three main causes of the civil war essay

The most comprehensive and authoritative history site on the Internet.

From States’ Rights to Slavery: What Caused the American Civil War?

The Northern and Southern sections of the United States developed along different lines. The South remained a predominantly agrarian economy while the North became more and more industrialized. Different social cultures and political beliefs developed. All of this led to disagreements on issues such as taxes, tariffs and internal improvements as well as states’ rights versus federal rights. At the crux of it all, however, was the fight over slavery.

Causes of the Civil War

Related stories & content.

The Confederate Bee Brothers: Unforgettable Legacies For Very Converse Reasons

The Sword That Spurred Ulysses Grant To Victory

This Notorious Confederate Guerrilla Murdered Dozens in Cold Blood

Texas Civil War Museum to Remain Open

The Real Story Behind 58 Confederate Bodies Tossed in a Well 

An Idiot’s Delight? Hiking the Rocky Face Ridge Battlefield 

The burning issue that led to the disruption of the union was the debate over the future of slavery. That dispute led to secession, and secession brought about a war in which the Northern and Western states and territories fought to preserve the Union, and the South fought to establish Southern independence as a new confederation of states under its own constitution.

The agrarian South utilized slaves to tend its large plantations and perform other duties. On the eve of the Civil War, some 4 million Africans and their descendants toiled as slave laborers in the South. Slavery was interwoven into the Southern economy even though only a relatively small portion of the population actually owned slaves. Slaves could be rented or traded or sold to pay debts. Ownership of more than a handful of slaves bestowed respect and contributed to social position, and slaves, as the property of individuals and businesses, represented the largest portion of the region’s personal and corporate wealth, as cotton and land prices declined and the price of slaves soared.

The states of the North, meanwhile, one by one had gradually abolished slavery. A steady flow of immigrants, especially from Ireland and Germany during the potato famine of the 1840s and 1850s, insured the North a ready pool of laborers, many of whom could be hired at low wages, diminishing the need to cling to the institution of slavery.

Th e Dred Scott Decision

Dred Scott was a slave who sought citizenship through the American legal system, and whose case eventually ended up in the Supreme Court. The famous Dred Scott Decision in 1857 denied his request stating that no person with African blood could become a U.S. citizen. Besides denying citizenship for African-Americans, it also overturned the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had restricted slavery in certain U.S. territories.

States’ Rights

States’ Rights refers to the struggle between the federal government and individual states over political power. In the Civil War era, this struggle focused heavily on the institution of slavery and whether the federal government had the right to regulate or even abolish slavery within an individual state. The sides of this debate were largely drawn between northern and southern states, thus widened the growing divide within the nation.

Abolitionist Movement

By the early 1830s, those who wished to see that institution abolished within the United States were becoming more strident and influential. They claimed obedience to “higher law” over obedience to the Constitution’s guarantee that a fugitive from one state would be considered a fugitive in all states. The fugitive slave act along with the publishing of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin helped expand the support for abolishing slavery nationwide.

Harriet Beecher S towe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin

Harriet Beecher Stowe’s anti-slavery novel Uncle Tom’s Cabins was published in serial form in an anti-slavery newspaper in 1851 and in book format in 1852. Within two years it was a nationwide and worldwide bestseller. Depicting the evils of slavery, it offered a vision of slavery that few in the nation had seen before. The book succeeded at its goal, which was to start a wave of anti-slavery sentiment across the nation. Upon meeting Stowe, President Lincoln remarked, “So you’re the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war.”

The Underground Railroad

Some abolitionists actively helped runaway slaves to escape via “the Underground Railroad,” and there were instances in which men, even lawmen, sent to retrieve runaways were attacked and beaten by abolitionist mobs. To the slave holding states, this meant Northerners wanted to choose which parts of the Constitution they would enforce, while expecting the South to honor the entire document. The most famous activist of the underground railroad was Harriet Tubman , a nurse and spy in the Civil War and known as the Moses of her people.

The Missouri Compromise

Additional territories gained from the U.S.–Mexican War of 1846–1848 heightened the slavery debate. Abolitionists fought to have slavery declared illegal in those territories, as the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 had done in the territory that became the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin. Advocates of slavery feared that if the institution were prohibited in any states carved out of the new territories the political power of slaveholding states would be diminished, possibly to the point of slavery being outlawed everywhere within the United States. Pro- and anti-slavery groups rushed to populate the new territories.

In Kansas, particularly, violent clashes between proponents of the two ideologies occurred. One abolitionist in particular became famous—or infamous, depending on the point of view—for battles that caused the deaths of pro-slavery settlers in Kansas. His name was John Brown. Ultimately, he left Kansas to carry his fight closer to the bosom of slavery.

The Raid On Harpers Ferry

On the night of October 16, 1859, Brown and a band of followers seized the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia (now West Virginia), in what is believed to have been an attempt to arm a slave insurrection. (Brown denied this at his trial, but evidence indicated otherwise.) They were dislodged by a force of U.S. Marines led by Army lieutenant colonel Robert E. Lee.

Brown was swiftly tried for treason against Virginia and hanged. Southern reaction initially was that his acts were those of a mad fanatic, of little consequence. But when Northern abolitionists made a martyr of him, Southerners came to believe this was proof the North intended to wage a war of extermination against white Southerners. Brown’s raid thus became a step on the road to war between the sections.

T he Election Of Abraham Lincoln

Exacerbating tensions, the old Whig political party was dying. Many of its followers joined with members of the American Party (Know-Nothings) and others who opposed slavery to form a new political entity in the 1850s, the Republican Party. When the Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 presidential election, Southern fears that the Republicans would abolish slavery reached a new peak. Lincoln was an avowed opponent of the expansion of slavery but said he would not interfere with it where it existed.

Southern Secession

That was not enough to calm the fears of delegates to an 1860 secession convention in South Carolina. To the surprise of other Southern states—and even to many South Carolinians—the convention voted to dissolve the state’s contract with the United States and strike off on its own.

South Carolina had threatened this before in the 1830s during the presidency of Andrew Jackson , over a tariff that benefited Northern manufacturers but increased the cost of goods in the South. Jackson had vowed to send an army to force the state to stay in the Union, and Congress authorized him to raise such an army (all Southern senators walked out in protest before the vote was taken), but a compromise prevented the confrontation from occurring.

