“Southern white men did not fight for slavery; they fought for a new
nation built on slavery.” This statement by historian Edward Ayers, represents
the complexity of contemporary analysis of the causes of the Civil War. On one
hand, there are those who express that the cause of the war was simply for the
preservation of the slave institution; however, history calls for meticulous responses
to questions of such importance that expand further than single causes and
universal and all-encompassing agendas. Factors such as heightened tensions
over the North and South’s perhaps clashing outlook of the future of economic
prosperity, the debate of what defined ‘modernity’ at this time, as well as the
rhetoric-heavy and dynamic conversation over state’s rights and popular
sovereignty are necessary to evaluate and study in order to paint the picture
of a young nation, fresh off the heels of a grand independence movement, that
was about to enthrall in actions that would lead to disbandment and successions
from the United States over conflicts that affected the lives of the population
involved as well as constitutional interpretations that now needed to be
revised or imposed altogether. Analysts must understand and take note of all of
the factors that the ‘conflict over slavery’ entailed and how socioeconomic,
cultural and religious experiences lead to eventual succession and militant
combat. Studying the events leading up to the Civil War as well as during the
conflict reveals the nation’s struggle over change and new ideas and the
reluctance and imposition of such.
The discussion of modernity during the era leading up to the Civil War is
one that not only serves as a factorial cause of conflict, but sets cultural
attitudes people had with respect to how they saw themselves and their fellow
citizens in other regions of the country. The rapid development of industries
brought forth during the push for industrialization led to the hyper
development, in some areas in the North, of urban environments new markets and
wealth-attaining opportunities. The changes brought on by the Industrial
Revolution in the North led many of its citizens and analysts to describe the
area of the nation that may not have been as plantation-heavy as others as an
area of modernity and progression. During this time, new ideas and the
entertainment and expression of new liberalistic ideas in regards to self-determination
and basic human rights challenged the Southern environment of slave labor
feeding into the ever standing focus on agricultural and textile production as
archaic and regressive. The social atmosphere at this period was already
showing how cultural ideas and norms could cause divisive tension amongst
people of the same nation with conflicting views on not only how the world
worked but also how the world was supposed to work. There is little a historian
can do in regards to determining what region was the more modern as the study
of world history proves that industrialization cannot be used to measure the
political and economic development of a society. In the case of the United
States, both the northern and southern regions had been in states of economic prosperity
with the South making huge profits and surplus from the agricultural niche it
had always thrived on; reaping the benefits of low cost of labor to supply not
only northern United States markets, but European and other world markets with
cotton and its byproducts. In America’s case, these oftentimes conflicting
systems both came with economic gain and the heavy infrastructural development
of a growing population. The problem, however, would lie with how the American
culture and society would adapt to these new ideas, and new ways of doing
things. The matter of if the institutions of the past could survive and prove
still effective and relevant as the United States aimed to establish itself as
a global market of high influence was what needed to be asked in regards to the
perseverance and perhaps expansion of slavery.
As the nation developed, new forms of industry and infrastructure also
developed in a much larger scale than historical seen before. The railroad
industry was rapidly materializing into a federal network established by
private interests and investments. With such a laborious industry, slave labor
was once again called upon to build up another branch on the nation’s backbone.
This form of slave labor, however, was unprecedented as the industry that
needed to be developed was not a regionally static one, but of expanding
locations outside development. Slavery expanded beyond the master-slave
plantation model and became a market where slave owners could manage their
slaves on contracts, sending laborers to locations as needed with many times
little to no face-time management. Here we also see the institution taking a
new more faceless methodology in how it was carried out as it was painted in
the light of other modern industries with some of its previous ‘savagery’
becoming harder and harder to identify. This system also sparked debate over
what to do with newly acquired lands and territories untouched by slavery in
the past as laborers entered into these lands while still under contract with
their slave owner in a southern slave state. Legitimate precedence was
necessary to be established in order to satisfy the constitution adapting to
the social and cultural atmosphere of the time period. The acquisition of new
territory, especially in regards to Nebraska, created much political conflict. Northern
republicans at the time did not find the region conductive to slavery which was
answered by heavy opposition by Whigs and southern democrats. The conflict
created over how the Missouri Compromise was regarded shows the razor thin
blanket of tension covering the nation at the time. Leaders who were more lax
in regards to the enforcing of the conditions of the Missouri Compromise faced
criticism from those who saw such behavior as the condoning of slavery whereas
on the other hand many southerners would view the same notions as not holding
and protecting the South’s interests as significant.
