Mandel
1
The American Civil War, a bloody Four-Year war, from 1861-1865, fought on American
soil, costed the U.S. in total, roughly 620,000 lives1. Controversy and dispute between the northern
and southern states ultimately leads to the war. However, what exactly did those disputes consist
of, was there any other way they could’ve settled and how exactly did these controversies lead to
the Civil-War is up for discussion. Depending on which perspective you take (North or South),
depending on where the information is coming from, and depending on other bias, can play a big
role in understanding the argument between the North/Federal Government and the
South/Confederate Government. Though putting aside all guilty feelings and the likes, in search
of truth, in seems like everything revolves around the dispute of slavery. Not necessarily directly
about slavery, even though that’s a huge part, but even other disputes that seem to be different than
the debate of slavery itself, in the end of the day come around in full circle and end up becoming
about slavery in the end of the day.
From the conception of The United States of America, there are many different views about
many different things, since the land is made up of a bunch of different states. They did come
together to fight against one common cause, the British Government, however, the ideological
differences between one state and another remains. Even at the creation of the Federal Government
and writing of the Constitution, there were only a handful of laws that everyone was able to agree
on without any dispute, and over those words we still toil over, until this very day. So, for example,
the issue of slavery is not discussed in the Constitution since already then, there’s dispute over
slavery, hence it’s absence in the Constitution.
1
Death and Dying--Civil War Era National Cemeteries
https://www.nps.gov › travel › national cemeteries › death
Mandel
2
In any case, states don’t fully Govern themselves. They are to some degree dependent and
controlled by the Federal government, and ever since George Washington who had the special
talent of balancing both sides and making everyone feel heard, left the White House, the country
kind of splits into two. However, there’s a big difference between the way the U.S. Federal
Government is run and the rest of the world. In the U.S representation in Federal Government is
based on states and population. Therefore, if most states are pro a certain idea, that may likely
affect the ruling of the Federal Government in that area and can potentially be a threat to states
that appose that idea, even it’s something that at the time is controlled by the State, since the control
of the Federal Government can vary at times depending different things.
As mentioned before, the aspect and laws of slavery are left up to the discretion of each
state on its own. In general, the Southern States are pro slavery while the Northern States are antislavery. It mostly ended up this way since the Northern Colonies didn’t have much slavery because
their economy was more business based. On the other hand, the South had lots of land which had
to be farmed, and slaves were doing the majority, if not the entirety of it. It’s hard to know what
came first, the ideology or the practicality, but in general there was also a difference ideologically
between the North and South when it came slavery. In a very general way, the North felt that
slavery was an evil and injustice, while the South had a more racist perspective and felt that Black
people were deserving and fit for slavery. Some even referred to it as “beneficial”2, arguing that
being slaves was better for the Black people as they were guaranteed support and didn’t have to
make decisions that they were ‘incapable’ of making. Though the North certainly did not treat
Black people equal, as we know from Jasmine Nichole Cobb. “Federal law did not address the
2
Shi, David Emory. 2019. America: A Narrative History Brief eleventh ed. New York: W.W.
Norton & Company page 545
Mandel
3
legality of black citizenship until 1857”3. It’s still understood that Chattel-Slavery was not the way
to treat the African Americans. Wayne makes the point a little stronger by writing “men who
shaped the political order of the republic during the nearly two centuries before the Civil Rights
Era believed in white supremacy with as much conviction as they believed in freedom and
democracy.”4
Anyway, for a while these two ideologies kind of live in peace, and it’s really the expansion
of the West that causes the argument to blow out of proportion. As many Americans moved to the
West in hope of land and opportunity, and settled there, new states would form. What were these
new states going to be? Free states or slave states? Southerners wanted them to be slave States
while Northerners wanted them to be Free States. And here is where the Federal Government came
in. Many heated debates were ‘fought’ (quite literally) over this dilemma. The possibility of the
West becoming Free States was a threat to the South since that would mean that the majority of
the representation in the Federal Government would be anti-slavery and that may interfere with
their slave economy. As the two groups became more opposed of each other mainly arguing about
the status of the New West, two parties emerged, the republican Party which was anti-slavery,
mostly Northerners, and the Democrat Party which consisted of mostly Southerners and pro
slavery ideologies. The Republican Party itself consisted of mainly two types, the ’abolitionists’
who were eager to end slavery throughout the U.S. and then there were those that were apposed to
slavery spreading but were not particularly outgoing about stopping slavery in places that it already
existed. Either way nobody from the Republican Party wanted to see slavery spread to the West.
