| It is time to
look deeply not into another battle of the Civil War, but to causes of
the War itself. In the next several articles I will be looking at events
that led to this terrible conflict that tore our nation. It is all too
often thought that the Civil War was fought to end slavery, and that the
North was against such an institution while the South fought to preserve
it. As you will learn, this is hardly the case.
It can be argued, however, that the issue of slavery was a factor in
many of the arguments and occurrences that led up to the 1860-61
secession movement. As time goes along, you will hopefully understand
what I mean.
I will break the articles down by individual events that led up to
the Civil War. Beginning with the Northwest Land Ordinance of 1787, I
will look into the early acts of Congress that first brought the issue
of slavery into the realm of politics. Included will be an interpretive
look into the United States Constitution and how the founding fathers
addressed the issue. I will then move on to events starting with the
abolition of the trans-Atlantic slave trade in 1808, the Missouri
Compromise of 1820, the anti-slavery movement, the annexation of Texas
and the Wilmot Proviso, and the Fugitive Slave Law and the Compromise of
1850. Moving on, we will look at the Kansas-Nebraska Act,"Bleeding
Kansas," the Dred Scott decision, John Brown’s Raid and the
Christiana Riot, the issue of taxes and tariffs, and finally the
secessionist movement.
Causes of the Civil War: The
Northwest Ordinance (1787) and the U.S. Constitution
| In the
introduction I stated that slavery was not necessarily the
direct cause of the Civil War, nor was the War fought to end or
preserve that institution. The question of slavery can be found,
however, as a basis of many other issues that arose prior to the
War. Thus, to ignore slavery and how the issue was addressed in
the late 1700’s would be unjust when the time comes to examine
the controversial issues and events that occurred during the mid
1800’s.
Following the American victory over the British in the
American Revolution, the issue of slavery and the question of
whether it was an economic necessity and ethical institution
surfaced in full force in the colonies, particularly in the
North. Before the end of the War in 1780, Pennsylvania made
provisions for the gradual abolition of slavery, and many states
were soon to follow suit. Between the years 1783 and 1786 most
northern states took steps to manumit all slaves in their
respective states. Even some southern states looked for indirect
ways to encourage slave owners to free their servants. In 1787,
Congress passed the Northwest Land Ordinance that included a
provision that outlawed slavery in the new territories located
in present-day Ohio, Michigan, Indiana and Illinois. This was
the first official act of Congress that brought the issue of
slavery to the national political scene.
The founding fathers had to deal with slavery when writing
the Constitution. If you look carefully into this great but
fallible document, the word "slave" never appears.
However, the issue was dealt with on three separate areas of
concern: representation, international slave trade and fugitive
slaves. To address the representation dilemma, the writers
included a 3/5 clause in which slaves, or "all other
persons" are included. Thus slaves were not thought to be a
whole person, just 3/5 of one. Secondly, the founders banned the
"migration or importation of such persons," an act
that would take effect on January 1, 1808. Finally, all runaway
slaves were declared property "of the party to whom such
service or labour may be due," and that any slave that
escaped to a free territory or state was bound to return to his
or her owner.
Causes Of the Civil War:
The Compromise of 1820 and the Early Anti-slavery Movement
| The
Louisiana Purchase in 1803 paved the way for United
States expansion by more than doubling the size of the
country. People from all states rushed westward to start
a new and hopefully successful life. As the territories
became highly populated, the issue of new states being
admitted into the Union arose, and with this came the
question of whether slavery would be allowed in newly
admitted states.
Southern expansionists and settlers poured into the
newly acquired territories from the Louisiana Purchase
with hopes of expanding slavery to counterbalance the
larger growth in the free North. In fact, some slavery
settlers attempted unsuccessfully to defy the Northwest
Ordinance and institute slavery in Indiana and Illinois.
In 1819, when Missouri had petitioned to be admitted
into the Union, many Northern anti-slavery advocates
fought to keep slavery out of this soon-to-be state,
while at that time, the territory fully practiced it.
After intense debate in Washington, and a threat of
disunion by many members of Congress, lawmakers created
the Missouri Compromise in 1820 which allowed slavery in
Missouri, but prohibited at any other points north of
Missouri’s northern border within the lands of the
Louisiana Purchase.