Perhaps learning from that experience the danger of going it alone, in 1860 and early 1861 South Carolina sent emissaries to other slave holding states urging their legislatures to follow its lead, nullify their contract with the United States and form a new Southern Confederacy. Six more states heeded the siren call: Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. Others voted down secession—temporarily.

Fort Sumter

On April 10, 1861, knowing that resupplies were on their way from the North to the federal garrison at Fort Sumter in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina, provisional Confederate forces in Charleston demanded the fort’s surrender. The fort’s commander, Major Robert Anderson, refused. On April 12, the Confederates opened fire with cannons. At 2:30 p.m. the following day, Major Anderson surrendered.

War had begun. Lincoln called for volunteers to put down the Southern rebellion. Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee, refusing to fight against other Southern states and feeling that Lincoln had exceeded his presidential authority, reversed themselves and voted in favor of session. The last one, Tennessee, did not depart until June 8, nearly a week after the first land battle had been fought at Philippi in Western Virginia. (The western section of Virginia rejected the session vote and broke away, ultimately forming a new, Union-loyal state, West Virginia. Other mountainous regions of the South, such as East Tennessee, also favored such a course but were too far from the support of Federal forces to attempt it.)

Related stories

Portfolio: Images of War as Landscape

Whether they produced battlefield images of the dead or daguerreotype portraits of common soldiers, […]

Jerrie Mock: Record-Breaking American Female Pilot

In 1964 an Ohio woman took up the challenge that had led to Amelia Earhart’s disappearance.

The Poignant Tale Behind a Celebrated Civil War Sketch

To artist Edwin Forbes, William Jackson of the 12th New York was an everyman Union soldier, a “solemn lad… toughened by campaigning.” There was much more to Jackson’s story.

You Might Be Surprised to Learn What This Resort Hotel Did During World War II

The Greenbrier is known for its luxury offerings—during the war it wasn’t any different for its enemy diplomats.

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

9 Events That Led to the Civil War

By: Patrick J. Kiger

Published: January 17, 2023

After the American Revolution , a divide between the North and South began to widen. Industrialized northern states gradually passed laws freeing enslaved people, while southern states became increasingly committed to slavery. Many southerners came to view slavery as a linchpin of their agricultural economy , and as a justifiable social and political institution.

Throughout the first half of the 1800s, the nation struggled to manage the clash between these two incompatible viewpoints, working out deals such as the Missouri Compromise of 1820 , which sought to balance the number of new free and slave states and drew a line through the nation’s western territories, with freedom to the north and slavery to the south. But in the last decade before war broke out, the conflict gained momentum and intensity. 

“Throughout the 1850s, a series of events increased sectionalism, emboldened southern secessionists, and deepened northern resolve to defend the Union and end slavery,” explains Jason Phillips , the Eberly Family Professor of Civil War Studies at West Virginia University, and author of the 2018 book Looming Civil War: How Nineteenth Century Americans Imagined the Future. “Many of these crises revolved around politics, but economic, social and cultural factors also contributed to the war’s origins.”

Here are nine events from the 1850s to the early 1860s that historians view as critical in the march toward the American Civil War .

The Compromise of 1850

In the wake of the Mexican War , tensions developed between the North and South over whether the western land gained by the U.S. should become free or slave territory. Things came to a head when California sought approval to enter the Union as a free state in 1849, which would have upset the balance struck by the Missouri Compromise several decades before. Senator Henry Clay, a Whig from Kentucky, proposed a package of legislation to resolve the disputes, but the Senate—after seven months of discussions—rejected his proposal.

Senator Stephen A. Douglas, a Democrat from Illinois, came up with an alternative proposal that admitted California, established Utah and New Mexico as territories that could decide for themselves whether to permit slavery, defined boundaries for the state of Texas, abolished the slave trade in the District of Columbia, and obligated the entire country to cooperate in the capture and return of escaped slaves. But the deal only postponed the conflict.

“They didn’t really compromise,” says Michael Green , an Associate Professor of History at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and author of several books on the Civil War era, including Politics and America in Crisis: The Coming of the Civil War and Lincoln and the Election of 1860 . “They just agreed to disagree.”

The Fugitive Slave Act

An existing federal law, enacted by Congress in 1793, allowed local governments to seize and return escaped slaves to their owners, and imposed penalties upon anyone who aided their flight. But the new version included in the Compromise of 1850 went much further, by compelling citizens to assist in capturing escapees, denying the captives the right to a jury trial, and increasing the penalty for anyone aiding their escape. It also put cases in the hands of federal commissioners who got $10 if a fugitive was returned, but only $5 if an alleged slave was determined to be a free Black.

Northern abolitionists rebelled against the law. After 50,000 anti-slavery protesters filled the streets of Boston to protest the arrest of a Black man named Anthony Burns in 1854, President Franklin Pierce sent federal troops to maintain order and provided a Navy ship to return Burns back to Virginia.

“Northerners who had questioned slavery said, ‘We told you so,’ and those who hadn’t thought to themselves, ‘This is going too far,’” says Green. “It’s a radicalizing moment.” As a result, Massachusetts and other free states began passing “personal liberty” laws, which made it difficult and costly for enslavers to prove their cases in court.

'Uncle Tom's Cabin' Is Published

In 1851, author Harriet Beecher Stowe , who was still grieving the loss of her 18-month-old son Samuel to cholera two years earlier, wrote to the publisher of a Washington, D.C.-based abolitionist newspaper, National Era , and offered to write a fictional serial about the cruelty of slavery. Stowe later explained that losing her child helped her to understand “what a poor slave mother may feel when her child is ripped away from her,” according to Stowe biographer Katie Griffiths .

Stowe’s story, published in 41 installments, boosted the paper’s circulation, and a Boston publisher decided to release it as a two-volume novel. Uncle Tom’s Cabin: Or, Life Among the Lowly sold 300,000 copies in its first year, and the vociferous public debate about the book exacerbated the differences between the North and South. Northerners were shocked by the brutal depiction of slavery, which Stowe had synthesized from published autobiographies of slaves and stories she had heard from friends and fugitive Blacks. In turn, “Southerners react noisily to it,” Green explains. “They’re saying, ‘This is terrible. You’re attacking us. You’re all against us.’” When Stowe visited the White House in 1862, President Lincoln asked, “So this is the little lady who made this big war?”