3
Jasmine Nichole Cobb. 2015. Picture Freedom : Remaking Black Visuality in the Early Nineteenth Century. America
and the Long 19th Century. New York: NYU Press.
4
Wayne, Michael. 2014. Imagining Black America. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Mandel
4
While Democrats were greatly concerned that if the whole West becomes Free States, then the
Southern States will become a minority in reference to the Federal Government regarding the
slavery dilemma.
The 1860 election would be a crucial one because of the debates that were present
particularly regarding slavery. Lincoln of the Republican Party was running as well as Douglas a
Northern Democrat, Breckinridge a Southern Democrat and Bell of the Constitution Union. The
victory of Abraham Lincoln was not taken with ease by many in the South. Fear of loosing their
‘rights to hold slaves’ caused a convention to be appointed to decide how to deal with the new
President Elect. Starting with South Carolina and followed by a bunch of other Lower Southern
States, it was decided to succeed from the Union. They formed The Confederate Government with
Jefferson Davis as President and Alexander Stevens as Vice president. Later, as Lincoln gets
inaugurated, He still does not think this succession is going to be a real thing. He considers the
New Government fiction and still part of the union, against their will by default. However, the
confederacy meant business and they will fight it out until the bitter, bitter, bitter end. As indeed
they do start the War under General Robert E. Lee, with their attack on Fort Sumter, April 12 of
1861.
We can clearly see from the way the parties split into two main opposing fronts, that
everything has to do with slavery, the main difference between the North and South altogether,
and that’s why things worsen with Western Expansion. It is also evident throughout the debates
and claims of pro slavery Southerners, the strong racial significance and perception that existed
which coincided with slavery. It’s hard to find another reason the South would’ve been that
concerned about Lincoln’s victory other than slavery.
Mandel
5
The thing is that the idea of slavery to the South is not as simple as just having a slave to
do labor for you, rather it’s super complicated and entails many different things. For starters, the
entire economy of the South is based on slaves working in the fields and producing the produce
that they do. This is the main source of money for many Southerners. As Singer expresses “The
“founders” were a curious and inconsistent bunch, who like Jefferson, sometimes bemoaned an
institution, slavery, that was the basis for their wealth and authority.5 ” We also see this clearly
through the Emancipation Proclamation6 as it was issued by President Lincoln slaves start freeing
themselves by sticking to the Union Army as it went through different parts of the South. What
happens, is that by losing their slaves there’s no food to eat after a while since the men are fighting
and there are no slaves in the field producing. And towards the end of the War, woman start
protesting in the streets out of lack of basic food to feed their families7. Essentially this was part
of Lincoln’s plan and understanding through the Emancipation Proclamation, since he understood
that the South is kind of platformed on slavery and allowing slaves to go free, will ultimately
collapse the platform the South stands on, thereby collapsing the South. So, in turn the South is
scared through Lincoln’s victory, not just about their slaves going free, but rather about their
economy collapsing. However, in the end of the day that’s all related to slavery.
An interesting point is that even on economical level, lots were apposed to slavery. For
example, Lincoln himself hated slavery partially do to the fact that he was born to a poor family
Alan J. Singer. 2018. New York’s Grand Emancipation Jubilee : Essays on Slavery, Resistance,
Abolition, Teaching, and Historical Memory. Albany: SUNY Press.
5
6
7
Lincoln, Abraham. 1997. The Emancipation Proclamation. Champaign, Ill: Project Gutenberg.
