The origins of theAmerican Civil War were rooted in the desire of theSouthern states to preserve and expand theinstitution of slavery.[1] Historians in the 21st century overwhelmingly agree on the centrality of slavery in the conflict. They disagree on which aspects (ideological, economic, political, or social) were most important, and on theNorth's reasons for refusing to allow the Southern states to secede.[2] The pseudo-historicalLost Cause ideology denies that slavery was the principal cause of the secession, a view disproven by historical evidence, notably some of the seceding states' ownsecession documents.[3] After leaving the Union, Mississippi issued a declaration stating, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world."[4][5]
Background factors in the run up to the Civil War werepartisan politics,abolitionism,nullification versussecession, Southern and Northern nationalism,expansionism,economics, and modernization in theantebellum period. As a panel of historians emphasized in 2011, "while slavery and its various and multifaceted discontents were the primary cause of disunion, it was disunion itself that sparked the war."[6]
Abraham Lincoln won the1860 presidential election. His victory triggered declarations ofsecession by seven slave states of theDeep South, all of whose riverfront or coastal economies were based on cotton that was cultivated by slave labor. They formed theConfederate States of America after Lincoln was elected in November 1860 but beforehe took office in March 1861. Nationalists in the North and "Unionists" in the South refused to accept the declarations of secession. No foreign government ever recognized the Confederacy. The refusal of the U.S. government, under PresidentJames Buchanan, to relinquish its forts that were in territory claimed by the Confederacy, proved to be a major turning point leading to war. The war itself began on April 12, 1861, whenConfederate forces bombarded the Union's Fort Sumter, in the harbor ofCharleston, South Carolina.
Disagreements between slave states and free states were the main cause of disunion and the war.[7][8] Slavery had been controversial during the framing of theConstitution in 1787, which, because of compromises, ended up withproslavery and antislavery features.[9] The issue had confounded the nation since its inception and increasingly separated the US into aslaveholding South and a free North. The issue was exacerbated by the country's rapid territorial expansion, which repeatedly brought the question of whether new territory should be slaveholding or free. The issue had dominated politics for decades. Attempts to resolve the matter included theMissouri Compromise andCompromise of 1850, but these only postponed the showdown over slavery that would lead to the war.[10]
The motivations of the supporters of the Union and the Confederacy, respectively, were not uniform;[11][12] some Northern soldiers were indifferent on the subject of slavery, but a general pattern can be established.[13] As the war dragged on, more Unionists came to support slavery's abolition, either to cripple the Confederacy or on moral grounds.[14] Confederate soldiers fought to protect a Southern society of which slavery was an integral part.[15][16] Opponents of slavery considered it ananachronistic evil incompatible withrepublicanism. The strategy of the anti-slavery forces was containment—to stop the expansion of slavery and thereby put it on a path to extinction.[17] The slaveholding interests in the South denounced this as infringing upon their constitutional rights.[18] With large parts of the Southern population in slavery,white Southerners believed the emancipation of slaves would destroy Southern families, society, and the South's economy, with large amounts of capital invested in slaves and longstanding fears of a free black population.[19] Many Southerners feared a repeat of the1804 Haitian massacre,[20][21] when former slaves murdered most of Haiti's white population after thesuccessful slave revolution. HistorianThomas Fleming points to the historical phrase "a disease in the public mind" used by critics of this idea and proposes it contributed to the segregation in theJim Crow era following emancipation.[22] These fears were exacerbated by the1859 attempt byJohn Brown to instigate an armed slave rebellion in the South.[23]
By the mid-19th century the United States had become a nation of two distinct regions. Thefree states inNew England, theNortheast, and theMidwest[24] had a rapidly growing economy based on family farms, industry, mining, commerce, and transportation, with a large and rapidly growing urban population. Their growth was fed by a high birth rate and large numbers of European immigrants, especially fromIreland andGermany. The South was dominated by a settledplantation system based on slavery; there was some rapid growth taking place in the Southwest (e.g.,Texas), based on high birth rates and high migration from the Southeast; there was also immigration by Europeans, but in much smaller number. The heavily rural South had few cities of any size, and little manufacturing except in border areas such asSt. Louis andBaltimore. Slave owners controlled politics and the economy, although about 75% of white Southern families owned no slaves.[25]
Overall, the Northern population was growing much more quickly than the Southern population, which made it increasingly difficult for the South to dominate the national government. By the time of the 1860 election, the heavily agricultural Southern states as a group had fewerElectoral College votes than the rapidlyindustrializing Northern states. Abraham Lincoln was able to win the1860 presidential election without even being on the ballot in ten Southern states. Southerners felt a loss of federal concern for Southern pro-slavery political demands, and their continued domination of the federal government was threatened. This political calculus provided a very real basis for Southerners' worry about the relative political decline of their region, due to the North growing much faster in terms of population and industrial output.
At the time of the American Revolution, the institution of slavery was firmly established in the American colonies. It was most important in the six southern states from Maryland to Georgia, but the total of a half million slaves were spread out through all of the colonies. In the South, 40 percent of the population was made up of slaves, and as Americans moved into Kentucky and the rest of the southwest, one-sixth of the settlers were slaves. By the end of the Revolutionary War, theNew England states provided most of the American ships that were used in the foreign slave trade, while most of their customers were in Georgia andthe Carolinas.[26]
During this time many Americans found it easy to reconcile slavery withthe Bible, but a growing number rejected this defense of slavery. A small antislavery movement, led by theQuakers, appeared in the 1780s, and by the late 1780s all of the states had banned the international slave trade.[citation needed] No serious national political movement against slavery developed, largely due to the overriding concern over achieving national unity.[27] When the Constitutional Convention met, slavery was the one issue "that left the least possibility of compromise, the one that would most pit morality against pragmatism."[28] In the end, many would take comfort in the fact that the word "slavery" never occurs in the Constitution. Thethree-fifths clause was a compromise between those (in the North) who wanted no slaves counted, and those (in the South) who wanted all the slaves counted. The Constitution (Article IV, section 4) also allowed the federal government to suppress domestic violence, a provision that could be used against slave revolts. Congress could not ban the importation of slaves for 20 years. The need for the approval of three-fourths of the states foramendments made the constitutional abolition of slavery virtually impossible.[29]
The importation of slaves into the United Stateswas restricted in 1794, and finallybanned in 1808, the earliest date the Constitution permitted (Article 1, section 9). Many Americans believed that the passage of these laws had finally resolved the issue of slavery in the United States.[30] Any national discussion that might have continued over slavery was drowned out by other issues such as trade embargoes, maritime competition with Great Britain and France, theBarbary Wars, and theWar of 1812. A notable exception to this quiet regarding slavery was the New Englanders' association oftheir frustration with the war with their resentment of the three-fifths clause that seemed to allow the South to dominate national politics.[31]
During the aftermath of the American Revolution (1775–1783), the Northern states (north of theMason–Dixon line separating Maryland from Pennsylvania and Delaware) abolished slavery by 1804, although in some states older slaves were turned intoindentured servants who could not be bought or sold. In theNorthwest Ordinance of 1787, Congress (at that time under theArticles of Confederation) barred slavery from the Midwestern territory north of theOhio River.[32] When Congress organized the territories acquired through theLouisiana Purchase of 1803, there was no ban on slavery.[33]
With the admission of Alabama as aslave state in 1819, the U.S. was equally divided, with 11 slave states and 11 free states. Later that year, CongressmanJames Tallmadge Jr. of New York initiated an uproar in the South when he proposed two amendments to a bill admittingMissouri to the Union as a free state. The first would have barred slaves from being moved to Missouri, and the second would have freed at age 25 all Missouri slaves born after admission to the Union.[34] The admission of the new state of Missouri as a slave state would give the slave states a majority in the Senate, while passage of theTallmadge Amendment would give the free states a majority.
The Tallmadge amendments passed the House of Representatives but failed in the Senate when five Northern senators voted with all the Southern senators.[35] The question was now the admission of Missouri as a slave state, and many leaders sharedThomas Jefferson's fear of a crisis over slavery – a fear that Jefferson described as "a fire bell in the night". The crisis was solved by theMissouri Compromise, in whichMassachusetts agreed to cede control over its relatively large, sparsely populated and disputedexclave, theDistrict of Maine. The compromise allowedMaine to be admitted to the Union as a free state at the same time that Missouri was admitted as a slave state. The Compromise also banned slavery in theLouisiana Purchase territory north and west of the state of Missouri alongparallel 36°30′ north. The Missouri Compromise quieted the issue until its limitations on slavery were repealed by theKansas–Nebraska Act of 1854.[36]
In the South, the Missouri crisis reawakened old fears that a strong federal government could be a fatal threat to slavery. TheJeffersonian coalition that united southern planters and northern farmers, mechanics and artisans in opposition to the threat presented by theFederalist Party had started to dissolve after theWar of 1812.[37] It was not until the Missouri crisis that Americans became aware of the political possibilities of a sectional attack on slavery, and it was not until themass politics ofAndrew Jackson's administration that this type of organization around this issue became practical.[38]
TheAmerican System, advocated byHenry Clay in Congress and supported by many nationalist supporters of the War of 1812 such asJohn C. Calhoun, was a program for rapid economic modernization featuring protective tariffs,internal improvements at federal expense, and a national bank. The purpose was to develop American industry and international commerce. Since iron, coal, and water power were mainly in the North, this tax plan was doomed to cause rancor in the South, where economies were agriculture-based.[39][40] Southerners claimed it demonstrated favoritism toward the North.[41][42]
The nation suffered an economic downturn throughout the 1820s, and South Carolina was particularly affected. The highly protective Tariff of 1828 (called the "Tariff of Abominations" by its detractors), designed to protect American industry by taxing imported manufactured goods, was enacted into law during the last year of the presidency ofJohn Quincy Adams. Opposed in the South and parts of New England, the expectation of the tariff's opponents was that with the election ofAndrew Jackson the tariff would be significantly reduced.[43]
By 1828 South Carolina state politics increasingly organized around the tariff issue. When the Jackson administration failed to take any actions to address their concerns, the most radical faction in the state began to advocate that the state declare the tariff null and void within South Carolina. In Washington, an open split on the issue occurred between Jackson and his vice-president John C. Calhoun, the most effective proponent of the constitutional theory of state nullification through his 1828 "South Carolina Exposition and Protest".[44]
Congress enacted a newtariff in 1832, but it offered the state little relief, resulting in the most dangerous sectional crisis since the Union was formed. Some militant South Carolinians even hinted at withdrawing from the Union in response. The newly elected South Carolina legislature then quickly called for the election of delegates to a state convention. Once assembled, the convention voted to declare null and void the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 within the state. President Andrew Jackson responded firmly, declaring nullification an act oftreason. He then took steps to strengthen federal forts in the state.