Though few white men questioned the morality of
slavery before the 1700’s, there were those, such as
the Quakers, who believed the act to be vile. In 1775
the Quakers founded the first American anti-slavery
group. But it was between 1775 and 1830 when more and
more abolitionists began to surface, and this emergence
brought with it the importance of slavery to the
political realm. By the early 1830’s, abolitionism was
in full thrust, and America saw the genesis of the
American Anti-slavery Society in 1833, founded by
several Northern men including the famous William Lloyd
Garrison.
The Missouri Compromise seemed to have put the issue
of slavery expansion to rest, but it only fed the fire
for both groups on the two extremes. The abolitionists
were unsatisfied that Missouri and other states south
could be admitted as slave states, while the slavery
advocates still wanted slavery to be expanded north if
need be. The antislavery movement, probably somewhat
fueled by the Missouri Compromise, kept pressure of both
the South and Washington following 1820, and thus
perpetuated the soon to be explosive issue of abolition.
Causes of the Civil
War: The Mexican War and the Wilmot Proviso
| "We
must satisfy the northern people…that we are
not to extend the institution of slavery as a
result of this war." — Gideon Welles,
Connecticut Democrat, 1846.
In the early 1820’s, Americans were invited
by the Mexican government, which was pushing for
development, to settle and farm on the
borderland of Texas. After more and more
Americans settled (around 20,000 Americans and
4,000 slaves), a push for independence from
Mexico ensued. After a short war between the
settlers and Mexico, President Jackson
recognized Texas’ independence which thus
became known as the Republic of Texas (sound
familiar?).
The Mexican government refused to acknowledge
the independence of Texas, and turned down a
United States offer to buy the territory, as
well as lands in California and the southwest.
Most in Texas and in the U.S. wanted to admit
the territory in as a new state. So, General
Zachary Taylor led his troops to the southern
border of Texas, the Rio Grande River. The
Mexicans, however, believed the border to be to
the north of the Rio Grande, and that Taylor had
crossed into Mexican territory, thus carrying
out an act of aggression. After a border
incident where an American was killed, President
James Polk was able to convince Congress to
declare war. The Mexican War of 1846 was the
result.
The War was rather short, and the heavily
outnumbered, but better organized, American
troops were able to defeat Mexico, but at a
heavy cost. 104,556 Americans served in the
Mexican War, and 13,768 were killed; the highest
death rate of any American war up to that time.
What does the Mexican War which occurred in
1846 have to do with the Civil War which started
in 1861? After America defeated the Mexicans, we
not only acquired the Texas territory, but also
the California and New Mexico territories
(Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and parts of
Oklahoma, Colorado, and Wyoming). Now the
question of whether or not these territories
would allow slavery came to the surface.
Northerners were basically against fighting the
War for the cause of slavery expansion (simply
because it was not a cause that directly
involved them), and thus they were against any
results of the War that would indicate such a
cause. However, since most of these new
territories were south of the Missouri
Compromise line, Southerners argued they had the
right to expand slavery to those new
territories.
In August of 1847 Congressman David Wilmot of
Pennsylvania attached a proviso to an amendment
that would exclude slavery from the newly
acquired territories. Although the House voted
for it twice, the Senate defeated the measure.
Wilmot’s proviso, although unsuccessful,
brought the heated issue of slavery expansion
that the Missouri Compromise seemed to fix back
to the center of political debate.
Causes of
the Civil War: The Compromise of 1850 and the
Fugitive Slave Law
| Following
the Mexican War, questions arose as to
the future of the territories that were
acquired from Mexico. These territories
included California, New Mexico and
Arizona, among others. The main concern
was statehood and whether slavery would
be allowed in the new states. Obviously,
the South in general was all for
southern states’ rights and slavery
expansion, and they advocated admitting
the new territories as slave states. The
North, on the other hand, was not as
quick to want to give up the possibility
of acquiring another free state for the
advancement of the economy. The debate
that ensued was one of the most
significant and hard-fought debate that
led to the Civil War.
There were other issues that
confronted Congress. The House had voted
to outlaw slavery in the District of
Columbia, and had passed the Wilmot
Proviso (which did fail in the Senate
thanks to Sen. John C. Calhoun). Also,
President Zachary Taylor had vowed to be
president of all of the United States,
not just the South, and he angered many
radical, pro-slavery southerners with
some of his pro-northern policies.