Shi, David Emory. 2019. America: A Narrative History Brief eleventh ed. New York: W.W.
Norton & Company page 585
Mandel
6
in a slave state-Louisiana, and whose parents couldn’t compete with the plantation owners and
therefore Lincoln’s family moved to a free state-Kentucky, where the competition was more fair
and gave them a greater chance of opportunity. Same is to many Northerners the idea of abolishing
slavery or just making sure that it doesn’t spread is not necessarily just a moral thing, rather there’s
also a fear of slave owners making unfair competition with the middle class and causing economic
imbalance. So, in a way one can say that this debate is rather about the economy and not just about
slavery as Brettle writes in his introduction “Confederates expect far more from their new polity
that the defensive preservation of slavery from Federal assaults”8. The problem is that all this rolls
right back to the issue of slavery even though it’s not intrinsically about slavery. And we see that
it all boils down to slavery from Brettle’s continuation stating that planners believed that they were
establishing a new great power as they boasted of their growing economy9. And as we all know
their economy was strong due to slavery.
Another aspect that slavery gave to many white Southerners is that even those that were
not slave owners (as surprising as it may sound, the majority of the South did not own slaves due
to their high price), were still in a higher social class than slaves, and abolishing slavery, to these
people can potentially mean loosing that raise in social status, because freed men might take them
over causing the standard white or poor white to fall to the very bottom of society. Additionally,
the social classes that African American slavery created were embedded in the culture, to the extent
that The Texas Convention, displaying the racism at work in secession, called African Americans
8
Adrian Brettle. 2020. Colossal Ambitions : Confederate Planning for a Post–Civil War World. A Nation Divided:
Studies in the Civil War Era. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
9
Ibid
Mandel
7
“an inferior and defendant race”10. So, the fear of new social imbalance was another fear that white
Southerners had. But at the end of the day, be it a social fear, be it an economical fear or be it the
plain and simple luxury of not having to work, all relates and comes back to slavery.
This is even more pronounced as a generation or two pass after the end of the Civil War
and Former Confederates start looking for a more handsome reason as to why they went to war
against the Federal Government, feeling uncomfortable with reason of fighting for slavery a
generation or two after they’re defeated, and slavery is abolished. So, they come up with reasons
like the South was feeling oppressed and felt like their rights were taken away from them. But the
only thing that was possibly going to be taken away from them was slavery, nothing else. As Ross
writes explaining the South’s side of the argument during the Civil War “on the one side for socalled State Rights and local self-government”.11 And then continues on later to write “The
institution of negro slavery…... and was in fact the underlying and potent cause of the war”.12 So
It’s kind of complex because there are lots of different aspects to the dynamics of the South, but
many are ultimately dependent on slavery.
{ Additionally, if there was a solid reason for the war other than slavery, then we wouldn’t
have to look so hard for one and be left with ‘The Myth of The Lost Cause’, which kind of tries to
imply that the South was just fighting for their rights and didn’t really have a chance to win since
they were largely outnumbered. Even though they were the ones that started the war, so they must
10
Shi, David Emory. 2019. America: A Narrative History Brief eleventh ed. New York: W.W.
Norton & Company page 545
11
Ross, Edmund G. 2014. History of the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, President of The
United States : By The House Of Representatives and His Trial by The Senate for High Crimes
and Misdemeanors in Office. Auckland: The Floating Press.
12
ibid
Mandel
8
have thought they had some sort of advantage, which in a small way, they did, since most veterans
at the time were from the South, also the culture of the South may have given them an advantage
over the North since the South was more used to gun usage for hunting. On the other hand, the
business-based North was not too gun savvy necessarily.}
So, it seems like indeed the argument was about slavery all in all, when push comes to
shove. Maybe not in the forefront, but when examined it’s quite clear. It’s interesting to note how
an argument can escalate and end up in war. And what seems to be a big factor is the fact that as
explained above, the issue of slavery is something that’s deeply embedded in the culture, economy
and social class of many Southern states, and when each side feels so deeply threatened by the
other party, thereby causing a stronger division, there’s potential for escalation to unforeseen
circumstances.