Violence seemed a real possibility early in 1833 as Jacksonians in Congress introduced a "Force Bill" authorizing the President to use the federal Army and Navy in order to enforce acts of Congress. No other state had come forward to support South Carolina, and the state itself was divided on its willingness to continue the showdown with the federal government. The crisis ended when Clay and Calhoun worked to devise a compromise tariff. Both sides later claimed victory. Calhoun and his supporters in South Carolina claimed a victory for nullification, insisting that it had forced the revision of the tariff. Jackson's followers, however, saw the episode as a demonstration that no single state could assert its rights by independent action.
Calhoun, in turn, devoted his efforts to building up a sense of Southern solidarity so that when another standoff should come, the whole section might be prepared to act as a bloc in resisting the federal government. As early as 1830, in the midst of the crisis, Calhoun identified the right to own slaves – the foundation of the plantation agricultural system – as the chief southern minority right being threatened:
I consider the tariff act as the occasion, rather than the real cause of the present unhappy state of things. The truth can no longer be disguised, that the peculiar domestick [sic] institution of the Southern States and the consequent direction which that and her soil have given to her industry, has placed them in regard to taxation and appropriations in opposite relation to the majority of the Union, against the danger of which, if there be no protective power in the reserved rights of the states they must in the end be forced to rebel, or, submit to have their paramount interests sacrificed, their domestic institutions subordinated by Colonization and other schemes, and themselves and children reduced to wretchedness.[45][46]
On May 1, 1833, Jackson wrote of this idea, "the tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and Southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question."[47]
The issue appeared again after 1842'sBlack Tariff. A period of relative free trade followed 1846'sWalker Tariff, which had been largely written by Southerners. Northern industrialists (and some in western Virginia) complained it was too low to encourage the growth of industry.[48]
From 1831 to 1836William Lloyd Garrison and theAmerican Anti-Slavery Society initiated a campaign to petition Congress to endslavery in the District of Columbia and all federal territories. Hundreds of thousands of petitions were sent, with the number reaching a peak in 1835.[49]
TheHouse passed the Pinckney Resolutions on May 26, 1836. The first of these stated that Congress had no constitutional authority to interfere with slavery in the states and the second that it "ought not" do so in the District of Columbia. The third resolution, known from the beginning as the "gag rule", provided that:
All petitions, memorials, resolutions, propositions, or papers, relating in any way, or to any extent whatsoever, to the subject of slavery or the abolition of slavery, shall, without being either printed or referred, be laid on the table and that no further action whatever shall be had thereon.[50]
The first two resolutions passed by votes of 182 to 9 and 132 to 45. The gag rule, supported by Northern and Southern Democrats as well as some Southern Whigs, was passed with a vote of 117 to 68.[51]
Former PresidentJohn Quincy Adams, who was elected to the House of Representatives in 1830, became an early and central figure in the opposition to the gag rules.[52] He argued that they were a direct violation of theFirst Amendment right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". A majority of NorthernWhigs joined the opposition. Rather than suppress anti-slavery petitions, however, the gag rules only served to offend Americans from Northern states, and dramatically increase the number of petitions.[53]
Since the original gag was a resolution, not a standing House Rule, it had to be renewed every session, and the Adams' faction often gained the floor before the gag could be imposed. However, in January 1840, the House of Representatives passed the Twenty-first Rule, which prohibited even the reception of anti-slavery petitions and was a standing House rule. Now the pro-petition forces focused on trying to revoke a standing rule. The Rule raised serious doubts about its constitutionality and had less support than the original Pinckney gag, passing only by 114 to 108. Throughout the gag period, Adams' "superior talent in using and abusing parliamentary rules" and skill in baiting his enemies into making mistakes, enabled him to evade the rule and debate the slavery issues. The gag rule was finally rescinded on December 3, 1844, by a strongly sectional vote of 108 to 80, all the Northern and four Southern Whigs voting for repeal, along with 55 of the 71 Northern Democrats.[54]
There had been a continuing contest between the states and the national government over the power of the latter – and over the loyalty of the citizenry – almost since the founding of the republic. TheKentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, for example, had defied theAlien and Sedition Acts, and at theHartford Convention,New England voiced its opposition to PresidentJames Madison and theWar of 1812, and discussed secession from the Union.
Although a minority of free Southerners owned slaves, free Southerners of all classes nevertheless defended the institution of slavery[55] – threatened by the rise of free labor abolitionist movements in the Northern states – as the cornerstone of their social order.
Per the 1860 census, the percentage of slaveholding families was as follows:[56]
Mississippi was the highest at 49%, followed by South Carolina at 46%.
Based on a system ofplantation slavery, the social structure of the South was far more stratified and patriarchal than that of the North. In 1850 there were around 350,000 slaveholders in a total free Southern population of about six million. Among slaveholders, the concentration of slave ownership was unevenly distributed. Perhaps around 7 percent of slaveholders owned roughly three-quarters of the slave population. The largest slaveholders, generally owners of large plantations, represented the top stratum of Southern society. They benefited fromeconomies of scale and needed large numbers of slaves on big plantations to produce cotton, a highly profitable labor-intensive crop.[citation needed]
Per the 1860 Census, in the 15 slave states, slaveholders owning 30 or more slaves (7% of all slaveholders) owned approximately 1,540,000 slaves (39% of all slaves).[57](PDF p. 64/1860 Census p. 247)
In the 1850s, as large plantation owners outcompeted smaller farmers, more slaves were owned by fewer planters. Yet poor whites and small farmers generally accepted the political leadership of the planter elite. Several factors helped explain why slavery was not under serious threat of internal collapse from any move for democratic change initiated from the South. First, given the opening of new territories in the West for white settlement, many non-slaveowners also perceived a possibility that they, too, might own slaves at some point in their life.[58]
Second, small free farmers in the South often embracedracism, making them unlikely agents for internal democratic reforms in the South.[59] The principle ofwhite supremacy, accepted by almost all white Southerners of all classes, made slavery seem legitimate, natural, and essential for a civilized society. Racial discrimination was completely legal. White racism in the South was sustained by official systems of repression such as theslave codes and elaborate codes of speech, behavior, and social practices illustrating the subordination of blacks to whites. For example, the "slave patrols" were among the institutions bringing together southern whites of all classes in support of the prevailing economic and racial order. Serving as slave "patrollers" and "overseers" offered white Southerners positions of power and honor in their communities. Policing and punishing blacks who transgressed the regimentation of slave society was a valued community service in the South, where the fear of free blacks threatening law and order figured heavily in the public discourse of the period.[citation needed]
Third, manyyeomen and small farmers with a few slaves were linked to elite planters through the market economy.[60] In many areas, small farmers depended on local planter elites for vital goods and services, including access tocotton gins, markets, feed and livestock, and even loans (since the banking system was not well developed in the antebellum South). Southern tradesmen often depended on the richest planters for steady work. Such dependency effectively deterred many white non-slaveholders from engaging in any political activity that was not in the interest of the large slaveholders. Furthermore, whites of varying social class, including poor whites and "plain folk" who worked outside or in the periphery of the market economy (and therefore lacked any real economic interest in the defense of slavery) might nonetheless be linked to elite planters through extensive kinship networks. Sinceinheritance in the South was often unequitable (and generally favored eldest sons), it was not uncommon for a poor white person to be perhaps the first cousin of the richest plantation owner of his county and to share the same militant support of slavery as his richer relatives. Finally, there was nosecret ballot at the time anywhere in the United States – this innovation did not become widespread in the U.S. until the 1880s. For a typical white Southerner, this meant that casting a ballot against the wishes of the establishment meant running the risk of being sociallyostracized.[citation needed]
Thus, by the 1850s, Southern slaveholders and non-slaveholders alike felt increasingly encircled psychologically and politically in the national political arena because of the rise offree soilism andabolitionism in the Northern states. Increasingly dependent on the North for manufactured goods, for commercial services, and for loans, and increasingly cut off from the flourishing agricultural regions of the Northwest, they faced the prospects of a growing abolitionist movement in the North.
HistorianWilliam C. Davis disputes that Southern culture was different from that of Northern states or that it was a cause of the war, stating, "Socially and culturally the North and South were not much different. They prayed to the same deity, spoke the same language, shared the same ancestry, sang the same songs. National triumphs and catastrophes were shared by both." Davis argues that slavery, not culture, was the cause of the war: "For all the myths they would create to the contrary, the only significant and defining difference between them was slavery, where it existed and where it did not, for by 1804 it had virtually ceased to exist north of Maryland. Slavery demarked not just their labor and economic situations, but power itself in the new republic."[61]
With the outcry over developments in Kansas strong in the North, defenders of slavery – increasingly committed to a way of life that abolitionists and their sympathizers considered obsolete or immoral – articulated a militant pro-slavery ideology that would lay the groundwork for secession upon the election of a Republican president. Southerners waged a vitriolic response to political change in the North. Slaveholding interests sought to uphold their constitutional rights in the territories and to maintain sufficient political strength to repulse "hostile" and "ruinous" legislation. Behind this shift was the growth of the cotton textile industry in the North and in Europe, which left slavery more important than ever to the Southern economy.[62]
Southern spokesmen greatly exaggerated the power of abolitionists, looking especially at the great popularity ofUncle Tom's Cabin (1852), the novel and play byHarriet Beecher Stowe (whom Abraham Lincoln reputedly called "the little woman that started this great war"). They saw a vast growing abolitionist movement after the success ofThe Liberator in 1831 byWilliam Lloyd Garrison. The fear was arace war by blacks that would massacre whites, especially in counties where whites were a small minority.[63]
The South reacted with an elaborate intellectual defense of slavery.J. D. B. De Bow of New Orleans establishedDe Bow's Review in 1846, which quickly grew to become the leading Southern magazine, warning about the dangers of depending on the North economically.De Bow's Review also emerged as the leading voice for secession. The magazine emphasized the South's economic inequality, relating it to the concentration of manufacturing, shipping, banking and international trade in the North. Searching for Biblical passages endorsing slavery and forming economic, sociological, historical and scientific arguments, slavery went from being a "necessary evil" to a "positive good". Dr.John H. Van Evrie's bookNegroes and Negro slavery: The First an Inferior Race: The Latter Its Normal Condition – setting out the arguments the title would suggest – was an attempt to apply scientific support to the Southern arguments in favor of race-based slavery.[64]
Latent sectional divisions suddenly activated derogatory sectional imagery which emerged into sectional ideologies. As industrial capitalism gained momentum in the North, Southern writers emphasized whatever aristocratic traits they valued (but often did not practice) in their own society: courtesy, grace,chivalry, the slow pace of life, orderly life and leisure. This supported their argument that slavery provided a more humane society than industrial labor.[65] In hisCannibals All!,George Fitzhugh argued that the antagonism between labor and capital in a free society would result in "robber barons" and "pauper slavery", while in a slave society such antagonisms were avoided. He advocated enslaving Northern factory workers, for their own benefit. Abraham Lincoln, on the other hand, denounced such Southern insinuations that Northern wage earners were fatally fixed in that condition for life. To Free Soilers, the stereotype of the South was one of a diametrically opposite, static society in which the slave system maintained an entrenched anti-democratic aristocracy.[citation needed]
According to historianJames M. McPherson, exceptionalism applied not to the South but to the North after the North ended slavery and launched an industrial revolution that led to urbanization, which in turn led to increased education, which led to various reform movements, especially abolitionism, gaining strength. The fact that seven immigrants out of eight settled in the North (and the fact that most immigrants viewed slavery with disfavor), compounded by the fact that twice as many whites left the South for the North as vice versa, contributed to the South's defensive-aggressive political behavior. TheCharleston Mercury wrote that on the issue of slavery the North and South "are not only two Peoples, but they are rival, hostile Peoples."[66] AsDe Bow's Review said, "We are resisting revolution.... We are not engaged in a Quixotic fight for the rights of man.... We are conservative."[66]
Allan Nevins argued that the Civil War was an "irrepressible" conflict, adopting a phrase from SenatorWilliam H. Seward. Nevins synthesized contending accounts emphasizing moral, cultural, social, ideological, political, and economic issues. In doing so, he brought the historical discussion back to an emphasis on social and cultural factors. Nevins pointed out that the North and the South were rapidly becoming two different peoples, a point made also by historianAvery Craven. At the root of these cultural differences was the problem of slavery, but fundamental assumptions, tastes, and cultural aims of the regions were diverging in other ways as well. More specifically, the North was rapidly modernizing in a manner some perceived as threatening to the South. Historian McPherson explains:[66]
When secessionists protested in 1861 that they were acting to preserve traditional rights and values, they were correct. They fought to preserve their constitutional liberties against the perceived Northern threat to overthrow them. The South's concept of republicanism had not changed in three-quarters of a century; the North's had. ... The ascension to power of the Republican Party, with its ideology of competitive, egalitarian free-labor capitalism, was a signal to the South that the Northern majority had turned irrevocably towards this frightening, revolutionary future.
