What Factors Caused the Civil War?

Was the Civil War certain, or could it have been evaded? Was slavery the only, or even the primary, cause of the war? Were other factors similar or more significant? The "irrepressible conflict" argument was the first to dominate historical debate. Henry Wilson's History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power (1872“1877) was a vivid version of this moral explanation of the war, which reasoned that Northerners had fought to preserve the Union and a system of free labor against the hostile proposals of the South.

This dispute started even before the war had begun. In 1858, Senator William H. Seward of New York took notice of two challenging accounts of the sectional pressures that were then combusting the nation. He claimed, those who believed the sectional hostility to be "accidental, unnecessary, the work of interested or fanatical agitators." In opposing them stood those (like Seward himself) who supposed there to be "an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces." For at least a century, the division Seward defined remained at the heart of scholarly debate. History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850 . . . (1893“1900) by James Ford Rhodes, identified slavery as the central, indeed virtually the only, cause of the war. "If the Negro had not been brought to America," he wrote, "the Civil War could not have occurred." Well, it probably would have happened anyways, given that it was also a financial reason, and/or labor system.

In spite of the fact that James Ford Rhodes put his most noteworthy accentuation on the ethical clash over subjugation, he recommended that the battle likewise mirrored basic contrasts between the Northern and Southern monetary frameworks. During the 1920s, the possibility of the war as an uncontrollable economic, as opposed to moral, clash got more full articulation from Charles and Mary Beard in The Rise of American Civilization (2 vols., 1927). Slavery, the Beards asserted, was less a cultural or social organization as a financial one, a system of labor. There were, they demanded, "intrinsic threats" between Northern industrialists and Southern growers. The possibility of the war as avoidable increased wide acknowledgment among researchers of history during the 1920s-1930s, when a gathering known as the "revisionists" offered new records of the birthplaces of the contention.

One of the main revisionists was Avery Craven, a main revisionist, put accentuation on the issue of subjugation than had James G. Randall, who found in the social and monetary frameworks of the North and the South no variances so essential as to require a war. Servitude, he proposed, was a basically kindhearted establishment; it was regardless as of now "disintegrating within the sight of nineteenth century inclinations." Only the political ineptitude of a "thoughtless age" of pioneers could represent the Civil War, he asserted. Be that as it may, in The Coming of the Civil War (1942), he too contended that slave workers weren't any better off than Northern modern laborers, that the establishment was at that point headed straight toward "extreme eradication," and that war could hence have been deflected had apt and mindful leaders attempted to create consensus among themselves.

Later defenders of the "irrepressible struggle" conflict have taken distinctive perspectives of the Northern and Southern positions on the argument however have been similarly stubborn on the job of culture and belief system in making them. Eric Foner, in Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men (1970) and different works, underscored the significance of the "free-work belief system" to Northern rivals of servitude. The ethical worries of the abolitionists were not the prevailing assumptions in the North, he guaranteed. Relatively, most Northerners (counting Abraham Lincoln) restricted servitude to a great extent since they dreaded it may spread toward the North and compromise the situation of free white workers.

Persuaded that Northern culture was better than that of the South, and progressively convinced of the South's expectations to broaden the "slave control" past its current fringes, Northerners were grasping a perspective that made conflict relatively inescapable. Eugene Genovese, composing of Southern slaveholders in The Political Economy of Slavery (1965), accentuated Northerners' conviction that the slave framework gave a definitely more altruistic culture than mechanical work, that the South had developed "a unique progress based on the connection of Master to slave." Just as Northerners were getting to be persuaded of a Southern risk to their financial framework, so Southerners trusted that the North had forceful and unfriendly plans on the Southern lifestyle. Like Foner, in this way, Genovese found in the social viewpoint of the segment the source of everything except inevitable conflict.

Historians who debate that the disagreement emerged naturally, even inescapably, out of a vital discrepancy between the sections, have therefore disagreed distinctly over whether moral, cultural, social, ideological, or economic issues were the primary problems of the Civil War. However, they were in standard accord that the battle between north and south became deeply embedded within the nature of the two societies, that slavery became one way or the other on the heart of the variations, and that the disaster that in the end emerged became irrepressible.

