The Nation grows dividedAs the United States began to establish itself in the world, its regions--most notably the North and the South--grew more solidly separate from each other. Driven by the success of the Eli Whitney's Cotton Gin, the South expanded its reliance on slave labor. Meanwhile, the Industrial Revolution established itself in the North by creating factories. As a result of the factories, northern cities rapidly grew, populations diversified, cutting edge technologies were adopted, and progressive ideas took hold. Slavery became a moral issue, one that saw its evils more clearly, and its abolition necessary.
Conversely, the South's economy--where Cotton was King and slavery was its crown--withdrew from urbanization. It remained solidly rural. Slavery was an economic issue. Rights and wrongs aside, slavery was an economic reality, necessary to maintain southern lifestyles. An attack on slavery was an attack on southern independence and served as evidence of the federal government's infringement on the Tenth Amendment. |
Causes of The Civil War
Cause 1: The Industrial Revolution and the Cotton Gin
The Industrial Revolution, simply explained, was the change from producing goods with muscle to producing them with machines. What it meant for the world could never be overstated: increased productivity and efficiency; a break from nature's daily and seasonal influence on human schedules; and creating the threshold for the modern world are only a few examples. However, in the United States, the industrial revolution drove a wedge between northern and southern economies. In 1793, a private tutor and inventor named Eli Whitney overheard some plantation owners discussing the difficulties of cleaning cotton. Removing the seeds from the cotton boll was a huge impediment to making cotton (and slavery) a viable part of the south's economy. In a moment of inspiration, he created the Cotton Gin, and forever changed US history. The Cotton Gin not only made cotton "King of the South," but it also made slavery a profitable part of Southern economy. The South's economy was singularly one product (cotton), with one workforce (slaves), and one machine (the cotton gin).
Meanwhile, industrialization in the north took a different direction. Factories, most notably textile mills, expanded in the north. While farming remained an important part of the north's economy, it continued to diversify. Along with agricultural goods, the north was also producing finished goods that previously could only be imported from Europe. With the growth of textile mills came the growth of commercially produced clothes. The North's economy now produced many products, driven by a workforce of paid, free, laborers and on machines and factories as various as the products produced.
The separate economies created two separate nations in one "united" country. In short, slavery in the South was an economic issue and an unavoidable reality. Conversely, in the North, slavery was moral issue, concerning right and wrong, and an example of the horrors man was capable of committing on fellow men.
Meanwhile, industrialization in the north took a different direction. Factories, most notably textile mills, expanded in the north. While farming remained an important part of the north's economy, it continued to diversify. Along with agricultural goods, the north was also producing finished goods that previously could only be imported from Europe. With the growth of textile mills came the growth of commercially produced clothes. The North's economy now produced many products, driven by a workforce of paid, free, laborers and on machines and factories as various as the products produced.
The separate economies created two separate nations in one "united" country. In short, slavery in the South was an economic issue and an unavoidable reality. Conversely, in the North, slavery was moral issue, concerning right and wrong, and an example of the horrors man was capable of committing on fellow men.
Cause 2: Manifest Destiny and the Future of the Nation
Leading up to the Civil War, nothing was more important in making slavery an national issue than Manifest Destiny. While Manifest Destiny carried with it a seemingly god-given zeal to unite the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans with our singular nation, it did not explain what the destiny of that conquered land would be. By 1819, a tense balance of slave states versus free states existed in Congress; there were 11 free and 11 slave states represented by Congressman. As our country grew in size, this balance was threatened. Each new state could give a voting edge in future legislation.
Congress was able to avoid widespread bloodshed with a series of compromises throughout the century. First the Compromise of 1820 (also known as the Missouri Compromise) was able maintain balance in Congress by admitting one slave state (Missouri) and one free state (Maine) at the same time, while also creating a plan for future states. However, this plan, which outlawed slavery in new states north of Missouri only firmly established a "North vs. South" mentality. Later, the Gold Rush in 1849, and California's resulting statehood challenged the Compromise of 1820's plan. The result was the Compromise of 1850 which admitted California as a Free State, while adding stricter slave laws with the Fugitive Slave Act.
The Compromise of 1850 also introduced the idea of Popular Sovereignty, by allowing the Utah and New Mexico Territories to vote on whether or not to become a free or slave state. Since neither was suitable to plantation life, both territories were uninterested in slavery and chose to outlaw slavery. This fairly straightforward appeal to a logical solution would have unforeseen consequences. An ambitious young Congressman from Illinois, Stephen Douglass, would put popular sovereignty to the test when he organized the territories of Nebraska and Kansas. The Kansas-Nebraska Act cancelled the Compromise of 1820 and applied popular sovereignty to all remaining territories. By placing the question of slavery in future states in the people's hands, popular sovereignty moved the debate out of the relative order of Congress and into the streets. Factions of pro-slavery southerners and abolitionist northerners who had steadily grown more radical and extreme found the Kansas Territory to be a literal battle ground for their causes. Bleeding Kansas foreshadowed a greater war to come.