Harry L. Watson has synthesized research on antebellum southern social, economic, and political history. Self-sufficientyeomen, in Watson's view, "collaborated in their own transformation" by allowing promoters of a market economy to gain political influence. Resultant "doubts and frustrations" provided fertile soil for the argument that southern rights and liberties were menaced by Black Republicanism.[67]
J. Mills Thornton III explained the viewpoint of the average white Alabamian. Thornton contends that Alabama was engulfed in a severe crisis long before 1860. Deeply held principles of freedom, equality, and autonomy, as expressed inRepublican values, appeared threatened, especially during the 1850s, by the relentless expansion of market relations and commercial agriculture. Alabamians were thus, he judged, prepared to believe the worst once Lincoln was elected.[68]
The cry of Free Man was raised, not for the extension of liberty to the black man, but for the protection of the liberty of the white.
The politicians of the 1850s were acting in a society in which the traditional restraints that suppressed sectional conflict in the 1820s and 1850s – the most important of which being the stability of the two-party system – were being eroded as this rapid extension of democracy went forward in the North and South. It was an era when the mass political party galvanized voter participation to 80% or 90% turnout rates, and a time in which politics formed an essential component of American mass culture. Historians agree that political involvement was a larger concern to the average American in the 1850s than today. Politics was, in one of its functions, a form of mass entertainment, a spectacle with rallies, parades, and colorful personalities. Leading politicians, moreover, often served as a focus for popular interests, aspirations, and values.[citation needed]
.jpg)
Historian Allan Nevins, for instance, writes of political rallies in 1856 with turnouts of anywhere from twenty to fifty thousand men and women. Voter turnouts even ran as high as 84% by 1860. An abundance of new parties emerged 1854–56, including the Republicans, People's party men, Anti-Nebraskans, Fusionists,Know Nothings, Know-Somethings (anti-slavery nativists), Maine Lawites, Temperance men, Rum Democrats, Silver Gray Whigs, Hindus, Hard Shell Democrats, Soft Shells, Half Shells and Adopted Citizens. By 1858, they were mostly gone, and politics divided four ways. Republicans controlled most Northern states with a strong Democratic minority. The Democrats were split North and South and fielded two tickets in 1860. Southern non-Democrats tried different coalitions; most supported the Constitutional Union party in 1860.[citation needed]
Many Southern states held constitutional conventions in 1851 to consider the questions of nullification and secession. With the exception of South Carolina, whose convention election did not even offer the option of "no secession" but rather "no secession without the collaboration of other states", the Southern conventions were dominated by Unionists who voted down articles of secession.[citation needed]
Historians today generally agree that economic conflicts were not a major cause of the war. Though an economic basis to the sectional crisis was popular among the "Progressive school" of historians from the 1910s to the 1940s, few professional historians now subscribe to this explanation.[70] According to economic historian Lee A. Craig, "In fact, numerous studies by economic historians over the past several decades reveal that economic conflict was not an inherent condition of North-South relations during the antebellum era and did not cause the Civil War."[71]
When numerous groups tried at the last minute in 1860–61 to find a compromise to avert war, they did not turn to economic policies. The three major attempts at compromise, theCrittenden Compromise, theCorwin Amendment and the Washington Peace Conference, addressed only the slavery-related issues of fugitive slave laws, personal liberty laws, slavery in the territories and interference with slavery within the existing slave states.[72]
Historian James L. Huston emphasizes the role of slavery as an economic institution. In October 1860William Lowndes Yancey, a leading advocate of secession, placed the value of Southern-held slaves at $2.8 billion (~$77.5 billion in 2023).[73] Huston writes:
Understanding the relations between wealth, slavery, and property rights in the South provides a powerful means of understanding southern political behavior leading to disunion. First, the size dimensions of slavery are important to comprehend, for slavery was a colossal institution. Second, the property rights argument was the ultimate defense of slavery, and white southerners and the proslavery radicals knew it. Third, the weak point in the protection of slavery by property rights was the federal government. ... Fourth, the intense need to preserve the sanctity of property rights in Africans led southern political leaders to demand the nationalization of slavery – the condition under which slaveholders would always be protected in their property holdings.[74]
Thecotton gin greatly increased the efficiency with which cotton could be harvested, contributing to the consolidation of "King Cotton" as the backbone of the economy of the Deep South, and to the entrenchment of the system of slave labor on which the cotton plantation economy depended. Any chance that the South would industrialize was over.[citation needed]
The tendency ofmonoculture cotton plantings to lead to soil exhaustion created a need for cotton planters to move their operations to new lands, and therefore to the westward expansion of slavery from theEastern seaboard into new areas (e.g., Alabama, Mississippi, and beyond toEast Texas).[75]
The South, Midwest, and Northeast had quite different economic structures. They traded with each other and each became more prosperous by staying in the Union, a point many businessmen made in 1860–61. However,Charles A. Beard in the 1920s made a highly influential argument to the effect that these differences caused the war (rather than slavery or constitutional debates). He saw the industrial Northeast forming a coalition with the agrarian Midwest against the plantation South. Critics challenged his image of a unified Northeast and said that the region was in fact highly diverse with many different competing economic interests. In 1860–61, most business interests in the Northeast opposed war.[citation needed]
After 1950, only a few mainstream historians accepted the Beard interpretation, though it was accepted bylibertarian economists.[76] HistorianKenneth Stampp, who abandoned Beardianism after 1950, sums up the scholarly consensus:[77] "Most historians ... now see no compelling reason why the divergent economies of the North and South should have led to disunion and civil war; rather, they find stronger practical reasons why the sections, whose economies neatly complemented one another, should have found it advantageous to remain united."[78]
HistorianEric Foner argued that a free-labor ideology dominated thinking in the North, which emphasized economic opportunity. By contrast, Southerners described free labor as "greasy mechanics, filthy operators, small-fisted farmers, and moonstruck theorists".[79] They strongly opposed thehomestead laws that were proposed to give free farms in the west, fearing the small farmers would oppose plantation slavery. Indeed, opposition to homestead laws was far more common in secessionist rhetoric than opposition to tariffs.[80] Southerners such as Calhoun argued that slavery was "a positive good", and that slaves were more civilized and morally and intellectually improved because of slavery.[81]Karl Marx, developing his economic theories in the mid-19th century, expressed a class-based view of conditions in North America in 1861, believing "that the defeat of the 'slave-holdingaristocracy' would enable the world's free workers to prosper as small landholders on America's endless frontier".[82]
Led byMark Noll, a body of scholarship[83][84][85] has argued that the American debate over slavery became a shooting war in part because the two sides reached diametrically opposite conclusions based on reading the same authoritative source of guidance on moral questions: theKing James Version of theBible.
