What caused the civil war?

BLog dialogue

Participants will read the National Park Service publications entitled "Reconstruction" and "Slavery: Cause and Catalyst of the Civil War". They will write, and post two response essays related to the texts. Blog 1, What caused the Civil War? and Blog 2, Victories and Defeats Rebuilding the Nation. Participant essays should reflect their beliefs insights, ideas, teaching strategies etc. related to the ideas presented in both the text and additional online resources. In addition participants will respond to a minimum of four of their peer's posts within the blog. All blogs are posted below.

Civil Rights Reading Assignments

What caused the civil war?

2/3/2018

78 Comments

In October of 2017, White House, Chief of Staff, John Kelly caused a furor when he told Fox News host Laura Ingraham that the Civil War was caused by the “lack of an ability to compromise,” that the war was fought by “men and women of good faith on both sides,” and that Confederate General Robert E. Lee “was an honorable man,”. John Kelly, perhaps unwittingly, unleashed a battle into the public domain that had been brewing among historians sense the time of the war itself. i.e. what was the cause of the Civil War?.

Assignment Participants will read the National Park Service publication entitled "Slavery: Cause and Catalyst of the Civil War". They will reference the additional readings available from the web links below, when finished, they will write, and post a response essay related to the text addressing the question "What caused the Civil War?". Participant essays should reflect their beliefs insights, ideas, teaching strategies etc. related to the ideas presented in both the text and additional online resources. Participant's blogs are due May 1st. In addition participants will respond to a minimum two of their peer's posts within the blog. Blog Responses are due May, 4th. All blogs are posted below.

Ken Burns: Two Different Perspectives

Shelby Foote's Civil War History

The Civil War Was Not A Mistake: Atlantic Magazine

78 Comments

Deanna Herrmann

4/7/2018 06:18:09 pm

Deanna Herrmann
Blog 1
What Caused the Civil War?

South Carolina congressman, Lawrence Keitt, once said in a speech to the House on January 25, 1860, “Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depopulation and barbarism.” This quote is an example of the passionate view the Southern states took regarding slavery, and their fear of it being abolished. This fear of not having slaves to do the work in the South was a factor aiding to the cause of the Civil War. Another key issue along the path to war was states’ rights to keep slaves. In addition, the expansion of slavery was another dividing issue between the North and the South. As a result of these unresolved issues, it is clear that slavery was the central cause of the Civil War.

The economics of slavery played an important part in the desire for secession, which led the way to the Civil War. Southerners were worried about the economic power the North would get if slavery died out. When Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin, the demand for cotton rose worldwide. This led to the demand for more slaves, as selling cotton in the South was very profitable. The Southern states knew that the success of the cotton crops was dependent upon their working slaves. As explained in Slavery: Cause and Catalyst of the Civil War, Southerners worried that if the North got control in Congress and created tariffs, the South would be ruined. In other words, for economic success, the South would not consider abolishing slavery, nor did they feel they should be put in a position where they were forced to by the federal government.

Another factor that contributed to the Civil War was the issue of state’s rights. Moreover, Southern states having the right to keep slaves. Southern states wanted to use their authority over the federal government. This type of self-governing was meant to allow the states in the South to ignore laws that they didn’t support. Primarily, laws that kept them from owning slaves. In the article, The Civil War Was Not a Mistake, author Adam Serwer wrote, “The freedom that the South fought for was the freedom to own black people as property. The state’s rights for which the South battled were the right to own slaves and the right to expand slavery.” In short, the Union was becoming divided over states’ rights, with the South being worried that the North would not allow slavery, and the North worried that slavery would continue and might even move west.

The expansion of slavery was yet another move toward the division among the North and South, which would lead to secession, and ultimately war. Dwight Pitcaithley, former Chief Historian of the National Park Service stated, “The issue was not the existence of slavery, but the extension of it.” The balance of power was being threatened with territorial expansion of slavery as new states were being added to the Union. The South wanted to have slavery continue on to the west, while the North adamantly opposed allowing slavery in the new territories. This great debate would cause the creation of the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, as well as the Kansas-Nebraska Act. However, nothing seemed to help, and only brought on deaths and further disputes. The Republican party was opposed to slavery moving west with the new states. After Republican, Abraham Lincoln, won the election in 1860, the Southern states felt they had lost political control and saw no other solution than to secede from the Union. Meaning, this political decision for Southern states to secede led to war.

Differences between the North and the South regarding the issues of slavery, ultimately led to the Civil War. Shelby Foote’s Civil War History article quotes part of Abraham Lincoln’s famous 1858 House Divided speech in speaking about the United States he said, “cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved--I do not expect the house to fall--but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.” Lincoln was hopeful for slavery to be abolished peacefully. However, because of the economics of slavery, the states’ rights to control slavery, as well as the expansion of slavery, these ultimately led to the secession of the Southern states, which ultimately led to war. Thus, slavery led to war. In conclusion, had slavery not been an issue economically, politically, and territorially creating a division of the Union, the Confederates would not have opened fired on Fort Sumter in the early morning hours of April 12, 1861, signaling the start of the American Civil War.

Kim Perry

4/22/2018 04:17:47 pm

Deanna,
Your opening quote, ““Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depopulation and barbarism” sums up quite a bit. I thought it was interesting that Shelby Foote, in the “The Federalist” article compared the Civil War with the Holocaust: “Quite the opposite of the case of the Jews in the Holocaust, the blacks seem not to want to be reminded of history…” It’s one thing to have a museum to educate the public, but quite another to memorialize a part of our barbaric history through Confederate symbols, especially when you consider Coates’ point of view: “Celebrating the emancipation of southern slaves or the end of Jim Crow is impossible, because in his telling, black Americans never really came out of their bondage.”

Cherise Bateman

4/24/2018 07:40:07 pm

I agree with you when you said, "Southern states having the right to keep slaves" as well as "the expansion of slavery was another dividing issue between the North and the South." These two concepts lead to succession and then to war. The south depended on cotton and they needed slave labor to profit from the crop. Also, the south wanted to be able to do more self governing and be able to pick and choose which federal laws to follow. I feel you did a good job summed it up when you stated, "for economic success, the South would not consider abolishing slavery, nor did they feel they should be put in a position where they were forced to by the federal government."

Jill Johnson

4/29/2018 12:12:15 pm

I agree that the economics of slavery played an important part in the South's desire for secession from the Union. In "Slavery; Cause and Catalyst of the Civil War," it states that in 1619 slavery was introduced to Virginia, when a Dutch ship traded African slaves for food (pg.2). Southern plantations needed cheap labor to produce export crops for the British. Many merchants made their fortunes in the slave trade or by exporting the plantations' products.

Further, with the invention of Eli Whitney's cotton gin - a machine that revolutionized the production of cotton by speeding up the process of removing seeds from cotton fiber (https://www.history.com/topics/inventions/cotton-gin-and-eli-whitney) - demand for more cotton picked by enslaved people in the South skyrocketed (CC pg. 5).

The African slave trade was not only vital to the success of British North America, before the Revolutionary War, but by 1840, cotton produced in the American South earned more money than all other United States' exports combined (CC, pg. 5). The viability of cotton and Southerners' prosperity relied on slave labor.

Shannon Herbert

4/12/2018 09:37:19 am

The Civil War was fought over nothing less than our national identity. It was not (as argued by Kelly, Foote, Burns’ documentary, and proponents of the Lost Cause Campaign) about an inability to compromise. As Serwer states in his article, “You can trace the entire history of the United States through political compromises in which black rights are the currency of exchange.” For decades Americans sought compromise on this issue, but too many seemed unwilling to accept human bondage as a continued part of our growing national self. Slavery was the cause of the Civil War, but as Dwight Pitcaithley, former Chief Historian of the National Park Service said, “The issue was not the existence of slavery, but the extension of it” (9).
In the decades preceding the war, slavery in the South (and its resulting cotton crop) were the economic engine of the country. As it points out in the National Park Service booklet, Slavery: Cause and Catalyst of the Civil War, slavery seemed destined to fade until Eli Whitney’s cotton gin made the type of cotton grown in the U.S. more suitable for textile use. In the following decades, cotton production soared and “many white Southerners came to believe that the viability of cotton as a crop depended on slave labor. Over time, most took for granted that their prosperity, even their way of life, was inseparable from African slavery” (5). The growth of industry in the North was also dependent on cotton, as factories and mills were established in the wake of the cotton windfall and fueled by cheap immigrant labor.
Additionally, the excitement over Westward Expansion added fuel to the fire over slavery. The belief in America’s “Manifest Destiny” led to almost constant growth during the nineteenth century. Each time the country expanded, the new area’s proposed economic future became fodder in the fight; each time the country compromised in order to avoid an explosion. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act: all sought to preserve a delicate balance and avoid war. Without America’s continual expansion westward, perhaps slavery would have worn itself out as the progeny of Southern slave owners had nowhere to start their own plantations, but for decades the U.S. seemed “destined” to expand from coast to coast and continued to grow. Southern plantation owners wanted land available for their children to continue their way of life; northern farmers wanted a place for their way of life that didn’t involve competing with an expanding system of large-scale slave labor.
Eventually, bloodshed in Kansas made peaceful compromise between the two sides in the slavery issue seem impossible. Stephen Douglas’s idea of “popular sovereignty,” in which each territory would decide whether to be a slave or free state, “turned the Kansas territory into a bloody battleground” (15). Major violent outbreaks erupted across eastern Kansas in 1856, the most famous being John Brown’s revolt against pro-slavery settlers. In fact, a resource that I use with my students called America’s History in the Making by Annenberg Learner makes the point that, “It could be argued that the Civil War began not at Fort Sumter, but west of the Mississippi River, in Kansas.” These violent skirmishes in Kansas accelerated the pace toward war and served as precursors of the great upheaval that nearly ended the Union.
However, many Americans still believe that the Civil War was an issue of states’ rights. This assertion ignores the fact that the “rights” they were fighting for included the “right” to keep others in forced servitude. Serwer points out, “The persistence of this myth is in part a desire to avoid the unfathomable reality that half the country dedicated itself to the monstrous cause of human bondage. The freedom that the South fought for was the freedom to own black people as property.” Moreover, every state that seceded from the union mentioned slavery in their declarations of secession. Serwer says, “The seceding states all noted the centrality of slavery in their declarations of secession.”
Ultimately, Fields’s view that “treats the Civil War as simply part of a longer struggle for black equality in America” that is highlighted in The Washington Post article is the one I favor. We compromised on basic human rights to a horrifying extreme before the war, and to continue to do so would have been a betrayal of our most sacred and fundamental ideals about liberty and equality. Yet, without the constant, frenzied acquisition of land in the mid-19th century, perhaps a peaceful resolution and eventual end to slavery would have been possible.

Kim Perry

4/22/2018 02:02:05 pm

Shannon,
I so agree with the quote by Serwer that “The persistence of this myth is in part a desire to avoid the unfathomable reality that half the country dedicated itself to the monstrous cause of human bondage. The freedom that the South fought for was the freedom to own black people as property.” Moreover, as he discusses John Kelly’s comments about the Civil War, he states, “Kelly’s remarks, then, are part of an American tradition of historical denial, and he is hardly its only adherent.” I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, but I am. Even Geoffrey Ward, who co-authored The Civil War with Ken Burns incorrectly describes Robert E Lee as someone who "never owned a slave himself." How and why people romanticize this era of our history is beyond me.

Deanna Herrmann

4/28/2018 04:06:13 pm

Shannon, I enjoyed reading all your wonderful insights. I really like how you started your final paragraph:"...This assertion ignores the fact that the "rights" they were fighting for included the "right" to keep others in forced servitude." You made a lot of great points in your essay!

Jill Johnson

4/29/2018 01:21:58 pm

I liked the quote in your essay, "You can trace the entire history of the United States through political compromises in which black rights are the currency of exchange.”

On page 12 of "Cause and Catalyst of the Civil War," it states that "as is usually the case of compromises, neither side was pleased, but both accepted it, hoping the law would finally settle the slavery issue."

This statement was referring to the Compromise of 1850 which became necessary when California wanted to join the Union. The compromise admitted California as a free state, but assured Congress would not interfere with the interstate traffic in slaves in the South (pg. 12).

This compromise supports the statement of former Chief Historian of the National Park Service that "the issue was not the existence of slavery, but the extension of it," which you quote in your essay. In the Atlantic's, "What if Reconstruction Hadn't Failed," it states that even Lincoln is guilty of choosing limiting the expansion of, rather than abolishing slavery, "Lincoln was not an abolitionist, Ta-Nehisi Coates is quoted as saying, "He proposed to limit slavery's expansion, not end it."

