What Caused The Civil War?

 

Harriet Tubman

It was James Henry Hammond who wrote the following, “You will say man cannot hold property in man. The answer is that he can and actually does hold property in his fellow all the world over, in a variety of forms, and has always done so”. [i] When dissecting this quote, it can be inferred that the italicized man refers to enslaved men and when Hammond states, “all the world over” and “in a variety of forms”, he is insinuating that the white slaveholding men have power with no boundaries that permits brutal forms to maintain that power. This holds true as Hammond justifies the concept of slavery as “God’s will” and can be referenced when he stated “and has always done so” to summarize the arbitrary biblical discussion of slave labor. All considered, the concept of slaves as property alludes to slaves as a material labor force with the agenda of an economic profit. I would like to present my counterarguments from the video and discuss why I believe the Civil War was caused by slavery, that the South would not have “given up” slavery on their own and finally, why I believe that South wasn’t provoked to secede until the topic of emancipation became largely discussed.

To demonstrate, we must consider the multitude of perspectives surrounding the Civil War. A stream of predominate terms that come to my mind when I consider the Civil War would involve the following: slavery, secession, liberty, and freedom. How those terms are correlated can differ with other individual’s perspective. Ideologies such as “the Brothers War” suggests there was no concrete agenda of the Civil War despite their honorable fights and that the war was just merely conflict and drama between “brothers”.[ii]  Furthermore, there are ideologies, like the video suggested, insisting that the South was merely fighting for state’s rights against an overbearing federal government. But nonetheless, I believe the Civil War was caused by slavery because regardless of how an individual perceives the Civil War, slavery is rooted in every concept as a sensitive term, therefor the term slavery alone upheld a level of power that passionately provoked both sides despite their opposing agendas. When you question every perception of what caused the Civil War, it ultimately narrows done to one answer: slavery. When the “Brother’s War” suggests “mere conflict and drama between brothers”, the “drama” was over whether slavery should be abolished. The perception of the federal government’s gradual process of emancipation being too “overbearing” also still suggests slavery as component. Then of course there are the more commonly known ideologies of what caused the Civil War. For example, the Union’s discovery of how grotesque the process of slavery was in Southern states which influenced Abolitionist. Upon the various examples of brutal punishments in Frederick Douglass’ autobiography, the reflection of his master’s aggressive response of Douglass’s inability to work due to being severely ill summarizes the nature of slave and slaveowner’s power dynamic. Douglass states,

He came to the spot, and, after looking at me awhile, asked me what was the matter. I told him as well as I could, for I scarce had strength to speak. He then gave me a savage kick in the side, and told me to get up. I tried to do so, but fell back in the attempt. He gave me another kick, and again told me to rise.[iii]

Hence, the contrasting lifestyles of the North and South influenced how the different regions evolved. The Northern region was industrialized, and the Southern region was reliant on agriculture for their primary source of revenue. Crops, such as cotton, required an immense amount of work from many individuals. The thought of emancipation posed a threat to the slaveowner’s “material labor” (as slaves were viewed as property) and their potential opportunity for economic success. Not to mention, emancipation could potentially restrict the market of westward agriculture if declared as free states, hindering the potential of more economic success. Confederates were displeased with Lincoln’s Free-Soil identification and individuals such as David Wilmot (Pennsylvania-Democrat) argued that “the newly acquired land should be limited to only white individuals”.[iv] I argue that the South would not have “given up” slavery on their own because white, slave-owning men felt threatened in losing their revenue and subjected to change their ‘traditional’ social norms. In Alexander H. Stephens’ “Corner Stone” speech given in Savannah, Georgia, where he presents what he considered the benefits of the confederate constitution, he stated “our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the n***o is not equal to the white man; the slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition”. [v] This highlights how deeply rooted the ideology of white supremacy was in the confederate South, thus the notion of the South simply “giving up” slavery on their own would not have been as straightforward as proposed.

All things considered; the South may have provided several explanations as to why they were provoked to secede but as I had mentioned prior; all perceptions ultimately narrow down to slavery. South Carolina was the first state to secede once Lincoln’s presidency was established and had “catapulted radicals into power” because to the south, “the actions that Lincoln was projecting to make in itself, was a war on slavery” which is known as Judicial Tribunal. [vi] I believe that the South wasn’t provoked until the topic of emancipation became largely discussed. Fixating on whether the South was about to lose their ‘property’ only revealed how vulnerable and reliant the South was with the organization of slavery. For example, considering the Union was lax with the Fugitive Slave law, the South was frustrated with the Union’s inability to capture and return their “property”. The South Carolina Declaration of the Immediate Causes projects the distress of the South when declaring, “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws the General Government have cease to effect the objects of the Constitution”. [vii] With the growing tension of the North and South, the South felt compelled to protect their means of economic profit; to which, the institution of slavery was a major component of maintain that wealth. Solidifying slavery as the means of secession.

In conclusion, the history of the Civil War is a sensitive discussion that some individuals tiptoe around to either maintain some level of respect for the confederate party or to turn a blind eye on that era of history in order to establish a more reputable identity for the United States. It is not ludicrous to be ashamed of hostile ancestry but we can not be dismissive of it either. The Civil War must be a curriculum requirement in its entirety to inform future generations that slavery was the cause of the Civil War and to preserve the history of what slaves had endure.

---

[i] Hammond, p. 1

[ii] Malka, 8/24/2021

[iii] Douglass, p. 49

[iv] Malka, 9/14/2021

[v] Stephens, p. 4

[vi] Malka, 9/23/21

[vii] December 24, 1860

 

Word Count: 1152

 

 

References

 

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union. 1860.

 

Douglass, Fredrick. Narrative of the Life of Fredrick Douglass. Penguin Group Publications, New York City, NY. March 1, 1845.

 

Hammond, James Henry. Letter to an English Abolitionist, 1845. Columbia, SC. Allen, McCarter and Co., 1845.

 

Malka, Adam. https://canvas.ou.edu/courses/243462/modules/items/3713190, 8/24/21.

 

Malka, Adam. https://canvas.ou.edu/courses/243462/modules/items/3762467, 9/14/21.

 

Malka, Adam. https://canvas.ou.edu/courses/243462/modules/items/3776818, 9/23/21.

 

Stephens, Alexander H. The “Corner Stone” Speech. Savannah, Georgia. March 21, 1861.