After theAmerican Revolution and thedisestablishment of government-sponsored churches, the U.S. experienced theSecond Great Awakening, a massiveProtestant revival. Without centralized church authorities, American Protestantism was heavily reliant on the Bible, which was read in the standard 19th-century Reformedhermeneutic of "common sense", literal interpretation as if the Bible were speaking directly about the modern American situation instead of events that occurred in a much different context, millennia ago.[83] By the mid-19th century this form of religion and Bible interpretation had become a dominant strand in American religious, moral and political discourse, almost serving as a de facto state religion.[83]
The Bible, interpreted under these assumptions, seemed to clearly suggest that slavery was Biblically justified:[83]
The pro-slavery South could point to slaveholding by the godly patriarchAbraham (Gen 12:5; 14:14; 24:35–36; 26:13–14), a practice that was later incorporated into Israelite national law (Lev 25:44–46). It was never denounced byJesus, who made slavery a model of discipleship (Mk 10:44). TheApostle Paul supported slavery, counseling obedience to earthly masters (Eph 6:5–9; Col 3:22–25) as a duty in agreement with "the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness" (1 Tim 6:3). Because slaves were to remain in their present state unless they could win their freedom (1 Cor 7:20–24), he sent the fugitive slaveOnesimus back to his ownerPhilemon (Phlm 10–20). The abolitionist north had a difficult time matching the pro-slavery south passage for passage. ... Professor Eugene Genovese, who has studied these biblical debates over slavery in minute detail, concludes that the pro-slavery faction clearly emerged victorious over the abolitionists except for one specious argument based on the so-calledCurse of Ham (Gen 9:18–27). For our purposes, it is important to realize that the South won this crucial contest with the North by using the prevailing hermeneutic, or method of interpretation, on which both sides agreed. So decisive was its triumph that the South mounted a vigorous counterattack on the abolitionists as infidels who had abandoned the plain words of Scripture for the secular ideology of theEnlightenment.[86]
Protestant churches in the U.S., unable to agree on what God's Word said about slavery, ended up with schisms between Northern and Southern branches: theMethodist Episcopal Church in 1844, theBaptists in 1845,[87] and thePresbyterian Church in 1857.[88] These splits presaged the subsequent split in the nation: "The churches played a major role in the dividing of the nation, and it is probably true that it was the splits in the churches which made a final split of the nation inevitable."[89] The conflict over how to interpret the Bible was central:
The theological crisis occasioned by reasoning like [conservative Presbyterian theologian James H.] Thornwell's was acute. Many Northern Bible-readers and not a few in the Southfelt that slavery was evil. They somehowknew the Bible supported them in that feeling. Yet when it came to using the Bible as it had been used with such success to evangelize and civilize the United States, the sacred page was snatched out of their hands. Trust in the Bible and reliance upon a Reformed, literal hermeneutic had created a crisis that only bullets, not arguments, could resolve.[90]
The result:
The question of the Bible and slavery in the era of the Civil War was never a simple question. The issue involved the American expression of a Reformed literal hermeneutic, the failure of hermeneutical alternatives to gain cultural authority, and the exercise of deeply entrenched intuitive racism, as well as the presence of Scripture as an authoritative religious book and slavery as an inherited social-economic relationship. The North – forced to fight on unfriendly terrain that it had helped to create – lost the exegetical war. The South certainly lost the shooting war. But constructive orthodox theology was the major loser when American believers allowed bullets instead of hermeneutical self-consciousness to determine what the Bible said about slavery. For the history of theology in America, the great tragedy of the Civil War is that the most persuasive theologians were the Rev. Drs.William Tecumseh Sherman andUlysses S. Grant.[91]
There were many causes of the Civil War, but the religious conflict, almost unimaginable in modern America, cut very deep at the time. Noll and others highlight the significance of the religion issue for the famous phrase inLincoln's second inaugural: "Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other."
.png)
Between 1803 and 1854, the United States achieved a vast expansion of territory through purchase (Louisiana Purchase), negotiation (Adams–Onís Treaty,Oregon Treaty), and conquest (theMexican Cession).[92] Of the states carved out of these territories by 1845, all had entered the union as slave states: Louisiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Florida, and Texas, as well as the southern portions of Alabama and Mississippi.[93] With the conquest of northern Mexico, including California, in 1848, slaveholding interests looked forward to the institution flourishing in these lands as well. Southerners also anticipated annexing as slave states Cuba (seeOstend Manifesto), Mexico, and Central America (seeGolden Circle (proposed country)).[93][94] Northern free soil interests vigorously sought to curtail any further expansion of slave soil. It was these territorial disputes that the proslavery and antislavery forces collided over.[95][96]
The existence of slavery in the southern states was far less politically polarizing than the explosive question of the territorial expansion of the institution in the west.[97] Moreover, Americans were informed by two well-established readings of the Constitution regarding human bondage: that the slave states had complete autonomy over the institution within their boundaries, and that the domestic slave trade – trade among the states – was immune to federal interference.[98][99] The only feasible strategy available to attack slavery was to restrict its expansion into the new territories.[100] Slaveholding interests fully grasped the danger that this strategy posed to them.[101][102] Both the South and the North believed: "The power to decide the question of slavery for the territories was the power to determine the future of slavery itself."[103][104]
By 1860, four doctrines had emerged to answer the question of federal control in the territories, and they all claimed to be sanctioned by the Constitution, implicitly or explicitly.[105] Two of the "conservative" doctrines emphasized the written text and historical precedents of the founding document, while the other two doctrines developed arguments that transcended the Constitution.[106]
One of the "conservative" theories, represented by theConstitutional Union Party, argued that the historical designation of free and slave apportionments in territories should become a Constitutional mandate. TheCrittenden Compromise of 1860 was an expression of this view.[107]
The second doctrine of Congressional preeminence, championed byAbraham Lincoln and theRepublican Party, insisted that the Constitution did not bind legislators to a policy of balance – that slavery could be excluded altogether in a territory at the discretion of Congress[107][108] – with one caveat: thedue process clause of the Fifth Amendment must apply. In other words, Congress could restrict human bondage, but never establish it.[106] TheWilmot Proviso announced this position in 1846.[107]
Of the two doctrines that rejected federal authority, one was articulated by northern Democrat of Illinois SenatorStephen A. Douglas, and the other by southern Democratic SenatorJefferson Davis of Mississippi and SenatorJohn C. Breckinridge of Kentucky.[106]
Douglas devised the doctrine of territorial or "popular" sovereignty, which declared that the settlers in a territory had the same rights as states in the Union to establish or disestablish slavery – a purely local matter.[106] Congress, having created the territory, was barred, according to Douglas, from exercising any authority in domestic matters. To do so would violate historic traditions of self-government, implicit in the US Constitution.[109] TheKansas–Nebraska Act of 1854 legislated this doctrine.
The fourth in this quartet is the theory of state sovereignty ("states' rights"),[109] also known as the "Calhoun doctrine" after the South Carolinian political theorist and statesmanJohn C. Calhoun.[110] Rejecting the arguments for federal authority or self-government, state sovereignty would empower states to promote the expansion of slavery as part of the federal union under the US Constitution – and not merely as an argument for secession.[111] The basic premise was that all authority regarding matters of slavery in the territories resided in each state. The role of the federal government was merely to enable the implementation of state laws when residents of the states entered the territories.[112] Calhoun asserted that the federal government in the territories was only the agent of the several sovereign states, and hence incapable of forbidding the bringing into any territory of anything that was legal property in any state. State sovereignty, in other words, gave the laws of the slaveholding statesextra-jurisdictional effect.[113]
"States' rights" was an ideology formulated and applied as a means of advancing slave state interests through federal authority.[114] As historian Thomas L Krannawitter points out, "[T]he Southern demand for federal slave protection represented a demand for an unprecedented expansion of federal power."[115]
By 1860, these four doctrines comprised the major ideologies presented to the American public on the matters of slavery, the territories and the US Constitution.[116] As a practical matter, however, slavery was practically defunct in the territories by 1860. The 1860 census showed: Utah Territory (controlled by Mormons) had 29 slaves; Nebraska had 15; Kansas had 2 (it was abolished there in early 1861 with statehood). There were no slaves in the other territories of Colorado, Washington, Nevada, New Mexico and Dakota, and none in the new states of California & Oregon. See1860 United States census#Population of U.S. states and territories.[117] See alsoHistory of slavery in Nebraska,History of slavery in Kansas, andHistory of slavery in Utah.
The abolitionists—those advocating the end of slavery—were active in the decades leading up to the war. They traced their philosophical roots back to certainPuritans, who believed slavery was morally wrong. An early Puritan writing on slavery wasThe Selling of Joseph, bySamuel Sewall in 1700. In it, Sewall condemned slavery and the slave trade, and refuted justifications for slavery.[118][119]
TheAmerican Revolution and the cause of liberty added impetus to the abolitionist cause. Even in Southern states, laws were changed to limit slavery and facilitatemanumission. The amount ofindentured servitude dropped dramatically throughout the country. AnAct Prohibiting Importation of Slaves sailed through Congress with little opposition. PresidentThomas Jefferson supported it, and it went into effect on January 1, 1808, the first day the Constitution permitted Congress to prohibit importation of slaves.Benjamin Franklin andJames Madison helped found manumission societies. Influenced by the Revolution, many slave owners freed their slaves, but some, such asGeorge Washington, did so only in their wills. The number of free black people as a proportion of the black population in theupper South increased from less than 1 percent to nearly 10 percent between 1790-1810.[120][121][122][123][124][125]
The establishment of theNorthwest Territory as "free soil"—no slavery—byManasseh Cutler andRufus Putnam would prove crucial. This territory doubled the size of the US. If those states had been slave states and voted for Lincoln's chief opponent in 1860, Lincoln would not have become president.[126][127][119]
.jpg)
In the decades leading up to the war, abolitionists, such asTheodore Parker,Ralph Waldo Emerson,Henry David Thoreau, andFrederick Douglass, repeatedly used the Puritan heritage of the country to bolster their cause. The most radical anti-slavery newspaper,The Liberator, invoked Puritan values over a thousand times. Parker, in urging New England congressmen to support slavery's abolition, wrote, "The son of the Puritan ... is sent to Congress to stand up for Truth and Right."[128][129] Literature spread the message; key works includedTwelve Years a Slave, theNarrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass,American Slavery as It Is, and the most important:Uncle Tom's Cabin, the best-selling book of the 19th century, aside from the Bible.[130][131][132]
An unusual abolitionist wasHinton Rowan Helper, whose 1857 book,The Impending Crisis of the South: How to Meet It, "[e]ven more perhaps thanUncle Tom's Cabin ... fed the fires of sectional controversy leading up to the...War."[133] A Southerner and virulent racist, Helper was nevertheless an abolitionist because he believed, and showed with statistics, that slavery "impeded the progress and prosperity of the South, ... dwindled our commerce, and other similar pursuits, into the most contemptible insignificance; sunk a large majority of our people in galling poverty and ignorance, ... [and] entailed upon us a humiliating dependence on the Free States...."[134]
By 1840 more than 15,000 people were members of abolitionist societies. Abolitionism became a popular expression ofmoralism and a factor that led to the war. In churches, conventions, newspapers, abolitionists advocated an immediate end to slavery.[135][136] The issue split religious groups, with even the main denominations forming rival Southern and Northern churches as the war approached. In 1845 theBaptists split over slavery into theNorthern Baptists andSouthern Baptists.[137][138]
Abolitionist sentiment was not exclusively religious or moral. TheWhig Party became increasingly opposed to slavery because it saw it as inherently against the ideals of capitalism and the free market. Whig leaderWilliam H. Seward (later Lincoln's secretary of state) proclaimed there was an "irrepressible conflict" between slavery and free labor, and that slavery had left the South backward and undeveloped.[139] As the Whig Party dissolved in the 1850s, the mantle of abolition fell to its newly formed successor, the Republican Party.[140]
Soon after theMexican War started and long before negotiation of the newUS-Mexico border, the question of slavery in the territories to be acquired polarized the Northern andSouthern United States in the most bitter sectional conflict up to this time, which lasted for a deadlock of four years during which theSecond Party System broke up,Mormon pioneers settledUtah, theCalifornia Gold Rush settledCalifornia, and New Mexico under a federal military government turned backTexas's attempt to assert control over territory Texas claimed as far west as theRio Grande. Eventually theCompromise of 1850 preserved the Union, but only for another decade.[141]
Proposals included:
A long-running dispute over the war's origin is to what extent states' rights triggered it. The consensus among historians is that the war wasnot fought about states' rights.[146][147][148][149] But the issue is frequently referenced in popular accounts and has much traction among Southerners. Southerners advocating secession argued that just as each state had decided to join the Union, a state had the right to secede—leave—at any time. Northerners (including pro-slavery President Buchanan) rejected that notion as opposed to the will of theFounding Fathers, who said they were setting up aPerpetual Union.[150]
HistorianJames M. McPherson points out that even if Confederates genuinely fought over states' rights, it boiled down to states' right to slavery.[149] McPherson writes concerning states' rights and other non-slavery explanations:
Whileone or more of these interpretations remain popular among theSons of Confederate Veterans and other Southern heritage groups, few professional historians now subscribe to them. Of all these interpretations, the states'-rights argument is perhaps the weakest. It fails to ask the question, states' rights for what purpose? States' rights, or sovereignty, was always more a means than an end, an instrument to achieve a certain goal more than a principle.[149]
States' rights was an ideology applied as a means of advancing slave state interests through federal authority.[149] Thomas Krannawitter notes the "Southern demand for federal slave protection represented a demand for an unprecedented expansion of Federal power."[151][152] Before the war, slavery advocates supported use of federal powers to enforce and extend slavery, as with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and theDred Scott v. Sandford decision.[153][154] The faction that pushed for secession often infringed on states' rights. Because of the overrepresentation of pro-slavery factions in the federal government, many Northerners, even non-abolitionists, feared theSlave Power conspiracy.[153][154] Some Northern states resisted the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act.Eric Foner states that the act "could hardly have been designed to arouse greater opposition in the North. It overrode state and local laws and legal procedures and 'commanded' individual citizens to assist, when called upon, in capturing runaways." He continues, "It certainly did not reveal, on the part of slaveholders, sensitivity to states' rights."[147] According toPaul Finkelman, "the southern states mostly complained that the northern states were assertingtheir states' rights and that the national government was not powerful enough to counter these northern claims."[148] TheConfederate Constitution also "federally" required slavery to be legal in all Confederate states and claimed territories.[146][155]
The victory of the United States over Mexico resulted in the addition of large new territories conquered from Mexico. Controversy over whether the territories would be slave or free raised the risk of a war between slave and free states, and Northern support for theWilmot Proviso, which would have banned slavery in the conquered territories, increased sectional tensions. The controversy was temporarily resolved by theCompromise of 1850, which allowed the territories ofUtah andNew Mexico to decide for or against slavery, but also allowed the admission ofCalifornia as a free state, reduced the size of the slave state ofTexas by adjusting the boundary, and ended the slave trade but not slavery itself in theDistrict of Columbia. In return, the South got a strongerfugitive slave law than the version mentioned in theUS Constitution. The Fugitive Slave Law would reignite controversy over slavery.