The Kansas-Nebraska Act

In 1854, Senator Douglas, the author of the Compromise of 1850, introduced another piece of legislation “to organize the Territory of Nebraska,” an area that covered not just that present-day state but also Kansas, as well as Montana and the Dakotas, according to the U.S. Senate’s history of the law. Douglas was promoting a transcontinental railroad that would pass through Chicago in his home state. But the envisioned northern route had to pass through the Nebraska territory, a place where slavery was prohibited by the 1820 Missouri Compromise. Rivals, including slave owners, wanted a southern route.

To get what he wanted, Douglas offered a compromise, which would allow settlers in those territories to decide whether to legalize slavery. Massachusetts Senator  Charles Sumner , an opponent of slavery, attacked the proposal for creating “a dreary region of despotism.” Nevertheless it was passed by Congress, with cataclysmic results.

“It re-opened that land to the expansion of slavery, and destroyed a long-established political compromise on the issue of slavery in the West,” Phillips says. Pro-slavery and antislavery activists surged into the territories in an effort to sway the vote, and clashed violently in a conflict that became known as “Bleeding Kansas,” which foreshadowed the Civil War.

The Pottawatomie Massacre

One of those who went to Kansas was a radical abolitionist and religious zealot named John Brown , who had worked as a conductor on the Underground Railroad and founded an organization that helped slaves escape to Canada. Brown moved to Kansas Territory, where in May 1856, he was angered by the destruction of a newspaper office and other property in Lawrence, Kansas by pro-slavery forces. Brown decided retaliation was in order.

At a spot near a crossing on Pottawatomie Creek in Franklin, Kansas, Brown, four of his sons and several others lured five proslavery men out of their houses with a promise that they would not be harmed, and then slashed and stabbed them with a saber and shot them in the head, according to a contemporary account of the attack. Brown’s brutality was denounced by Southern newspapers and by some Northern ones as well, and it “aroused emotions and distrust on both sides,” as an article from the Kansas Historical Society notes. The fighting in Kansas continued for another two years.

The Dred Scott Decision

Dred Scott , an enslaved man, was born in Virginia and later lived in Alabama and Missouri. In 1831, his original enslaver died, and he was purchased by a U.S. Army surgeon named John Emerson. Emerson took him to the free state of Illinois and also Wisconsin, a territory where slavery was illegal due to the Missouri Compromise. During that time, Scott married and he and his wife had four children. In 1843, Emerson died, and several years after that, Scott and his wife sued Emerson’s widow in federal court for their freedom on the grounds that they had lived in free territory.

Scott, who was assisted financially by the family of his original owner, endured years of litigation until the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court. In an 1857 decision written by Chief Justice Roger Taney, the court decided that Scott was not entitled to U.S. citizenship and the protection of law, no matter where he had lived. In the court’s view, the Constitution’s framers had not intended for Black people to be free, but instead viewed them as property, with “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” The ruling made further political compromise too difficult.

John Brown's Raid on Harper's Ferry

Brown dreamed of carrying out an even bigger attack, one that would ignite a mass uprising of Southern enslaved people. On a night in October 1859, he and a band of 22 men launched a raid on Harpers Ferry , a town in what is now West Virginia, and captured some prominent local citizens and seized the federal arsenal there. His small force soon was counterattacked by local militia, forcing him to seek refuge. The following afternoon, U.S. Marines under the command of then-Col. Robert E. Lee arrived and stormed the arsenal, killing many of Brown’s men and capturing him. Brown was tried and charged with treason, murder and slave insurrection, and sentenced to death. He was hanged in December 1859. While the attack failed to trigger the widespread revolt he envisioned, it drove the North and South even further apart.

“Northern abolitionists who preferred pacificism praised Brown as a martyr to the cause of freedom and even helped to finance his attack,” Phillips explains. “Southerners expected more acts of terrorism and prepared by bolstering their militias.” In many respects, Brown’s raid could be viewed as the first battle of the Civil War, he says.

The Election of 1860

Abraham Lincoln , a self-taught lawyer who had served a single term in Congress, emerged in the mid-1850s as an articulate and persuasive critic of slavery, and achieved national prominence with a series of debates against Senator Stephen Douglas in an unsuccessful campaign for Douglas’s seat. When the Republican Party held a convention to nominate a presidential candidate, the chosen location of Chicago gave Lincoln a home-court advantage over more experienced politicians such as Senator William H. Seward of New York.

“When they set up the convention floor, they put Illinois in a spot where they could get to the other delegations that were less committed,” Green says. “The New York delegation, which was supporting Seward, was put in a corner where they couldn’t get out.” That made it difficult for them to negotiate and persuade others to support their candidate. In the general election, Lincoln caught more lucky breaks. After the Democrats were unable to decide upon a candidate, southern Democrats nominated John C. Breckenridge of Kentucky, while northerners nominated Douglas. Breckenridge and Constitutional Party Candidate John Bell split the South, while Lincoln swept the northeastern and midwestern states except for Missouri (which went to Douglas), as well as Oregon and California to win the presidency despite getting just 40 percent of the vote. “For the first time, the Electoral College worked against the South,” Green explains.

The Formation of the Confederacy

The election of the first U.S. president who was a vocal opponent of slavery came as a shock to Southerners. “Now, there is going to be someone in the White House who is not going to do what the South says it wants done, reflexively,” Green explains. “Their feeling is, no matter what Lincoln says about protecting our rights, he’s not going to do that. We don’t trust him. He’s been elected by people who are out to get us.”

Less than six weeks after the election, the first secession convention met in Charleston South Carolina. About 60 percent of the 169 delegates were slave owners, and they voted unanimously to leave the Union . Local residents celebrated with bonfires, parades and the ringing of church bells. Five more states—Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia and Louisiana—soon followed. Representatives from those six states met in February 1861 to establish a unified government, which they called the Confederate States of America . Jefferson Davis of Mississippi was elected as Confederate President. Texas joined in March. 

After Confederate forces attacked Fort Sumter in April and Lincoln called for federal forces to retake it, four more states—Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee—left the union and joined the Confederacy as well.

Though the Confederacy’s leaders didn’t realize it, they actually were hastening the end of what they sought to protect. “Had they stayed, slavery as an institution almost certainly would have survived much longer,” Green says.

Instead, a four-year, bloody war devastated much of the South, took the lives of more than 650,000 from both sides, and led to the emancipation of more than 3.9 million enslaved Black Americans, in addition to changing the nation in numerous other ways.

