The American Civil War: Slavery Was Not the Only Issue - Essay Example

The American Civil War: Slavery Was Not The Only Issue The American Civil War is the most studied, debated, and analyzed event in US History. By 1860, the tensions between the North and the South threatened to dissolve the Union and forever change the shape of the future of the country. While there were many reasons behind the widening gap in the ideals and goals of the North and the South, slavery came to the forefront as the emotionally charged issue that could mobilize public opinion. In fact, with the exception of a few vocal abolitionists, most Northerners were lukewarm and indifferent to the slavery issue. In the South, slavery was becoming an outdated method of agricultural production as industrialization was taking hold. Similar economies in the Caribbean, Latin America, and Europe had already abandon the practice of slavery and there was no reason to believe that the US would not soon follow. However, by 1860 events and policies enacted since the nations birth had moved the US to the brink of civil war. If slavery was not really at the heart of Americas motivation for going to war, then what were the reasons? The reasons why nations go to war are usually various and complicated, and the American Civil War is not an exception. Although the main reason which provoked the two sides in the Civil war was slavery, three different aspects of the impact of slavery were at the center of the disagreements. These aspects are political, economic, and social. Slavery was certainly a moral issue in regards to the Civil War and was always a contributing influence to the multiple causes of war. Since Americas inception its leaders, such as Thomas Jefferson, well understood that slavery must soon be abolished. In an 1805 letter to William Burwell, Jefferson wrote, "The value of the slave is every day lessening; his burden on his master daily increasing. Interest is therefore preparing the disposition to be just; and this will be goaded from time to time by the insurrectionary spirit of the slaves".1 However, the founding fathers failed to include slavery in the original documents. In addition, the Federation was designed as a weak federal government with significant states rights. States rights, a central issue of the Civil War, had been heavily debated since the Continental Congress. The Articles of Confederation, the first US Constitution, confirmed that the Federal government should be weak and the states should retain their individual power.2 The need to abolish slavery, and the weak federal system helped perpetuate the issue towards ultimate war. The conflicting goals of States Rights and abolishing slavery resulted in a series of events in the first half of the 19th century that would further drag the country down the road to civil war. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 insured that slavery would be a permanent institution. The Compromise mandated that for every free state admitted to the Union, one slave state must also be admitted. The compromise was condemned by the abolitionists and free labor advocates as this moved slavery beyond the Mississippi and into the West. Phillips argues that, "these New Northwestern critics pointed out the intrinsic incompatibility of slave labor with a truly modern society, characterizing slave society as stagnant, degraded, reactionary, and inefficient while positing free-labor society as dignified, industrious, egalitarian, and above all else, progressive".3 Tensions were building between the North and South as early as 1820 as states rights and a weak federal system was incapable of dealing with the issue of slavery. By the 1850s, the Missouri Compromise had given way to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act reasserted states rights in regards to slavery. While the Missouri Compromise had prevented slavery from entering the territories in the Northwest, the 1854 Act allowed states to act with sovereignty, and the Fugitive Slave Act gave the slave states legal protection against the Norths abolitionist desires. During this period, the North was becoming more industrialized and the South was the center of the nations agricultural production. Economic tensions between the North and South were aggravated as they developed different economies and different social structures. The population was split as a wedge was driven into the heart of the unsolvable problem. Defining the Union was paramount and became "a strangely selective stance on federal power within the Republic, one that accepted Congresss authority to legislate on slavery while accommodating the states rights to protect its residents property, so long as neither interfere with individual liberties".4 By 1860, the lack of direction and political consensus had driven the nation to the brink of war. Though Lincoln was not anti-slavery, he was an advocate of a strong federal government that believed the slavery issue was an issue for the Union, not the states. The political, economic, and social divisions collided with the issue of state sovereignty that ultimately resulted in the secession of the South and the bloodiest war in American history. Political Environment One of the political divisions in America during the 1800s centered on the definition of freedom. While the country had established the freedom of religion, it had yet to define who was to be free and what freedom meant. Jefferson condemned the "hereditary magistracies" and implied that defining freedom would be a difficult undertaking when he said, "It is unfortunate, that the efforts of mankind to recover the freedom of which they have been so long deprived, will be accompanied with violence, with errors, & even with crimes".5 Defining freedom has been a political issue that has surrounded the press, speech, and individual liberty. In a country where "all men are created equal", it became the responsibility of politicians to define what it meant to be a man.6 Slavery had been allowed as slaves were defined as private property