Different historians, however, have questioned that assumption and feature argued that the civil conflict could have been avoided, that the differences between north and south have been now not so essential as to have necessitated struggle. like proponents of the "irrepressible conflict" college, advocates of the battle as a "repressible war" emerged first within the nineteenth century. President James Buchanan, as an example, believed that extremist agitators had been responsible for the war, and many southerners writing of the warfare inside the late 19th century claimed that only the fanaticism of the republican celebration could account for the struggle.

More recent scholars of the war have kept elements of the revisionist understanding alive by stressing the role of political tension and ethnocultural struggles in the rise of the war. In 1960, for example, David Herbert Donald contended that the politicians of the 1850s were not bizarrely inept, but that they were functioning in a civilization in which traditional limits were being battered in the face of the swift extension of democracy. Thus the sober, statesmanlike answer of differences was predominantly difficult. Michael Holt, in The Political Crisis of the 1850s (1978), stressed the role of political parties and particularly the downfall of the second party system, rather than the conflicting differences between sectors, Though, in explaining the conflict, he dodged this placing fault on any other assembly.

Holt, however, also helped present another component to the dispute. He was, along with Paul Kleppner, Joel Silbey, and William Gienapp, one of the creators of an "ethnocultural" interpretation of the war. The Civil War began, the ethnoculturalists argue, in large part because the party system the most operative instrument for containing and facilitating sectional differences fell in the 1850s and formed a new Republican Party that intensified, rather than comforted, the divisions in the nation. But unlike other intellectuals, who saw the argument over slavery as the dominant factor in the collapse of the party system, the ethnoculturalists argue for other factors. For example, William Gienapp, in The Origins of the Republican Party, 1852“1856 (1987), argued that the crumbling of the party system in the early 1850s was less a result of the debate over slavery in the territories than of such ethnocultural issues as temperance and nativism. The Republican Party itself, he argued, was less a creation of antislavery fervor than one of constant competition with the Know-Nothing Party over ethnic and cultural matters.

Most recently, The United States is as at odds as it has been in decades. Fifty-five percent of Americans think the country is less united today than it was when Trump took office and thirteen percent of Americans have ended a friendship over political issues. Our disunity extends to where we decide to live, with many areas of the country becoming ever more politically homogeneous. While you can question if the country was ever really united, there is little doubt that between significant biased disagreement on fundamental moral issues and our increasing hostility towards members of the other side that the country is in a risky spot. It might not be surprising then that when Rasmussen Polling asked people How likely is that the United States will experience a second civil war sometime in the next five years? thirty-one percent of respondents said they thought it was likely with eleven percent saying it was very likely.

In many ways, this belief has the qualities of a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you really think that violence by the other side is imminent you are going to act accordingly. As history shows us, this can often include preemptive acts of violence. Such actions can make the situation spiral out of control in a haste. The mere fact that so many people think another Civil War is a possibility might make the event more likely. On the other hand, things looked a bit more dangerous in the lead up to the Civil War than they do now. Political violence in Kansas over the slavery inquiry lead to open warfare and made national headlines for years before Lincolns election. In 1856, A southern Congressman beat a Northern Senator with a cane on the Senate floor over his protestations to slavery. Two years after that a brawl took place in the House over similar issues. Given that President Trump is in office, you can almost expect history to repeat itself. Its as almost if Trump wants to flaunt his greed for control and power by starting disunity within our country by violating the constitutional right that, all men are created equal. Only allowing protection for his followers, and letting the rest of America have their Civil War oblivious to the fact that we are puppets on his strings.

In closing the Civil War was most definitely a pivotal part of American history nonetheless fought for more reasons than slavery, it was a compass set in time that would lead to todays modern ethical and moral values. Understand the reasons in which it took place, wasnt solely on one component or the other (slavery or for political reasons), the Civil War happened because political figures then couldnt come to a common consensus, and were inhumane in some ways. Most of them wanted to win more than they wanted to solve the primary issue at hand. Morality, a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society(s). You cant always get what you want, so you try anyways right?

Cite this page