Congress was able to avoid widespread bloodshed with a series of compromises throughout the century. First the Compromise of 1820 (also known as the Missouri Compromise) was able maintain balance in Congress by admitting one slave state (Missouri) and one free state (Maine) at the same time, while also creating a plan for future states. However, this plan, which outlawed slavery in new states north of Missouri only firmly established a "North vs. South" mentality. Later, the Gold Rush in 1849, and California's resulting statehood challenged the Compromise of 1820's plan. The result was the Compromise of 1850 which admitted California as a Free State, while adding stricter slave laws with the Fugitive Slave Act.
The Compromise of 1850 also introduced the idea of Popular Sovereignty, by allowing the Utah and New Mexico Territories to vote on whether or not to become a free or slave state. Since neither was suitable to plantation life, both territories were uninterested in slavery and chose to outlaw slavery. This fairly straightforward appeal to a logical solution would have unforeseen consequences. An ambitious young Congressman from Illinois, Stephen Douglass, would put popular sovereignty to the test when he organized the territories of Nebraska and Kansas. The Kansas-Nebraska Act cancelled the Compromise of 1820 and applied popular sovereignty to all remaining territories. By placing the question of slavery in future states in the people's hands, popular sovereignty moved the debate out of the relative order of Congress and into the streets. Factions of pro-slavery southerners and abolitionist northerners who had steadily grown more radical and extreme found the Kansas Territory to be a literal battle ground for their causes. Bleeding Kansas foreshadowed a greater war to come.
Cause 3: The Morality of Slavery Team ABOLITIONIST vs. Team Slavery
Meanwhile, in the North, many religious groups worked hard to end slavery in the United States. They were morally opposed to the idea that one person could "own" another. Abolitionists in the North wrote books, published newspapers spreading their ideas about slavery, and often assisted slaves to freedom when they ran away from their masters. None of these written materials was more powerful than Harriet Beecher Stowe's fictional work Uncle Tom's Cabin. It appealed mainly to northern women readers who were beginning to get politicized for the first time and helped to solidify the north as an abolitionist region.
Southerners believed that abolitionists were attacking their way of life and that the Federal government was not doing enough to protect their "property" from running away. Though Southern States had long established severe penalties for helping runaway slaves, federal laws were on the issue were largely ignored until the Fugitive Slave Act (1850). This new law required all Americans--Northerners and Southerners alike--to aid in the return of Fugitive Slaves to their owners or face imprisonment and fines. This law soon turned into a witch hunt that sent free and runaway African-Americans alike into slavery. Many northerners felt that the Fugitive Slave Act made them active participants in slavery's cause and grew resentful. Soon, the slavery debate worked its way through the courts. High-profile laws at court cases--aimed at appeasing the South--would further polarize the nation. The Dred Scott Decision in 1857 established that slaves were legally property and therefore had no claim to the freedom provided by "Free" States let alone the right to use the court system to sue for their freedom. Southerners were also concerned that new states were entering the Union that did not permit citizens to own slaves, because the more "free" states that entered the Union, the weaker Southerners' influence in the Federal government would become.
Southerners believed that abolitionists were attacking their way of life and that the Federal government was not doing enough to protect their "property" from running away. Though Southern States had long established severe penalties for helping runaway slaves, federal laws were on the issue were largely ignored until the Fugitive Slave Act (1850). This new law required all Americans--Northerners and Southerners alike--to aid in the return of Fugitive Slaves to their owners or face imprisonment and fines. This law soon turned into a witch hunt that sent free and runaway African-Americans alike into slavery. Many northerners felt that the Fugitive Slave Act made them active participants in slavery's cause and grew resentful. Soon, the slavery debate worked its way through the courts. High-profile laws at court cases--aimed at appeasing the South--would further polarize the nation. The Dred Scott Decision in 1857 established that slaves were legally property and therefore had no claim to the freedom provided by "Free" States let alone the right to use the court system to sue for their freedom. Southerners were also concerned that new states were entering the Union that did not permit citizens to own slaves, because the more "free" states that entered the Union, the weaker Southerners' influence in the Federal government would become.
Cause 4: States' Rights
Southerners felt that the Federal government was passing laws, such as import taxes, that treated them unfairly. They believed that individual states had the right to "nullify", or overturn, any law the Federal government passed. They also believed that individual states had the right to leave the United States and form their own independent country. Most people in the North believed that the concepts of "nullification" and "states' rights" would make the United States a weaker country and were against these ideas.