and were afforded the same legal protection that would be given a horse or a hammer. Slaves were not defined as men and they had no rights, including the right to vote. John Quincy Adams had once argued that slavery would end "because it has been explicitly promised in the Holy Scriptures, and because the progress towards that improvement in the condition of man upon earth is clearly indicated by the whole tenor of human history".7 As the North industrialized and mechanization made slavery less necessary for the agrarian South, the definition of freedom and man began to include the slave. Redefining freedom fell to the political structure in Washington, which was heavily dominated by Northern interests. Often, localities and communities were defined by their political party affiliation , which was greatly influenced by the local press. The free press held enormous political power in the middle 1800s and many Northern papers promoted abolition as a political issue. Papers such as William L. Garrisons Liberator was one of the most outspoken critics of slavery. His paper wrote of a black female abolitionist named Moses and said, "herself a fugitive, has eight times returned to the slave States for the purpose of rescuing others from bondage, and who has met with extraordinary success in her efforts".8 This fiery rhetoric was echoed by other newspapers sympathetic to the abolitionists cause. Pro-slavery papers, such as the Cincinnati Enquirer polarized the issue by claiming that the enfranchising of blacks would cause the public to be "pushed to the verge of a great civil convulsion and revolution".9 The abolitionist publications were often smuggled into the South spreading political discontent there. The activism of the abolitionists did not stop at anti-slavery societies and publications. Abolitionists embraced the many freedoms of America such as womens rights, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. By 1840, they had formulated the goal of abolishing slavery, not by moral decree, but by political action at the polls, and the Anti-Slavery Society resolved to deny the vote to any candidate that did not openly support abolition.10 The power of the anti-slavery vote and the cause of abolition sent the political spectrum into chaos. The period of 1840-1860 produced 5 one term presidencies as politicians debated the entry of slave states into the Union and the sovereignty of the states. Factional parties were entering the national political arena such as the Free Soil Party, The Liberty Party, and the Radical Political Abolitionists. In 1855, Frederick Douglass, a freed slave, ran for Secretary of State in New York, and in 1856 Gerrit Smith ran for President as a candidate for the Political Abolition Party.11 These political movements threatened the political power of the South and edged them closer to secession. By 1860, the loss of political power in the slave states combined with the economic tensions that had been building during the previous two decades, to cause Abraham Lincoln to take a hard political stand on the fate and future of the Union. Economic Concerns When President Lincoln took office in 1861, he understood that the nation could not continue to exist with the deep division over the slavery issue. Along with the political divisions over the definition of freedom and who should be free, the country had developed different economies in the North and the South. By 1860, the North had become highly industrialized and had built a reliance on steel, railroads, and interstate commerce. The South had maintained its agricultural base, which relied on slave labor. In the South, agriculture was produced by either plantations or on small subsistence farms that could not afford slaves. The political power in the South was held by the wealth of the plantation owners. To the plantation owners, and the mainstream economy, slavery was a necessity. Legislation during the thirty year period prior to the Civil War had largely been favorable to the North and perceived as punitive to the South. By 1830, the North was dependent upon selling manufactured products to the South that had gained wealth through the lucrative agricultural business. However, because the South could often import the same goods at cheaper prices abroad, the Northern controlled government placed heavy tariffs on several imports. As the country approached 1860 the tariffs, designed to raise revenue, were being seen as punitive in the South. Stampp, writing in regards to 1857 contends that, "For thirty years southern cotton, tobacco, and rice planters had been protesting that a protective tariff, by increasing the cost of the goods they consumed, was discriminatory legislation designed to enrich the manufacturers of the North".12 This created two factions in the country; free traders and protectionists. In the eyes of the Southerner, the Northern manufacturers were placing Southern agriculture interests "altogether subordinate and secondary".13 The nation was divided by free traders in the South and protectionist power in the North. Uncertain economic times of this period usually saw the North going into financial crisis, while the South was able to endure due to the high demand for its agricultural products. The stable economic times of 1850-1856 were followed by a sharp contraction in the financial section followed by widespread panic and the closing of banks. In 1857, the economy crashed and resulted in "5000 business failures, as well as disastrous losses to countless investors in farmlands, town properties, railroad bonds, and other securities".14 Most of the financial crisis was felt in the industrialized North that experienced widespread unemployment and massive public assistance programs. The South recovered quickly based on its agricultural products, and escaped the severe recession that destroyed the Norths industry and commerce. The pro-slavery factions seen this as vindication and justification for their labor system. A Texas newspaper editor argued that the cause of the collapse was the unfair