I believe the desire to compromise with the South only prolonged the Civil War. "The war began because a compromise did not exist that could solve the difference between the free and slave states...," (James McPherson, Historian, CC, pg. 9).

I believe no compromise would ever be sufficient for the South to remain in the Union. Alabama secessionist, William Lowndes Yancey admitted that the South "would never find happiness until it left the Union and became an independent nation." (CC, pg. 15).

Audra Call

4/30/2018 08:31:57 pm

I really like the following you wrote in your essay: "However, many Americans still believe that the Civil War was an issue of states’ rights. This assertion ignores the fact that the “rights” they were fighting for included the “right” to keep others in forced servitude. Serwer points out, “The persistence of this myth is in part a desire to avoid the unfathomable reality that half the country dedicated itself to the monstrous cause of human bondage." It is true that the rights they were fighting for were rights to slavery which reinforces the fact that slavery was the main cause of the Civil War. I believe most people do not want to believe that half the country believed in human bondage and treating humans as property.

Kim Gerun

5/1/2018 09:21:25 am

I also loved the following quote: "You can trace the entire history of the United States through political compromises in which black rights are the currency of exchange.”
The issue of slavery became a currency to be used in the compromises in order to force both sides to accept the compromise- while at the same time it simply pushed off the issue of slavery for others to deal with. No one wanted to take the stand necessary and force the issue to be dealt with. We see this in the Constitution all the way through the Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850 and finally the Kansas-Nebraska Act. With each compromise we put off the issue and asked future generations or others to deal with it. The problem is there was no solution that both sides would ever be happy with- and eventually it would have to be dealt with which results in the Civil War- which with the failures of reconstruction still didn't even fully address things. Some could argue we are still resolving the issue today.

Kim Perry

4/22/2018 01:28:44 pm

Slavery took root in the American colonies starting in 1619 when the first African slaves arrived. In the latter part of the 17th century, race-based slavery moved from indentured slavery to a hereditary institution in which African slaves had no chance of freedom. Over time, slavery was so central to the new republic that our constitution protected it. Although many Northern states phased out slavery after the Revolution, southern states found ways to ensure this practice would continue to support their booming agricultural economy. As the North continued to grow as an industrial economy, so did their sympathy toward the enslaved. This sympathy soon turned to outrage, and while the North and South were able to settle many differences of opinion, “differences over slavery were the only ones they seemed unable to settle by peaceful means” as stated in “Slavery: cause and Catalyst of the Civil War, National Parks Service.” Thus, the main cause of the Civil War was due to the institution of slavery.

In the early stages of the formation of our government, the U.S. Constitution supported slavery through the three-fifth’s compromise, Article 1 Section 2, and the ruling that Free states had to return escaped slaves to their owners, Article IV Section 2. The increase in slave numbers ensured greater southern representation in the government, which led to the admission of more slave states. The South, “the great cotton empire depended on slave labor and cheap European imports” according to NPS. Furthermore, Eli Whitney’s cotton gin increased cotton production, and the thriving cotton industry increased the need for more slaves. According to Gary B Nash, The American People, “If the South had become an independent nation in 1860, it would have ranked as one of the wealthiest countries in the world in per capita income, a wealth based mainly on cotton.” The wealth of the South was built on backs of slave labor, and they were willing to go to war to protect their economy.

As industrialization grew in the North, so too did political unrest and resistance movements. Abolitionists and groups like the Anti-Slavery Society helped slaves escape through the Underground Railroad as stated in NPS. Disputes over slave states and Free states continued, and Bleeding Kansas which was a result of the 1854 Kansas Nebraska Act, simply foreshadowed the growing tensions that would lead to war. Another consequence of northern industrialization was its impact on a war economy. The North’s industrial economy gave it an advantage, if it were to go to war, producing 32 times more firearms than the south and 20 times more pig armor(Nash). The South, on the other hand, could keep their economy going through slavery while men went to battle. The two sides were positioned for war.

There are those who believe the Civil War was caused by a failure to compromise. In the widely popular Ken Burns documentary, The Civil War, historian Shelby Foote states, “Basically, it was a failure on our part to find a way not to fight that war. It was because we failed to do the thing we really have a genius for, which is compromise.” Foote further states, “Americans like to think of themselves as uncompromising. But our true genius is for compromise. Our whole government’s founded on it. And it failed.” But one has to consider what possible compromise would have been successful and kept us out of the war. As Adam Sewer references in “The Civil War Was Not A mistake” the only compromises the South would accept, were those that included human bondage, which were evidenced in the Compromise of 1820, 1850, Fugitive Slave Act. In fact, even after the war, the South attempted re-enslavement through sharecropping and Black Codes. Clearly, slavery was the issue which divided the North and South.

In conclusion, Thomas Jefferson summed up the problem when he stated that slavery is like “holding a wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go.” The Civil War was inevitable. Slavery was so deeply engrained in the Southern economy that they seceded the Union to preserve it. The Union attempted a number of compromises to appease the South, but when push came to shove, the South wasn’t willing to end the institution of slavery which fueled their economy. With Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, African Americans were able to join Union troops, and the prospect of freedom was becoming a reality. The Civil War was the only vehicle to freedom for the enslaved, and for the South, the only hope to ensure this “peculiar institution” would prevail.

Cherise Bateman

4/24/2018 07:21:33 pm

You said "Slavery was so deeply engrained in the Southern economy that they seceded the Union to preserve it." The south feared the ending of slavery, which was their entire survival, so they thought. Whereas in the north, resistant groups were helping aid slaves and disagreement over the issue of slavery was a heated topic where no side could compromise. Your statement sums up the Civil War, "The wealth of the South was built on backs of slave labor, and they were willing to go to war to protect their economy."

Deanna Herrmann

4/28/2018 04:10:04 pm

Kim, I completely agree with your last sentence in your first paragraph, "Thus, the main cause of the Civil War was due to the institution of slavery." Everything came back around to slavery. I enjoyed reading your essay. You included a lot of great insights on the topic.

Cody Owen

4/23/2018 10:50:24 am

What caused the Civil War?
Over the past week or so I have been teaching about the Civil War with my 8th graders. During the build up I asked them, “Could the war have been prevented?” Some of my students said, “Sure.” “Then how?” Looking at their puzzled faces I referenced the Compromises that I tried to drill into their heads. “Did they want war?” “No.” “Did the 1850 Compromise fix the problem?” “Not really.” “How about the Missouri Compromise?” “No, that just postponed it.” “Exactly!” Compromises just bandage the problem while the true issue festers below. So, “When could have they fixed it?” At this point some came to the realization that the Constitutional Convention could have stopped it, but that it wouldn't have passed and that the war was inevitable unless slavery ended on its own. The cause of the Civil War was the issue of slavery. The only way to end slavery was by war. The splitting of the nation due to slavery was foreseen by the founders, south’s economy depended on slavery, and despite changing views of American history, we must admit slavery is the cause.

It is naive to say that it was anything other than slavery that caused the Civil War. Even our third president, Jefferson, (who was known for his many slaves at Monticello) knew that slavery would cause trouble. He called the Missouri Compromise for slavery “a firebell in the night,” and that slavery was like “holding a wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go.” War was the only way to end slavery and it was the chief cause of the Civil War (p10 Slave:).

Before the War the country, north and south, relied on slavery. Even though the north didn’t have slaves they relied on the cheap cotton to run their textile mills. The south needed slaves to do the hard work of harvesting cotton and other cash crops. Change is not easy, and as money goes, people don’t like to let it go. Even southerners that did not own slaves benefited from their institution, and if there were no more slaves that could affect their economic standing (pp5-6 Slave:).

John Kelly, the White House Chief of Staff, told Fox News that the Civil War was caused by the “Lack of an ability to compromise.” If that were the case, what do you call the first 60 years of our country's history? The founders thought slavery would die out, but they knew we couldn’t be united without compromise, so they compromised. Missouri wanted slavery but it would change the balance in the senate, so we compromised. California wanted to be a free state, so the U.S. government compromised giving and taking to try to make both sides content. What you have to realize is that instead of keeping each side happy it just divided us more, to the point of congressmen caneing each other on the senate floor (p15 Slavery: & Atlantic).

The Civil War has been debated over the course of the last 150 years. It brings pride and shame to many Americans, some claiming that it is the result of Federal government taking too much power from states, to a lost cause created to ease the minds of the south. The reality is that the war was none of these after the water boils out what it all comes down to is: slavery. Slavery is the cause of the Civil War.

Cherise Bateman

4/24/2018 07:29:56 pm

I like how you stated, "Compromises just bandage the problem while the true issue festers below." Slavery was a hot topic since the beginning of our country. The idea that things have to get passed or signed instead of dealing with the issue and finding a solution just put slavery on the back burner until the next time. War would come and it would end slavery.

Shannon Herbert

4/30/2018 11:06:48 am

I like the succinctness with which you end your essay, and I agree with your points. I appreciate how you pointed to Jefferson's perspective, too. Despite being an owner of slaves himself, he acknowledged how dangerous it was the for the health of the country. Great quotes throughout!

Teresa Louw

5/2/2018 05:44:40 pm

Your blog post was really well written. I liked how you brought up that, "Even southerners that did not own slaves benefited from their institution, and if there were no more slaves that could affect their economic standing. " when most people in the South did not have slaves, most people in the South benefited from it. The North benefited from it too.

Cherise Bateman link

4/24/2018 05:59:14 pm

Blog 1: What caused the Civil War?

I believe the issue that caused the civil war was the economics of slavery and the political control of the future of slavery. In the book "Slavery: Cause and Catalyst of the Civil War", it shared the goal of the north, stating “The North’s goal in the beginning was to preservation of the Union, not emancipation.” Whereas “Many white Southerners came to believe that the viability of cotton as a crop depended on slave labor,” stated the book "Slavery: Cause and Catalyst of the Civil War". I feel governments primary focus is money and power back then as well as today.

Many people believe the Northern states wanted to end slavery, but I do not believe that was the cause of the war. In the article, The Civil War was not a mistake, it said, “Abraham Lincoln’s own entries to the South to return to the Union with slavery itself intact. “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, “Lincoln wrote to Horace Greenly in1862, “and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.” Lincoln’s concern was not abolishing slavery. Lincoln believed that states did not have the right to leave the Union. He didn’t believe that states could leave at will and he didn’t believe that the constitution stated that idea as believed by the Southern states.

In the article, The Civil War was not a mistake, it stated, “The freedom that the South fought for was the freedom to own black people as property. The states’ rights for which the South battled were the right to own slaves and the right to expand slavery. With adding new states to the country, the Southern states felt threatened about how the federal government would take away their livelihood; so, they decide secession would implement their own government with slavery as a central part of that decision. In the Southern states secession statement slavery was mentioned in them. The future of slavery depended on the expansion of the United States adding free states, which would allow laws and policies that would hinder or not represent southern priorities. In the article, Shelby Foote’s Civil War History, it stated, “Through Americas ability to comprise, we inched toward emancipation, albeit slowly. In other words, the breakdown of all those decades of compromise did indeed lead to the Civil War. Compromising on slavery had been part of how America stayed together and staved off war from the beginning.” In the book "Slavery: Cause and Catalyst of the Civil War", it quoted Dwight Pitcaithley when he said, “The issue was not the existence of slavery, but the extension of it.

Raechel Bunnell

4/29/2018 09:08:54 pm

Lincoln knew the war was inevitable. Its funny that we tell our students, children, husband and wife, that compromise is finding the solution that makes everyone happy. But in history, and sometimes in personal life, it means that no one really gets what they want, and any peace achieved is temporary until you get a winner and a loser. The eventual loser was the South, and some still aren't happy about any compromise made, even today.

Dave Ringle

5/1/2018 05:20:18 am

Raechel, isn't that what life is supposed to be, some will win and some will lose? Human beings,sadly, are not altruistic by nature.At least after a certain age. Isn't it true that as parents we want peace and quiet and oftentimes do what it takes to achieve these. We cave at the grocery store, we let our kids get the electronics or go out. So in the end, who really wins? We as a society have tried to make it so that everyone wins- everyone gets a trophy and people need to have certain privileges. Is this wrong?Does there have to be a winner and a loser? Yes, the South lost the war but some would say that the true winners were not the North, but the enslaved Africans. Other countries see the U.S. as this amazing democracy and beacon of freedom. We have been going at this for a long time. There have been winners and losers along the way. There have been some compromises but ultimately, winners and losers.