HISTORY Vault: The Secret History of the Civil War

The American Civil War is one of the most studied and dissected events in our history—but what you don't know may surprise you.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

American Civil War: Causes of Conflict

The Approaching Storm

• Battles & Wars
• Key Figures
• Arms & Weapons
• Naval Battles & Warships
• Aerial Battles & Aircraft
• French Revolution
• Vietnam War
• World War I
• World War II
• American History
• African American History
• African History
• Ancient History and Culture
• Asian History
• European History
• Latin American History
• Medieval & Renaissance History
• The 20th Century
• Women's History

Enslavement

Two regions on separate paths, enslavement in the territories.

• "Bleeding Kansas"
• States' Rights

North American 19th-Century Blck Activism

• John Brown's Raid

The Collapse of the Two-Party System

Election of 1860, secession begins.

• M.A., History, University of Delaware
• M.S., Information and Library Science, Drexel University
• B.A., History and Political Science, Pennsylvania State University

The causes of the Civil War may be traced to a complex mix of factors, some of which can be traced back to the earliest years of American colonization. Principal among the issues were the following:

The system of enslavement in the United States first began in Virginia in 1619. By the end of the American Revolution , most northern states had abandoned the institution and it was made illegal in many parts of the North in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Conversely, enslavement continued to grow and flourish in the plantation economy of the South where the cultivation of cotton, a lucrative but labor intensive crop, was on the rise. Possessing a more stratified social structure than the North, the South's enslaved people were largely held by a small percentage of the population though the institution enjoyed broad support across class lines. In 1850, the population of the South was around 6 million of which approximately 350,000 were enslavers.

In the years prior to the Civil War almost all sectional conflicts revolved around the enslavement issue. This began with the debates over the three-fifths clause at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 which dealt with how enslaved people would be counted when determining a state's population and as a result, its representation in Congress. It continued with the Compromise of 1820 (Missouri Compromise), which established the practice of admitting a free state (Maine) and pro-enslavement state (Missouri) to the union around the same time to maintain regional balance in the Senate. Subsequent clashes occurred involving the Nullification Crisis of 1832 , the anti-enslavement Gag Rule, and the Compromise of 1850. The implementation of the Gag Rule, passed part of the 1836 Pinckney Resolutions, effectively stated that Congress would take no action on petitions or similar relating to the limiting or ending enslavement.

Throughout the first half of the 19th century, Southern politicians sought to defend the system of enslavement by retaining control of the federal government. While they benefited from most presidents being from the South, they were particularly concerned about retaining a balance of power within the Senate. As new states were added to the Union, a series of compromises were arrived at to maintain an equal number of free and pro-enslavement states. Begun in 1820 with the admission of Missouri and Maine, this approach saw Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, Texas, Iowa, and Wisconsin join the union. The balance was finally disrupted in 1850 when Southerners permitted California to enter as a free state in exchange for laws strengthening enslavement such as the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. This balance was further upset with the additions of free Minnesota (1858) and Oregon (1859).

The widening of the gap between pro-enslavement and free states was symbolic of the changes occurring in each region. While the South was devoted to an agrarian plantation economy with a slow growth in population, the North had embraced industrialization, large urban areas, infrastructure growth, as well as was experiencing high birth rates and a large influx of European immigrants. In the period before the war, seven of eight immigrants to the United States settled in the North and the majority brought with them negative viewpoints regarding enslavement. This boost in population doomed Southern efforts to maintain balance in the government as it meant the future addition of more free states and the election of a Northern, potentially anti-enslavement, president.

The political issue that finally moved the nation toward conflict was that of enslavement in the western territories won during the Mexican-American War . These lands comprised all or parts of the present-day states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada. A similar issue had been dealt with earlier, in 1820, when, as part of the Missouri Compromise , enslavement was permitted in the Louisiana Purchase south of 36°30'N latitude (the southern border of Missouri). Representative David Wilmot of Pennsylvania attempted to prevent the practice in the new territories in 1846 when he introduced the Wilmot Proviso in Congress. After extensive debate, it was defeated.

In 1850, an attempt was made to resolve the issue. A part of the Compromise of 1850 , which also admitted California as a free state, called for enslavement in the unorganized lands (largely Arizona & New Mexico) received from Mexico to be decided by popular sovereignty. This meant that the local people and their territorial legislatures would decide for themselves whether enslavement would be permitted. Many thought that this decision had solved the issue until it was raised again in 1854 with the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act .

"Bleeding Kansas"

Proposed by Sen. Stephen Douglas of Illinois, the Kansas-Nebraska Act essentially repealed the line imposed by the Missouri Compromise. Douglas, an ardent believer in grassroots democracy, felt that all the territories should be subject to popular sovereignty. Seen as a concession to the South, the act led to an influx of pro- and anti-enslavement forces into Kansas. Operating from rival territorial capitals, the "Free Staters" and "Border Ruffians" engaged in open violence for three years. Though pro-enslavement forces from Missouri had openly and improperly influenced elections in the territory, President James Buchanan accepted their Lecompton Constitution and offered it to Congress for statehood. This was turned down by Congress, which ordered a new election. In 1859, the anti-enslavement Wyandotte Constitution was accepted by Congress. The fighting in Kansas further heightened tensions between North and South.

States' Rights

As the South recognized that control of the government was slipping away, it turned to a states' rights argument to protect enslavement. Southerners claimed that the federal government was prohibited by the Tenth Amendment from impinging upon the right of enslavers to take their "property" into new territory. They also stated that the federal government was not permitted to interfere with enslavement in those states where it already existed. They felt that this type of strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution coupled with nullification or perhaps secession would protect their way of life.

The issue of enslavement was further heightened by the rise of the North American 19th-century Black activist movement in the 1820s and 1830s. Beginning in the North, adherents believed that enslavement was morally wrong rather than simply a social evil. North American 19th-century Black activists ranged in their beliefs from those who thought that all enslaved people should be freed immediately ( William Lloyd Garrison , Frederick Douglas) to those calling for gradual emancipation (Theodore Weld, Arthur Tappan), to those who simply wanted to stop the spread of enslavement and its influence ( Abraham Lincoln ).

