The American Civil War stands as a momentous event in the History of the United States of America. It remains the Nation`s most bloody war of all time, spanning the course of 4 years and claiming the lives of an estimated 620,000 Americans. Whilst the War stands as one of the most infamous ‘Brothers VS Brothers’ bouts in history, the actual cause of the Civil War remains a major source of dispute amongst historians due to the plethora of other factors that could also be considered the ‘main cause’. Stampp regards Lincoln`s desire for the ‘Preservation of the Union’ and The Southern state secession as the most evident and factual causes for the American Civil War, whilst Foner and Owsley sharply contrast this view, believing slavery and the attack on State rights, respectively, remain the main causes due to the large objections it faced from those who opposed it and the South`s ambition to let it remain - in order to protect their constitutional rights. Despite these factors holding considerable influence in explaining different reasons as to why the war began, Southern secession and Lincoln`s aim to preserve the Union still stand as the fundamental causes of the war. The other 2 factors mentioned standing as mere triggers to why the South seceded, due to the federal interference on Southern institutions. It was due to this ‘exit’ by Southern states that Lincoln and the North then felt the war was inevitable to save the union that bonded the country together, and for these reasons, they indisputably stand as the primary causes in understanding why the Civil War began.
Stampp argues, 'Nothing is more sacred in a nationalistic age than the nation, hence the sanctity of any development which preserved the Union'. This stands as a convincing argument as Lincoln similarly believed the division Secession would cause, would ultimately destroy the unity that held these individual states together, and hence preservation was crucial. The strong withstanding support shown towards this idea can be seen when President Lincoln quoted in his oath of office, that whilst he remained the Head of State, he would ‘Preserve, Protect and Defend, the Constitution of the United States of America’. The Constitution provided the basis of the roots and ideas of the Founding Fathers in their desire to set up a ‘perpetual union’. Abraham Lincoln, one of the founders of the Republican Party, shared a strong conservative belief with his cohorts in upholding the principles of the US Constitution as it stood as a binding contract for the Country, essentially protecting the Union. Thus, Stampp is correct to argue this was the primary cause of the civil war. Additionally, we see further support for Stampp`s argument affirmed in Lincoln`s 1861 inaugural address, declaring State secession was ‘legally void’. This is because the Constitution had no articles for State Secession, prompting Lincoln and the North to believe seceding States were performing acts of Treason. Stampp argues further that the hatred both parts of the United States had for one another due to the polar opposite cultures they shared, heightened the difficulty of preventing a War from occurring - North and South were divided into two antagonistic sections, between whom there existed an intensity of animosity. This argument can be supported by Eckenrode, who said, 'The Civil War was, in essence, a struggle between that part of the Nordic race which was prepared to renounce its tradition of mastery for equality, modernism and material comfort, and that part of the race which was resolved, despite modernity, to remain true to its ruling instincts'. Both quotations overall indicate the clear differences shared between the North and South. The conflicting views of both sides of the USA resulted in the impossibility of peacefully resolving their differences. We see this obvious difference regarding both sides when the issue of secession was brought up. The North believed it was an illegal act, with the South believed they had the justifiable right to leave as they chose to enter the Union. Stampp also shows the North had an economic interest in preserving the Union. He describes the slave industry as, [the] supremacy of King Cotton in the USA, highlighting its national importance for the United States economically. The economic positives that the South brought through the vast successes of the Cotton industry can also be seen as another reason why Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union. This is because Lincoln and the Northerners understood the economic positives Southern agriculture gave the country -as the industry had been the driving force of providing the material for the British cotton manufacturing industry. In addition to the positives it had on international trade, using slaves, in 1859, the South had produced 3.5 million of the 4.25 million bales of cotton in the whole of the United States. The reason why Southern secession would have affected the North economically is because of how heavily reliant the North was on this king of the industry. Gates Jr provides clear evidence that supports Stampp`s argument in his essay, Why was Cotton King? as he quoted that New England`s economy [was] so fundamentally dependent upon the textile industry. The textile industry used Cotton; this benefitted the country as it generated large amounts of money for the country`s economy, it also influenced the country to be able to borrow and engage in trade in the global market. Stampp`s argument that this colossal industry was a national necessity and was a major reason why Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union is therefore valid. Stampp also argues that the preservation of the Union was essential because it stood as an emblem of union and power and of freedom and prosperity. Stampp`s quote tells us the importance of national unity in preserving the Union and why it needed to be fought for, not for money, land, or success but for the desperate aim to not see a collective institution of States fragment into separate insignificant states with their own agendas. This is convincing as Lincoln`s desire to preserve the Union and prevent further Secession played an extremely important role in reigniting Northern nationalism and personal views of what the Union brought to the overall representation of America. From 1776 onwards, the United States was a country that was intended to be a global recognition of Liberty, Power, and Unity. A lot of Northern admiration towards the Union is because of what it represented, and this is why the war was necessary, in order for this union to be protected. Stampp`s argument, however, can be criticized because America was palpably fragmented before the Civil War was even a topic of discussion. The conflict of cultures between the two sides was evident before, which is supported by Nevins, South, and North were rapidly becoming separate peoples {in the early 1800s}, therefore this divide cannot stand as the main cause of the War as it was always present. Despite this critique, Stampp`s argument that Southern secession and Northern preservation still stand as the most important factors to explain the cause of the Civil War. This is because the hostility between the North and South and the clear polarity that existed between both sides exacerbated extreme tensions, as mentioned before, difficulties resolving issues and the sharp conflicts in ideas meant one side wanted the complete opposite to the other side, showing us the eventual and inevitable climax of Civil War.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