Kim Gerun

5/1/2018 09:26:51 am

I like the way you addressed the question. Ultimately the war was not over slavery but about preserving the union. The quote you use is perfect:' “Abraham Lincoln’s own entries to the South to return to the Union with slavery itself intact. “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, “Lincoln wrote to Horace Greenly in1862, “and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.” Lincoln’s concern was not abolishing slavery.' Though I think we all would agree that slavery is the underlying issue- the reason a division even existed and compromises kept failing was simply because of slavery- the reality behind the war itself is that slavery was not at the core, but instead its extension and how the government functioned (can a state secede, do states' rights supersede the nation, etc).

Shannon Herbert

5/1/2018 02:23:54 pm

I enjoyed your essay. I also found that quote by Lincoln to be really interesting. Of course, we remember Lincoln now as the emancipator of slaves, but it is odd to remember that ending slavery was not super high on his priority list. Yes, Lincoln was a moderate and a pragmatist, and he was primarily concerned with keeping the Union together, but now that we know his great historical legacy of ending slavery it is strange to think it may not have happened that way. Don't you think?

Cody Owen

5/2/2018 08:17:24 am

I agree with you when you say what "caused the civil war was the economics of slavery and the political control of the future of slavery." There is nothing around it, the country compromised and compromised, but the hold of slavery keep the south in it to the end.

Elaine Grant

5/8/2018 09:59:18 pm

Cherise, your comments about the Southern view of freedom being based on their belief that state's rights included the right to own slaves is spot on. It is very ironic to me that the very freedom they fought so fiercely to defend was so easily cast aside for the thousands of Black slaves for whom no such defense of even the most basic of freedoms existed.
Additionally, I agree that the Southern states felt threatened by the possibility that the federal government could take away their livelihood and lifestyle, which caused them to secede. The South believed that they needed slavery and had a right to not only continue slavery, but to expand it. The refusal of the federal government to agree with this was yet another reason to justify secession.

Audra Call

4/25/2018 10:47:29 pm

Audra Call
Blog 1
What Caused the Civil War?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” states the Declaration of Independence. What did our founding fathers mean when they stated that “all men are created equal”? By the time this was written in 1776, slavery had been existence in North America for over 150 years, since 1619. During the American Revolution, there were many who saw a dichotomy between the Declaration’s statement that all men are created equal, and the existence of slavery. When the U.S. Constitution was written and signed in 1787, slavery still remained. The South depended on slave labor in order to produce cotton from its large plantations. After the invention of the Cotton Gin by Eli Whitney, the demand of cotton grew, leading to more demand for slave labor. The South soon began to fear that if the North were to gain more power and control in Congress, their way of life would be destroyed. This increased tension between the Northern and Southern states. The fact that the South wanted more state’s rights, which would allow them to continue slavery, led to an ever-increasing gap between the North and South. Because of the slavery question and many other differences between the North and the South, most would determine a war between the states was inevitable. But what would be the true cause of this Civil War? Many would argue that the war had many causes, including slavery, which were equal in importance. However, the issues of state’ rights, the election of Abraham Lincoln, and secession all began with the conflict over slavery, the eventual catalyst for the Civil War.

The question as to whether or not slavery would be allowed in the territories and in new states entering the Union was a heated debate between the North and South. The South wanted each state to have the power to decide if it was going to be a slave or free state. They worried that the North would gain too much power in Congress if every state entered the Union as a free state. As a result, in 1820, the Missouri Compromise allowed Missouri to enter as a slave state, and Maine was admitted as a free state, thus keeping balance between slave and free states. In addition, any western territories above Missouri’s southern border would prohibit slavery. As stated in Slavery: Cause and Catalyst of the Civil War, Thomas Jefferson said that the “compromise was like a firebell in the night.” The anti-slavery sentiments grew stronger, including that of abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison, editor of a newspaper titled, “The Liberator,” who stated, ”...I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” Again, Jefferson’s statement rang true when a slave named Nat Turner led an insurrection which ultimately killed 60 whites and about 200 blacks. Other events added to the strain of slavery within the states. After winning the Mexican-American War, the U.S. gained more land in the West, causing additional, heated debates about slavery. Another compromise was made, the Compromise of 1850, which brought California into the Union as a free state, and for the South, placed a stronger enforcement of the fugitive slave law.

Just four years later, the question arose again. Which states entering the Union would be free, and which would be slave states? The Kansas-Nebraska Act allowed for “popular sovereignty”, which gave territories such as Kansas and Nebraska, trying to become states, the right to choose: free or slave. Notwithstanding, this ability to choose drove Kansas into a bloody battle. Settlers from the North wanted Kansas to be free state, while settlers from the South wanted Kansas to be a slave state. Kansas with slavery would violate the Missouri Compromise, which had thus far kept the Union together. According to Adam Serwer, in an Atlantic article entitled “The Civil War Was Not a Mistake”, the freedom that the South was fighting for was “the freedom to own black people as property.” Serwer explained,”The states’ rights for which the South battled were the right to own slaves and the right to expand slavery”. The Republican Party was organized as a direct result of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, leading to Abraham Lincoln becoming its presidential candidate, and eventually the President of the United States.

In 1858, Lincoln gave a speech known as his House Divided speech. In it, he said, “the United States cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other&rdquo

Audra Call

4/25/2018 10:49:19 pm

Blog 1 Essay continued...

So, when Abraham Lincoln became the Republican Presidential Candidate in 1860, the South feared he would win the presidency. Abraham Lincoln was known for his distaste for slavery, and the South worried that, once elected, Lincoln would abolish slavery. Lincoln did win the election. In his inaugural address, he pleaded with the South to remain in the Union and reiterated that his desire was not to abolish slavery altogether, but to disallow the spreading of slavery in western territories. The South decided that if slavery was not allowed to spread to the new territories, then that would be the first step to abolishing slavery altogether. Subsequently, South Carolina seceded from the Union, with six other states following. Lincoln’s election had set off chains of events, due to his firm disapproval of slavery.

The secession of the first seven states was caused by the continuous debate over slavery and its future. The Southern states did not want their way of life disrupted. With the South’s dependence on slave labor for the production of cotton which ultimately led to their prosperity, the South’s “way of life was inseparable from African slavery”, according to “Slavery: Cause and Catalyst of the Civil War”. The only way the Southerners felt they could preserve that way of life was to secede and create a country called the Confederate States of America. They no longer wanted to try to compromise with a government they felt would be unfair when it came to state’s rights. In a letter written to Horace Greeley Lincoln stated, “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.” However, later in his letter, Lincoln made it clear “that any compromise that could have been reached with the Southern states would have been a compromise over the personhood of black people.

The cause of this great conflict, the American Civil War, was inevitably the issue of slavery. Some, such as Shelby Foote, have argued that it was the breakdown of all those decades of compromise that did indeed lead to the Civil War. “ Others, such as White House chief of staff John Kelly, express that it was “the lack of an ability to compromise which led to the Civil War”. Compromises or not, clearly slavery was the main underlying cause of the Civil War. It was an issue even before any compromises began arising. Not approaching the issue of slavery for a temporary time was the only way the U.S. Constitution would ever have been agreed upon and signed by all of the states. The concept of States’ Rights was expanded by the heated topic of slavery, and whether or not states should have the power to choose freedom or slavery. The election of 1860 was mainly based on slavery and on the question of who would be the decision maker in allowing or denying the institution to continue. Finally, secession of the South was the result of slavery being stopped from spreading into Western Territories. The South felt that this would only lead to the abolishment of slavery altogether. Despite historical debates on the causes of the Civil War and whether or not slavery was the leading cause, evidence has clearly shown the institution of slavery to be the ultimate catalyst of the Civil War.

Dave Ringle

5/1/2018 05:11:06 am

Audra, I appreciated your post.I wonder if the compromise over the "personhood of black people" would have changed anything. There was the 3/5 compromise during the Constitutional Convention that counted slaves as 3/5 of a person towards state population. If the South could now in 1860 count each slave as a person, since slavery is so wrong and should be abolished, would the North agree to these terms. It is hard to say if any compromise could have been made to stop the Civil War from happening. Slavery as you say is definitely the ultimate catalyst.

Selene Mansfield

5/2/2018 08:50:55 am

I appreciate the time you spend talking about the impact of Western expansion on the issue. While there were many factors that led to the eventual war, I think it is important to realize how much the changing face of the nation really sparked the debate and incited secession. The South was only able to maintain slavery within the confines of what had previously been, and as a result were in constant fear of change, which resulted in so many of the compromises we see before the war.

Cody

5/2/2018 11:44:30 am

I agree there is little question, it amazes me that so many today could think that it was a lack of compromise. In my opinion compromise can only go so far, and these compromises just prolonged the inevitable.

Ann Zito

4/28/2018 09:04:43 pm

What Caused the Civil War?

Slavery and the Civil War go hand-in-hand in the minds of most Americans. Slave-holding states chose to secede from the United States after the election of a president from a newly formed political party which was dedicated to limiting the spread of slavery into new American territories. Slavery affected the lives of all Americans; the North depended on the cotton for their textile production, and the South depended on the free labor to maintain that crop (Slavery: Cause and Catalyst of the Civil War, pg.5). The future of this “peculiar institution” was what led our country to civil war.

From the foundation of our country, slavery was an issue that had strong support and strong opposition. Our constitution was the beginning of a 100 years of compromises about slavery, counting slaves as ⅗ of a person for federal censuses, giving Southern states “a role in national government far greater than representation based on its free population alone would have allowed.” (Slavery: Cause and Catalyst of the Civil War, pg. 9) The compromises continued as territories sought to be admitted as states. “Compromising on slavery had been part of how America stayed together, and staved off war, from the beginning.” (Shelby Footes’ Civil War History Defends America). These later compromises, however, from the MIssouri Compromise of 1820 to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, were merely postponing the inevitable. Even Abraham Lincoln believed this, saying in 1858 that the United states “cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.” (Shelby Footes’ Civil War History Defends America)

Abraham Lincoln was elected in the midst of these compromises. His newly formed Republican Party was an advocate for limiting the spread of slavery (Slavery: Cause and Catalyst of the Civil War, pg. 19) Southern states felt that this stance might then impugn slavery in their own states, and therefore chose to leave the Union rather than continue to compromise. When Mississippi seceded, while they were concerned with the North’s position of slavery, they were also concerned with what that meant for them in the future. “Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union if we should consent longer to remain in it...we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property.” (Slavery: Cause and Catalyst of the Civil War, pg. 20)The south believed that there future depended on slave labor, and would go to war to fight to keep it.

While ending slavery was not the main objective of the North, preserving it was the main objective of the South. Like Mississippi, the declarations of secession of all the Southern states made note that slavery was central to their leaving the Union, and Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederacy, noted that their “new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution - African slavery as it exists amongst us - the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.” (The Civil War Was Not a Mistake) He said further, “This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.” (Slavery: Cause and Catalyst of the Civil War, pg. 1) The Confederacy made no attempt to hide the fact that preserving slavery was worth dying for.

There is merit to the belief that the reasons our country fought the Civil War were more complicated than simply slavery. States rights concerns and economic differences with the North were real and definitely contributed to the decision of Southern states to secede. However, at the root of even these problems was slavery. States rights concerns were focused on the right of new states to chose whether or not to have legal slavery, and the agricultural economy of the south which depended on slavery was at odds with the increasingly industrial North. When it all boils down, slavery was attached to all of the events that led our country to split, and fight the Civil War.

Raechel Bunnell

4/29/2018 09:04:20 pm

Its so interesting that the Republican party was founded on Anti-Slavery ideology. They eventually pulled back on the ideas of equality to incorporate more voters from the South, and now many feel they are a party of racists. "Southern Democrat" used to mean something different as well. I just like how political parties have come to represent different things at different times in history, and tracing them is interesting in the the study of politics.

Teresa Louw

5/2/2018 05:52:07 pm

Nice job Ann! I really liked how you used the quotes from the different text to tell the story. It really flowed. I may want to share it with my students.

Raechel Bunnell

4/29/2018 08:57:16 pm

What caused the civil war?