TheFugitive Slave Act of 1850 required Northerners to assist Southerners in reclaiming fugitive slaves, which many Northerners strongly opposed.Anthony Burns was among the fugitive slaves captured and returned in chains to slavery as a result of the law.Harriet Beecher Stowe's best-selling novelUncle Tom's Cabin greatly increased opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act.
Most people thought the Compromise had ended the territorial issue, butStephen A. Douglas reopened it in 1854. Douglas proposed the Kansas–Nebraska Bill with the intention of opening up vast new high-quality farm lands to settlement. As aChicagoan, he was especially interested in the railroad connections from Chicago into Kansas and Nebraska, but that was not a controversial point. More importantly, Douglas firmly believed in democracy at the grass roots – that actual settlers have the right to decide on slavery, not politicians from other states. His bill provided thatpopular sovereignty, through the territorial legislatures, should decide "all questions pertaining to slavery", thus effectively repealing theMissouri Compromise. The ensuing public reaction against it created a firestorm of protest in the Northern states. It was seen as an effort to repeal the Missouri Compromise. However, the popular reaction in the first month after the bill's introduction failed to foreshadow the gravity of the situation. As Northern papers initially ignored the story, Republican leaders lamented the lack of a popular response.
Eventually, the popular reaction did come, but the leaders had to spark it.Salmon P. Chase's "Appeal of the Independent Democrats" did much to arouse popular opinion. In New York,William H. Seward finally took it upon himself to organize a rally against the Nebraska bill, since none had arisen spontaneously. Press such as theNational Era, theNew-York Tribune, and local free-soil journals, condemned the bill. TheLincoln–Douglas debates of 1858 drew national attention to the issue of slavery expansion.
The American party system had been dominated by Whigs and Democrats for decades leading up to the Civil War. But the Whig party's increasing internal divisions had made it a party of strange bedfellows by the 1850s. An ascendant anti-slavery wing clashed with a traditionalist and increasingly pro-slavery southern wing. These divisions came to a head in the 1852 election, where Whig candidateWinfield Scott was trounced byFranklin Pierce. Southern Whigs, who had supported the prior Whig president Zachary Taylor, had been burned by Taylor and were unwilling to support another Whig. Taylor, who despite being a slaveowner, had proved notably anti-slavery despite campaigning neutrally on the issue. With the loss of Southern Whig support, and the loss of votes in the North to theFree Soil Party, Whigs seemed doomed. So they were, as they would never again contest a presidential election.[156]
The final nail in the Whig coffin was the Kansas-Nebraska act. It was also the spark that began theRepublican Party, which would take in both Whigs and Free Soilers and create an anti-slavery party that the Whigs had always resisted becoming.[156] The Act openedKansas Territory andNebraska Territory to slavery and future admission asslave states, thus implicitly repealing the prohibition on slavery in territory north of36° 30′ latitude that had been part of theMissouri Compromise.[157][158] This change was viewed by anti-slavery Northerners as an aggressive, expansionist maneuver by the slave-owning South. Opponents of the Act were intensely motivated and began forming a new party. The Party began as a coalition of anti-slaveryConscience Whigs such asZachariah Chandler andFree Soilers such asSalmon P. Chase.[159][160]
The firstanti-Nebraska local meeting where "Republican" was suggested as a name for a new anti-slavery party was held in aRipon, Wisconsin schoolhouse on March 20, 1854.[161] The first statewide convention that formed a platform and nominated candidates under the Republican name was held nearJackson, Michigan, on July 6, 1854. At that convention, the party opposed the expansion of slavery into new territories and selected a statewide slate of candidates.[162] The Midwest took the lead in forming state Republican Party tickets; apart fromSt. Louis and a few areas adjacent to free states, there were no efforts to organize the Party in the southern states.[163][164] So was born the Republican Party – campaigning on the popular, emotional issue of "free soil" in the frontier – which would capture theWhite House just six years later.[156]
In Kansas around 1855, the slavery issue reached a condition of intolerable tension and violence. But this was in an area where an overwhelming proportion of settlers were merely land-hungry Westerners indifferent to the public issues. The majority of the inhabitants were not concerned with sectional tensions or the issue of slavery. Instead, the tension in Kansas began as a contention between rival claimants. During the first wave of settlement, no one held titles to the land, and settlers rushed to occupy newly open land fit forcultivation. While the tension and violence did emerge as a pattern pitting Yankee and Missourian settlers against each other, there is little evidence of any ideological divides on the questions of slavery. Instead, the Missouri claimants, thinking of Kansas as their own domain, regarded the Yankeesquatters as invaders, while the Yankees accused the Missourians of grabbing the best land without honestly settling on it.
However, the 1855–56 violence in "Bleeding Kansas" did reach an ideological climax afterJohn Brown – regarded by followers as the instrument of God's will to destroy slavery – entered the melee. His assassination of five pro-slavery settlers (the so-called "Pottawatomie massacre", during the night of May 24, 1856) resulted in some irregular,guerrilla-style strife. Aside from John Brown's fervor, the strife in Kansas often involved only armed bands more interested in land claims or loot.
His zeal in the cause of freedom was infinitely superior to mine ... Mine was as the taper light; his was as the burning sun. I could live for the slave; John Brown could die for him.
Of greater importance than the civil strife in Kansas, however, was the reaction against it nationwide and in Congress. In both North and South, the belief was widespread that the aggressive designs of the other section were epitomized by (and responsible for) what was happening in Kansas. Consequently, "Bleeding Kansas" emerged as a symbol of sectional controversy.
Indignant over the developments in Kansas, the Republicans – the first entirelysectional major party in U.S. history – entered their first presidential campaign with confidence. Their nominee,John C. Frémont, was a generally safe candidate for the new party.[165] Although his nomination upset some of their Nativist Know-Nothing supporters (his mother was a Catholic), the nomination of the famed explorer of the Far West and ex-senator from California with a short political record was an attempt to woo ex-Democrats. The other two Republican contenders,William H. Seward andSalmon P. Chase, were seen as too radical.
Nevertheless, thecampaign of 1856 was waged almost exclusively on the slavery issue – pitted as a struggle between democracy and aristocracy – focusing on the question of Kansas. The Republicans condemned the Kansas–Nebraska Act and the expansion of slavery, but they advanced a program ofinternal improvements combining the idealism of anti-slavery with the economic aspirations of the North. The new party rapidly developed a powerful partisan culture, and energetic activists drove voters to the polls in unprecedented numbers. People reacted with fervor. Young Republicans organized the "Wide Awake" clubs and chanted "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men, Frémont!" With SouthernFire-Eaters and even some moderates uttering threats of secession if Frémont won, the Democratic candidate,Buchanan, benefited from apprehensions about the future of the Union.