While secession and the aim to preserve the Union remain the most important factors to explain why the Civil War began, Foner argues that slavery is ultimately regarded as the most important factor. He argues it may be asserted that there was a single cause, slavery. Rhodes supports Foner`s argument, ‘if the negro had never been brought to America, our Civil War could not have occurred’.These quotations are supported by the fact that if the South had not seen a possible erosion of their slave culture by Republican candidate Lincoln and his party, the chances of secession would have been much lower. The Republican Party, Lincoln, and the majority of the North had made it clear before 1860 that they opposed the existence of Slavery, Foner supports this, ‘The Republicans stand before the country, not only as the anti-slavery party but emphatically as the party of free labor’. Foner`s argument that slavery caused the Civil War is valid as it was only after Lincoln had won the 1860 Presidential election that 7 Southern States seceded, triggering the war. This was because the South`s economy relied heavily on the cotton industry, using slave labor, which Lincoln and the Republicans posed a grave threat to. We also see the importance of this viewpoint in Lincoln`s issuing of the 1863 emancipation proclamation, giving freedom to all slaves which shows it was always a fundamental aim of Lincoln, giving evidence to suggest Foner is correct to argue the issue of slavery was the principal cause of the war. Foner also argues that the opposition towards slavery was based on the threat it posed against the Northern ideology of ‘Free Labour’. Foner described this as being a core belief of the Republican ideology, {Free labor} meant labor with economic choices, with the opportunity to quit the wage-earning class. He emphasizes that a key aspect of Northern life was that the average man could work hard for his own wages and constantly strive to enhance his position in the American Capitalist society. Lincoln supported this as he famously said, this year [the man] labors for himself, and next year he will hire others to labor for him this quote again demonstrates the idealistic view Lincoln and the Republicans had about the perfect American society a playground of hard work and determination to eventually accomplish a life of wealth. This ideology completely contrasted with the way of life in the American South. Rather than it being a place like the North where you work your way up the class ladder, the South represented a fixed society where the aristocracy remained the ruling class and the slaves and workers continued to live beneath; it, therefore, lacked the societal progressiveness that the North posited. Lincoln supported this argument as he mentioned in 1854 that ‘Slavery’ deprives our Republican example of its just influence in the world. From this, we understand a major reason why the North wanted the institution abolished. Foner also argues that southerners believed that slavery would not be permanently safe under Republican administration the southern states alike knew that the election of 1860 had marked a turning point in the history of slavery. This indicates that it was due to the desire to keep slavery, that secession occurred; thus Foner`s claim that slavery was the main cause is convincing. Foner is also supported by the 19th century Confederate newspaper, Richmond Enquirer, Let Congress enact another boundary line, beyond which slavery shall not go, and we would say repeal it, or the South should go out of the Union. This ultimatum suggests the threat to slavery was a defining factor as to why Southern states wanted to secede and in turn, caused the Civil War. Foner also argues how slavery and its dangerous risk of expansion led to the American Civil War, the consequences of such expansion would be so disastrous for both Northern society and the nation`s future that Republicans were willing to risk civil war to prevent it. This is true as the Northern fear of Southern slave expansion to the West stemmed from the threat it posed to free labor and Northern culture. This is because many Northerners at the time believed the development of the Western part of the country was key to America`s advancement and evolution in becoming a greater nation this claim is supported by the French, ‘To bar slavery from the territories was to preserve the territories for the free laborers of the North’. The particular reason for this was that Northerners believed the West stood as an opportunity to enhance the ever-growing glory of the United States of America, an economical goldmine. This was due to the fact the land was vast and cheap and that if promoted right, would lead to constant migration which would in turn reduce labor competition in the North. This would have benefitted Northern society as a whole due to the rise in labor competition with the influx of immigrants that arrived from Europe, in hope of the American dream. Foner also acknowledged this Northern grievance, [surplus population] will necessarily interfere with the employment and the wages of our own citizens. This is valid as extensive land was extremely important in order to minimize the risk of these heavily populated industrial cities becoming too overcrowded with workers, which would have impacted livelihoods. Hence, the North required free land where there didn`t exist an institution that would effectively degrade the Northern ethos of self-determination and social prosperity as slavery would have done. Overall, Foner`s geographical claim argues that the North was willing to risk civil warâ in order to exterminate this expansion of slavery to the West as it would have continued to affect the principles of the North, subsequently affecting the American economical advancement of the future. However, this gained significance still cannot compete with the view that the preservation of the Union and secession remain the most important causes as it wasn`t until 1862, a year after the war began, that the abolition of slavery became a primary Northern aim- thus highlighting slavery was not the primary concern. Foner`s argument that slavery was the main cause is weakened by Lincoln himself, who wrote in a letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley that, If [he] could save the union without freeing any slave, [he] would do it. This provides us with clear evidence to suggest preserving the Union remained a clearer ambition of Lincoln and the North, demonstrating to us that preservation of the Union and secession outweigh slavery as being the primary causes of the war.