Slavery is one of those things where most people say, “Oh yeah, an institutionalized system of subjugation and torturing others is totally wrong.” But as we look into the cause of the Civil War, we begin to see where the shades of right and wrong tend to blur depending on the perspective one takes in investigating the topic. I myself have taught students that the Civil War was a fight over state’s rights and the concept of federalism. But does teaching about battles and state’s rights detract from the idea of defending African American rights? If one takes the side of the inefficacy of compromise, like John Kelley and Shelby Foote, is that anti-black? Does it have to be a scorched earth situation as Ta-Nehisi Coates believes, that the whole existence of the United States is marred by slavery and modern Americans should continue to own up to slavery and its ramifications, including the lack of civil rights up to the biased prison system?

Both sides have merit. Shelby Foote sees the war as a distinct point of history, that there is a sort of romance about the war- battles, troop movements and generals. The war was about the failure to compromise. The various compromises leading up to the Civil War left both sides unhappy. The North was unhappy about the continued existence of slavery and the South was upset about the extension of Northern influence on their way of life. Historian Barbara Fields sees the war as part of the story of African Americans, that the war, its surrounding ideologies and its consequences were all bad. Foote see things from the perspective of a Southern Male, where Fields is a black woman, and provides a different, and possibly opposing viewpoint. Is it even possible for a white male to see things from the perspective of a modern African American? Ken Burn’s “The Civil War” was made over 20 years ago, just before people started agitating against Confederate Flags and statues. Current chief of staff to President Trump, John Kelly, is of the belief that its not right to apply our knowledge and opinions of today and apply them to historical situations. We don’t always know how we would have acted in various points of history. I would like to say that I would have been an abolitionist, helping slaves on The Underground Railroad, or fighting along side John Brown at Harpers Ferry, but I don’t know how I would have acted or believed. Abraham Lincoln is an example of diverging opinions at different points in the Civil War. “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it,” Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley in 1862, “and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.” (Serwer, 2017) Then he ended up being a champion for abolition and the cornerstone of the national movement for personhood for African Americans.

Isn’t this denial, and part of the “American tradition of historical denial”? (Serwer, 2017) The stereotypical Trump voter celebrating the victories of Southern whites, eyes closed to the struggles of African Americans from emancipation onwards? Kelley said that there were “Men of good faith on both sides”, but even acknowledging “good men” on both sides would be neglecting the experience of African Americans after the war and since then.

“But if you’re Coates, celebrating the emancipation of southern slaves or the end of Jim Crow is impossible, because in his telling, black Americans never really came out of their bondage. The great white supremacist project of the United States persists to this day, as evidenced by the election of Donald Trump. There are still grievances to settle, reparations to be paid." (Davidson, 2017)

Foote, Kelly, and every white person in America cannot truly understand the war and the subsequent Civil Rights struggle. Barbara Fields and Ta-Nehisi Coates have an understanding of the consequences of slavery that others not black can not understand. They will never be able to say “I know how you feel”. Looking at all sides of the situation will help increase understanding by all. Hopefully, the result is an increased sensitivity for the victims of history. The nuances of the causes of the Civil War are important in understanding antebellum society, as well as why minorities in America may still exist in a system of institutionalized racism. It is important to investigate, not only the popular viewpoint- whether that be “left” or “right”, but pay attention to the up and coming voices who might challenge your beliefs and allow you to grow in a more global perspective.

Ann Zito

4/30/2018 08:28:51 pm

I love your call for balance in looking at historical events. We have the benefit of hindsight, of being able to look at events from the outside and from all angles, that most at the time cannot or do not look at. I don't think that we can say that all Southerns who fought in the Civil War were bad people, just as we can't say all Northerners were good people. There were injustices and heroism on both sides. I think the important thing that we need to do as historians, and to teach our students to do, is to take that same idea of looking at more than one side of an issue and apply it to our current global situations to help us make better decisions going forward instead of only applying that skill to historical events.

Dave Ringle

5/1/2018 05:04:16 am

Ann, you are so right. We do have the benefit of hindsight and seeing things from different angles. I had the experience of living with my grandparents going to college. One day, I came home and asked m6y grandma if she felt it was right to drop the atomic bomb. Without hesitation, she said yes. I was amazed and still am. We look back and see the atrocities of the many people that died. We don't have the same vision as the people that lived it. Who are we to blame the South for wanting to keep their way of life. Slavery has been pegged the peculiar institution.It definitely is that. Is it wrong to force people to work? Yes. Is it also wrong deprive someone of their way of life? I would say yes. So, who is right and whois wrong- it depends on your side of the coin. Could the slaves have been treated better? Of course.

Becky Rees

4/30/2018 01:13:57 pm

Slavery ultimately caused the civil war. Although there were several issues that led into the war, they were all woven into the institution of slavery. States’ rights, the role of the federal government, the preservation of the Union, and the economy were the issues at hand that were all intertwined into the deep root of the problem of everything-slavery. “The freedom that the South fought for was the freedom to own black people as property. The states’ rights for which the South battled were the right to own slaves and the right to expand slavery.” (Civil War was Not A Mistake)

With the invention of the cotton gin, the demand for cotton exploded. By 1840, the cotton that was made in the South earned more money than all of the other U.S. exports combined (pg.5) Although the northern economy was much different than the South, industrialism which was kept up because of the inexpensive labor force of immigrants and women, the south believed that the viability of the cotton crop was dependent upon slave labor. Southerners feared that if the North ever gained control of congress that it would create taxes on imports in which the south wouldn’t be able to afford and that it would ruin the south economically.
The question of states’ rights was provoked when the federal government tried to intervene in new territories that were acquired. Many compromises were made which basically kept the Union together for many years, but also skirted the issue of slavery to the side. Compromises like the Missouri Compromise, for example, was able to “quiet the agitation” over the issue of slavery, but just like Jefferson said in a letter to a friend that compromise “was like a fire-bell in the night” and that slavery was like “holding a wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go.” (pg. 10). Even with the new territories acquired in the Mexican War, the Compromise of 1850 was necessary when California sought to join the Union. Even today, writers today like Ta-Nehisi Coates claim that all these compromises were bad because they preserved slavery. “That such compromises limited slavery’s spread and put it on the path to extinction carries no weight with them.” (Shelby Foote’s Civil War History). There are others like scholars, Shelby Foote who claim that the Civil War was caused by this failure to compromise. But others claim that this would have just preserved the institution of slavery and would have been detrimental for the nation.
The role of the federal government- especially with the judiciary really helped spark the war. With the Dred Scott decision in 1857, the Supreme Court claimed that African Americans were not citizens and therefore couldn’t sue. They also claimed that the Missouri Compromise was actually unconstitutional and that the federal government didn’t actually have the authority to prohibit slavery in the territories set aside. (pg. 16) This led to the question of slavery in the new territories that were hotly debated within the election of 1860. Lincoln ended up winning, which led to the secession of South Carolina along with other southern states. (pgs. 18-19). One thing that the war did do, was that it tried to unify the nation- the northern theme of preservation of the union. Ken Burns states, “As Shelby said in the film and gets it better than anything else, we said ‘The United States are’ plural. After the war we began to say ‘the United States is,’ which is ungrammatical.” (How Two Different Historians Defined the Civil War) Although the war ripped the country apart, it also unified it at the same time.

Cherise Bateman

4/30/2018 07:01:55 pm

I agree with you when you state, "the issues at hand that were all intertwined into the deep root of the problem of everything-slavery." It is interesting to think about how much we as humans fear the unknown and change. The southerners were no different. They feared the change of slavery because they truly believed that slave labor was a necessity. The believed it so much that they were willing to die for it. We hold on so tight because of change and the fear of the unknown.

Elaine Grant

5/4/2018 10:14:00 pm

Cherise, I agree with you that people fear the unknown and change. Not only had the South accepted and included the institution of slavery for as long as anyone at the dawn of the Civil War could remember, but the fear that abolishing slavery would destroy their economy was real. Most Southerners could justify slavery by claiming that Negroes were lesser humans and were not capable of anything but hard labor. The concept that "all men are created equal" included Blacks was too big of a change for most people at that time to make. The readings for this assignment really helped me to understand that the South really didn't see any other way for their economy to survive than to continue the practice of slavery.

Mandee Webster

5/4/2018 09:25:32 pm

I never thought of how the south was worried about taxes put on exporting cotton. I was surprised when I read that as well.

I can also see how the south was afraid of what might happen to their economy without slavery. Those alive and living in the south at the time of the civil war knew nothing but slavery. I can't say that I blame them for being worried about what no slaves would mean. It is something they never thought they would have to think about.

Jill Johnson

4/30/2018 07:23:36 pm

Blog 1 - What Caused the Civil War?

What caused the Civil War? Follow the money.

The economics of slavery was perhaps the most important part in the South's desire for secession from the Union. In "Slavery; Cause and Catalyst of the Civil War," it states that in 1619 slavery was introduced to Virginia, when a Dutch ship traded African slaves for food (pg.2). Southern plantations needed cheap labor to produce export crops for the British. Many merchants made their fortunes in the slave trade or by exporting the plantations' products.

Further, with the invention of Eli Whitney's cotton gin - a machine that revolutionized the production of cotton by speeding up the process of removing seeds from cotton fiber (https://www.history.com/topics/inventions/cotton-gin-and-eli-whitney) - demand for more cotton picked by enslaved people in the South skyrocketed (CC pg. 5).

The African slave trade was not only critical to the success of British North America, before the Revolutionary War, but by 1840, cotton produced in the American South earned more money than all other United States' exports combined (CC, pg. 5). The viability of cotton and Southerners' prosperity relied on slave labor.

Overtime, most Southerners believed their prosperity and way of life were inseparable from slavery. (CC pg. 5). Southerners even had a name for their lifestyle before the Civil War: Antebellum.

During the antebellum years, wealthy southern planters formed an elite master class that wielded most of the economic and political power in the region. They created their own standards of gentility and honor, defining ideals of southern white manhood and womanhood and shaping the culture of the South. To defend the system of forced labor on which their economic survival and genteel lifestyles depended, elite southerners developed several proslavery arguments that they levied at those who would see the institution dismantled. (https://courses.lumenlearning.com/ushistory1os2xmaster/chapter/wealth-and-culture-in-the-south/).

Meanwhile, in the North, society was quickly becoming industrial. Entrepreneurs looking to develop these new industries demanded protection from cheap manufactured goods imported from Europe (CC pg. 5). But, the great cotton empire depended on slave labor and cheap European imports. Southerners began to fear that if the North ever gained control in Congress, it would create taxes on imports, known as tariffs, which would ruin the South.

The question of who had the power to make territories free or enslaved – the federal government or the newly formed states - triggered debates that would last decades. The many compromises that ensued only prolonged the inevitable: Civil War.

In 1860, Abraham Lincoln gained a majority in the Electoral College. He won the election by carrying most Northern states and California and Oregon (free states). He failed to receive a single electoral vote in the Deep South (slave states). Upon seeing the results, eleven southern states seceded from the Union.

“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery…We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money (the estimated total market value of slaves), or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property.” Representatives of Mississippi upon its secession (CC, pg. 20).

Audra Call

4/30/2018 08:40:58 pm

I like your follow up to your title, "Follow the money." In essence it was all about the money that the slaves helped bring in for the South and the North. The slaves worked for free which saved money and allowed the South to gain immense wealth from their cotton crops. The North also benefited because they used the cotton from the South to make materials and then made profits by selling what they made. Hence, follow the money.