Taylor also denounced any talk of
secession.
With debates rising, senators Henry
Clay, Daniel Webster and Calhoun, the
Big Three as they were called, made
their ideas known. Clay, who was the
first to speak, declared that a
compromise is the only solution to this
problem, and both sides should concede
to some point. Calhoun denounced
Clay’s compromising initiative and
threatened secession. Webster, who was
usually a foe of Clay, agreed with him
saying that preserving the Union was the
most important issue, and compromise was
the only was to do it.
With the death of Calhoun, just a
month after his speech, and the death of
Zachary Taylor (no, he was not poisoned)
in 1850, the Clay's Compromise of 1850
was enacted by Congress and signed by
the new president, Millard Fillmore. The
Compromise had five provisions. Two
favored the North’s interests, one was
seemingly neutral, and two favored slave
holders in the South. The first two
admitted California as a free state and
abolished slavery in the District of
Columbia. The third left the slavery
question in the other territories of New
Mexico and Arizona up to the settlers,
in accordance with the notion of popular
sovereignty. The fourth merely
compensated Texas settlers for further
expanding into new territories, thus
strengthening slave holders there.
The final measure was the Fugitive
Slave Act, which stated, "aid to
escaping slaves in the form of food,
shelter, or other assistance was a
federal crime, punishable by a $1,000
fine and six months in prison.
Constitutional guarantees such as a
trial by jury were simply ignored"
(Davis, 105). It also created a bounty
system to help create incentive among
Northerners to aid Southern slave
catchers in retrieving their
"property." Thus, no escaped
slave could truly be safe in the North.
This provision of the Compromise of
1850 was by far the most controversial,
setting off a new wave of abolitionism
and anti-South sentiment. Even many who
were content to see slavery continue
were now seeing this as a governmental
endorsement of kidnapping. The Fugitive
Slave Law and the notion of popular
sovereignty haunted the Union from that
point into the Civil War.
Causes
of the Civil War: The Kansas-Nebraska
Act of 1854
| In
the years following the
Compromise of 1850, questions
and controversy began to surface
over the issue of slavery in the
Nebraska Territory west of
Missouri. In 1853 the House
failed to outlaw slavery in
Nebraska though it was
officially north of the Missouri
Compromise line. Thus, as more
and more people settled in the
area, the issue of slavery there
became heavily debated.
In 1854, Senator Stephen
Douglas of Illinois proposed a
bill that would address the
issue. The provisions of the
bill were as follows: it
repealed the original Missouri
Compromise line, split the
Nebraska Territory into two
sections, Nebraska and Kansas
and supported the notion of
popular sovereignty (let the
settlers decide on the slavery
issue). There was ample Northern
opposition to this bill. Horace
Greeley, editor of the New
York Tribune, made an
all-telling statement in saying
that "the bill created more
abolitionists in two months than
William Lloyd Garrison and
Wendell Phillips had created in
20 years" (MacPherson, 93).
The following is a segment of
the debate in the Senate over
the future of slavery in Kansas:
Sen. George Badger (NC):
"If some Southern
gentleman wishes to take the old
woman who nursed him in
childhood and whom he called
‘Mammy’ into on of these new
territories for the betterment
of the fortunes of his whole
family—why, in the name of
God, should anybody prevent
it?"
Sen. Benjamin Wade (OH) in
response to Badger: "We
have not in the least objection
to the Senator’s migrating to
Kansas and taking his old
‘Mammy’ along with him. We
only insist that he shall not be
empowered to sell her after
taking her there"
(MacPherson, 93).
When the vote in Congress
occurred, the tally followed
geographical and party lines. In
the Senate, the vote was for the
bill 37-14 (Northern Democrats
voted "yes" 14-5). The
House’s vote was much closer
with 113 for and 100 against the
bill (Northern Democrats’ vote
was even at 44-44). Overall, a
total of 61 percent of the
"yes" votes were
Southern, while 91 percent of
the "no" votes were
from Northerners.
Causes
of the Civil War: "Bleeding
Kansas" and the Dred Scott
Decision
| Immediately
following the passage of
the Kansas-Nebraska Act,
a wave of settlers began
pouring into the
territory. They first
came from Missouri, then
from the mid-western
states such as Indiana
and Illinois. Some were
sent by the group known
as the New England
Emigrant Aid Company.
