What was the cause of the American Civil War?

What was the real cause of the American Civil War?
State Rights!
Slavery!
The right of the Confederacy to make its own decision; economically, socially and politically!
What was this struggle all about which killed over 600,000 American souls? I have a thesis buried somewhere in storage. I had to write about "the cause of the American Civil War" for a history class at EWU
Ok, all you Civil War Buffs!!!


^(

The South wanted to be its own nation because they believed that yankee way of life was incompatible with the South, that Southern states' rights were being restricted, and that they could emerge as a very powerfull nation because their cotton industry would attract the support of great world powers, IMO.

I don't think that a huge idealogical difference with regards to slavery was the or a major cause for the war.  The South, with its economy based on its large plantations, would naturally have slaves.

Oh, by the way, the number of lives lost is 618 thousand soldiers and 100 thousand civilians.

Edited by Faran

Slavery, especially when you consider Bleeding Kansas or the occasional Congressional Melee

states rights and slavery is nto an either or argument, in this case they are one in the same.  The confederate states wanted more localized control but the only state right that really mattered was slavery, so the issue os slavery is the issue of states rights and vice versa.  With the expansion westward in the wake of the war with Mexico there had to be numerous compromizes usually brought about by Henry Clay to settle the issue, int he long term they didnt hol dout.

Despite the fame of the large battles in the east it really comes down to political influence over the west.  These political consideration sin turn stemmed from economic issues regarding agriclulture and industry.  Of course I like to explain everything in economic terms but all people desire wealth so its a safe bet.

Had I lived at the time I would probably support the souths right to secede as a constitutional right vested in the states, but looking back on it from modern times I realize the threat to the US this would pose from the intervention of foreign powers and the US might have ended up like the Balkans or like Ireland with more wars over territory and forieng alliances than we have had as it is. 

I personally thinik the north would have socially evolved much better without the south and without the cost of lives and money to subgigate and if the rebellion had occured maybe later of earlier in history it would be fine...but in the middle of the 19th century the dangers of european expansionism and meddling was too threatening to have the US divided.

Mostly about state rights Stats rights, patrically becasue the souths think they are better then the blacks. ect..

Remember that in Kansas the main battle was between the people who wanted to bring in slaves, and the people who didn't want to allow any blacks in at all.

 

This generalization is ridiculously false, first many of the free soilersopposed slavery on religous grounds.  Second it was a common held view among Northern industrialists, the chief power of the Northern states, that slavery was responsible for what they saw as a weak, backward, decaying and utterly mediocre Southern society.  The North's budding labor movements also derided the institution of slavery as being insulting to the free working men of the North.

 

Remember that in Kansas the main battle was between the people who wanted to bring in slaves, and the people who didn't want to allow any blacks in at all.

 

Again no, what I would love is for one of the States-rights crowd to explain why it is that the noble Southern champions of States Rights were the ones to most aggressively expand Federal power.  Remember Southerners managed a disproporionate amount of power over the federal government and a majority of presidents and Supreme Court Justices were Southerners.  Southern leaders repeatedly sacrificed the rights of the states upon the alter of their peculiar institution.  Like it or not but no single federal action has reduced the authority of the states as much as the Dred Scott decision.

The South was basically a dependent colonial economy. Periphery to the British centre' like many other places at the time, both within the British Empire and outside it. It produced raw materials (cotton) for the British industry. It profited from free trade and the status quo. 

The North was more ambitious and it was industrialising. It profited from protectionism (until its locak industries were powerful enough to compete with the more developed foreign industries), and a more modern organisation of labour (i.e. wage workers instead of slaves).

The differences betweeen the two economies drove them to war. Everything else is secondary.  

Of course I like to explain everything in economic terms but all people desire wealth so its a safe bet.

Then the only difference between you and a marxist is that your knowledge of economy is stuck at Adam Smith.

yes, South Carolina (land of crazies as it always has been) senator (forget his name) beat Massachusettes senator Charles Sumner with his cane on the senate floor.  The good people of Massachusettes then re elected Sumner while he was recuperating in Europe as an act of defiance.

Originally posted by Laelius Remember that in Kansas the main battle was between the people who wanted to bring in slaves, and the people who didn't want to allow any blacks in at all.   This generalization is ridiculously false, first many of the free soilersopposed slavery on religous grounds.  Second it was a common held view among Northern industrialists, the chief power of the Northern states, that slavery was responsible for what they saw as a weak, backward, decaying and utterly mediocre Southern society.  The North's budding labor movements also derided the institution of slavery as being insulting to the free working men of the North.

I did say specifically 'in Kansas', which was also the subject of the previous post.

Of course there were religious abolitionists in the north, especially New England. But they were few on the ground in Kansas at the time.

Moreover the 'budding labor movements' were on the whole segregationist, and stayed that way for some time, especially in those that were to form the AFL.

The contemporary New York race riots weren't because the rioters felt insulted by slavery, but because they were threatened, economically, by the free blacks.

 

 

It was slavery. The complex socio-economic issues surrounding the war galvanized into this institution. Slavery was the cornerstone of the Southern economy. Slavery was the institution the rebel states wanted to protect from federal abolition. The right to hold slaves was the state�s right the south was afraid that Washington was going to be taken away from it.

The south cared more about state�s rights as they felt that the possibilities of a federal ban on slavery were getting bigger. Slavery was such an important issue for the south that they included a guarantee to the right to hold slaves in the Confederate constitution.

Even though the North didn�t start fighting against slavery, Lincoln turned the war into a fight to free the slaves. It was no coincidence that Lincoln used the Emancipation Proclamation as a threatening punishment towards the rebel states. At the same time, the proclamation energized abolitionists at home and won England as political allies in the conflict.