Perhaps the most important question would be, could the Civil War have been avoided?
Can the causes of the uprise have been redirected or counter acted? What exactly were the causes?
One very interesting thing to start with is that in way it is through the Civil War itself that slavery
gets abolished even in the South. Technically, if The South were not to have started a war against
the Union, they probably would have been able to hold on to slavery for at least a little longer in
their own states. Since, in the onset of the war Lincoln had no intention of abolishing all of slavery.
Rather, the point of this war was to deal with the rebellion of the Southern States. It is only right
before the Emancipation Proclamation that Lincoln realizes that he needs more soldiers to enlist
in the army and decides to remarket the war as a war that has moral value and not just constitutional
value, since how many people are willing to risk their lives for a few states that are not complying
with the Constitution. But now that the War is about freeing oppressed people, a lot more people
on board. So had the Southern States stuck to the Union, they probably would’ve felt a little
Mandel
9
restricted not being allowed to bring their slaves over certain state lines or some other relatively
smaller restrictions regarding slavery, to prevent it from spreading. But now, it’s gone, gone
forever.
Another thought about avoiding war is, in theory what would’ve happened had the South
not started the war. It’s quite an interesting thought as to what would’ve been Lincoln’s next
response, as he didn’t identify their succession alone as their own independence rather, in his eyes
they were still part of the Union and had never left. Therefore, had they continued to live under
their New Government and obviously not pay taxes to the Federal Government, what would the
Federal Government do about it? Would the Federal Government eventually start a war? Perhaps
they would have other strategic methods to force the South to comply without waging war.
After all that written, it's quite fascinating and a little scary, how a nation, united for around
100 years can actually come to such a bloody war. Understandably, it does not happen overnight.
Rather these were areas of friction that spiraled and blew up. As time went on, each Party and
ideology became more and more extreme, causing a greater sense of division and separation.
Slavery became a very crucial and sensitive topic that a decision of the Federal Government, either
way, was a major threat, and considered intolerable to the opposing party. As written above, the
argument over slavery is not about just getting our way or being right. It’s an argument that an
entire economy of people, fully depended on, physically, financially and socially. As simple and
moral as it may seem to us 150+ years post-Civil War, when you’re in it, it’s quite blinding. And
we can reflect and try to learn from this incident that happened so long ago but still repeats itself
many years later with different arguments and positions but at the same time, all too similar to the
history of that time. It’s important for a country to realize that there are different opinions and
approaches to every new dilemma that arrives, as well as old dilemmas, and there will always
Mandel
10
continue to be different views. But that doesn’t mean that it’s ‘my way or the highway’. President
Lincoln as well as President Washington were famous for their ability to compromise, understand
both sides and know how to deal with everyone. Let’s learn from great people. We must accept,
be flexible and be willing to compromise.
Mandel
11
WORKS CITED:
1) https://www.nps.gov › travel › national cemeteries › death
2) Lincoln, Abraham. 1997. The Emancipation Proclamation. Champaign, Ill: Project
Gutenberg.
3) Shi, David Emory. 2019. America: A Narrative History Brief eleventh ed. New York: W.W.
Norton & Company
4) Alan J. Singer. 2018. New York’s Grand Emancipation Jubilee : Essays on Slavery,
Resistance, Abolition, Teaching, and Historical Memory. Albany: SUNY Press.
5) Wayne, Michael. 2014. Imagining Black America. New Haven: Yale University Press.
6) Adrian Brettle. 2020. Colossal Ambitions : Confederate Planning for a Post–Civil War
World. A Nation Divided:
Studies in the Civil War Era. Charlottesville: University of
Virginia Press.
7) 1 Ross, Edmund G. 2014. History of the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, President of The
United States : By The House Of Representatives and His Trial by The Senate for High Crimes
and Misdemeanors in Office. Auckland: The Floating Press.
Mandel
12