These people were seen
by the South as an
abolitionist movement in
the west. From the early
stages of settlement,
Free Soilers and
pro-slavery settlers
clashed over lands,
towns, water, etc., and
there was little law and
order. Although a
provisional governor was
assigned to the
territory by President
Pierce, not much was
done to curb to violence
between the two sides.
Late in 1854, Kansas
held an election for a
delegate to be assigned
to Washington. Over
1,700 armed Missourians
(known as Border
Ruffians) crossed the
border and voted for a
pro-slavery delegate. A
little later, when the
time came to elect a
territorial legislature,
over 5,000 Missourians
crossed to sway votes
toward the pro-slavery
side. Pro-slavery votes
outweighed those of Free
Soilers 5,247-791. As it
turned out, 4,968 of the
pro-slavery votes were
illegal. Though
fraudulent, President
Pierce did nothing, and
the elections stood.
To counter, Free
Soilers organized their
own government (which
happened to represent
the majority of
settlers). So now there
were two separate
governments in the
territory. But no matter
how many governments
would reign, violence
was becoming a major
problem in the area.
Most of the hostilities
were carried out by
Southerners on
anti-slavery settlers,
with many dying as a
result. However, the
most famous of incidents
occurred when John
Brown, with four sons
and two others, murdered
five pro-slavery
settlers along
Pottowatomie Creek as
retaliation for Southern
violence. This incident
led to full-scale
hostilities in Kansas,
and thus the territory
was called
"Bleeding
Kansas."
A significant event
that further contributed
to the escalation of
tension was the Dred
Scott case in 1857.
Scott was originally a
slave to an army surgeon
who moved from Missouri
to Wisconsin. After his
owner’s death, he sued
the heirs for his
freedom, arguing that he
now resided in a free
state. After losing his
case, then winning an
appeal, and finally
having the appeal
overturned by
Missouri’s Supreme
Court, the United States
Supreme Court decided to
hear the case. After
intense court battles, a
decision was reached and
conveyed on March 6,
1857, by Chief Justice
Roger Taney. Scott was
deemed a slave, and had
no rights according to
the Constitution.
The decision was not
unanimous, and it did
not settle the slavery
battle, it intensified
it. Southerners were
jubilant over the
decision, for now they
and their slavery
interests were protected
by the Constitution.
Northern abolitionists,
on the other hand, were
furious, and they felt
that the decision was
not valid law. States
had the right to
proclaim citizenship to
any of its inhabitants,
and the U.S. Supreme
Court, in their opinion,
could not legally rule
in the manner in which
they did. This decision
set the stage for
further disagreement
between antislavery
advocates and proponents
of the Southern way of
life.
Causes
of the Civil War: John
Brown's Raid
| John
Brown saw
himself as a
tool that God
Himself was
going to use to
wipe out slavery
in the American
South. Following
his raid in
Kansas in 1856,
he had been
devising a plan
to purify the
entire South
through an armed
slave rebellion
that he himself
would lead. John
Brown believed
that
"without
shedding of
blood there is
no remission of
sins"
(MacPherson,
117). Also, with
all of the
recent victories
for Southern
slave-holders
(Kansas-Nebraska
Act, Dred Scott
decision, etc.)
Brown thought
that
"violent
counterstroke
was the only
answer"
(Ibid., 117).
Brown
persuaded many
abolitionists to
support is
ideas, and
Frederick
Douglas was one
Brown attempted
to recruit.
Douglass, the
night before
Brown’s raid
on Harper’s
Ferry, failed in
an attempt to
persuade Brown
not to go
forward with his
plan. Brown’s
plan was this:
Capture the
Federal arsenal
at Harper’s
Ferry, Virginia,
seize all the
weapons there,
and arm
thousands of
slaves who were
to join him.
Brown recruited
17 white and
five black men
to comprise of
his
"army."
On Oct. 16,
1859, Brown and
his men captured
the unguarded
arsenal, but
then he had no
idea what to do
next. He waited
for the
thousands of
slaves to join
him, but because
he sent out
little word to
them, only a
handful actually
showed up. The
word of the
arsenal’s
capture spread
rapidly, and
during the night
of Oct. 17-18,
Brown’s men
were surrounded
by marines
commanded by
Robert E. Lee
and J.E.B.
