympathetic to Lysander Spooner's argument that the southern states had a right to secede grounded in the right of a slave to be free. I don't think I'd go so far as to advocate that slaves try their best to kill their masters though.)

I would. Any slave has a right, in fact a responsibility, to kill the one trying to own them. And since any referendum would not have permitted the slaves to vote, it would not have been acceptable.

 

[Patroklos]

As has been noted time after time, the South fired first, and had no justification for firing upon Ft. Sumter. The Union's retaliation was perfectly in accord with international law, custom, and common sense.

False. The Union, in illegal pocession of foriegn property, refused to leave peacefully. That, according to internatinal law, is an act of aggression. Who physically fired first is irrelevant, the first act of aggression was on the part of the Federal government. There is no way around this basic truth.

 

[GoodGame]

Unresolved issues from the country's founding regarding the Federalism vs. anti-Federalism debate.

Slavery, and much much less, racism.

Culture conflict between Northern industrialism and Southern agriculturalism.

Weak presidents unable to maintain attitude of compromise.


I'd say the main cause was culture conflict, with slavery being the main source of culture conflict.

False. The Union, in illegal pocession of foriegn property, refused to leave peacefully. That, according to internatinal law, is an act of aggression. Who physically fired first is irrelevant, the first act of aggression was on the part of the Federal government. There is no way around this basic truth.

Ummm...did the Union agree to sell it's lands to the secessionists? Can't it be argued that the fort didn't automatically revert back to the state?

 

[Gooblah]

Federalism question. That was the overarching cause that led to economic disparity, slavery laws, etc.

 

[Cutlass]

False. The Union, in illegal pocession of foriegn property, refused to leave peacefully. That, according to internatinal law, is an act of aggression. Who physically fired first is irrelevant, the first act of aggression was on the part of the Federal government. There is no way around this basic truth.

And what foreign territory were we on that the South had a problem with? Did we have troops in Mexico or Canada that no one bothered to mention?

 

[Patroklos]

And what foreign territory were we on that the South had a problem with? Did we have troops in Mexico or Canada that no one bothered to mention?

The independant state of South Carolina, constitutionally succeeded from the United States of America. Federal troops occupied their territory, they were asked to peacfully withraw with full military honors intact, and the refused. Repeatedly. That is aggression and an act of war.

 

[Patroklos]

Ummm...did the Union agree to sell it's lands to the secessionists? Can't it be argued that the fort didn't automatically revert back to the state?

No. We don't even hold those types of rights against claiments like Germany, where we had the benefit of dictating under an unconditional surreneder. If they ask us to leave, we leave. If it was a buisness arrangement with an unlimited lease like Gitmo, there may be grounds, but it wasn't.

Perhaps you think Indonesia should still be in pocession of all their nationaly owned territory in East Timor?

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Show me the place where it says in the Constitution that states can secede.

Also, what about:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

 

[Patroklos]

Show me the place where it says in the Constitution that states can secede.

You seem to have a fundemental misunderstanding of how our Constitution works. It tells the Federal goverment what it can do. All powers not specifically mentioned as federal fall to the states automatically. So unless the Constitution specifically mandates that states can't succeed, the right for them to do so is so enshrined in the Constitution.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

The above is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.