These activists campaigned for the end of the "peculiar institution" and supported anti-enslavement causes such as the Free State movement in Kansas. Upon the rise of the North American 19th-century Black activists, an ideological debate arose with the Southerners regarding the morality of enslavement with both sides frequently citing biblical sources. In 1852, the cause received increased attention following the publication of the anti-enslavement novel Uncle Tom's Cabin . Written by Harriet Beecher Stowe , the book aided in turning the public against the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

John Brown's Raid

John Brown first made a name for himself during the " Bleeding Kansas " crisis. A fervent activist, Brown, along with his sons, fought with anti-enslavement forces and were best known for the "Pottawatomie Massacre" where they killed five pro-enslavement farmers. While most North American 19th-century Black activists were pacifists, Brown advocated violence and insurrection to end the evils of enslavement.

In October 1859, financed by the extreme wing of the North American 19th-century Black activist movement, Brown and 18 men attempted to raid the government armory at Harper's Ferry, Va. Believing that the nation's enslaved people were ready to rise up, Brown attacked with the goal of obtaining weapons for the insurrection. After initial success, the raiders were cornered in the armory's engine house by local militia. Shortly thereafter, U.S. Marines under Lt. Col. Robert E. Lee arrived and captured Brown. Tried for treason, Brown was hanged that December. Before his death, he predicted that "the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away; but with Blood."

The tensions between North and South were mirrored in a growing schism in the nation's political parties. Following the compromise of 1850 and the crisis in Kansas, the nation's two major parties, the Whigs and Democrats, began to fracture along regional lines. In the North, the Whigs largely blended into a new party: the Republicans.

Formed in 1854, as an anti-enslavement party, the Republicans offered a progressive vision for the future that included an emphasis on industrialization, education, and homesteading. Though their presidential candidate, John C. Frémont , was defeated in 1856, the party polled strongly in the North and showed that it was the Northern party of the future. In the South, the Republican Party was viewed as a divisive element and one that could lead to conflict.

With the division of the Democrats, there was much apprehension as the election 1860 approached. The lack of a candidate with national appeal signaled that change was coming. Representing the Republicans was Abraham Lincoln , while Stephen Douglas stood for the Northern Democrats. Their counterparts in the South nominated John C. Breckinridge. Looking to find a compromise, former Whigs in the border states created the Constitutional Union Party and nominated John C. Bell.

Balloting unfolded along precise sectional lines as Lincoln won the North, Breckinridge won the South, and Bell won the border states . Douglas claimed Missouri and part of New Jersey. The North, with its growing population and increased electoral power had accomplished what the South had always feared: complete control of the government by the free states.

In response to Lincoln's victory, South Carolina opened a convention to discuss seceding from the Union. On Dec.r 24, 1860, it adopted a declaration of secession and left the Union. Through the "Secession Winter" of 1861, it was followed by Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. As states departed, local forces took control of federal forts and installations without any resistance from the Buchanan Administration. The most egregious act took place in Texas, where Gen. David E. Twiggs surrendered one-quarter of the entire standing U.S. Army without a shot fired. When Lincoln finally entered office on March 4, 1861, he inherited a collapsing nation.

• Top 9 Events That Led to the Civil War
• Bleeding Kansas
• What Were the Top 4 Causes of the Civil War?
• The Compromise of 1850 Delayed the Civil War For a Decade
• U.S. Legislative Compromises Over Enslavement, 1820–1854
• The American Civil War and Secession
• Slavery in 19th Century America
• The Road to the Civil War
• The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854
• History of the US Congressional Gag Rule
• African American History Timeline: 1850 to 1859
• The Compromise of 1850
• Wilmot Proviso
• American History Timeline 1851–1860
• The History and Legacy of the Free Soil Party
• Election of 1860: Lincoln Became President at Time of Crisis

American Civil War Causes Analysis Essay

Introduction, works cited.

The American Civil War has been a subject of intense study by historians, political scientists and scholars over the years. The reasons which led to the civil war are many but some historians have favored the approach that sectional divisions or political divisions were the main causes which led to the war. David M. Potter is the proponent of the former approach while Michael F. Holt favors the latter. This essay aims to explain the main points of the argument of both the scholars with a view at arriving at an objective analysis of the most likely causes for the American Civil War.

Potter believes that the main cause for the country to divide into two sections was over the issues of slavery, taxation of imports and exports and the assumption of state debts amongst other aspects of governance. Potter states that “From the outset, slavery had been the most serious cause of sectional conflict” (Potter, p. 378). While the Northern states had abolished slavery, the Southern states propounded it as their right. Within these two opposing views, lay the role of the Federal government, which had to consider whether the question of slavery was to be decided by the Federal government or be left to the states. Through the years 1846 to 1861, debates raged all over America to decide the validity of each view. These arguments crystallized into four main formulae.

The first position was formulated by David Wilmot who opined that the Congress had the power to abolish slavery leading to the declaration of the Ordinance of 1787, also known as the Wilmot Proviso stating that “There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted” (Potter, p. 379). Based on the Wilmot Proviso, Presidents Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Monroe and Jackson held that the Congress had constitutional powers to prohibit slavery in all territories. The Congress however, did not uniformly apply this principle to all territories, allowing some territories to the South of the Ohio River to maintain slavery rights while abolishing the same to the North.

Consequently, a compromise between the proslavery and antislavery interests based on territorial divisions became the second formula for resolving the dispute. This approach typified the admittance of Missouri as a slave state and dividing the rest of the Louisiana Purchase along latitude 36 o 30’ to the North being slavery free. This ‘Missouri Compromise’, according to Potter, was free of ambiguity even if philosophically and morally untenable as each side knew what it would gain or lose.

The third formulation was the doctrine of ‘popular sovereignty’. According to this doctrine, the citizens of a state would decide whether they wished to abolish slavery or not. This doctrine was very popular as it allowed Northern states to abolish slavery and the Southern states to affirm their slavery rights.

The fourth formula rejected the Congress’s right to regulate slavery in the territories and stated that the Constitution did not give the Congress such powers. The Constitution gave equal rights to all citizens and thus those who had slave properties could not be discriminated against those who did not wish to possess such properties. Potter argues that the Doctrine that the Congress “could neither exclude slavery from a territory itself nor grant power to a territorial government” (Potter, p. 383) to do so became the main element of Southern unity which led to the civil war.