Stuart. Brown
refused to
surrender, and
the marines were
forced to storm
the building
they had
surrounded. In
all, three local
men and several
of Brown’s
followers,
including two of
his sons, and a
total of 17 men
had been killed.
John Brown’s
attempt at
insurrection had
failed
What Brown
did not fail in
doing was
provoking
violent
uprising. His
raid was as much
of a cause of
the Civil War as
anything else,
for it was the
first nationally
known uprising
of its kind. And
after his
execution, those
who believed him
a saint now saw
him as a martyr,
and killing him
was another
opportunity for
abolitionists in
the North to
gain strength.
Causes
of the Civil
War: Taxes and
Tariffs
| So
far, we
have
seen how
the
issue of
slavery,
whether
directly
or
covertly,
divided
the
nation
on many
other
issues
concerning
territories
and
laws.
The
1850’s
was
probably
the most
defining
decade
in
determining
the fate
of the
nation,
with
much of
the
controversy
surrounding
slavery
being
addressed
in the
Compromise
of 1850,
the
Fugitive
Slave
Law, the
Dred
Scott
decision,
Bleeding
Kansas,
and John
Brown’s
Raid.
But
there
was yet
another
issue,
based on
states’
rights
and
economic
power,
that
came to
surface
in the
1820’s.
It was
the
issue of
taxes
and
tariffs.
Following
the
Missouri
Compromise,
there
were
fears in
the
South
that
tariffs
which
protected
Northern
manufacturing
profits
were
causing
economic
difficulty
in the
slave-holding
South.
Because
of these
tariffs,
they
argued,
Southerners
had to
pay much
higher
prices
for
imported
manufactured
goods. A
recession
in the
South
during
the
1820’s
was
essentially
blamed
on the
country’s
tariff
policies.
The
South
Carolina
Senator
and then
Vice
President
under
John
Quincy
Adams,
John C.
Calhoun,
was
among
the
leaders
in the
fight
against
there
protective
tariffs.
As
feelings
of
nationalism
began to
diminish
among
Southerners,
Calhoun
issued a
doctrine
that
proclaimed
it was
"the
right of
any
state
overrule
or
modify
not only
the
tariff
but also
any
federal
government
law
deemed
unconstitutional.
Nullification
was a
complete
theory
of
government
that
placed
the
greatest
powers
on the
state
level
rather
than the
national.
With
this
proclamation
of
states’
rights,
Calhoun
had come
full
circle
in his
political
philosophy"
(Davis,
38).
Although
Calhoun
was bold
in his
thinking,
his
proclamation
failed
its
major
test in
1832
when
South
Carolina
formally
rejected
two
national
tariffs.
President
Andrew
Jackson
deemed
the
rejection
as
treasonous,
and
threatened
the use
of force
to
uphold
the
tariffs.
After
much
debate,
and
because
Calhoun
could
not gain
enough
support,
a
compromise
had to
be
agreed
to.
However,
despite
this
first
failure,
Calhoun
began a
campaign
to
muster
support
for
solidarity
among
all the
Southern
states,
and thus
began
the
fight
for
states’
right.
The
issue
would
not be
fully
resolved
until
the
Civil
War was
won by
the
Union in
1865.
Causes
of the
Civil
War:
Secession
| The
idea
that
states
could
and
should
secede
from
the
Union
was
not
a
concept
brought
about
in
the
1850’s.
As
early
as
1828,
talk
of
secession
could
be
heard
in
South
Carolina
and
other
Southern
states.
And
several
times
prior
to
1860,
South
Carolina
did
indeed
attempt,
though
unsuccessfully,
to
leave
the
United
States
and
form
its
own
independent
government.
But
the
times
following
John
Brown’s
raid
were
the
most
tense,
and
the
possibility
of
secession
was
turning
into
more
of
a
reality
than
just
an
abstract
notion.
Ultimately,
the
fate
of
the
Union
rested
on
one
event:
the
national
election.
The
campaign
of
1860
saw
the
emergence
of
four
major
candidates.
The
nominee
of
the
newly
formed
Republican
party
was
Abraham
Lincoln,
who
beat
out
the
once
leading
party
candidate
William
H.
Seward.
For
the
Democrats,
two
nominees
were
chosen.
