Trying To Keep the Country Together

The Civil War broke out when it did because of issues that were building up over time, and also for immediate problems. An ongoing issue in the United States at the time was slavery, something that the South was dependent on for economic stability. The North wanted to abolish slavery, since it didn't affect them and they depended on industrialization. Because of these economic and social differences, the North and the South were breaking apart. So he Civil War partially happened when it did because all of these issues were at their peak, and President Abraham Lincoln did not want this to happen so he tried his hardest to keep the country together.

Should've Done Something About Slavery Earlier...

   Previous to the year 1861, when the Civil War began, many problems occurred in the United States that were thought to be mended until sooner or later, the issue of slavery could not be solved or compromised. Due to excessive cries for change from the abolitionists, change was inevitable but also difficult to accomplish due to the effect it would have on the Northern Territories' economic state. Henry Clay attempted to mend all problems with Texas, Washington D.C. and California but the Fugitive Slave Act impacted the rights of African Americans to a larger extent, taking away their right to a jury. The Compromise of 1850 did not last long or aid the nation to a greater extent in order to assist problems as it was meant to but instead, split the nation due to opinions on slavery. The unbalanced slave states to free states provoked abolitionists to move forward in their advancement in society from slaves to citizens. John Brown's Pottawatomie Massacre revealed a strong sense of rebellion and opposition towards slavery but was interpreted as a terrorist attack, encouraging mischief and ruining the balanced system dealing with slaves. Compromises were in dyer need sooner than they actually occurred so that the United States of America could have stayed a joined nation instead of divided by territories and race.

The Fugitive Slave Act

The discussion of slavery has always been comprised of two sides, that of the Southerners and the Northerners. Such division between North and South was primarily rooted in the economic concerns. The North with developed industry could sustain themselves without slavery, whereas the South required it for survival. Economy doesn't change in one day, so the conflict between the two sides continued. In 1850, Henry Clay, also known as "the great compromiser", formed a compromise that would supposedly bring a permanent peace between the North and South. With the rising sectional conflict over slavery, a settlement might have seemed urgently in need. But the Compromise of 1850 was comprised of a new component, slightly different from any other ones in the past: the Fugitive Slave Act. In fact, there was a similar set of laws proposed in 1793, which was called the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. But the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 further affected the North. Now any Northerners were subject to the same penalties for helping fugitive slaves. If Henry Clay had succeeded with the Missouri Compromise by deliberately apportioning rewards to each South and North, this time he failed because he lost the grasp of balance. The Northerners considered the new Fugitive Slave Act quite intrusive, and tension grew, consequently. Instead of bringing permanent peace, Henry Clay had introduced an irrevocable source of dispute.

This piece of history reveals to us that no compromise can be permanent.

Veiled under Lincoln - Stephen Douglas

Abraham Lincoln, a famous United States president who fought against the slavery policy of United States, is famous even after centuries of his lifetime. On the other hand, Stephen Douglas who was an politician from Illinois and who competed Abraham Lincoln twice, once in 1858 Illinois campaign and another in 1860 president campaign, is not as much well-known for his feats. Henceforth, I would like to shed lights on his achievements that led to the Civil war.

First, he was largely responsible for the Compromise of 1850. He suggested the compromise with Henry Clay and was able to stop the short term conflict of slavery issues between slave states and free states. Adding more and more states divided into two sides of pro-slavery and anti-slavery apparently led the whole nation into the war. Compromise of 1850 was the another act that added more states divided into two sides. By the growth of these two forces, the Union will later end up at Civil War.

Second, Stephen Douglas designed the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Stephen Douglas and Kansas-Nebraska Act both were very democratic. Douglas advocated for democracy which induced more participation of the public. Henceforth Kansas-Nebraska Act which designed by Douglas was open to the public. The inhabitants were to vote if they want slavery or not in their territories. The act itself seemed very reasonable but this open policy became the direct reason for the civil war. Two huge forces grown by the compromise of 1850, pro-slavery states and anti-slavery states, clashed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act which allowed people to express their opinions and votes without limits of law. This clash was transformed into the Civil War afterwards.

