Slavery: The Primary Cause Of The Civil War

“Slavery was embraced, almost without question, by nearly everyone save [but] the slaves themselves” (Boritt 11). Slavery, without a doubt, is the primary cause of the Civil War. With the South’s economy being so dependent on the use of slavery, it was difficult for them to get rid of such a practice. This led a division of the North and South, in which the North believed slavery to be immoral. However, the south begged to differ, with no explicit evidence to claim slavery as illegal, they used every loophole they found to make themselves seem ethical. Therefore, tensions arose from their difference of opinions which ultimately lead to the Civil War.
Pre-antebellum period, the South was a very fertile and large scale area with an agrarian
economy. Their main commodities included tobacco and cotton cultivation, which would soon become their main source of income with the invention of the Cotton Gin from Eli Whitney. With that being said, tobacco and cotton were two crops that needed massive amounts of land and copious amounts of workers. Therefore, the South decided to implement slaves in order to keep up their extensive farming needs. For this reason, the South had a surplus of slaves in comparison to the North.
Even though, the Constitution did not lucidly state slavery as illegal, this allowed the South to use the blinds spots and weaknesses of the Constitution to their advantage.
In a sense, it technically made slavery legal. According to our textbook, “The Constitution gave the federal government the right to abolish the international slave trade but no authority to regulate or destroy the institution where it existed under slave law” (Brands 312). Our Founding Fathers thought that slavery was not supposed to be a permanent addition, but rather would become extinct on its own. Even during Colonial America, “there is not one single law which recognizes the rightfulness of slavery in the abstract” (Darling 11). The constitution stated slaves would be returned to their owners, but with the North believing slavery was unethical, they refused to capture and return the slaves. Thus, a rift between the two, North and South, was created and the rift would lead to the
war.
An example of the loophole used in the Constitution towards slavery was the Dredd Scott case. Dredd Scott was a former slave who lived within a free state, but was returned to the state of Missouri, a state slave. He sued for his freedom but was told any black, free or not, was not a citizen to begin with meaning they could not sue for freedom. It went all the way to the Supreme Court when ultimately, the judge, Roger Taney, declared that slaves were never and never would become citizens and have the full rights as white men; they would always be property and their “masters” could see fit to do whatever they liked. His ruling violated the Missouri Compromise and Taney also believed that slavery couldn’t be prohibited in the Wisconsin Territory. Southerners saw this as a win because this was allowing the expansion of slavery into new states. This, on the other hand, agitated the Northerners to a point of aggression. This ruling of the case adds to the South’s need to expand slavery from sea to shining sea. That dream was becoming a reality for them.
Because of the dependency on commodities such as tobacco and cotton, high tariffs would be detrimental to the economy of the South. Unfortunately the tariffs were in favor of the North. Tariffs would increase the cost of imported goods, which was vital to the import-oriented economy of the South. The South believed that their trading partners, primarily Britain, would raise the prices of their goods to keep a profit. That angered the southerners and they suppressed every tariff act that would come their way—such as the Townshend Act, which taxed tea, glass, paper, lead, oil, etc. The South believed that the government was indirectly trying to discourage them from using slavery by increasing tariffs. On the other hand, the North was ecstatic. If they had an increase in tariffs, they would ultimately end up the winner because it would make the goods in the North seem relatively cheap. Tariffs would inevitably make either side mad, but mainly the South because tariffs hurt their economy as well as the disintegration of slavery. If that were to happen, chaos would ensue and the southern states would definitely raise arms.