Millard Fillmore, the candidate of the American Party (Know-Nothings) and the Silver Gray Whigs, said in a speech atAlbany, New York, that the election of a Republican candidate woulddissolve the Union. Abraham Lincoln replied on July 23 in a speech atGalena, Illinois;Carl Sandburg wrote that this speech probably resembledLincoln's Lost Speech: "This Government would be very weak, indeed, if a majority, with a disciplined army and navy, and a well-filled treasury, could not preserve itself, when attacked by an unarmed, undisciplined, unorganized minority. All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug – nothing but folly.We won't dissolve the Union, andyou shan't."[166]
.jpg)
TheLecompton Constitution andDred Scott v. Sandford (the respondent's name, Sanford,[167] was misspelled in the reports)[168] were both part of theBleeding Kansas controversy over slavery that arose as a result of theKansas–Nebraska Act, which wasStephen Douglas' attempt to replace theMissouri Compromise's ban on slavery in the Kansas and Nebraska territories with popular sovereignty, which would have allowed the people of a territory to vote for or against slavery. The Lecompton Constitution, which would have allowed slavery in Kansas, was the result of massive vote fraud by the pro-slaveryborder ruffians. Douglas defeated the Lecompton Constitution because it was supported by the minority of pro-slavery people in Kansas, and Douglas believed in majority rule. Douglas hoped that both the South and the North would support popular sovereignty, but neither did, as neither trusted Douglas.[citation needed]
The Supreme Court decision of 1857 inDred Scott v. Sandford escalated the controversy.Chief JusticeRoger B. Taney's decision said that blacks were "so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect,"[169] and that slavery could spread into the territories even if the majority of people in the territories were anti-slavery. Lincoln warned that "the nextDred Scott decision" could impose slavery on Northern states.[170][171]
Historians agree that the decision dramatically inflamed tensions leading to the Civil War.[172][173][174] In 2022 historianDavid W. Blight argued that the year 1857 was "the great pivot on the road to disunion...largely because of the Dred Scott case, which stoked the fear, distrust and conspiratorial hatred already common in both the North and the South to new levels of intensity."[175]
PresidentJames Buchanan decided to end the troubles in Kansas by urging Congress to admit Kansas as a slave state under the Lecompton Constitution. Kansas voters, however, soundly rejected this constitution by a vote of 10,226 to 138. As Buchanan directed his presidential authority to promoting the Lecompton Constitution, he further angered the Republicans and alienated members of his own party. Prompting their break with the administration, the Douglasites saw this scheme as an attempt to pervert the principle of popular sovereignty on which the Kansas–Nebraska Act was based. Nationwide, conservatives were incensed, feeling as though the principles ofstates' rights had been violated. Even in the South, ex-Whigs andborder state Know-Nothings – most notablyJohn Bell andJohn J. Crittenden (key figures in the event of sectional controversies) – urged the Republicans to oppose the administration's moves and take up the demand that the territories be given the power to accept or reject slavery.[citation needed]
As the schism in the Democratic party deepened, moderate Republicans argued that an alliance with anti-administration Democrats, especially Stephen Douglas, would be a key advantage in the1860 elections. Some Republican observers saw the controversy over the Lecompton Constitution as an opportunity to peel off Democratic support in the border states, where Frémont picked up little support. After all, the border states had often gone for Whigs with a Northern base of support in the past without prompting threats of Southern withdrawal from the Union.[citation needed]
Among the proponents of this strategy wasThe New York Times, which called on the Republicans to downplay opposition to popular sovereignty in favor of a compromise policy calling for "no more slave states" in order to quell sectional tensions. TheTimes maintained that for the Republicans to be competitive in the 1860 elections, they would need to broaden their base of support to include all voters who for one reason or another were upset with the Buchanan Administration.[citation needed]
Indeed, pressure was strong for an alliance that would unite the growing opposition to the Democratic Administration. But such an alliance was no novel idea; it would essentially entail transforming the Republicans into the national, conservative, Union party of the country. In effect, this would be a successor to theWhig party.[citation needed]
Republican leaders, however, staunchly opposed any attempts to modify the party position on slavery, appalled by what they considered a surrender of their principles when, for example, all the ninety-two Republican members of Congress voted for theCrittenden-Montgomery bill in 1858. Although this compromise measure blocked Kansas' entry into the union as a slave state, the fact that it called for popular sovereignty, instead of rejecting slavery altogether, was troubling to the party leaders.[citation needed]
In the end, the Crittenden-Montgomery bill did not create a grand anti-administration coalition of Republicans, ex-Whig Southerners in the border states, and Northern Democrats. Instead, the Democratic Party merely split along sectional lines. Anti-Lecompton Democrats complained that certain leaders had imposed a pro-slavery policy upon the party. The Douglasites, however, refused to yield to administration pressure. Like the anti-Nebraska Democrats, who were now members of the Republican Party, the Douglasites insisted that they – not the administration – commanded the support of most northern Democrats.[citation needed]
Extremist sentiment in the South advanced dramatically as the Southern planter class perceived its hold on the executive, legislative, and judicial apparatuses of the central government wane. It also grew increasingly difficult for Southern Democrats to manipulate power in many of the Northern states through their allies in the Democratic Party.[citation needed]
Historians have emphasized that the sense of honor was a central concern of upper-class white Southerners.[176] The idea of being treated like a second-class citizen was anathema and could not be tolerated by an honorable southerner. The abolitionist position held that slavery was a negative or evil phenomenon that damaged the rights of white men and the prospects of republicanism. To the white South this rhetoric made Southerners second-class citizens because it trampled what they believed was their Constitutional right to take their chattel property anywhere.[177][178]
On May 19 Massachusetts SenatorCharles Sumner gave a long speech in the Senate entitled"The Crime Against Kansas", which condemned theSlave Power as the evil force behind the nation's troubles. Sumner said the Southerners had committed a "crime against Kansas", singling out SenatorAndrew P. Butler of South Carolina.[179] Sumner famously cast the South Carolinian as having "chosen a mistress ... who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight – I mean the harlot, slavery!"[180] According to Williamjames Hull Hoffer, "It is also important to note the sexual imagery that recurred throughout the oration, which was neither accidental nor without precedent. Abolitionists routinely accused slaveholders of maintaining slavery so that they could engage in forcible sexual relations with their slaves."[181] Three days later, Sumner, working at his desk on the Senate floor, was beaten almost to death by CongressmanPreston S. Brooks, Butler's nephew. Sumner took years to recover; he became the martyr to the antislavery cause and said that the episode proved the barbarism of slave society. Brooks was lauded as a hero upholding Southern honor. The episode further polarized North and South, strengthened the new Republican Party, and added a new element of violence on the floor of Congress.[182]
Despite their significant loss in theelection of 1856, Republican leaders realized that even though they appealed only to Northern voters, they needed to win only two more states, such as Pennsylvania and Illinois, to win the presidency in 1860.[citation needed]
As the Democrats were grappling with their own troubles, leaders in the Republican party fought to keep elected members focused on the issue of slavery in the West, which allowed them to mobilize popular support. Chase wrote Sumner that if the conservatives succeeded, it might be necessary to recreate the Free Soil Party. He was also particularly disturbed by the tendency of many Republicans to eschew moral attacks on slavery for political and economic arguments.[citation needed]
The controversy over slavery in the West was still not creating a fixation on the issue of slavery. Although the old restraints on the sectional tensions were being eroded with the rapid extension ofmass politics and mass democracy in the North, the perpetuation of conflict over the issue of slavery in the West still required the efforts of radical Democrats in the South and radical Republicans in the North. They had to ensure that the sectional conflict would remain at the center of the political debate.[citation needed]
William Seward contemplated this potential in the 1840s, when the Democrats were the nation's majority party, usually controlling Congress, the presidency, and many state offices. The country's institutional structure and party system allowed slaveholders to prevail in more of the nation's territories and to garner a great deal of influence over national policy. With growing popular discontent with the unwillingness of many Democratic leaders to take a stand against slavery, and growing consciousness of the party's increasingly pro-Southern stance, Seward became convinced that the only way for the Whig Party to counteract the Democrats' strong monopoly of the rhetoric of democracy and equality was for the Whigs to embrace anti-slavery as a party platform. Once again, to increasing numbers of Northerners, the Southern labor system was increasingly seen as contrary to the ideals of American democracy.[citation needed]
Republicans believed in the existence of "the Slave Power Conspiracy", which had seized control of the federal government and was attempting to pervert the Constitution for its own purposes. The "Slave Power" idea gave the Republicans the anti-aristocratic appeal with which men like Seward had long wished to be associated politically. By fusing older anti-slavery arguments with the idea that slavery posed a threat to Northern free labor and democratic values, it enabled the Republicans to tap into the egalitarian outlook which lay at the heart of Northern society.[citation needed]
In this sense, during the 1860 presidential campaign, Republican orators even cast "Honest Abe" as an embodiment of these principles, repeatedly referring to him as "the child of labor" and "son of the frontier", who had proved how "honest industry and toil" were rewarded in the North. Although Lincoln had been a Whig, the "Wide Awakes" (members of the Republican clubs) used replicas of rails that he had split to remind voters of his humble origins.[citation needed]
In almost every northern state, organizers attempted to have a Republican Party or an anti-Nebraska fusion movement on ballots in 1854. In areas where the radical Republicans controlled the new organization, the comprehensive radical program became the party policy. Just as they helped organize the Republican Party in the summer of 1854, the radicals played an important role in the national organization of the party in 1856. Republican conventions in New York, Massachusetts, and Illinois adopted radical platforms. These radical platforms in such states asWisconsin,Michigan,Maine, andVermont usually called for the divorce of the government from slavery, the repeal of theFugitive Slave Laws, and no more slave states, as did platforms inPennsylvania,Minnesota, and Massachusetts when radical influence was high.[citation needed]
Conservatives at the Republican 1860nominating convention inChicago were able to block the nomination ofWilliam Seward, who had an earlier reputation as a radical (but by 1860 had been criticized byHorace Greeley as being too moderate). Other candidates had earlier joined or formed parties opposing the Whigs and had thereby made enemies of many delegates. Lincoln was selected on the third ballot. However, conservatives were unable to bring about the resurrection of "Whiggery". The convention's resolutions regarding slavery were roughly the same as they had been in 1856, but the language appeared less radical. In the following months, even Republican conservatives likeThomas Ewing andEdward Baker embraced the platform language that "the normal condition of territories was freedom". All in all, the organizers had done an effective job of shaping the official policy of the Republican Party.[citation needed]
Southern slaveholding interests now faced the prospects of a Republican president and the entry of new free states that would alter the nation's balance of power between the sections. To many Southerners, the resounding defeat of the Lecompton Constitution foreshadowed the entry of more free states into the Union. Dating back to the Missouri Compromise, the Southern region desperately sought to maintain an equal balance of slave states and free states so as to be competitive in the Senate. Since the last slave state was admitted in 1845, five more free states had entered. The tradition of maintaining a balance between North and South was abandoned in favor of the addition of more free soil states.[citation needed]
The Lincoln-Douglas debates were a series of seven debates in 1858 betweenStephen Douglas, United States senator from Illinois, andAbraham Lincoln, the Republican who sought to replace Douglas in the Senate. The debates were mainly about slavery. Douglas defended hisKansas–Nebraska Act, which replaced theMissouri Compromise ban on slavery in theLouisiana Purchase territory north and west ofMissouri withpopular sovereignty, which allowed residents of territories such as theKansas to vote either for or against slavery. Douglas put Lincoln on the defensive by accusing him of being a Black Republican abolitionist, but Lincoln responded by asking Douglas to reconcile popular sovereignty with theDred Scott decision. Douglas'Freeport Doctrine was that residents of a territory could keep slavery out by refusing to pass a slave code and other laws needed to protect slavery. Douglas' Freeport Doctrine, and the fact that he helped defeat the pro-slaveryLecompton Constitution, made Douglas unpopular in the South, which led to the 1860 split of the Democratic Party into Northern and Southern wings. The Democrats retained control of the Illinois legislature, and Douglas thus retained his seat in the U.S. Senate (at that time senators were elected by the state legislatures, not by popular vote); however, Lincoln's national profile was greatly raised, paving the way for his election as president of the United States two years later.[citation needed]