Stephen Douglas was one of the most influential politicians among his contemporaries. He even was called "little giant" of the politics. From his short stature of 5'0'' he proposed most effective words. Even though he is veiled under Abraham Lincoln, his impact on the cause of Civil War was more significant than anyone else in the history of United States.

Views on Slavery: North vs. South

For the South it was a necessity but for the North it was an atrocity. It is easy to deem slavery an inhumane practice when it does not contribute to your region's economy. Southerner's had dug themselves in a hole of terrible wrongdoing. By initiating the utilization of slavery, the South entered a vicious cycle with no escape path. As their economy boomed, their morals dissipated. They had essentially become immune to reconsideration. After starting, there was no turning back. For them, the risk was no where near as meritable as the reward as, in their view, there was no reward. This disagreement over the issue of slavery led to several violent outbreaks that, eventually, lead to the Civil War, as we know it. This being said, the war can not be blamed on any individual, whether it be John Brown, Abraham Lincoln, Harriet Beecher Stowe, or anyone else. Rather, the outbreak of war can be attributed to one issue and one issue only, the issue of slavery.

Fair is Foul and Foul is Fair

In today's society we look back on slavery as one of the largest faults in our countries history, while I agree with the morally unjust quality of slavery, our predisposition to acknowledge only one side of the slavery debate hinders us from truly grasping the heart of the issues. This being said I believe that in our current mindset we will never be able to understand the thought process of those who where pro-slavery and because of that we will never be able to understand the true cause of the civil war.

If They Could Only See Eye to Eye...

The North and South from the very start veered in two very different directions. With dissimilar characteristics in almost every category, it came as no surprise that no similar opinions would be shared between the two.

I don't believe it's possible to pin down and claim there was exactly one reason why the Civil War commenced. In fact it was a multitude of facts, each one adding to the already boiling pot until it flowed over. The formation of the free soil party kicked off the series of events by bringing clear attention to the fact that the other two parties simply ignored the issue of slavery. The Compromise of 1850 followed adding California as a free state and creating the fugitive slave act. This new set of laws greatly pleased the south and deeply angered the north, who took action and effectively nullified the act without it being a "formal nullification". Adding to the pot came Uncle Tom's Cabin, a book that put into perspective how slaves were really being treated making southern plantation owners very defensive. Next, popular sovereignty created by the Kansas-Nebraska act drew anti and pro slavery people to 'settle' in the territories and gave birth to Bleeding Kansas. People were now to the point of fighting to decide the fate of a new state. Another fueling factor was John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry. A radical abolitionist, Brown's goal was to help runaways to freedom and attack slaveholders. While being tried for treason, murder and insurrection and then put to death, he added to the tension between the north and south. The north deeming him a hero, the south quite the opposite. Getting closer to overflowing came with Lincoln's election and the decision of the south to try to succeed. With tension being so high by now, when Ft. Sumter occurred everything began to fall apart.

There were many causes for the Civil War, but overall it was simply that the north and the south were never going to see eye to eye. This indifference allowed for tension to arise and the pot to simply boil over.

Power In Literature

The power of literature may, in some cases, be the most effective tool in any debate. The novel Uncle Tom's Cabin written by Harriett Breecher Stowe was read by all during this time of unsettling tension. It reached all ages considering it was the second best-selling book in the 19th century. To some, it may seem outrageous that a single novel could have such a powerful impact on a population with so many different beliefs. However, Uncle Tom's Cabin added a significant amount of tension to the brewing pot of controversy. Protests and debates rose from this novel and empowered new groups of people to stand up for what they believed in. The sales of this novel allowed everyone to understand what certain slaves' lives were like. These enraged readers needed to do something about what they read. Yes, the Fugitive Slave Law, Elections, and events like Bleeding Kansas had significant impacts on the rise of the Civil War, but so did this novel. Literature reaches political figures, teachers, and children alike allowing it to be so powerful. A historical novel like Uncle Tom's Cabin made tensions soar and ultimately insinuated that civil war would soon break out.