Erin Wirthlin link

4/30/2018 09:35:44 pm

What caused the Civil War?
I have previously given this topic much thought over the years and I have taught, considered, and written about it as well. Over the years I have become more and more convinced as to the most likely culprit that brought about this devastating war. On the surface I have considered and taught that the Civil War did not begin because of slavery. After all, President Lincoln announced time and time again that he never planned to end slavery nor try to do so in the South. He believed that the Union must remain intact and that the separation of the Union would demonstrate the instability as well as the incapability of the United States and its republic to govern. On the other hand, deep down Lincoln knew that slavery would have to be addressed and eventually eradicated from the land. As we are reminded by Davidson, “Lincoln said the United States ‘cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.’” President Lincoln did not seek a war with the southern states rather a unification under one ideology and one cause, the freedom of all men. The attack on Fort Sumter, a U.S. fort, would be the initiation of the four bloodiest years in American history. Therefore the Civil War began because of an aggressive act on the part of South Carolina. One could argue of course that there were many events, actions, and ideologies that led up to this aggression and they wouldn’t be wrong. Superficially, the war began at Fort Sumter.
Through continual study and thought I myself have come to realize that all wars have a beginning because of one act of aggression or another. This in no way signifies that this was the catalyst or the foundation to any conflict, it’s just the tipping point. A pot of water doesn’t just reach 100 degrees C and start boiling, rather there is often a gradual increase in heat until it hits the boiling point. So, when the Civil War is discussed one must understand what gradually kindled the fire that ignited into secession and later a war that pitted brother against brother. One must look deeper.
As brought up throughout the short publication "Slavery: Cause and Catalyst of the Civil War", the story of slavery is the “cause and catalyst” of the War. This book provides a history behind the war with events surrounding slavery that lead up to the War. A story of the Civil War without the background of slavery is like Jack and Jill without a pail, Hansel and Gretel without a witch, and Goldie Locks without the bears. No slavery, no war! With that in mind, there are many other events and decisions that are made that do in some ways bring about the Civil War, but it must be remembered that there’s a deeper story behind the years 1861-1865 in the U.S. When the South saw that there way of life was threatened to an extreme they ran in hopes of securing their traditions of oppression and coercion. This was not simply a war over an inability to compromise, it was a war over ideologies, morality, and ethics. From the Constitutional Convention to the very date of succession there were compromises made again and again. It wasn’t about compromise, it was about fear of losing one’s livelihood and control over one’s own property. The story of the Civil War begins in 1619 with Dutch traders dealing in human trafficking.

Dave Ringle

5/1/2018 04:56:24 am

Erin, I agree with your post and appreciate your analogies.It is impossible for a person to see the Civil War and for slavery to not be identified as a contributing factor. It most definitely was a war over ideas. President Lincoln met with Harriet Beecher Stowe and said that she was the lady that wrote the book (Uncle Tom's Cabin) that started the war. I would disagree with you on the date of when it started (you stated 1619 with the Dutch, I would say much earlier like Ancient Rome or Egypt) but that is a discussion for later.

Ann Zito

5/1/2018 05:29:19 pm

I agree with your post, and I appreciate your discussion of how your own thoughts have changed. I agree that all the other reasons people give, such as economics and states rights, all come back to slavery. The idea that slave labor was needed to support the cotton industry was turned on its head after the Civil War, because by 1870, the South was producing more cotton than it had ten years earlier. States rights concerns were all about whether states could decide to have slavery or not. Maybe these other arguments are just a way to cover up the fact that so many of our people were willing to fight to the death for slavery, as suggested in one of the articles.

Elaine Grant

5/4/2018 09:46:54 pm

I really liked the quote by Lincoln about the country not being able to remain half slave and half free. Slavery was truly the root cause of division in the US, and the fact that they were unable to reach any sort of compromise underscores the refusal of either side to budge on this issue. Lincoln's first priority was to preserve the Union, then he would address civil rights issues and deal with the Negroes. This relates to your analogy about the gradual increase in temperature to reach the boiling point. The South had been simmering for some time now it was approaching the boiling point.

Dave Ringle

5/1/2018 04:47:26 am

The Civil War us one of themes important events in all of American history. There are many arguments of what was the true/root cause of the war. Some people felt that it was slavery while others feel that it is the idea of states rights over the rights of the country. It is even argued that it could come down to the idea that it was a "failure to compromise" .Let us look at these ideas.

Slavery was a concept that was not new to the United States or even the American continent. In ancient times when a country desired more wealth or land, it went to war and the losing side would become slaves to the other. It was not seen as morally wrong but as the punishment for losing a war. Time moves on and as a civilization grows, a work force is needed to build buildings, roads, grow crops and do other work. It was often done by these slaves and their posterity. If you became a slave, it was your families lot in life to remain slaves unless there was a revolution or some other nation came and freed you, unlikely. Fast forward several hundred years with the discovery of the new world and the same was going on with the civilizations on this continent. One way to earn your passage to the new world was to become an indentured servant in which you would agree to be a "slave" for a number of years, after which, you were free to own land. As more and more land was used for planting and as the society moved from subsistence farming to one of cash crops, the labor force needed to be increased. Where would these Americans get a larger labor force- buy slaves from other countries. I imagine that initially depending on the slave owner, the slaves could have been treated well, almost like family as was mentioned a few times in "When I Was a Slave". However, with more money being earned, these slaves became more like property or machines for the betterment of the farm or plantation. There were people that felt that subjugating other humans was morally wrong. Others get that this was necessary and part of the Southern way of life. These differing points of view were part of the Constitutional Convention and was so heated that some threatened to leave the meetings. A compromise was made and slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person when it came to census calculations and the south said that slavery would end in 20 years. Almost 80 years later and with technology increasing, the "need" for slavery was as high as it had ever been in the past. As the 2nd Great Awakening increased and spread in the United States, more and more people became divided on the issue of slavery. Books (Uncle Tom's Cabin for example) were written depicting the"evils of slavery". The need for representation in Congress became an important factor in trying to convince new states to join the slavery side or the anti-slavery side. Persons such John Brown and Nat Turner felt that arming slaves and starting revolt was the answer. As the Southern states felt that if slavery was abolished, which was primarily their basis for their agricultural economy, they felt strongly enough to leave the Union. Some felt this was wrong. Each side felt strongly in their position and eventually led to violence.

Popular sovereignty and the idea that all men are free to choose life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have been important ideas for a very long time. We fought a war against a foreign nation because we were tired of being told what to do. Even in the Declaration of Independence, it gives the idea that when a people are deprived of freedoms it is there right and obligation to fight for them. The South was doing just that. Imagine being told that your livelihood will be taken away. You and your family have been doing this for a number of generations. What will you do to survive? It is only natural that you would defend this way of life to the end. You would especially defend from those that perhaps did not understand what it took to survive. The persons in the North living in cities probably did not understand the lifestyle of the South that lived on farms in small communities.

To say that the Civil War started because people failed to compromise is a very basic idea that does not take into account the full story. There are certain things that a person cannot and should not compromise over. The basic ideals of life and liberty are a few of these things. The South's way of life, their liberty was being threatened by a group of people that perhaps did not see the whole picture. Once again, certain things cannot be compromised. Yes, this can lead to violence and perhaps war. Was the Civil War unavoidable, maybe, but if you like at both sides of the various arguments, one could say that the Civil War was years in the making.

Becky Rees

5/4/2018 09:19:51 pm

You bring up a good point that there are always two sides to a story. But yes, some things cannot be compromised like the humanity of others.

Kara Budge

5/4/2018 10:01:44 pm

Your last sentence struck me. I always think the Civil War was inevitable. You add the "maybe" to unavoidable. It's true, I suppose it could have been unavoidable. You are right, it was many years in the making. Had we not fought a war that ultimately offered up freedom to slaves, but rather let it phase out, I cannot imagine how much further behind we would be today, just as I can't imagine how much further along we would be if Lincoln had not been assassinated, or the founding fathers would have tackled the issue in the beginning.

Ben Byrd

5/1/2018 09:46:30 am

The Civil War happened because the country was divided into two sides that had fundamental differences. As with most grievances, money was the problem that was driving a wedge through America. In this instance, the way in which the South made money was on the backs of slave labor to work the agricultural South. The North didn't rely on slave labor and enjoyed a constant influx of immigrant workers to bolster their industrial economy. This disagreement between how to make money centered around the institution of slavery. The North wanted it gone. The South needed it to maintain there way of life. Ultimately, the impasse that was reached between the North and South over the issue of slavery boiled over into conflict. So to say that the Civil War was fought over anything other than slavery seems ludicrous.

It seems that there is no other topic in the American past that is subject to more revisionist history than the Civil War. Resent comments by White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, have reignited the debate over the cause of the Civil War. In his estimation, the Civil War was fought because of a failure to compromise between the two sides. This echos the assertions of historian Shelby Foote, who traces a consistent pattern of compromises that both sides reached throughout the infancy of the nation. Once both sides refused to continue down the path of compromise, the fate of the country was sealed, and war was inevitable.

Other scholars have a more singular view of the cause of the Civil War and pinpoint slavery as the reason. For scholars like Adam Serwer, the compromises that were reached prior to the Civil War were always independent of black consideration and failed to address change in a meaningful way. In his article, The Civil War was Not a Mistake, Serwer explains, "you can trace the entire history of the United States through political compromises in which black rights are the currency of exchange." It's clear that for many, slavery and black rights, were used as pawns in a game where North and South vied for political and economic control.

With all of the differing opinions regarding the causes of the Civil War, it seems fruitless to look for one singular reason. However, it seems safe to say, that without slavery, the conflict that tore apart the nation could have been avoided. Not to say that there wouldn't have been problems between the North and South, but those problems would have been more likely resolved without war.

Cody

5/2/2018 11:51:18 am

I like the idea of money playing factor in the Civil War. It makes a lot of seance slaves equaled money, the south saved money by having slaves. The north did not and had to pay workers and relied on southern cotton for textiles.

Mandee Webster

5/4/2018 09:20:42 pm

I often wonder how much the north actually did rely on slave labor. For example, cotton was a major crop with high exportation. I wonder if slavery would not have been around, how that industry would have impacted the northern economy.How would that have shaped our nation as we know it today? I think that is something we can speculate and attempt to answer, but will never know the true answer.

Daniel Morris

5/4/2018 09:24:47 pm

I love your idea that money was a large part of the cause of the Civil War. Money was the root of most of the issues and the crash of the southern economy because of its dependency upon slave labor. You also said that slavery was was a major cause but I loved what you were on to with your references to money as the root of the Civil War. Unfortunately, money causes all sorts of problems still to this day!

Daniel Morris

5/1/2018 11:23:27 am

What caused the Civil War?

The question of the causes of the American Civil War have been long debated by historians. As America's bloodiest war, we reflect on whether it was avoidable or how to avoid a similar conflict in the future. On the surface, the issue of slavery seems to be the cause of this massive war. However, as we look deeper, slavery is the underlining issue of other major concerns facing the American people. Economic dependency on slavery, states' sovereignty, and Constitutional compromises all have major impacts in leading to the American Civil War.

First, the south had a systematic economy that felt like it relied on slavery to exist. By the mid 1800s, the north and the south had evolved into different industries by nature. The north had become much more industrialized with the focus on textiles and trade, while the south still heavily relied on large plantations and cotton farming. "By 1840, cotton produced in the American South earned more money than all other US exports combined." (US Dept of Interior National Park Service, pg 5) Without slave labor, this financial commodity would be a risk. The north was doing just that; threatening the practice of slavery. Southerners began worry if the north got too much power within the Federal government, they would have the power to rid the south of their right to own and operate with slaves. This leads to the next point, states' sovereignty.

Another factor that caused the Civil War was the power of the federal government over individual states. How much power should the federal government hold and be able to enforce policies over states, even when they do not agree? If the northern states were granted too much representation within the federal government, they may have the power to enforce legislation that would impose policies that greatly impacted the southern lifestyle and economy. Southern states began nullifying any acts imposed by the federal government that were considered unconstitutional or unfair to the south (US Dept of Interior National Park Service, pg 6). It boils down to federalism; the balance of states' power and federal power. Though slavery is not the vocal issue presented, it is the argument used to defend the issue of state's rights. Shouldn't states have the right to choose and impose their own policies regarding slavery and other similar social issues? Southern states argue that the federal government is getting too powerful and imposing too much authority over sovereign states. Individual states must fight to preserve their way of living and desires for their constituents.

The final cause of the Civil War has to do with the ability to compromise, mainly the lack of. Since the beginning of nation's existence, we have compromised on all kinds of important issues in order to peacefully co-exist. The Great Compromise for instance, is a perfect example of how our founding fathers came to an agreement about representation within the federal government. During that same era, they also came up with the 3/5th's Compromise that settled issues regarding slave representation within congress. Over and over, our nation has been successful at compromise. Involving the issue of slavery, the north and south continued to become more and more divided on the issue. In the 1820, the Missouri Compromise helped solve the issue of what states would be slave or free. This was important so that there would continue to be equal representation in the federal government for both free and slave states.

Later, there were controversies as people would travel across borders or if slaves would escape into a 'free' state. What shall be done. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was a compromise that would force northerners to return slaves that runaway to the north and made it legal to hunt down runaway slaves in the north. Finally, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 was a new compromise that essentially overturned the Missouri Compromise and now allowed states to choose for themselves whether they wanted to be a free or slave state. Again, this is an example of northern states pushing their policies of abolitionism but not necessarily forcing the end of slavery in the south.