system of tariffs. He argued that, "Money from the sale of southern staples was drawn off to the North, and in its place we have Yankee goods at an enormous premium shoved upon us".15 While the issue was economic equality, the point of contention was slavery and the polarization of this emotionally charged issue. Social Influences The political divisions over the issue of slavery and freedom, and the divisive economic systems were made even more pronounced due to the social frameworks that they operated in. By 1860, the North was built around the major cities and centers of manufacturing. Immigration had provided the workforce and created a greater sense of diversity than in the South. The South was composed of poor farmers and wealthy plantation owners. Almost all the political power and social capital was held by the white power structure. The South viewed themselves as victims and were able to unite behind the cause of slavery and states rights. The North saw anti-slavery as the way to modernization, while the South saw it as an imposition upon their free will. This was also seen in the social institution of the churches. In the South, religion was often used as a justification for white superiority, and slaves were forbidden to take part in, or practice any religion. Frederick Douglass describes his owner and says, "If religion had any effect on his character at all, it made him more cruel and hateful in all his ways. The natural wickedness of his heart had not been removed, but only reinforced, by the profession of religion".16 However, in 1846 the American Missionary Association implemented anti-slavery into its missions and professed it was based on the teachings of Jesus.17 The North and South had split culturally and socially based on their own interpretation of religion and their own self-interest. Neither side was anxious to go to war, but by 1860 there was no turning back the clock. In a letter from Alexander H. H. Stuart to the Reverend W. G. Brownlow of August 1856, Stuart writes, "I should deprecate the election to the Presidency of a man who was the representative of extreme opinion, whether southern or northern, as one of the most direful curses that could befal [sic] the country in the present condition of its affairs, Exasperation of feeling, civil dessension [sic] & most probably convulsion & disunion would follow".18 This feeling that war was inevitable could not override the solidarity the people felt for their culture and their society. Northerners would back the Union, and Southerners would fight for the South. In this war of ideology, ideology was not as important as the socio-economics and demographics of the participants that united them behind a single minded purpose.19 The differing social structures of the North and South further divided the country as the citizens of the Union rallied around the flag and the Confederates were drawn to an allegiance based on kinship and geographical location. Each perceived themselves as an in-group that were opposing an out-group. In conclusion, to say that the Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery would only be partially correct. In fact, this over-simplification would overlook the decades of tension that had built between the North and South over political and economic power. Abolitionists in the North were able to exert considerable political power through their anti-slavery publications. In addition, the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 perpetuated the issue of slavery and continued to expand the slave holding territory. The economic uncertainties of the period 1830-1860 resulted in protectionist policies that favored the North at the financial expense of the South. Tariffs on imported goods generated the revenue needed by the Union, but made many manufactured goods more expensive than foreign imports in the South. By 1860, the political divide and the separate economic systems created two cultures and two societies. As the inevitability of war loomed, allegiance was sworn based on socio-economic lines and the demographics of the participants. The bloodiest war in American history, the Civil War, seen slavery only as an influence on the political, economic, and social aspects that drove the country to war. Bibliography . Costa, Dora L., and Matthew E. Kahn. "Cowards and Heroes: Group Loyalty in the American Civil War." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 118, no. 2 (2003): 519-48 Douglass, Frederick. My Bondage and My Freedom. New York: Miller, Orton and Co, 1857. 197 Drake, Frederick D., ed. States Rights & American Federalism : A Documentary History. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999. 2 Foner, Eric. Forever Free: The Story of Emancipation and Reconstruction. New York: Vintage, 2006. Jefferson, Thomas. Letter to F.D. Ivernois February 6, 1795 . "Thomas Jefferson Papers." Library of Congress. United States Congress. Jefferson, Thomas. Letter to William Burwell January 28, 1805. "Thomas Jefferson Papers." Library of Congress. United States Congress Larson, Katherine. Bound for the Promised Land : Harriet Tubman, Portrait of an American Heroine . New York: Random House, 2003. National Archives. "Declaration of Independence." National Archives. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field(DOCID+@lit(tj080078)) (29 April 2008). Parsons, Lynn H. John Quincy Adams. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2001. Phillips, Christopher. Missouris Confederate : Claiborne Fox Jackson & the Creation of Southern Identity in the Border West . Columbia, Mo.: University of Missouri Press, 2000. 133 Stampp, Kenneth M. America in 1857 : A Nation on the Brink . Cary, N.C.: Oxford University Press, 1992. 119 Stuart, Alexander H. "Letter to Reverend W.G. Brownlow August 18, 1856." The Valley of the Shadow. Augusta County, Virginia. http://valley.vcdh.virginia.edu/personal/stuart/stuart18.html Wesley, Charles H. "The Participation of Negroes in Anti-Slavery Political Parties." The Journal of Negro History 29, no. 1 (1944): 32-74. . Read More