Government too weak

As we all know, the Civil War started due the disagreements between the North and the South. With continuous numbers of slaves escaping into the North, in such places as Hudson, many Acts and Compromises were forced to be made under the circumstances of southern farmers losing their plantation workers. The government could not keep up with these continual changes in law and therefore was forced to pass the freedom of slaves and ignite the War in 1861.

Country Divided

Rising tensions between the Northern and Southern states were caused by the events following the Compromise of 1850 and the struggle to overpower the balance between pro-slavery and anti-slavery states. Bleeding Kansas were the result of tempers at an all-time high and the Fugitive Slave Act did not help the strain between the two territories and their different beliefs. Also, after Lincoln was elected president, the Southern Secession was a major push in sparking the beginning of the Civil War.

Abraham Lincoln: Hero or Tryant?

Ahhh Abraham Lincoln, everyone's favorite president! He's the president that disbanded slavery, who was an ethical politician, who had the interests of his fellow man in mind before his own! Or is this too another example of political propaganda? Abraham Lincoln in fact, was more of a tyrant than a hero. By analyzing the Emancipation Proclamation, one would see that Lincoln, in reality he didn't care if we had slaves or not, all he wanted was to keep the Southern states in the union, therefore keeping the country together as a whole. He needed the money from the Southern states to keep the government on its feet. He cared more about the prosperity of the union than the lives of the slaves in the south. Through political propaganda, people's opinions on people are forever changed. Next time you think Abraham Lincoln really cared about the emancipation of slaves in the south, consider this quotation: "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." -Abraham Lincoln

Fueling the Fire of War

Throughout the preceding years to the start of the Civil War in 1861 many decisions and events occurred which molded the United States into a position in which war was inevitable. Many tensions were created between the South and the North in the years prior to the event. The South and the North were split into two very different sections of the U.S. The two areas were both economically and socially different. The North was very industrialized while the South was based on agriculture and the cotton industry. Because of this difference there was also a large difference in lifestyle and opinions. Slavery was financially beneficial for the South and sometimes it was necessary to be able to complete the daily labor. The North, being industrial, did not require such labor and so they started to see the wrongs associated with slavery. The issue of slavery was also prolonged with multiple compromises that simply put off the problem until later which allowed the issue to grow worse over time. After these compromises came the Kansas-Nebraska act which ended up worse than the compromises. This act motivated Southerners to move to the Kansas in order to win the vote for slavery. This was one of the first precursors to the war. Finally the Book Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Harriet Stowe made the final division of the U.S. into those for slavery and those against it. The sides were determined due to the large differences between the two sides. They were already divided so it was only a matter of time until conflict arrived.

“Blundering Generation”

Weigh the war’s casualties and lasting impact on our nation against its benefits and you can easily conclude that a civil war was not what some may call “inevitable”. Serious differences existed between the North and South like the different labor systems, different cultures, different economic interests, contradicting political aims, different constitutional theories, different codes of morality, but these issues had other ways to be resolved that do not include 600,000 casualties. The war was not caused by these differences but rather the philosophical forces that were involved. The desire for control and power corrupts the mind. People were exploited by politicians, editors, and speakers who stirred up emotions to simply for their own personal advantages. James G. Randall stated beautifully that, “The civil war could have been avoided if the American’s leaders had acted more like statesman and less like professional patriots and slogan-slingers.”