As you can see, we are inching our way to war. According to the journal written by John Daniel Davidson, he emphasizes that it was our ability to compromise that avoided a civil war for as long as we did. "Compromising on slavery had been part of how America stayed together, and staved off war, from the beginning." (Davidson) Additionally, John Kelly accounts similar views in the Atlantic and says that generally, our nation was unable to compromise in the 1860s which is what ultimately led to the Civil War. He argues that there were honorable men fighting on both sides but were unable to come to agreements which is what is a major cause of this bloody war.

In conclusion, the causes of the Civil War are not as black and white as it seems (pun not

Daniel Morris

5/1/2018 11:24:25 am

(pun not intended). Though historians may argue the true sources of the conflict, one thing is for sure; America's history will greatly be impacted and changed as a result of this. Between state's sovereignty, economic issues and lack of compromise, the Civil War was a conflict that may not have been avoidable.

Teresa Louw

5/1/2018 11:49:21 am

What Caused the Civil War?

Though controversial, the causes of the Civil War tend to be simple and complex. Slavery is the simple answer. However, money and pride are part of why we had slavery and would not end it when given the opportunity. Having students understand the different perspectives of slavery is both controversial and essential. As a teacher, we have the obligation and privilege to teach and discuss history while allowing students to come to their own conclusions. So it must be with the topic of “The Causes of the Civil War.”
Why start a war that would ultimately kill over 600,000 people? Slavery. Though the Northern States were not immunded to slavery, over a long period of time most northerners had come to the conclusion that “all men were created equal.” Many thought slavery should be abolished, and should not be allowed in the United States of America. Many politicians in the north would careful skip around the issue, not wanting to ruffle any feathers, or offending anyone. However, even Abraham Lincoln stated in his House Divided speech, and quoted in the article “Shelby Foote’s Civil War History Defends America Against Insatiable Haters Like Ta-Nehisi Coates” says “the United States ‘cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved--I do not expect the house to fall--but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.’” Much of not taking a side on slavery came to a halt with the publishing of Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Harriet Beecher Stowe let the world know the horrors and truthfulness of what slavery was about. Abolitionists began their crusade to end the monstrosity. No longer should humans be treated as property and animals. Many supported the abolitionists in the quest to free slaves. It no longer became just the talk in politics, it became the moral obligation of many to cleanse the country from an industry that had little regard for human life or feelings.
However, those that had chosen farming as their line of work in the South, often relied upon slave labor to allow their “American Dream” to flourish. It was more profitable to have slaves than to pay people to work in their fields or other uses of slave labor. Since their families had traditionally done it, they believed that this practice was acceptable. It helped them be successful in the community and at the bank. Although most would never treat their own family like they would treat a slave, they saw nothing wrong with it. These Southerner slave owners were actually few in number, with relation to the expanse of land, but very vocal and prominent in society and in government. They were sure to lose money and therefore status, and they had not come to the conclusion that “all men are created equal.” Thus, to keep what they valued most, money and status, they would seceded from the country that did not value their way of life. This ultimately lead to the Civil War, as Thomas Jefferson predicted “the institution of slavery was like holding a ‘wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go’”, as quoted in the Slavery: Cause and Catalyst of the Civil War, p.10.
The task, as a teacher, to introduce the cause of Civil War can be a daunting one. Yet, other events in the history of the United States, if also taught, can help one introduce the different perspectives. Which in turn, manifests the problem that ultimately bring the nation to its knees, slavery. Since the establishment of Jamestown students learn that compromise is difficult, especially if the people coming to America believe and hold true to a class system. Every year we spend some time in my classroom with students being grouped into different ranks or classes (plantation owner, tradesman, indentured servant, etc…), and experiencing different pay and treatment. When reflecting back on this, they realize the class system can be flawed, especially if one is a slave. Students learn during the establishment of Jamestown the importation of slavery begins. As the nation tries to gain their own independence, people begin to identify their own belief system. The establishing of colonies, where it was already populated with Native Americans, becomes a real struggle in showing respect while trying to be successful. I love the book Chains, by Laurie Halse Anderson, because it is a teaches students the struggle of a slave girl in the North, as she see others use their moral compass to establish freedom and loyalty for themselves. There is a lot of great children’s literature to help teach students learn about slavery and the struggle to find one’s moral compass within history. Following the United States’ independence from the England, students see the government create a Constitution and Bill of Rights. However,

Becky Rees

5/4/2018 09:26:17 pm

I love all the connections that you get your students to feel and understand this important time in history, and that the ultimate object is to let them formulate their own opinions/conclusions. I will have to check out the book you suggested- it sounds great!

Kara Budge

5/4/2018 10:05:50 pm

I love to give students a variety of perspectives as to causes and then arm them with primary sources and facts and they are pretty quick to understand what it all comes down to.
I love your use of literature to teach about the struggle and I love "Chains".

Marrianne Asay

5/5/2018 09:43:55 pm

I agree with your opening statement that the causes of the war were simple and complex. No issue that large, affecting that many people is truly simple, nor is the solution simple. However, it really can be boiled down to the "peculiar practice" of slavery. I love that you bring up children's literature for teaching about history. Literature can even change history. Uncle Tom's Cabin brought the plight of the slaves to the minds and hearts of the North.

Selene Mansfield

5/1/2018 07:38:54 pm

Thomas Jefferson predicted that slavery would be the ‘rock upon which the old Union would split,’ and he was right (National Park Service). While an unfortunate number of teachers may cite “states’ rights” and John Kelly might boil it down to an inability to compromise, the Civil War was fought because of one major issue: slavery. While I appreciate the point that all wars are to some extent fought because a compromise could not be reached (The Federalist), I also acknowledge that at some point the North had to stop compromising when it came to the matter of slavery. Because as many of the articles point out, the North did compromise – to the extent that it was labeled what Americans had a true genius for by Shelby Foote – time and time again; they began when the US Constitution was written in 1787 when slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person (National Park Service), and continued with the Missouri Compromise and many others (The Atlantic). Even Abraham Lincoln would have agreed to some sort of compromise, as evidenced when he admitted that if he could keep the Union together by maintaining the bondage of every slave, he would (The Atlantic). At some point, though, the Union had to stop compromising. One of the ugliest but truest statements from all of these readings is that “you can trace the entire history of the United States through political compromises in which black rights are the currency of exchange,” (The Atlantic). So it wasn’t an inability to compromise, it was the reality that some things cannot continue to be compromised – human bondage being one of those things – that lead to the Civil War.

That being said, I believe it is naïve to say that all Confederate soldiers were men of poor character. Whether you want to talk about General Lee as John Kelly did specifically or other participants, there were of course men of character on both sides of the war – there always are. That in no way takes away from the fact that the Civil War was fought over slavery. The fact that half of our country garnered immense economic benefit from slavery and socialized themselves into the normalcy of the matter created a rift that could not be resolved through compromise. Slavery is an all or nothing issue, and the latter is the only acceptable option.

Mary Christensen

5/1/2018 09:14:51 pm

Blog 1- What caused the Civil War

After reading "Slavery: Cause and Catalyst of the Civil War" and the other accompanying sources, I believe that human rights is the main issue that caused the Civil War. I think that there are many parts to human rights and slavery is a major part of it, but I think that many of the issues that were fought over during the Civil War Era are still being argued today.

As I read "Cause and Catalyst," my first thought was the human rights in the Declaration of Independence. The book quoted, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Even though this was decades before the Civil War, I think this was an important stepping stone that would serve as a catalyst to give more rights to African Americans and minority groups. Even though slavery existed in all of the 13 colonies when the Declaration of Independence was signed, there was controversy over whether or not slavery was justified despite the "all men are created equal." The Southerners also believed that it was their right to practice slavery. The abolitionists and slaves, however, believed that it was their right to be free and to be treated "equal." To this day, I think we are still learning what this phrase, "all men are created equal" means. Slavery was supposed to end with the Civil War, but the fight for human rights continues today.

Another cause of the Civil War that heavily contributed to slavery was the economic prosperity. Just as countries seek cheap labor today, many of those living in the South had plantations that would require workers. As "Cause and Catalyst" mentioned, this was different than in the North which was becoming very industrial during this time period. During the 1840s, the U.S. was seeing an cotton boom that earned more money than all of the other U.S. exports combined. As the book mentioned, many of the white Southerners believed that they needed slave labor in order to continue to prosper and their lives became inseparable from African slavery. This need for slave labor was supported by the extra benefit that the plantation owners had: they did not have to pay the workers. From the Southern perspective, it would be difficult to give up slave labor when the economy relied so heavily upon its success in the plantations. From the Northern perspective, which was a very different culture/ part of the country, it would be difficult to relate to the need for slavery when the economy was prospering from industrialization. This division between the North and South leads to the a third cause of the war that I would like to highlight: compromise.

After reading the articles, I don't know whether it was the inability to compromise or simply the lack of a compromise that caused the war. I believe that the North and the South are very different areas in the U.S. and had a hard time compromising, especially on the topic of rights. The Ken Burns article mentioned a quote from an article that we read earlier in the year. The idea is that before the Civil War, the U.S. used "are" to describe the United States. After the Civil War, the country became one. I believe this shows the difficulty of the states to compromise during the conflict. I thought that the different sources provided good insight on this topic and helped me gain a better perspective. Adam Serwer responded to John Kelly's comment that America "failed at compromise," resulting in the Civil War. Serwer stated that we must not look back on the past with the perspective that we have now. Serwer even referenced the rights of black athletes, an issue of human rights that we still face today.

Regardless of whether my conclusions are correct, I'm excited to keep learning! I was really impressed with the sources that we were given to read and the connections that can be made to the continual fight for human rights. I hope that I can help my students gain this understanding and make these connections between what happened in the Civil War Era with human rights and what is happening today.

Kristan Norton

5/2/2018 12:23:24 pm

I enjoyed reading your response as I felt it really portrayed your insights. You could see the complexities that are involved with this question and noted the impact they have on so many aspects of the American lifestyle: personal rights and governance, economic prosperity, and how or when we should compromise our beliefs. Obviously both sides felt very passionate about all of these issues which led to the savage war that ripped our country apart. With the issues of immigration, incarceration imbalance, homelessness and hunger we have many problems to solve in modern times. Hopefully our policy makers and citizens will be able to untangle these social challenges in a more humane and respectful manner.

Kim Gerun

5/1/2018 09:32:19 pm

What Caused the Civil War?
To say that the Civil War was caused by any one single thing would be to completely disregard history and the complexities of issues that lasted over a hundred years and that the founding fathers and many after them could not resolve. To ignore the role that slavery played in all of the complex reasoning for the Civil War and the inability for lawmakers to compromise is to disregard the underlying issue and theme through much of early American history. The reality is that just as slavery weaved its way into everyday life especially in southern society, it was also weaved into the American story. Compromise after compromise simply put off the issue because it was an issue that really had no compromise. Either slavery was allowed or not. Abraham Lincoln himself stated "'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other." The founding fathers knew this and decided that establishing a new government to help the young nation move forward was more important than dealing with the issue. So they put it off for the next generation to deal with which they did by putting off through compromise in the Missouri Compromise, then again the Compromise of 1850. It was only when Americans reached the point of bloodshed in the Kansas Nebraska Act did we begin to register that this was an issue that must be resolved, but out wouldn't be easy and wouldn't come without a fight. The issue at the backdrop was and has been that of slavery and its expansion, but tied to the issue was states rights and whether those rights supersede the power and control of the national government. From the northern perspective the issue was whether a state could "throw a tantrum" when they were unhappy and simply leave that government- or did they owe the national government more than that- what stops the whole nation from falling apart over insignificant disagreements. If any state simply threatened to leave when they didn't get their way- that would put the whole country and its foundation at risk and ultimately lead to its demise.
Once again Lincoln addressed the views of many northerners perfectly when he said,"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.” For him it wasn't about slavery- though we've established it is the underlying issue- it was about the union and what would happen to this nation moving forward if he allowed the states to secede.
The reality is the cause of the Civil War is no one thing, but all things. Like Kelly said, it was an inability to compromise. It was also the underlying issue of Slavery and its expansion. It was about a young nation finding its way hoping to preserve a future. It was about southerners feeling that their voice was diminishing and they were concerned that the nation would overrun their states rights. It was all of the above. Slavery weaved its way through American history and Compromise used it as currency to put it off for future generations to deal with. This even continued as Reconstruction never truly was completed and 100+ years later, men and women would fight once again for their right to be equal.