InThe Rise of American Civilization (1927),Charles and Mary Beard argue that slavery was not so much a social or cultural institution as an economic one (a labor system). The Beards cited inherent conflicts between Northeastern finance, manufacturing, and commerce and Southern plantations, which competed to control the federal government so as to protect their own interests. According to the economic determinists of the era, both groups used arguments over slavery and states' rights as a cover.[citation needed]
Recent historians have rejected the Beardian thesis. But their economic determinism has influenced subsequent historians in important ways.Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery (1974) byRobert William Fogel (who would win the 1993Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences) andStanley L. Engerman, wrote that slavery was profitable and that the price of slaves would have continued to rise. Modernization theorists, such asRaimondo Luraghi, have argued that as theIndustrial Revolution was expanding on a worldwide scale, the days of wrath were coming for a series of agrarian, pre-capitalistic, "backward" societies throughout the world, from the Italian and American South to India. But most American historians point out the South was highly developed and on average about as prosperous as the North.[citation needed]
A few historians[who?] believe that the serious financialPanic of 1857 and the economic difficulties leading up to it strengthened the Republican Party and heightened sectional tensions. Before the panic, strong economic growth was being achieved under relatively low tariffs. Hence much of the nation concentrated on growth and prosperity.[citation needed]
The iron and textile industries were facing acute, worsening trouble each year after 1850. By 1854, stocks of iron were accumulating in each world market. Iron prices fell, forcing many American iron mills to shut down.[citation needed]
Republicans urged western farmers and northern manufacturers to blame the depression on the domination of the low-tariff economic policies of southern-controlled Democratic administrations. However, the depression revived suspicion of Northeastern banking interests in both the South and the West. Eastern demand for western farm products shifted the West closer to the North. As the "transportation revolution" (canals and railroads) went forward, an increasingly large share and absolute amount ofwheat,corn, and other staples of western producers – once difficult to haul across theAppalachians – went to markets in theNortheast. The depression emphasized the value of the western markets for eastern goods and homesteaders who would furnish markets and respectable profits.[citation needed]
Aside from the land issue, economic difficulties strengthened the Republican case for higher tariffs for industries in response to the depression. This issue was important in Pennsylvania and perhaps New Jersey.[citation needed]
Meanwhile, many Southerners grumbled over "radical" notions of giving land away to farmers that would "abolitionize" the area. While the ideology of Southern sectionalism was well-developed before the Panic of 1857 by figures like J.D.B. De Bow, the panic helped convince even more cotton barons that they had grown too reliant on Eastern financial interests.[citation needed]
Thomas Prentice Kettell, former editor of theDemocratic Review, was another commentator popular in the South to enjoy a great degree of prominence between 1857 and 1860. Kettell gathered an array of statistics in his book onSouthern Wealth and Northern Profits, to show that the South produced vast wealth, while the North, with its dependence on raw materials, siphoned off the wealth of the South.[183] Arguing that sectional inequality resulted from the concentration of manufacturing in the North, and from the North's supremacy in communications, transportation, finance, and international trade, his ideas paralleled oldphysiocratic doctrines that all profits of manufacturing and trade come out of the land.[184] Political sociologists, such as Barrington Moore, have noted that these forms of romantic nostalgia tend to arise when industrialization takes hold.[185]
Such Southern hostility to the free farmers gave the North an opportunity for an alliance with Western farmers. After the political realignments of 1857–58 – manifested by the emerging strength of the Republican Party and their networks of local support nationwide – almost every issue was entangled with the controversy over the expansion of slavery in the West. While questions of tariffs, banking policy, public land, and subsidies to railroads did not always unite all elements in the North and the Northwest against the interests of slaveholders in the South under the pre-1854 party system, they were translated in terms of sectional conflict – with the expansion of slavery in the West involved.[citation needed]
As the depression strengthened the Republican Party, slaveholding interests were becoming convinced that the North had aggressive and hostile designs on the Southern way of life. The South was thus increasingly fertile ground for secessionism.[citation needed]
The Republicans' Whig-style personality-driven "hurrah" campaign helped stir hysteria in the slave states upon the emergence of Lincoln and intensify divisive tendencies, while Southern "fire eaters" gave credence to notions of the slave power conspiracy among Republican constituencies in the North and West. New Southern demands to re-open theAfrican slave trade further fueled sectional tensions.[citation needed]
From the early 1840s until the outbreak of the Civil War, the cost of slaves had been rising steadily. Meanwhile, the price of cotton was experiencing market fluctuations typical of raw commodities. After the Panic of 1857, the price of cotton fell while the price of slaves continued its steep rise. At the 1858 Southern commercial convention, William L. Yancey ofAlabama called for the reopening of the African slave trade. Only the delegates from the states of the Upper South, who profited from the domestic trade, opposed the reopening of the slave trade since they saw it as a potential form of competition. The convention in 1858 wound up voting to recommend the repeal of all laws against slave imports, despite some reservations.[citation needed]
On October 16, 1859, radical abolitionistJohn Brown led an attempt to start an armed slave revolt by seizing theU.S. Army arsenal atHarper's Ferry, Virginia (now West Virginia). Brown and twenty-one followers, including whites (three of whom were Brown's sons) and Blacks (three free Blacks, one freedman, and one fugitive slave), planned to seize the armory and use weapons stored there to arm Black slaves in order to spark a general uprising by the slave population.
Although the raiders were initially successful in cutting the telegraph line and capturing the Armory, they allowed a passing train to continue, and at the next station with a working telegraph the conductor alerted authorities to the attack. The raiders were forced by the militia and other locals to barricade themselves in the Armory, in a sturdy building later known asJohn Brown's Fort.Robert E. Lee (then a colonel in the U.S. Army) led a company of U.S. Marines in storming the armory on October 18. Ten of the raiders were killed, including two of Brown's sons; Brown himself along with a half dozen of his followers were captured; five of the raiders escaped immediate capture. Six locals were killed and nine injured; the Marines suffered one dead and one injured.
Brown was subsequently hanged by the state of Virginia for treason, murder, and inciting a slave insurrection, as were six of his followers.[186] (SeeJohn Brown's raiders.) The raid, trial, and execution were covered in great detail by the press, which sent reporters and sketch artists to the scene on the next train. It immediately became acause célèbre in both the North and the South, with Brown vilified by Southerners as a bloodthirsty fanatic, but celebrated by many Northern abolitionists as a martyr to the cause of ending slavery.
Initially,William H. Seward of New York,Salmon P. Chase of Ohio, andSimon Cameron of Pennsylvania were the leading contenders for the Republican presidential nomination. ButAbraham Lincoln, a former one-term House member who gained fame amid theLincoln–Douglas debates of 1858, had fewer political opponents within the party and outmaneuvered the other contenders. On May 16, 1860, he received the Republican nomination at their convention inChicago.[citation needed]
The schism in the Democratic Party over theLecompton Constitution and Douglas'Freeport Doctrine caused Southern "Fire-Eaters" to oppose front runnerStephen A. Douglas' bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. Douglas defeated the pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution for Kansas because the majority of Kansans were antislavery, and Douglas' popular sovereignty doctrine would allow the majority to vote slavery up or down as they chose. Douglas' Freeport Doctrine alleged that the antislavery majority of Kansans could thwart theDred Scott decision that allowed slavery by withholding legislation for a slave code and other laws needed to protect slavery. As a result, Southern extremists demanded a slave code for the territories, and used this issue to divide the northern and southern wings of the Democratic Party. Southerners left the party and in June nominatedJohn C. Breckinridge, while Northern Democrats supported Douglas. As a result, the Southern planter class lost a considerable measure of sway in national politics. Because of the Democrats' division, the Republican nominee faced a divided opposition. Adding to Lincoln's advantage, ex-Whigs from the border states had earlier formed theConstitutional Union Party, nominatingJohn C. Bell for president. Thus, party nominees waged regional campaigns. Douglas and Lincoln competed for Northern votes, while Bell, Douglas and Breckinridge competed for Southern votes.[citation needed]
Lincoln handily won the electoral votes:[187]
Voting [on November 6, 1860] split sharply along sectional lines. Lincoln was elected by carrying the electoral votes of the North; he had a sweeping majority of 180 electoral votes. Given the vote count in each state, he would still have won the electoral college even if all three opponents had somehow been able to merge their tickets.[citation needed]
The Alabama extremistWilliam Lowndes Yancey's demand for a federal slave code for the territories split the Democratic Party between North and South, which made the election of Lincoln possible. Yancey tried to make his demand for a slave code moderate enough to get Southern support and yet extreme enough to enrage Northerners and split the party. He demanded that the party support a slave code for the territoriesif later necessary, so that the demand would be conditional enough to win Southern support. His tactic worked, and lower South delegates left the Democratic Convention at Institute Hall inCharleston, South Carolina, and walked over to Military Hall. The South Carolina extremistRobert Barnwell Rhett hoped that the lower South would completely break with the Northern Democrats and attend a separate convention atRichmond, Virginia, but lower South delegates gave the national Democrats one last chance at unification by going to the convention atBaltimore, Maryland, before the split became permanent. The result was thatJohn C. Breckinridge became the candidate of the Southern Democrats, andStephen Douglas became the candidate of the Northern Democrats.[188]
Yancey's previous 1848 attempt at demanding a slave code for the territories was hisAlabama Platform, which was in response to the NorthernWilmot Proviso attempt at banning slavery in territories conquered fromMexico. JusticePeter V. Daniel wrote a letter about the Proviso to former PresidentMartin Van Buren: "It is that view of the case which pretends to an insulting exclusiveness or superiority on the one hand, and denounces a degrading inequality or inferiority on the other; which says in effect to the Southern man, 'Avaunt! you are not my equal, and hence are to be excluded as carrying a moral taint with you.' Here is at once the extinction of all fraternity, of all sympathy, of all endurance even; the creation of animosity fierce, implacable, undying."[189] Both the Alabama Platform and the Wilmot Proviso failed, but Yancey learned to be less overtly radical in order to get more support. Southerners thought they were merely demanding equality, in that they wanted Southern property in slaves to get the same (or more) protection as Northern forms of property.[188]
With the emergence of the Republicans as the nation's first major sectional party by the mid-1850s, politics became the stage on which sectional tensions were played out. Although much of the West – the focal point of sectional tensions – was unfit for cotton cultivation, Southern secessionists read the political fallout as a sign that their power in national politics was rapidly weakening. Before, the slave system had been buttressed to an extent by the Democratic Party, which was increasingly seen as representing a more pro-Southern position that unfairly permitted Southerners to prevail in the nation's territories and to dominate national policy before the Civil War. But Democrats suffered a significant reverse in the electoral realignment of the mid-1850s. 1860 was a critical election that marked a stark change in existing patterns of party loyalties among groups of voters; Abraham Lincoln's election was a watershed in the balance of power of competing national and parochial interests and affiliations.[190]
Immediately after finding out the election results, a special South Carolina conventiondeclared "that the Union now subsisting between South Carolina and other states under the name of the 'United States of America' is hereby dissolved;" by February six more cotton states would follow (Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas), forming theConfederate States of America. In 1960, Lipset examined the secessionist vote in each Southern state in 1860–61. In each state he divided the counties by the proportion of slaves, low, medium and high. He found that in the 181 high-slavery counties, the vote was 72% for secession. In the 205 low-slavery counties, the vote was only 37% for secession, and in the 153 middle counties, the vote for secession was at 60%.[191] Both the outgoing Buchanan administration and the incoming Lincoln administration refused to recognize the legality of secession or the legitimacy of the Confederacy. After Lincoln called for troops, four border states (that lacked cotton) seceded (Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee).[192] The Upper Southern States were in a dilemma: they wanted to retain their slaves but were afraid that if they joined with the lower southern states that were rebelling they would be caught in the middle of a conflict, and their states would be the battle ground. By staying in the Union the Upper Southern states felt that their slave rights would continue to be recognized by the Union.[citation needed]
Thetariff issue was and is sometimes cited – long after the war – byLost Cause historians andneo-Confederate apologists. In 1860–61 none of the groups that proposed compromises to head off secession brought up the tariff issue as a major issue.[193] Pamphleteers North and South rarely mentioned the tariff,[194] and when some did, for instance,Matthew Fontaine Maury[195] andJohn Lothrop Motley,[196] they were generally writing for a foreign audience.
