Everything You Need to Know About Political Causes of the American Civil War

Historically, textbooks have taught that incompatibility between northern and southern economies caused the Civil War. The industrial revolution in the Northward, during the first few decades of the 19th century, brought well-nigh a machine age economy that relied on wage laborers, not slaves. At the same time, the warmer Southern states continued to rely on slaves for their farming economic system and cotton product. Southerners fabricated huge profits from cotton and slaves and fought a state of war to maintain them. Northerners did non need slaves for their economy and fought a war to free them. Everything else, many textbooks claim, was tied to that economic difference and was anchored by cotton wool. The agronomical economy was certainly ane cause of the Civil State of war, merely not the only one. Wars are never simple and neither are their causes. Many other factors that helped bring virtually the state of war are central to agreement America'southward past. So what did start the Civil War—a state of war that divided the nation, destroyed crops, cities, and railroad lines, and claimed 630,000 lives? Many factors plunged the nation into anarchy in 1861. Key political causes include the boring collapse of the Whig Party, the founding of the Republican Political party, and, nearly of import, the 1860 ballot of Abraham Lincoln as president. Religious opposition to slavery increased, supported past ministers and abolitionists such every bit William Lloyd Garrison. Geographical conflict over the spread of slavery into western territories and states—areas with neither an industrial nor a subcontract economic system—grew. And political deals, such as the Missouri Compromise in 1820 and Compromise of 1850, and Supreme Court rulings, such as the Dred Scott decision in 1857, divided the state even more. These divisions went far across cotton and economic science.

Urban vs. Rural, Manufacturing plant vs. Subcontract

The central story told in textbooks is that the industrial revolution, beginning with the first textile mill in New England in the 1790s, created an economy that did not need slaves. Southerners, nonetheless, continued to use slave labor on their farms because agriculture was profitable. Closely related to this change, cities rose as population centers in the North created an urban society while the Due south remained primarily agrestal. Demography information on farms and cities, however, reveals that while cities grew apace in the North between 1800 and 1860, they did not become leading population centers until 1920, lx years after the Ceremonious War began. In 1860, there were more farms in the North than in the South, although Southern states, especially in the Cotton Belt, had the bulk of big farms (1,000 acres or more).

Demography data on farms and cities, notwithstanding, reveals that while cities grew rapidly in the Due north between 1800 and 1860, they did not become leading population centers until 1920, 60 years after the Civil War began.

The notion that there were no southern cities was too a myth. The U.S. had eight cities with more 150,000 residents in 1860 and 3 of them—St. Louis, Baltimore and New Orleans—were in slave states. Several other southern cities, such as Louisville, Mobile, and Charleston, had more than 20,000 residents each and were listed amongst the largest urban places in the U.South. Similarly, information demonstrate the presence of manufacturing in the S. Richmond, VA, had mills and factories as early as 1800. The 1860 census shows the fairly even spread of manufacturing across the states, with only New York and Pennsylvania recording 17,000 or more manufacturing establishments (see Chief Source Farms Demography Data [1860], List of Urban Areas [1860], and Manufacturing Census Date [1860]).

Cotton wool and Slavery

"Cotton is King!" bellowed James Hammond, a U.South. Senator from S Carolina, in 1859, reminding all of the importance of cotton in the South. A major error in the agricultural vs. industrial revolution theme, yet, stated in volume afterward volume, is that slavery existed to produce cotton wool. When I inquire college students to talk near the causes of the state of war, many tell the story of Eli Whitney and the cotton gin. They remind me that there were no factories in the S prior to 1860 and are astonished when I tell them that factories flourished in the South as early as John Adams's Presidency. They celebrate over the North's aircraft yards and are surprised to learn of the busy shipping industry based in cities such as Richmond, Charleston, and New Orleans. Their jaws drib when I talk virtually the thousands of slaves in the South who worked in busy cities, not on tranquillity plantations. Slaves did non go far in the U.S. in the early 1800s to work on cotton plantations. They began to arrive in the early on 1600s to piece of work on farms that grew a number of different crops. Sugar and tobacco became the most profitable to meet European demands for crops that did not abound in the colder European climate. Virginia planters made a fortune growing tobacco, making tobacco the get-go King. Cotton succeeded tobacco on the throne much later. By 1860, however, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana replaced Georgia and S Carolina equally leading growers of cotton (see Master Source Cotton and Slaves Data [1860]).

[Students'] jaws driblet when I talk almost the thousands of slaves in the Due south who worked in busy cities, not on quiet plantations.

If farming was so important, why did southerners blitz to enslave the colder Kansas and Nebraska territories that remained snow covered in winter months? In these areas, representing only one third of the United States, just 130 slaves lived. Why were southerners eager to bring territories such as New United mexican states, Texas, and California—where very fiddling cotton wool was grown—into the Union as slave states? In that location were many reasons completely unrelated to cotton. Pro-slavery advocates in California, for example, wanted slaves to prospect for golden and build gold and silvery mines. And if slavery was so cardinal to the southern economy of farming, why did simply ane quaternary of southerners ain slaves? Why were then many prominent southerners, such as George Washington, George Wythe, and Thomas Jefferson, opposed, at least in theory, to the institution? Slavery, too, was seen as a moral evil past the hundreds of thousands of northern abolitionists who published newspapers and marched in the streets of small towns and big cities carrying their colorful banners. Abraham Lincoln did not target farming and cotton in his arguments confronting slavery; he used morality. He told i audience in Chicago in 1859 that, "I think slavery is wrong, morally and politically." Lincoln told some other audition that America could not be seen "fostering man slavery and proclaiming ourselves, at the same time, the sole friends of homo freedom." And, of course, in his fabled "House Divided" spoken communication he predicted that the The states would be either all slave or all free.

Political Causes

Turbulent politics too led to the war. Following the compromise of 1850, legal, political, and physical battles raged over whether or non to admit Kansas as a slave state, a state with no cotton. Many students believe that the Republican Party, created in 1855, focused on slavery in the 1860 campaign, but their fundamental issues centered on political corruption of the Buchanan Administration. The Republican platform called for containment, not the stop of slavery. Lincoln's election, nevertheless, proved to be the icing on the southern secession cake. Only a minority of southern newspapers favored leaving the matrimony prior to Lincoln's election; well-nigh supported secession afterward.

The notion that slave labor for cotton fiber fields caused the Civil State of war has been reinforced by textbooks and fictional narratives for more than a century. Historians, however, fence for a more than nuanced, complex agreement.

Other factors leading to state of war include John Brownish'south raid on Harper'south Ferry in 1859, raucous battles over the Fugitive Slave Act, and President Buchanan'due south refusal to arbitrate between North and S, all continued to the increasingly bitter debate over slavery. In addition, northern newspapers campaigned confronting states' rights, southerners resented new taxes, and the Fort Sumter crunch turned into a pivotal moment (see Chief Source Editorials [1860-1861]).

Determination

The notion that slave labor for cotton fields caused the Civil War has been reinforced past textbooks and fictional narratives for more than than a century. Historians, even so, argue for a more nuanced, complex understanding. The Civil War was fought for many reasons, not solely or fifty-fifty primarily because of the growing importance of cotton wool on southern farms. Moving abroad from economic differences and cotton as simplistic causes leads to a more complex and far more interesting story.

grayhinnelaming.blogspot.com

Source: https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/beyond-the-textbook/23912