This
was
because
the
Democratic
party
was
ultimately
split
between
the
loyalists
and
those
with
slave-holding
interests.
Stephen
Douglas
was
nominated
by
the
Northern
Unionist
Democrats,
while
Vice
President
John
Breckinridge
was
declared
a
candidate
for
the
Southern
Democrats.
And
finally
there
was
John
Bell,
another
Southerner,
of
the
Constitutional
Union
party.
Essentially,
the
election
would
be
decided
sectionally:
Douglas
vs.
Lincoln
in
the
North,
and
Bell
vs.
Breckinridge
in
the
South.
The
South
was
almost
entirely
against
Lincoln
from
the
outset.
They
saw
his
election
as
a
detriment
to
their
way
of
life.
Although
he
promised
not
to
touch
slavery
in
the
states
where
it
already
existed,
pro-slavery
Southerners
knew
he
would
not
allow
for
the
expansion
of
slavery,
and
that
in
itself
was
against
their
notion
of
popular
sovereignty.
In
addition,
Lincoln
was
100
percent
against
secession,
calling
it
unconstitutional.
With
these
two
issues
separating
him
from
much
of
the
Southern
point
of
view,
he
was
not
even
on
the
ballot
in
many
Southern
states.
Furthermore,
the
South
made
it
very
clear
that
if
Lincoln
won
the
election,
secession
would
follow.
The
outcome
of
the
election
of
1860
was
exactly
what
Lincoln’s
supporters
hoped
for.
He
won
the
majority
of
the
popular
votes
and
all
but
three
electoral
votes
in
the
North,
while
in
the
South
he
received
no
electoral
votes.
However,
that
mattered
very
little
as
far
as
winning
the
election
for
there
were
enough
electoral
votes
in
the
Northern
states
to
carry
the
number
needed
to
win.
And
win
is
exactly
what
Lincoln
did,
carrying
180
electoral
votes.
Breckinridge
came
in
second
with
72.
Abraham
Lincoln
was
going
to
be
the
16th
president
of
the
United
States.
On
Dec.
19,
1860,
a
convention
of
delegates
were
called
to
St.
Andrew’s
Hall
in
Charleston,
S.C.,
to
vote
on
secession.
On
that
day,
many
issues
were
brought
to
the
floor
to
be
settled
before
the
actual
vote
could
occur.
Among
these
issues
were
what
to
do
with
the
federal
military
installations
in
South
Carolina,
particularly
Forts
Moultrie
and
Sumter.
It
was
agreed
that
all
federal
property
would
have
to
be
handed
over
to
the
government
of
South
Carolina.
Finally,
on
Dec.
20,
1860,
the
delegates
voted
by
a
count
of
169-0
in
favor
of
secession,
and
the
union
between
South
Carolina
and
other
states
of
the
United
States
was
"hereby
dissolved."
Between
Jan.
9
and
Feb.
1,
1861,
six
other
Southern
states
followed
suit:
Mississippi,
Florida,
Alabama,
Georgia,
Louisiana
and
Texas
respectively.
This
was
the
first
wave
of
secession.
Then
following
the
inauguration
of
Lincoln,
the
second
wave
began
on
April
17
with
the
secession
of
Virginia.
This
wave
was
continued
by
Arkansas,
Tennessee
and
North
Carolina
respectively.
The
only
slave-holding
states
that
did
not
leave
the
Union
were
Missouri,
Kentucky,
Maryland
and
Delaware.
These
states
were
then
known
as
the
border
states:
those
that
remained
loyal
to
the
Union
and
separated
the
United
States
from
the
newly
formed
Confederacy.
It
was
the
secession
of
the
Southern
states
that
ultimately
led
to
the
first
shots
of
the
American
Civil
War.
Lincoln
believed
secession
to
be
unconstitutional,
and
therefore
not
possible.
He
saw
the
South’s
attempt
to
do
so
as
a
rebellion,
and
he
vowed
to
preserve
the
Union
at
all
costs.
Lincoln
also
refused
to
relinquish
control
of
the
federal
forts
on
South
Carolina.
Thus,
on
April
12,
1861,
South
Carolina
militia,
commanded
by
P.G.T.
Beauregard,
fired
on
Fort
Sumter,
beginning
the
Civil
War.
Sumter
surrendered
on
April
14.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|