Erin Wirthlin

5/3/2018 09:54:13 am

Hey Kim,
As we look at history it is most often not as simple as it seems. It would be easy to say that only one event led to another, but too often there are multiple facets that come together to provide a foundation to great events. I'm glad that you expressed that thought. Slavery was a major catalyst to the Civil War but it was not the only thing. On the other hand, I do ask myself, would the Civil War ever have occurred if slavery did not exist? I do have a very strong opinion on that idea. Thank you so much for your post!

Daniel Morris

5/4/2018 09:21:15 pm

Great post Kim! I too find it impossible to narrow it down to a specific thing that caused the Civil War. At the same time, I feel like slavery was such a big part of the issue that you can't ignore the fact that it was a large part of the problem. Compromise was also a big issue but most of the compromise was over differences of opinions about slavery. I love your conclusion and references to the many things that were a catalyst.

Marrianne Asay

5/5/2018 09:51:42 pm

Well done Kim! I like that you said the issue of slavery is woven throughout US History. The causes for the Civil war are so complex, but the thread that makes the foundation of the cloth, is slavery. The causes of the Civil War are the "whole fabric." The threads are still apparent in the history we are currently making. Thank you for your perspective.

Amanda Rogers

5/1/2018 09:59:36 pm

I studied History at a University in Virginia. Just fifteen minutes away were the campuses of Washington and Lee and Virginia Military Institute. Both Universities are rich in their history of the Civil War and in particular of General Robert E Lee. After the war he was president of the University that would later be renamed after him. Sharing the name of the school with George Washington he is revered on campus and is buried at the chapel there. As a student nearby I went often to see the chapel where he is interred. I never thought of him as anything but an honorable man who represented Virginia during a torn history. Part of that was due to my understanding of the man. My family always thought highly of him. A dear friend of mine who grew up in North Carolina thought highly of him too. In fact she told me once that, in the north and west they teach the Civil War wrong. The South didn’t secede because of slavery but because they no longer wanted to be a part of the United States. This idea made me think and as I read the National Park book on Slavery: Cause and Catalyst of the Civil War and the other three articles I came to the decision that slavery is the main reason for secession and compromise could not have ended the civil war.
Slavery undoubtedly was the reason for secession. As Adam Serwer in The Atlantic states “The freedom that the South fought for was the freedom to own black people as property. The states’ rights for which the South battled were the right to own slaves and the right to expand slavery.” In every declaration of secession the reason was stated as being due to slavery. In most compromises in the years prior to 1860 slavery was at the heart of it. This was an issue debated in the territories and states for a long time. Clearly we were a nation divided but could we have really compromised to an end of slavery? Abraham Lincoln is quoted by John Daniel Davidson in his article saying “the United States ‘cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.’” Slavery is not a simple matter and I do not believe Abraham Lincoln thought this in the least but from the beginning of this nation compromise seemed to only be postponing the inevitable. From as early as the first draft of the Declaration of Independence to the 3/5th compromise twenty years later compromising was what we knew and did but at the heart of each compromise did it lead us to slowing the trade down? Slavery still flourished in the south and in the territories allowing slavery. Yet, the divide in our nation was growing. As President Lincoln states we as a nation could not remain together half slave and half free.
This nation was built around the phrase that all men are created equal. Davidson states that “if all men are created equal, then eventually slavery must be abolished. Perhaps it might even be abolished without war.” Clearly, looking at history, it was through war that slavery was abolished but could compromise truly have ended slavery? I believe that human lives cannot be compromised. For too long compromises were made and for too long we stayed a land divided.
Ultimately it is my belief that slavery was what caused the war to start. Slavery was at the heart of so many issues during the birth and early growth of our nation that as it hit puberty war raged between the two sides. So with slavery being the cause of the war and compromise not an option my questions are now, moving forward, how do we look at the south now and it’s war heroes? Right now on my fridge is a magnet with Robert E Lee in his Confederate gray. Do we honor men who fought to keep human bondage and exploitation in this nation or do we rid ourselves of those relics that honor these southern heroes? For right now my magnet represents my beloved time in Virginia but my understanding of this man has changed.

Erin Wirthlin

5/3/2018 10:02:42 am

Hey Amanda!
Thank you so much for your insights! That must have been an amazing opportunity to study history closer to where it happened. I think about your friend's comment about the South's secession. I agree that many southerners probably did not want to be part of the US anymore, but the question then is Why? There is a foundation as to why the South wanted to be separate, and the one most significant factor is slavery.
I really appreciate your expression on Robert E. Lee. I see him as an amazing man caught up in a difficult time. Many today don't understand the strong loyalty to the state's that most people had throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. Lee was loyal to Virginia more than he was to his nation. That loyalty led him to decide where he stood. If Virginia chose to stay in the Union Lee would have fought for the North. It's not simple, but times were different then in many ways. Thank you again!

Mandee Webster

5/1/2018 10:37:42 pm

What Caused the Civil War?

It really depends on who you ask as to what caused the Civil War. When you look at the causes historically, it can be argued that the Civil War started for whatever reason one had a connection with. For some, the issues was preserving the Union, while others would argue it was about preserving one's way of life and states’ rights, but for many, the argument was… slavery and emancipation .
While some argue that the Civil War started because southerners wanted to preserve their way of life, it is important to note that their way of life was dependent on slavery. I believe this is true for those who were not slave owners themselves. The south relied on slave labor. The cotton gin did not help settle the need for slaves. The cotton gin made cotton production increase. By 1840, cotton brought in more export money than all other export crops combined. Cotton was economic stability. The stability as they knew it, could not have existed without slavery. (Causes and Catalyst, 5)
The united states had a hard time balancing compromise in regards to slavery; such as the number of free verses enslaved states as well a slave trafficking. Money regarding returning slaves or freeing them also had negative connotations between the north and the south. Even those this may have been seen as states’ rights, it was ultimately slavery based.
I do think a disconnect people have today with why the civil war was started was over President Lincoln's words. (The Civil War was not a Mistake)

“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it,” Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley in 1862, “and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”

This quote is often used out of context on social media. I have seen it many times where people on social media claim President Lincoln was racist due to the line “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it.” The rest of his quote is often left out in order to stir controversy. I feel President Lincoln's intentions were to keep peace and compromise within the union, but he ultimately knew slavery would rip our nation apart and he was ready to fight for it.
I used to think the Civil War was started because of state’s rights and that slavery was secondary. I still believe the Civil War was over states’ rights, but with backbone that the states’ rights arguments centered around slavery. Thus, the Civil War was started due to slavery because you can't take slavery out of the states’ rights argument.

Tanya Miner

5/1/2018 10:52:24 pm

Tanya Miner
Blog 1
What caused the Civil War?

The causes of the Civil War will always be debated throughout our nation. It is as the cover of "Slavery: Cause and Catalyst of the Civil War" states, "A number of issues ignited the Civil War: states' rights, the role of the federal government, the preservation of the Union, the economy; but all were inextricably bound to the institution of slavery." Each of these pieces is a thread that is intertwined together to one common cord, survival. Survival of a nation, a people and a desire, that can become so all encompassing, that nothing will stand in the way.

Throughout the beginning of our young nation, we allowed trade of slaves for survival. We as a people needed cheap labor and in return, tradesmen needed food. We had to survive and become a nation of our own. A nation that would form a government, have a stable economics and support the liberty and freedom for all. With that being said, the Revolutionary War was fought and won. The constitution was constructed, debated and finally agreed upon. With one line in particular causing much conflict and grief between two different mindsets. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” If our nation’s constitution held this line then did people not believe that slaves were “men”? They had written in the constitution, and compromised to allow slaves to be counted as 3/5 of a person. True that is not a whole person, but after all, the southern states had agreed that after twenty years the slave trade could and would end.

During that twenty-year time span, cotton had become the most profitable export for our nation. Even with the invention of the cotton gin, the plantation owners needed their slaves, and more slaves, to keep up on the demand placed upon them by other countries and also my their own country men, the northern states. Those same slaves kept cost down to make that same cotton profitable. Yes, the northern states might have been against slavery on a humanistic level. Their actions, and demands, lead to situations that unequivocally, tied the hands of the southern states. This layering of compromises, demands, compromises, demands would eventually catch up to both sides.

Ending with the ultimate betrayal, Abraham Lincoln won the presidency. With this betrayal, came the South’s betrayal, succession from the nation. If they succeed in becoming their own nation, then, our nation would not survive finically. There would always be a battle for land, money and power between the north and the south. Hence, came the beginning of the Civil War. A war, that started before we, America, was even a nation. Just as in that 1991 interview, Foote spoke of the war as a great trauma that has stayed with us, in one form or another, and continues to fascinate and disturb us:
“I think the Civil War in our history corresponds to a horrendous event that happened in your adolescence. You may even forget it, but anything that comes up to bring it to mind, it’s there. So people, even though they don’t know a thing about the Civil War, it’s in their blood somehow. And anything seriously and well-done about it will immediately call up all this unconscious memory. It’s sort of a Jungian thing.” (Exert from The Civil War Was Not a Mistake)

Reflecting on this statement it brings back moments throughout my lifetime where I see groups of people having “flash backs” to the injustice of being slaves. Someone mistreated a fellow brother, and a riot has started. Someone has wronged a fellow man, and the community has become the law, jury, sentencer and executioner who carry out that sentence, all on behalf of the wronged man. I do feel that our country is built on compromises. I also agree with Foote when he spoke about compromise in the contest of the war. Just like in the article, “Shelby Foote’s Civil War History Defends America Against Insatiable Haters Like Ta- Nehisi Coates” with 620,000 dead in the battles of the Civil War our country truly could not of recovered from that great lost of, brothers fighting brothers, and families torn apart, without compromise.

What caused the Civil War? The fight of survival for our country, our citizens who never had their rights given to them, our instinct to follow a vision and live a place of freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all (no matter the color, religious background, shape, size, or beliefs) caused the Civil War.

Teresa Louw

5/2/2018 05:59:27 pm

I really enjoyed your post. I love this ending sentence In your first paragraph, "Survival of a nation, a people and a desire, that can become so all encompassing, that nothing will stand in the way." I love the survival aspect. It was truly life or death.

Kristan Norton

5/1/2018 11:38:07 pm

What Caused the Civil War?

This seemingly straightforward question has been hotly debated for more than a 150 years. As Adam Serwer noted in his Atlantic Magazine article entitled The Civil War Was Not a Mistake, “the scholarly consensus is that the Civil War was about slavery, popular opinion has not entirely caught up.” Slavery is definitely the front runner, but state’s rights or sovereignty is often noted as the overarching principle behind the disagreement. Currently, the ugliest period in our nation’s history is getting a new window dressing, in part thanks to White House Chief of Staff John Kelly’s news-making quote that the cause can be attributed to the “lack of an ability to compromise.” I’ll take a deeper look at compromise, sovereignty and slavery to explore their role in the Civil War.
The time period between 1820 – 1860 could be called the Age of Compromise. Starting with the Missouri Compromise in 1820 admitting Missouri into the Union as a slave state is frequently listed as the first of the slave compromises, but that originally started in 1787 when the US Constitution was ratified. In order to obtain the needed votes, Congress had to concede that they would not tax exports and that banning the slave trade would not be discussed until 1808. The Southern legislatures also demanded that a clause be included that required the return of any fugitive slave. Thus began the lengthy period of concessions to keep the Southern states in line. There was the Compromise of 1850 which included California admission and the stronger Fugitive Slave Law, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 allowing state citizens to vote free or slave. With each new compromise the anger and frustration of our nation grew deeper and more divisive. It appeared slavery was not an issue easily smoothed over. Historian James McPherson summed it up by saying “the war began because a compromise did not exist that could solve the difference between the free and slave states regarding the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in territories that had not yet become states.”
One of the founding principles of our country is federalism whereby the states and the federal government share power. As the rift between those who wanted to eliminate slavery and those who wanted to expand the practice grew, the Southern growers called into question the power of Congress to exert its will onto the states. Slavery was a way of life in the South. With small communities, limited workforce and large agricultural fields, the need for labor was a necessity. Europe was producing cheap imports and in order for the Southern plantation owners to stay competitive, they required bare-bones margins. The free labor from slaves gave them that operating budget. As the anti-slave movement grew, the Southern delegation chose to protect their interests by declaring any act of Congress that disrupted their business model as an attack on their state’s sovereignty.
The institution of slavery is savage, dehumanizing and un-American. For a country which claimed in its founding declaration “…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, slavery is a polar opposite to everything our country stands for. The common southern belief that “the negro is not equal to the white man” or in its belief in white supremacy, was unconscionable for many citizens. Harriet Beecher Stowe’s widely read novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin put disturbing images of the cruelties of enslaved life to the forefront of the population. It took decades, but ultimately the citizens of the Northern United States could not stomach the institution of slavery and the continued pressure to not only allow but expand its existence.
In retrospect, as I look at compromise and sovereignty, it is clear that both are rooted in protecting and defending slavery. The compromises were necessary to protect the plantation owners and to grow the slave trade and sovereignty was claimed purely for the institution of slave ownership and trade. In my mind, the sole reason for the division in our country and ultimately the Civil War was the economic need for slave labor in the Southern states