The volatile elements on what was done in the Kansas-Nebraska situation
as well as a social culture being exposed to some of the untold of stories of
how the master-slave relationship worked further divided the people. The
southern institution was looked at by the world as an outrage against basic
humanity. New literature such as Uncle Tom’s Cabin and other accounts
reached northern and European markets and led them to question the ideals of
southern identity; an identity southerners were quick to defend and protect. By
the mid-19th century, the United States was enthralled with an
influx of European immigration. Immigrants came from different regions at times
with different religious and economic backgrounds and changes in political
representation as well as economic policy were necessary.
Political leaders with new ideas
and agendas captured the tension and attempted to grab control of a nation on
the edge of division. Politicians such as Abraham Lincoln aimed to resolve the
issues of slave expansion while adhering to the progression of not only
economic markets and systems, but the mentality and ideas shared by the people.
Lincoln created a sense of progression and fairness although from an evaluative
standpoint, heavy ambiguity could be detected in his platforms. For instance, Lincoln
expressed the idea that slavery was immoral and had always been, going as far
as to cite the ideologies of the Founding Fathers, and that the institution
should not be spread into any new territory acquired by the nation. However,
Lincoln also served to uphold the constitution where slavery was permitted,
stating that the institution should be protected in states where it already
existed. The political environment of the time period showed its heavy
volatility as parties disbanded and reformed in order to represent and account
for new ideologies and candidates for leadership were critically chosen and
stern on their stances. The state of the nation’s moral equity was a heavy
player in the political arena as traveling religious agents and organizations
rose exponentially in the early 19th century attempting to reach and
account for the many different faces of America. Religious literature became
more readily available to isolated areas in the form of tracts and reprinted
editions of the Holy Bible. The religious push would go on to both reinforce
conservative behavior and practice as well as urge progression and ratification
of such expressing the notion that “man did not have to be as before”. In the
South, specifically, religious division was highly prevalent. The struggle
between the ‘old, right ways’ challenged by new interpretations of the same
teachings or new ones all together divided the people enough that political
parties were starting to not necessarily be entirely regional affiliations.
The societal structure of the South at this time was challenged and
conservation efforts were at a fever pitch. With new ideas and leaders such as
Lincoln, many southerners and eventual secessionists felt it would be only a
matter of time before turmoil ensued with free blacks, voting on actual issues
taking place. The most extreme side of this spectrum envisioned a society where
black people would dominate and retaliate heavily against white society
creating a state of crime and violence with white interest being disregarded as
socioeconomic regression would take place.
Succession was presented as the only option to conserve rightful society
and to reject the ‘socialist’ insertions that would come from Lincoln and the
shortsighted liberal collective. Secessionists felt that they were doing the
right thing and did not necessarily view themselves as the renegades or rebels
as history tends to describe them, but as conservatives with the option to
fight for the preservation of the nation in which their ancestors fought for
and their descendants would live in. Fighting to resist a deconstructed social
system led to the creation of such, however. As the perhaps unforeseen, to such
extent, repercussions of succession were quickly felt. The South was
reminiscent to a war torn, poverty stricken nation state as most of the Civil
War’s battles were fought in the region and their middle class male population
were all used in the war effort. Women and children had to work to put food on
the table like never before as their husbands, fathers and brothers left their
communities to go on and battle the far superior in terms of technological and
strategic Union military often leading to acts of dissertation and resistance
to conscription. The vision was lost amongst the apparent classist leadership
during the war period with upper class, able-bodied men granted low combat jobs
and faced little relocation in order to protect financial institutions while
men who as a whole more than likely were not grand slave owners or industrious
tycoons fought to protect such assets. This alone would lead to the weakening
of the Confederate movement. The motivation to fight to the end to protect
morality was quickly dissipating and surrender to the Union was favorable as a
whole.
Suggesting that slavery was the root cause of the Civil War structurally
identifies both the fundamental spark of succession and the preceding combative
events and the ‘final straw’ analogy of the entire conflict but that suggestion
fails to explain the fundamental reasons of why slavery was such a divisive
matter. The connection race and slavery had on the United States’ history is
recognizable but may not be shown as relevant as it actually is. The bringing
of an enormous population of Africans to what would be a new European colony
had implementations yet to be understood dealing with the structure of society.
The intentions of the initial slave traders and how black people were viewed
and understood to be were not positive associations. These ideas were deeply
planted into the psyche of the Americans and reinforced for centuries and
centuries through the master-slave plantation model and barbaric and savage
connotations. The economic success brought on by slave labor created a sense of
moral rightness in the slave system; quite frankly, keeping blacks captured and
working was seen as the right and godly mission and in many cases, racism was
not presented with hate but as a representation of the patriarchal mindset of
Western society and Abrahamic religious teachings. The reasons for succession
were heartfelt and clear, but the reality of its repercussions and hard lesson
learned about the need for change in systems proved to be one that the south
was not prepared to handle that rapidly no matter how fervently race relations
and practices were enforced in their cultural consciousness.