Michael Holt on the other hand argues that slavery was not the main cause but it was the need to reform the political system and restore republicanism which was the main reason for the war. According to Holt, political theory dictates that in a two party system it is important for the parties to have opponents with clearly defined positions. In the early 1850s the two party systems had collapsed as the two parties namely the Federalists and the Jeffersonian increasingly took consensual stand on issues. Thus, the society now had to look for third party alternatives to carry forth issues that were dear to them but were not being taken up t by the old two party systems. This destruction of the old two party systems and the search for the new two party systems was in great part, responsible for civil war to take place.

The old two party systems had survived for so long because of federalism. Holt argues that “most legislation that affected every day lives of people was enacted at state capitals and not at Washington” (Holt 389). Thus, as the old two party system disintegrated and newer parties emerged, the framework of the new two party system namely the Democrats and Republicans varied from state to state. This varied response to positions to be taken on the issue of slavery gave rise to inconsistencies amongst the Democrats within their states as also amongst the Republicans within their respective states. During the reign of the old two party systems, the federal system had ensured precise divisions of issues of national and state importance which ensured that citizens could identify with their problems and have them addressed by the respective state unit, while national issues were tackled at Washington by the state representatives. When the federal system weakened and the new parties still in a nascent state, Holt opines that state and national issues remained blurred. This led to sectional extremism in the Deep South “because no new framework of two-party competition had appeared there as it had in the North and upper South” (Holt, p. 387).

Holt’s thesis appears to be built on political theoretical grounds while the postulates of Potter seem grounded in the practical pragmatic approach stating actual events of those times. Undoubtedly, the causes of the American Civil war, despite dense political theorization, resulted primarily due to the opposition of the American citizens to the immoral precepts of slavery. Potter’s analysis is event based with rich examples of actual incidences and discussion of legislations enacted by federal and state authorities of those times which give a more plausible explanation of the causes of the American Civil War. Holt’s formulation though attractive from the viewpoint of political theory is not substantiated with illustrative examples as has been put forth by Potter. Analysis of both the essays reveals that Potter’s thesis that sectional divisions due to differences on the question of slavery and its ramifications on individual, state and federal rights were the most likely causes of the American Civil War holds greater logical appeal than does Holt’s theory of Political Divisions.

• Holt, Michael F. “The Political Divisions That Contributed to Civil War.” Cobbs, Elizabeth. Major Problems in American History. Boston: Houghton Muffin, 2006.
• Potter, David M. “The Sectional Divisions That Led to Civil War.” Cobbs, Elizabeth. Major Problems in American History. Boston: Houghton Muffin, 2006.
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 27). American Civil War Causes Analysis. https://ivypanda.com/essays/american-civil-war-causes-analysis/

"American Civil War Causes Analysis." IvyPanda , 27 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/american-civil-war-causes-analysis/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'American Civil War Causes Analysis'. 27 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "American Civil War Causes Analysis." February 27, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/american-civil-war-causes-analysis/.

1. IvyPanda . "American Civil War Causes Analysis." February 27, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/american-civil-war-causes-analysis/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "American Civil War Causes Analysis." February 27, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/american-civil-war-causes-analysis/.

• Wilmot's and Swift's Visions of Humanity
• Holt Renfrew: Customer Relationship Management
• “My Louisiana Sky” Novel by Kimberly Willis Holt
• John Holt and Daniel Pink
• Leadership Assessment Using Holt Types Test
• The Real Roswell Crash: Arguments & Opposing Views
• Standards of Child Custody Dispute
• Diagnosing Innovation Readiness in Family Firms
• America of 1848-61 in Impending Crisis by D. Potter
• The Harry Potter Phenomenon Analysis
• The Way the American Flag Was Deployed Culturally Following Sept 11th
• Child Labour in the Late 1800s to the Early 1900s
• Quaker Executions in Early America Settlement
• How the Vietnam War Polarized American Society
• American City Life in the 19th Century

The Causes of the American Civil War

Introduction.

The Civil War (1861-1865) was one of the most significant events in American history that paved the way for future generations to live in ways that were unimaginable a few years later. It preserved the unity of the nation, gave a much-needed boost to the American economy, and turned the country into the land of opportunity that it remains to this day. The positive outcomes came at a high price: the Civil War is by far the deadliest war that has ever been fought on American soil. It is now estimated that some 620,000 of 2.4 million soldiers lost their lives, millions more were injured, and much of the South was left in debris (Woodworth & Higham 1996). Still, decades after the Civil War ended, its causes and origins still generate controversies among historians. This essay argues that it was the political control, states’ rights, and economics that revolving around the issue of slavery that caused the Civil War.

The Causes of the Civil War

The great economic divide.

The outbreak of the Civil War in 1861 was far from sudden or surprising: in fact, it was the logical result of the decades of simmering tension between the North and the South. The issue that led to the disruption of the Union was slavery – an exploitative institution dating back to the 15th century when the Transatlantic slave trade began. Fast forward to the mid-19th century, the United States was experiencing fast-paced economic growth as a whole, though with a growing divide in the economic capacity between the country’s Northern and Southern regions (Woodworth & Higham 1996). The North enjoyed well-established manufacturing and industry while its agriculture was primarily confined to small-scale farms.

In contrast, the South’s economy relied on large-scale farming sustained by the labor of African slaves that were growing certain crops with an emphasis on cotton and tobacco. By the year 1860, despite housing a fourth of the country’s free population, the South only had 10% of the country’s capital (Woodworth & Higham 1996). Other figures from back then are as convincing: after the Industrial Revolution, the North had five times more factories than the South (Woodworth & Higham 1996). Besides, nine out of ten skilled workers in the US resided in the North (Woodworth & Higham 1996). Since they were not enslaved, they could freely refine their skills, choose a workplace of their liking, and propel the economic growth.

The Start of the Abolitionist Movement

As early as the 1830s, the Union saw the emergence and development of the anti-slavery abolitionist movement in the North. It was probably triggered by the so-called Missouri compromise when in 1820, amidst growing tensions, the US Congress proclaimed Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state (Shi & Tindall, 2016). The majority of early abolitionists were religious, White people – they appealed to religion when making their argument and saw slavery as an abomination (Duberman, 2015). Soon, the movement was joined by Black men and women who escaped captivity. Together, abolitionists became an active group that was sending petitions to Congress, ran candidates for political office, and popularized anti-slavery literature in the South. In summation, by opposing slavery’s extension into the new territories and criticizing the entire institution, abolitionists were endangering the backbone of the Southern economy.

Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854

Proposed by Abraham Lincoln’s main opponent, Stephen A. Douglas, The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 defeated the progress made by the Abolitionist movement. The new bill mandated “popular sovereignty”: essentially, settlers of a territory now had the right to decide whether slavery will be legal within a new state’s borders (Shi & Tindall, 2016). The Act repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820 that made slavery in the territories north of latitude 36°30´ illegal. It further aggravated the tension between the North and the South. The North considered the 1820 Missouri compromise an imperfect but mutually beneficial agreement. The South, on the other hand, was overwhelmingly in support of the Kansas-Nebraska Act because the issue of slavery now could be handled locally.

It was clear that the election in Kansas would settle the first important precedent after the law went into effect. For this reason, both supporters and opponents of slavery hastily moved to Kansas to tip the outcome of the first election. At first, it was pro-slavery settlers who led the elections; however, the results were found to be fraudulent by anti-slavery settlers that refused to accept them. Soon, the anti-slavery settlers organized another election, in which pro-slavery settlers refused to partake. The conflict led to the emergence of two opposing legislatures on the Kansas territory.

It was not long until the clashes between slavery opponents and supporters became violent. As the number of deaths was rising, the territory was nicknamed “Bleeding Kansas.” After a series of events that included President Pierce’s attempts to disperse violence, Congress did not recognize the constitution drawn up by the pro-slavery settlers. Eventually, the anti-slavery sentiment came to dominate the scene, and on January 29, 1861, right before the start of the Civil War, Kansas was admitted to the Union as a free state.

The Dred Scott Case

Following the controversial 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act , the Dred Scott case was yet another event that increased tension between pro- and anti-slavery factions in the Nothern and Southern regions of the US (Shi & Tindall, 2016). Also known as Dred Scott v. Sandford , the Dred Scott case was a decades-long fight for freedom by a Black enslaved man and his wife. Dred Scott and his wife, Harriet, were the property of John Emerson who moved several times throughout his life, taking his slaves to different states, including those where slavery was prohibited. After John Emerson’s death, his wife, Irene inherited the slaves who at that point, wanted to be freed. The woman refused, which led Dred and Harriet to file a lawsuit on the grounds of wrongful enslavement. After being brought to several courts, the case ended in the outcome favoring the pro-slavery sentiment, which, however, allowed the anti-slavery North to gain a momentum and consolidate around the issue.

The Election of Abraham Lincoln

Indeed, many events led to the eventual secession of several states (South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas) from the Union. Yet, the final straw that caused the start of the Civil War was the election of Abraham Lincoln. When he was elected, Lincoln was a little-known Illinois legislator. Yet, he led the newly formed Republican party to victory against three major party candidates. Today, it is argued that what enabled Lincoln’s victory was the deep schism and inability to see eye to eye in the Democratic party. Both Democrats Douglas and Breckinridge supported popular sovereignty, though they had opposing views on the federal slave code (Woodworth & Higham 1996). The candidate from another young political party, the Constitutional Union, Bell sought to avoid the slavery issue altogether (Woodworth & Higham 1996). The election of an antislavery northerner as the 16th President of the United States enraged many southerners. Lincoln won without a single Southern electoral vote, which made Southerners feel as if their interests were dismissed and neglected.

The Counterargument and Its Validity

Even though today, the majority of historians agree that it was the economic, political, and social issues of slavery that led to the 1861 outbreak, there is a minor group of historical revisionists who think differently. The Lost Cause of the Confederacy , or simply the Lost Cause , is an American pseudo-historical, negationist theory that defends the Confederate States and their motivation to fight in the Civil War (Bonekemper 2015). Namely, the Lost Cause states that the cause of the Confederate States’ military actions was not only just but borderline heroic. Allegedly, the states were fighting to preserve the Southern way of living in the face of increasing aggression from the Union (Bonekemper 2015). The Lost Cause theory almost completely ignores the reality of slavery and its impact on the dynamics between the Northern and Southern states. Today, it is argued that such historical negationism served the purpose of perpetuating white supremacy in the form of nationwide policies such as the Jim Crow laws.

The historical thought negating the role of slavery persisted to this day. The most widespread myth about the causes of the Civil War has found its way into history books and school curriculums. Loewen (2008), the author of “The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: The ‘Great Truth’ about the ‘Lost Cause,’” reports that between 60% and 75% of school history teachers emphasize state rights as the cause of the Civil War. However, as argued by Loewen, the original documents of the Confederacy show how much the war revolved around slavery. For instance, when declaring its secession from the Union, Mississippi stated that “[its] position [was] thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world (Loewen 2008).” Similarly, Texas justified its decision to secede by saying that “[Black people] were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race.” According to the document, only slavery could make their presence on American soil “beneficial or tolerable (Loewen 2008).”

As seen from these two excerpts, the Confederate states were outspoken about their stance on slavery and its role in economics and politics. It was slavery that motivated them to make decisions as radical and profound as secession. Therefore, it is not correct to downplay slavery when discussing the causes of the Civil War. Yet, one can readily imagine why such views are likely to persist. Southerners may be reluctant to demonize their ancestors and feel defensive about their own legacy. Besides, the persistence of the Lost Cause helps to uphold institutionalized racism and serve White people’s interests before Black people’s interests.

The American Civil War is the deadliest war that has ever taken place on American soil. It was a turning point for the United States and shaped the way Americans live today. At present, there is little doubt that the main trigger for the Civil War was the issue of slavery and its political and economic implications. Before the start of the war, Southern states were inferior to Northern states economically as they relied heavily on slave labor and large-scale farming. The growing abolitionist sentiment endangered the very backbone of the Southern economy. After several acts and court rulings that could not reconcile proslavery and antislavery advocates, the election of Abraham Lincoln was the final straw that led to the secession of six states. Today, some people still support the Lost Cause theory that negates slavery as the main cause of the Civil War. The theory does not find any supporting historical evidence and is likely used by White supremacists to defend their views.

Bonekemper, Edward H. 2015. The Myth of the Lost Cause: Why the South Fought the Civil War and Why the North Won . New York: Simon and Schuster.

Duberman, Martin B. 2015. The Antislavery Vanguard: New Essays on the Abolitionists . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Loewen, James W. 2008. Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got wrong . New York: The New Press.

Shi, David E., & Tindall, George Brown. 2016. America: A Narrative History . New York: WW Norton & Company.