With the addition of new states, such as California, Kansas and Nebraska, the territories now had the freedom to choose whether or not they wanted to become a free state or not. For example, the Compromise of 1850 which allowed California to become a free state and in return, there would be a stronger Fugitive Slave Law as well as the banning of the slave trade in D.C. This caused a problem for the South, because it could ruin the balance between slave states and free states. If there were too many free states, slavery would be less favored which would be damaging to the south. The free states explicitly mentioned the banning of slavery within their borders thus creating an even difficult time for the South. This balance could also be ruined in government as well. If the majority of the House of Representatives or Senate fell to one side, it was easier to enact a law or act, but if it was in the middle, nothing would ever get passed. The Southerners were more prone to this type of feeling—they felt like slavery would be abolished by Northern abolitionists if the power changed in any sort of way—their voice would not be heard. Not to mention, with things like the Homestead Act, which encouraged settlers to move west into territories such as Kansas and Nebraska and in return, they got free land (but they had to live there for 5 years before they could get ownership) and the California Gold rush, where people thought there was gold in California, and flocked to those new territories. So if those bigger territories like Kansas or Nebraska were to become free states, the tides would turn when it came to power. For example, the government had tried to enact the Wilmot Proviso, which banned slavery in all of the new territories. It was sadly annulled due to the fact that the South had more seats in Congress and stopped this from being enacted. Essentially, the more slave states there were, the longevity of slavery would live on.
In contrast, the North was not as pro slavery as the South. They believed it to be an immoral practice and should be abolished immediately. In comparison to the South’s economy, the North was more based on textiles and machinery. Therefore, they had less use for slavery than the South. With the South being so reliant on slaves, this caused a division between their mindsets. With that being said, the Fugitive Slave Law was difficult to enforce. By law, the North had to return slaves back to their owner, by whatever means necessary. If they were caught trying to help a slave escape or not returning the “property” to their rightful owner, they would be fined and put to jail. Northerners were horrified because they wanted no such part in the capturing of slaves. The Southern states, on the other hand, believed this to be a victory in their eyes because slaves were now truly their property—they could deal with them how they seem fit. If the Southern states wanted to work the slaves till they die, they could do so. With the Fugitive Slave Law being in effect, it made it harder for slaves to become free thus forever becoming a permanent role in the South’s economy.
Lincoln’s election was the confirming factor in the division between the North and the South.
Lincoln had a very pro-North approach, and was mainly concerned with putting an end to the expansion of slavery. Though he knew that he could not completely dissipate slavery, he did his best to preserve the Union while also trying to put a cap on slavery. To further bolster his campaign, he formulated the Emancipation Proclamation. The Emancipation Proclamation would allow slaves to become free no matter what state they were in. The South did not want Lincoln to be elected so they decided to ban his name from the ballot as well as even mentioning the Republican Party. That being said, with the election of Lincoln, the south believed that their needs would not be heard. The preceding presidents from Jackson to Buchanan were either Southerners or sympathizers of the South (they either wanted to continue slavery or keep the compromise working) which allowed the South’s needs to be catered to whatever they desired. For example, when Zachary Taylor was elected, William Seward was his “voice” in his ear. Seward made Taylor believe there was a higher law than their own—God—and God said to not compromise on slavery (Brands 248). With the power change, the South would have a hard time enacting laws that favored in their best interests—it would be easier for the North to enact anti-slave laws with a large majority of the seats within the Senate as well as the House of Representatives.
Therefore, they had very little say in government affairs when this happened. Once Lincoln was elected, South Carolina decided to secede just weeks later. Months after that, states such as Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina seceded as well. Whenever those states decided to secede, within the letter explaining why the left, their main mention was of slavery. Slavery, according to their letters, was the main reason why they were fighting the North—they needed and wanted to preserve their way of life. For example, Georgia and South Carolina, both mentioned how the issue of slavery and the government trying to control them was unjust and called for action. Georgia said “For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery” and South Carolina said “On the 4th day of March next, this party [the Republicans] will take possession of the Government. It has announced that … a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States” (David). It seems clear that these “rights” that the Southern states were fighting about during the War was not in fact about economic issues, but instead the act to preserve slavery. The South had no choice but to leave and form their own “country” in order to preserve their way of life. Though slavery was a debatable topic when it came to ethics, it was one of the primary causes of the Civil War. It caused great tension and division between two sides that reached great heights, which in turn gave cause for battle. The North and South debated on the technicalities such as the ethical and moral aspects. The South mainly wanted to keep slaves around because it was integral part of their economy. Also, their freedom would annihilate their foundation as well as them themselves which was one of their biggest fears.