Slavery in the South....Now That's Pretty Neat

In the South, farming was the economy. Farming was not only the means of income for families, but also a way of life. This was the only way the Southerners knew how to live. They have been doing the same thing for almost two hundred years now, they did not know any better. Anyways, along with farming (especially on large plantations) comes slavery. The Southern States needed slavery to thrive economically, but why could they not pay these people? Why did they have to treat the Slaves with so much disrespect and treat them as if they were incompetent? I'll tell you why, because the Southern Slave Owners were ignorant. They were not educated in the cultures and traditions of the Slaves. The Slave Owners viewed these people as savages. They thought that all these people were good for was labor intensive work. They were wrong. Slaves were just as competent as the Slave Owners. The North recognized this in the Slaves. They fought for the Slaves and their rights. Slaves are people too... right?

Hokay, so... Here is the War.

The Civil War was an effect of a plethora of issues, the main one being the issue of slavery. The North and the South had many differences. The South was more agricultural, having many farms, thus the use of slaves was "ideal," and the North was booming with industries, where, slavery was not so ideal. Then, the idea of morality of slavery set off a division between the North and the South. Then, it was avoided, trying to keep the balance of free slave states, which just prolonged the issue until 1861. Why? I think a large part of it is the Southern Succession. The South decided to break off once they knew Lincoln was going to be president because they knew that he wanted to abolish slavery. They obviously did not want that. So, they split off, and then Lincoln, wanting to abolish slavery, started a war with the South (and won!). The war was a product of a number of things: difference of economies, morality of slavery, not dealing with the issue of slavery, and lastly, breaking off from the Union.

The Benefits of Slavery to the Southern Economy

Hindsight is truly 20/20 and anyone in their right mind today would dub slavery as an inhumain practice which should have never been allowed. However, go back 150 years and put yourself in the shoes of a struggling middle class citezen in the South. Forget the propaganda of Uncle Tom's cabin, and all of the fictional stories of slaves being beaten to death. Most slaves had a better life being a slave than they did as a free man. They were fed, they had a roof over their heads and they contributed to society. So was slavery all that bad? Throw out all the propaganda from the North; the slaves lived decent lives which in turn severely helped the southern economy. The cost of products and services became much cheaper, therefore the profit was greater and the country as a whole was far more wealthy. Was it really that bad?

Causes for the Civil War

Slavery was a main cause of the Civil War and in fact every other cause someone involved this issue too. Slavery in the new territories, slavery and the government, Bleeding Kansas, and a divided union are all causes of the Civil War. The Civil War errupted in 1861 because of the cession of the states in the South greatly separated the Union and Americans got to the point where there had to be something done with these issues. It was evident to all that war was the last resort. Seeing how important the issue of slavery was to everyone I don't know why they should have tried to resolve it or go to war sooner. 1861 seems too late. But I guess better late than never. Slavery on the other hand would have died out eventually, but it could have taken many more years than 1865.

Reasons for a Civil War

I believe that the Civil War erupted a lot like a volcano; there was a lot of activity to its buildup and final eruption. There were plenty of opportunities before 1861, but nobody seemed to want to really deal with the issue of slavery. They feared of stepping on too many toes, and so huge compromises were made instead of any actual opinion being stated. The final straw that broke the camel's back was Lincoln being elected president, and with his already public anti-slavery view, enraged the South into believing that they would lose all of what they had, and caused them to decide that revolution was necessary.

Different Look at the Civil War

Civil war outbreak

The Civil was bound to erupt because of the tension that was placed on the country with the issue of slavery. The reason why it hadn't erupted earlier in our history is because no one wanted to take the issue head on. All that the country did was push it aside by creating an equal number of slave states as there were non-slave states. This, however, just added to the problem by waiting till more people were involved in it. Lincoln was the first to have enough power to take the issue head on which started an all out war between the two sides. Many people died and if the problem had been addressed earlier in our history, less could have been killed then there were.