Marrianne Asay

5/1/2018 11:45:05 pm

The debates surrounding the Civil War have existed in our country since the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter. Many people have argued about the catalyst for the war between the states. Some argue that the Civil War was fought over states rights and sovereignty, while others argue that it was fought over slavery. There is currently a debate about whether compromise or diplomacy should have been used, with additional patience, instead of going to war. However long the debates last, or how they evolve and change over time, the way we look at our collective history as a country can have a profound effect on how we continue to move forward, and continue to heal.
The debate on the causes of the civil war has been going on since it first began. Was it fought over states rights, or the singular issue of slavery? I believe that the South was fighting to maintain their way of life, which included the right to own slaves, and they didn’t want the North, or the Federal Government to interfere with their rights. Slaves had been part of the economy of the South since slavery was introduced in 1619. Their plantations and their fortunes had been built on the backs of slaves. The North had been phasing out slavery since the Declaration of Independence had declared that all men were created equally. The people of the south didn’t share their view. According to the March 21, 1861 issue of the Savannah Republican, “[Our] foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man.” The invention of the cotton gin, which made cotton more of a cash crop, added fuel to the fire, making the slaves even more valuable to their masters.
The White House chief of staff, John Kelly, recently made a comment that “the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War.” One of the areas where compromise became difficult, came about because of the ever increasing expansion to the west. Would slavery be allowed in new territories? Could a slaveholder take his slaves with him when he went to settle new land? According to historian James McPherson, “The war began because a compromise did not exist that could solve the difference between the free and slave states regarding the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in territories that had not yet become states.” Both sides of the argument held such strong opinions that I doubt compromise could have happened on the scale needed to reach an agreement. William Lloyd Garrison passionately stated, “Enslave the liberty of but one human being and the liberties of the world are put in peril... I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice...I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.”
Not long ago, I had the opportunity to visit the Marine Corps Museum in Northern Virginia. The museum had exhibits on every war and conflict the corps had been a part of since they began, including their participation in the Civil War. Part of each exhibit included a total number killed and wounded during each conflict. By the time I had worked my way through the museum, I felt so disheartened at the number of men and women killed during war. I began to consider each war, each conflict, and I was reminded that some things are worth fighting for. Some causes are worth the ultimate sacrifice. Freeing thousands of people from bondage is a cause worth fighting for, a cause worth going to war for. Abolitionist John Brown said “If it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood ruther...with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments-I submit; so let it be done.”
The debate on whether or not slavery was catalyst for the civil war will probably continue for generations, but it is clear that the Declaration of Independence started the process of freeing slaves by guaranteeing certain rights. Some in the north freed their slaves willingly, having seen the horrors of slavery. Others had read about it in books such as Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, or in abolitionist pamphlets, and were willing to fight to end the “peculiar practice” of slavery. Diplomacy and compromise could have had a greater effect on the war, and I hope we continue to use them as tools to avoid wars in the future, but there are some things we need to hold passionately to, and refuse to compromise. It is up to us to stand up to the injustices of our day. Desmond Tutu stated, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”

Kristan Norton

5/2/2018 12:06:21 pm

Your comment "the way we look at our collective history as a country can have a profound effect on how we continue to move forward, and continue to heal" was spot on. Processing the events of the past and evaluating how we can improve, repair and move forward is the importance of history. Mistakes will be made, but we show our civility and humanity by how we deal with them. I also think your quote from Desmond Tutu needs to be emblazoned in all of our hearts.
I also think that including the timeline of events in the slave culture was a great idea. It reminded me that revamping an entire lifestyle is a monstrosity of a task. True, the southern planters should have been preparing for these changes long before the problems ever started, but they were happy with their lifestyle and change rarely comes about it the best of times. This is no way excuses the terrible treatment that many of the slave owners subjected their workers to, but human nature often takes generations to correct not only the policies, but also the mindsets.

Teresa Louw

5/2/2018 06:04:38 pm

Nice job Marrianne! I liked how you brought up the fact that we need to look back at our history...to move forward This is so important. This is why we teach!

Elaine Grant

5/2/2018 01:47:27 am

What Caused the Civil War?
The idea that the cause of the bloodiest conflict in American history can be attributed to just one thing is to over-simplify the issue. The general consensus seems to be that slavery was the main cause; however there is some disagreement among scholars and the writers of the articles we read. The opposing views provided an opportunity to examine other causes and factors that led to the Civil War. While I agree that slavery was the main cause of the Civil War, I believe that other factors such as economics, state’s rights, the preservation of the Union, and even the inability to compromise, also contributed significantly to the conflict.

On the cover of Slavery: Cause and Catalyst of the Civil War it lists four causes for the Civil War but asserts that they are all “inextricably bound to the institution of slavery”. I agree with this assertion, and after reading the articles I would also add the inability to compromise to the list of causes. While that cause is controversial, after reading articles making opposing arguments, I agree that inability to compromise was a contributing factor to the Civil War. On page 9 of Slavery there is the following quote by James McPherson. “The war began because a compromise did not exist that could solve the difference between the free and slave states regarding the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in territories that had not yet become states.” This correlates to the article in The Federalist by John Daniel Davidson wherein he claims that, “Foote spoke often about compromise in the context of the war because he understood that after such an unfathomable bloodletting – 620,000 dead – there would be no way to reunify the country without compromise.” John Kelly was recently criticized for his comment that not being able to compromise was what caused the Civil War, but I agree that it was a leading factor. A corroborating example of this is found on page 15 of Slavery and refers to the picture and account of Preston Brooks caning Senator Sumner on the Senate Floor in an argument over the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The fact that Preston Brooks would strike a fellow congressman in their legislative session because he disagreed with him rather than try to work out a compromise is telling.

I have read that most people in the South saw the main cause of the Civil War as being over state’s rights and that most people in the North thought the Civil War was about slavery. While it is true that the Confederate states were concerned about state’s rights, I can’t think of a state’s rights issue other than slavery that would have gotten them riled up enough to fight a war. State’s rights were a concern from the earliest founding of America, and slavery was also an issue then. I think the southern states really were concerned about federal overreach and disliked the federal government interfering with an institution that most southern plantation owners didn’t think they could do without and firmly believed they had a right to continue and protect.

The economic prosperity many Southerners enjoyed was a huge factor in the Civil War. As was mentioned in The Reconstruction Era, Blacks correctly believed that the economic prosperity that made the plantation owners so financially prosperous was due to their hard work. The invention of the cotton gin exacerbated the plight of the slaves because the cotton gin, “enabled textile mills to use the type of cotton grown in most of the South.” This was bad timing for the slaves because “the world demand for cotton exploded. By 1840, cotton produced in the American South earned more money than all other US exports combined.” (Slavery p 5) It is easy to see why Southerners were concerned about the government changing their opportunity for wealth. Additionally, “Many white Southerners came to believe that the viability of cotton as a crop depended on slave labor. Over time, most took for granted that their prosperity, even their way of life, was inseparable from African slavery.” (Slavery p 5) It is clear from this quote how Southerners came to believe that slavery was necessary for them to be able to maintain their lifestyle. Again, they were willing to fight to maintain what they felt was their right to maintain.

Finally, many people in the North felt that slavery was wrong and should be abolished. Some were willing to continue to compromise to keep the Union together, but others felt that it was more important to stop the spread of slavery. Many in the South felt as Mississippi asserted in a statement when it seceded that, “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery…” (Slavery p 20). With each side of the conflict passionately and vehemently justifying and defending their position, compromise became less and less likely and the likelihood

Elaine Grant

5/2/2018 01:51:30 am

of war became a reality.
Although each of the factors above contributed to the Civil War, they are all related to slavery. Slavery enabled the Southern plantation owners to profit from their cash crops. They felt that it was their right to keep their current system, which had clearly been successful. The Northern abolitionists believed it was their responsibility to end the abominable practice of slavery. As each side became even more entrenched in their beliefs, compromise became less of an option. The election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States was the final straw for many Southerners. It represented everything they feared such as: federal overreach into their “peculiar institution” and economic ruin if slavery was abolished. The South believed that Lincoln would not have their best interests in mind and would not preserve their culture of slavery. One by one they voted to secede from the United States. Many factors contributed to the secession of the Confederate States, but slavery was the catalyst.

Selene Mansfield

5/2/2018 08:54:21 am

I think you hit the nail right on the head. While a one word answer is of course an oversimplification for a complex issue, all of the contributing factors can be tied to slavery.

Kara Budge

5/4/2018 09:52:37 pm

“The simple way, then, to put an end to the savage and desolating war now waged by slaveholders is to strike down slavery itself, the primal cause of that war.” Frederick Douglass. Yes, Frederick Douglass, I couldn’t agree more. Slavery was the primal cause of the war, period. I have been criticized for using such a simplistic response to a very complex issue but when you boil it all down, that is what we are left with, the central issue of it all is undeniably the issue of slavery.
The causes of the Civil War are still debated, many might argue that it was caused by State’s rights, freedom (ironically), or “lack of ability to compromise” (John Kelly). I hear those arguments and see an arrow directly pointing to one key issue, slavery.
As I read the article by Adam Serwer I found the voice of my kindred spirit. As I read the article, I couldn’t help but exclaim, “Yes!” “Exactly!” “Preach!” It is what I believe, it is what I teach. I understand the idea that Southerners felt their freedoms were being threatened (their freedom to own slaves) and individual States should be able to decide issues that affected them locally (such as slavery). However, there was no lack of compromise – it’s just that compromising about another human’s freedom just couldn’t be part of the negotiations anymore. As Serwer stated, “any compromise that could have been reached with the Southern states would have been a compromise over the personhood of black people – and, like all compromises before it, merely a delay of the inevitable conflict to come.” All compromises before the Civil War were bandaids on a gaping wound – eventually the issue would need serious attention. Perhaps my view is “reductive” as Davidson might call it, but I’m interested in getting down to the real motivation, the cause of Southerner’s passion for States rights was about preserving the institution of slavery .
The articles written about Shelby Foote in the Ken Burns documentary didn’t help me to form an opinion of the causes nor did they persuade or dissuade me one way or another. I found each article interesting, particularly the article that compared Foote and Field’s perspectives of the war. I have profound respect for Foote and Burns. Foote is a wealth of information, a leading scholar on the War and what he has said and what he has contributed to our understanding and point of view has been valuable. That being said, the war was about the issue of slavery.

D2T Blog Guidelines

1. Write with your readers in mind: Who are they? What do they need to know? What should they know? How will they use your information? ALWAYS be respectful of differences of opinion.
2. Ask questions about the author's suppositions in the text. Be open-ended and open-minded when addressing the topic.
3. Provide links, and/or quotes when relevant/necessary to help readers learn more about your opinion
4. Each participant is required to post two insightful essays: Blog 1, What caused the Civil War? and Blog 2, Victories and Defeats Rebuilding the Nation on or before May 1st
5. Participants are required to read and respond to a minimum of four of their peers posts before May 15th, as such it is imperative that all participants meet their deadlines. Plan ahead to give yourself time to brainstorm, read, write, and edit.
5. Pay attention to copyright. Use other people’s work with respect and link to your sources.
6. Stick to the topic. Don’t write about your weekend plans or gossip.
7. Think before you post. Ask yourself, is this something I want my parents, students , friends, strangers to see? What are the consequences if you post this?
8. Only post information you can verify as accurate. Provide links to your sources.

Help?! i cannot post all of my essay?

If all of your essay or comments are not posting to the blog, simply copy the content missed and post it in the reply section of your own post. Unfortunately the blog site limits the size of a post, you can bypass this feature by augmenting your essay in the reply box.

RSS Feed

BLog dialogue