On the other hand, the attack on State`s rights, as argued by Owsley, is seen to have been the primary cause of the American Civil War. Owsley`s overall argument concludes that the Federal government was infringing and attacking State rights issues that were of no business to them, Let me repeat that peace between sections is placed in jeopardy when one section fails to respect the self-respect of the people of another section. The setup of the country adhered to the constitutional rule of federalism, which meant sovereignty is shared between the federal or central government and the individual states. This core principle was felt amongst the Southern states to have been continually violated by Lincoln and the Federal government, adding to the animosity and rising tensions between both parts of the country. Stephens supports this idea, it was a strife between the principles of the federation, on the one side, and Centralism on the other. This is valid as the concept was stated clearly by the Founding Fathers to ensure the Federal government would seldom interfere and engage in State matters. The South believed the North was disobeying a constitutional rule which in turn weakened the foundation of the United States. Stephens also supports this idea by explaining how the attacks were not only threatening the unity of the country- but would affect the political structure also, destroying the elementary and vital principles upon which the Government was founded. Owsley`s argument also states that this reoccurring attack on Southern rights and institutions began to be strengthened as a cause for increasing tensions due to the rise in Southern nationalism, which enhanced the belief in Southerners to fight back against these unconstitutional attacks. He argues that Northern insult of Southern culture was common, for example, during the Missouri debates, New Englanders denounced Southern society in general. Owsley argues that this led to a rise in tensions as the Southerners became resentful and apprehensive of future bad relations with the North. Now because of these insults and possible extermination of Southern institutions, Owsley argues rampant Southern nationalism began emerging across Dixieland, the effect upon the minds of the Southerners was far more profound since they were the recipients of this Niagara of insults and threats the Northerners were cold-blooded political adventurers. The conflict of ‘North’ VS ‘South’ was becoming more apparent due to the North`s apparent blatant and continual disrespect regarding the South`s way of life. This is convincing to suggest the attack on State rights was the fundamental cause of the war as we saw that it was only after this sentiment of betrayal and hatred towards the North increased, that war became a possible idea as they felt it was of vital importance to protect the South - we saw this when South Carolina`s infantry attacked the Union soldiers on Fort Sumter to kick off the war because they were imposing on ‘Southern’ land. Osterweis gives this argument further validity, the movement expanded in protest against, and in conflict with, the government. Moreover, both of the other arguments mentioned in this piece were ultimately issued as a source of a cause because of the Northern attacks on State rights. This is because secession would not have occurred if the South had not felt the Federal government was bombarding their slave institution, a State matter. This point is strengthened as it is clearly mentioned in South Carolina`s Declaration of the Causes of Secession that, those [Northern] States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation. This example highlights evidence to indicate the Northern harm to State rights had led to secession, perhaps suggesting it was the primary cause. This argument is supported by Benson who writes secession was necessary as their society was in ‘mortal danger’ from Northern aggressors. As I mentioned previously, this infraction of State rights highlighted by Owsley had been common throughout the years leading up to the war and it did generate a sense of Constitutional betrayal amongst the South by the North. An example of this is the FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT OF 1850. Schlesinger supports this case as being a key factor in increasing tensions, [the Southern slaveholding states] being sovereign and independent, had the unquestionable right to judge on its infractions and to resort to positive defiance of all unauthorized acts of the general government. This meant many of the Southerners felt they had the right to disobey laws imposed by the Federal government in order to ensure their constitutional sovereignty remained legitimate.
Stuck on your essay?