Civil War Fuses

In my opinion, there are several fuses of the Civil War:
1) The different economy system (North: capitalism; South: plantation economy)
2) Whether to slavery or not (The novel Uncle Tom's Cabin which was published at 1852 amplifies the conflict of the two different policy and living styles)
3) The slaves in the south were dying for free and argued with the host.
4) The necessity of a united country with a united economic policy and at that time most people believe capitalism would be better due to the better living condition in the north.
In conclusion, the dispute of the moral problem which was the about slavery and the economic problem which was about capitalism is the major fuse of the Civil War. Besides, in the election of 1860, Lincoln was elected as the 16th American president who strongly appose to slavery. Civil War would eventually provoke but the take up of the office of Lincoln in 1860 accelerated the war.

The Cause of Civil War

Civil War was the ultimate result of the building up tension between the North and the South on the issue of slavery. The whole country was divided into two due to this single reason, slavery. The government tried to make compromises and keep the states of slavery and non- slavery even but none of it worked. The war erupted after Lincoln had become the president and the southern states had quit the Union. Lincoln was not the South's choice for president since his views was against slavery. Now that the North had gotten what they wanted, the southern states quit because they thought they had no say in the matter any longer. This issue exploded in Lincoln's presidency becuase he was the first president who had a strong view against slavery rather than the other presidents who didn't want to deal with it and hence kicked the issue away from them.

What Caused the Civil War

The issue of slavery slowing built up the tension betweeen the North and South which ended up causing the Civil War. As the US expanded there were constant debates about wether the new territories should be a free state or a slave state. Although some compromises were made there were heated arguements which ended up dividing the North and South to the point where the South wanted to disband from the Union

WasThis Hudson Native a Terrorist Who Caused the Civil War or a Martyr?

John Brown

l

THE CIVIL WAR AT 150: Still Divided?

Today, we live in a society not only polarized over race relations and the advent of a black President, over the rights of immigrants, over religious tolerance, over who and what is a legitimate American. But we have a political culture riven by a near war over federalism – the ceaseless debate about the proper relation of federal to state power.  Yes, the Civil War is rooted in states’ rights.  But the significance of any exercise of states’ rights is always in the issue to which it is employed.  And in 1860-61, “state sovereignty” was exercised by some Southerners as an act of revolution in the interest, as they said themselves over and over, of preserving a racial order and a system of slavery.
Today, states’ rights doctrines are advanced by many governors and Republican-majority legislatures in the very language of “secession” and “nullification” made so infamous in antebellum America.   A short list of examples among many tells us just how alive some Civil War legacies are in our culture.

• Kentucky has a bill pending to make that state a “sanctuary” from the Environmental Protection Agency.
• Arizona Republicans want to exempt products made in their state from federal interstate commerce laws.
• Montana is considering a bill to “nullify” the federal Endangered Species Act.  The same state’s legislature has a bill pending that would require the FBI to get a local sheriff’s permission to make any arrests.
• Utah passed a bill authorizing use of eminent domain to seize federally-protected land.  

And many Republican governors and attorneys general have tried to use the courts to nullify federal health care reform.  Some state legislatures have tried to pass bills declaring their residents “exempt” from the health care reform law.
This is nullification by any other name, and it is happening, unfortunately, in too large a vacuum of historical perspective.  We have a history with this idea, and it had a terrible result in 1861.  Either the United States born in slave emancipation and that second American republic of 1865-68 is based on a social contract, forged and re-forged by the new historical imperatives of industrialization and urbanization in the Progressive era, by a horrible economic Depression in the 1930s, and a civil rights revolution in the 1960s, all of which for real and good reasons necessitated the increased exercise of federal power to protect human liberty, welfare, and survival, or it does not.
The conservative movement in America seems determined to repeal much of the twentieth century, and even its constitutional and social roots in the transformations of the 1860s. The Civil War is not only not over; it can still be lost.  At its sesquicentennial, as much as ever, we should journey to our oracle, not to seek its “attractions,” but to listen carefully for its “historical importance.”

This article by Yale Professor David Blight brings the the issue to question, What did cause the Civil War and why did it erupt in 1861 and not earlier?    Blog about any aspect of the causes of the Civil War or perspectives on the events leading up the the war.