The tariff in effect prior to the enactment of theMorrill Tariff of 1861 had been written and approved by the South for the benefit of the South. Complaints came from the Northeast (especially Pennsylvania) and regarded the rates as too low. Some Southerners feared that eventually the North would grow so big that it would control Congress and could raise the tariff at will.[197]
As for states' rights, while a state's right of revolution mentioned in the Declaration of Independence was based on the inalienable equal rights of man, secessionists believed in a modified version of states' rights that was safe for slavery.[198]
These issues were especially important in the lower South, where 47 percent of the population were slaves. The upper South, where 32 percent of the population were slaves, considered theFort Sumter crisis – especiallyLincoln's call for militiamen to march south to recapture it – a cause for secession. The northernmost border slave states, where 13 percent of the population were slaves, did not secede.[199]
WhenSouth Carolina seceded in December 1860, MajorRobert Anderson, a pro-slavery, former slave owner fromKentucky, remained loyal to the Union. He was the commanding officer of United States Army forces inCharleston, South Carolina – the last remaining important Union post in theDeep South. Acting upon orders from the War Department to hold and defend the U.S. forts, he moved his small garrison fromFort Moultrie, which was indefensible, to the more modern, more defensible,Fort Sumter in the middle ofCharleston Harbor. South Carolina leaders cried betrayal, while the North celebrated with enormous excitement at this show of defiance against secessionism. In February 1861 theConfederate States of America were formed and took charge. Jefferson Davis, the Confederate president, ordered the fort be captured. The artillery attack was commanded byBrig. Gen.P. G. T. Beauregard, who had been Anderson's student at West Point. The attack began April 12, 1861, and continued until Anderson, badly outnumbered and outgunned, surrendered the fort on April 14. The battle began the American Civil War, as an overwhelming demand for war swept both the North and South, with only Kentucky attempting to remain neutral.[200]
According to Adam Goodheart (2011), the modern meaning of theAmerican flag was also forged in the defense of Fort Sumter. Thereafter, the flag was used throughout the North to symbolize American nationalism and rejection of secessionism.
Before that day, the flag had served mostly as a military ensign or a convenient marking of American territory, flown from forts, embassies, and ships, and displayed on special occasions like theFourth of July. But in the weeks after Major Anderson's surprising stand, it became something different. Suddenly the Stars and Stripes flew – as it does today, and especially as it did afterSeptember 11 – from houses, from storefronts, from churches; above the village greens and college quads. For the first time American flags were mass-produced rather than individually stitched and even so, manufacturers could not keep up with demand. As the long winter of 1861 turned into spring, that old flag meant something new. The abstraction of the Union cause was transfigured into a physical thing: strips of cloth that millions of people would fight for, and many thousands die for.[201]
Abraham Lincoln's rejection of theCrittenden Compromise, the failure to secure the ratification of theCorwin Amendment in 1861, and the inability of the WashingtonPeace Conference of 1861 to provide an effective alternative to Crittenden and Corwin came together to prevent a compromise that is still debated by Civil War historians. Even as the war was going on, William Seward and James Buchanan were outlining a debate over the question of inevitability that would continue among historians.[202]
Two competing explanations of the sectional tensions inflaming the nation emerged even before the war. The first was the "Needless War" argument.[203] Buchanan believed the sectional hostility to be the accidental, unnecessary work of self-interested or fanatical agitators. He also singled out the "fanaticism" of the Republican Party. Seward, on the other hand, believed there to be an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces. Shelden argues that, "Few scholars in the twenty-first century would call the Civil War 'needless,' as the emancipation of 4 million slaves hinged on Union victory."[204]
The "Irrepressible Conflict" argument was the first to dominate historical discussion.[205] In the first decades after the fighting, histories of the Civil War generally reflected the views of Northerners who had participated in the conflict. The war appeared to be a stark moral conflict in which the South was to blame, a conflict that arose as a result of the designs of slave power.Henry Wilson'sHistory of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America (1872–1877) is the foremost representative of this moral interpretation, which argued that Northerners had fought to preserve the union against the aggressive designs of "slave power". Later, in his seven-volumeHistory of the United States from the Compromise of 1850 to the Civil War (1893–1900),James Ford Rhodes identified slavery as the central – and virtually only – cause of the Civil War. The North and South had reached positions on the issue of slavery that were both irreconcilable and unalterable. The conflict had become inevitable.[citation needed]
The idea that the war was avoidable became central among historians in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. Revisionist historians, led byJames G. Randall (1881–1953) at the University of Illinois,Woodrow Wilson (1856–1924) at Princeton University andAvery Craven (1885–1980) at the University of Chicago, saw in the social and economic systems of the South no differences so fundamental as to require a war. HistorianMark Neely explains their position:
Revisionism challenged the view that fundamental and irreconcilable sectional differences made the outbreak of war inevitable. It scorned a previous generation's easy identification of the Northern cause with abolition, but it continued a tradition of hostility to theReconstruction measures that followed the war. The Civil War became a needless conflict brought on by a blundering generation that exaggerated sectional differences between North and South. Revisionists revived the reputation of the Democratic party as great nationalists before the war and as dependable loyalists during it. Revisionism gave Lincoln's Presidency a tragic beginning at Fort Sumter, a rancorous political setting of bitter factional conflicts between radicals and moderates within Lincoln's own party, and an even more tragic ending. The benevolent Lincoln died at the moment when benevolence was most needed to blunt radical designs for revenge on the South.[206]
Randall blamed the ineptitude of a "blundering generation" of leaders. He also saw slavery as essentially a benign institution, crumbling in the presence of 19th century tendencies.[207] Craven, the other leading revisionist, placed more emphasis on the issue of slavery than Randall but argued roughly the same points. InThe Coming of the Civil War (1942), Craven argued that slave laborers were not much worse off than Northern workers, that the institution was already on the road to ultimate extinction, and that the war could have been averted by skillful and responsible leaders in the tradition of Congressional statesmenHenry Clay andDaniel Webster. Two of the key leaders in antebellum politics, Clay and Webster, in contrast to the 1850s generation of leaders, shared a predisposition to compromises marked by a passionate patriotic devotion to the Union.[208][209]
But it is possible that the politicians of the 1850s were not inept. More recent studies have kept elements of the revisionist interpretation alive, emphasizing the role of political agitation (the efforts of Democratic politicians of the South and Republican politicians in the North to keep the sectional conflict at the center of the political debate).David Herbert Donald (1920–2009), a student of Randall, argued in 1960 that the politicians of the 1850s were not unusually inept but that they were operating in a society in which traditional restraints were being eroded in the face of the rapid extension of democracy. The stability of the two-party system kept the union together, but would collapse in the 1850s, thus reinforcing, rather than suppressing, sectional conflict. The union, Donald said, died of democracy.[210]
Confederate leaders themselves made it plain that slavery was the key issue sparking secession.
Issues related to the institution of slavery precipitated secession.... It was not states' rights, it was not the tariff. It was not unhappiness with manners and customs that led to secession and eventually to war. It was a cluster of issues profoundly dividing the nation along a fault line delineated by the institution of slavery.
The loyal citizenry initially gave very little thought to emancipation in their quest to save the union.... Most loyal citizens, though profoundly prejudice[d] by 21st century standards[,] embraced emancipation as a tool to punish slaveholders, weaken the Confederacy, and protect the Union from future internal strife. A minority of the white populous invoked moral grounds to attack slavery, though their arguments carried far less weight than those presenting emancipation as a military measure necessary to defeat the rebels and restore the Union.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)Inextricably intertwined in the question was slavery, and it only became the more so in the years that followed.... [S]o long as the number of slave states was the same as or greater than the number of free states, then in the Senate the South had a check on the government.
Most historians ... now see no compelling reason why the divergent economies of the North and South should have led to disunion and civil war; rather, they find stronger practical reasons why the sections, whose economies neatly complemented one another, should have found it advantageous to remain united. Beard oversimplified the controversies relating to federal economic policy, for neither section unanimously supported or opposed measures such as the protective tariff, appropriations for internal improvements, or the creation of a national banking system. ... During the 1850s, federal economic policy gave no substantial cause for southern disaffection, for policy was largely determined by prosouthern [sic] Congresses and administrations. Finally, the characteristic posture of the conservative northeastern business community was far from antisouthern [sic]. Most merchants, bankers, and manufacturers were outspoken in their hostility to antislavery agitation and eager for sectional compromise in order to maintain their profitable business connections with the South. The conclusion seems inescapable that if economic differences, real though they were, had been all that troubled relations between North and South, there would be no substantial basis for the idea of an irrepressible conflict.
Forrest McDonald 2002 was invoked but never defined (see thehelp page).For additional sources:Bibliography of the American Civil War andBibliography of slavery in the United States
| Pre-18th century conflicts | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18th and 19th century conflicts |
| ||||||||
| World War I |
| ||||||||
| Interwar period |
| ||||||||
| World War II |
| ||||||||
| Cold War |
| ||||||||
| Post-Cold War |
| ||||||||
| Related | |||||||||