Woodworth, Steven E. & Robert Higham. 1996. The American Civil War: A Handbook of Literature and Research . Greenwood Publishing Group.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, January 15). The Causes of the American Civil War. https://studycorgi.com/the-causes-of-the-american-civil-war/

"The Causes of the American Civil War." StudyCorgi , 15 Jan. 2022, studycorgi.com/the-causes-of-the-american-civil-war/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) 'The Causes of the American Civil War'. 15 January.

1. StudyCorgi . "The Causes of the American Civil War." January 15, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/the-causes-of-the-american-civil-war/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "The Causes of the American Civil War." January 15, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/the-causes-of-the-american-civil-war/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "The Causes of the American Civil War." January 15, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/the-causes-of-the-american-civil-war/.

This paper, “The Causes of the American Civil War”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: January 15, 2022 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

American Civil War

Causes of the civil war.

• Take a ten question quiz about this page.
• Listen to a recorded reading of this page:

The Reasons for Secession: A Documentary Study

Mass meeting endorsing the call for secession, Charleston, South Carolina. 

John Pierce

The root cause of the American Civil War is perhaps the most controversial topic in American history. Even before the war was over, scholars in the North and South began to analyze and interpret the reasons behind the bloodshed.

The scholars immediately disagreed over the causes of the war and disagreement persists today. Many maintain that the primary cause of the war was the Southern states’ desire to preserve the institution of slavery. Others minimize slavery and point to other factors, such as taxation or the principle of States' Rights.

In 2011, at the outset of the sesquicentennial, a Pew Research Center poll found that Americans were significantly divided on the issue, with 48% saying the war was "mainly about states' rights," 38% saying the war was "mainly about slavery," with the remainder answering "both equally" or "neither/don't know."

One method by which to analyze this historical conflict is to focus on primary sources.  Every state in the Confederacy issued an “Article of Secession” declaring their break from the Union. Four states went further. Texas, Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina all issued additional documents, usually referred to as the “ Declarations of Causes ," which explain their decision to leave the Union.

Two major themes emerge in these documents: slavery and states' rights.  All four states strongly defend slavery while making varying claims related to states' rights.  Other grievances, such as economic exploitation and the role of the military, receive limited attention in some of the documents.  This article will present, in detail, everything that was said in the Declarations of Causes pertaining to these topics.

1) Each declaration makes the defense of slavery a clear objective.

Mississippi:  Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth… These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Texas:  The servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations.

South Carolina:  Those [Union] States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States.

Georgia:  That reason was [the North's] fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity.

2) Some states argue that slavery should be expanded.

Georgia:  We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it… or an equal participation in the whole of it. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice.

Texas:  The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretenses and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.

3) Abolitionism is attacked as a method of inciting violent uprisings.

Georgia:  For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us. … These efforts have in one instance led to the actual invasion of one of the slave-holding States, and those of the murderers and incendiaries who escaped public justice by flight have found fraternal protection among our Northern confederates.

Mississippi:  [Abolitionism] advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst. It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

Texas:  The people [of non-slave holding states] have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States... They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.

4) Mississippi and Georgia point out that slavery accounts for a huge portion of the Southern economy.

Mississippi:  We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property.

Georgia:  But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere.

States' Rights

1) The states argue that the Union is a compact, one that can be annulled if the states are not satisfied with what they receive in return from other states and/or from the federal government.

South Carolina:  We hold...that the mode of its [the federal government] formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

Georgia:  Our Constitution wisely gives Congress the power to punish all offenses against the laws of nations. These are sound and just principles which have received the approbation of just men in all countries and all centuries; but they are wholly disregarded by the people of the Northern States, and the Federal Government is impotent to maintain them.

2) The states argue that the North's reluctance to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 (mandating that fugitive slaves be returned to the South) means that the compact is no longer satisfactory.

South Carolina:  In the state of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

Texas:  The States… by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the Fugitive Slave Clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation.

Other Grievances

1) All of the states negatively mention Abraham Lincoln's election and his suspected abolitionist leanings.

Georgia:  This is the party to whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

South Carolina:  On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

Texas:  And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.

Mississippi:  It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood. Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it.

2) Georgia accuses Northern manufacturing interests of exploiting the South and dominating the federal government.

Georgia:  The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of  the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

3) Texas expresses dissatisfaction with federal military protection.

Texas:  The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

Debates concerning the true causes of the Civil War are unlikely to cease.  Historians often cherry-pick evidence that supports preconceived notions while ignoring large quantities of contradictory material.  When that impulse is fueled by a fervent desire to find reconciliation and consensus, as was the case after the Civil War, the work of historians becomes especially murky.  Primary sources such as the Declarations of Causes are essential to a balanced study of history.

The Lost Cause: Definition and Origins

The Dred Scott Case: Dred Scott v. Sanford

"Cotton is King"

Explore causes for the war.

IWP scholar-practitioners teach all the arts of statecraft in a setting that encourages discussion and debate and thoroughly prepares students for career success.

• Plan Your Visit
• Financial Aid
• The Value of an IWP Master’s Degree
• Apply Online
• Frequently Asked Questions
• The IWP Scholarship Program for Navy Special Warfare Active-duty and Veteran Service Members
• International Applicants
• Living & Resources
• Contact an Admissions Officer

IWP offers seven master’s degrees with a curriculum that includes statecraft, history, American political philosophy, the Western moral tradition, economics, and moral leadership.

• Master of Arts in Statecraft and National Security Affairs
• Master of Arts in Statecraft and International Affairs
• Master of Arts in Strategic Intelligence Studies
• Executive Master of Arts in National Security Affairs
• Master of Arts in Strategic and International Studies (Professional)
• Master of Arts in Statecraft and Strategy (Online)
• Professional Master of Arts in Statecraft and Strategy (Online)
• Doctor of Statecraft and National Security (Professional)
• Executive Master of Arts in Statecraft and Strategy (Online)
• Graduate Certificates
• Online Learning
• Cyber Intelligence Initiative
• Strategic Leadership Seminar
• Continuing Education Program
• Foreign Language Study
• Internships
• American Statecraft Fellowship
• In-Person Courses
• Online Courses

The faculty are experts from the national security and international relations fields, scholar-practitioners with both academic credentials and high-level experience.

• In Memoriam
• Endowed Chairs
• Research Fellows
• Centers of Study

The student body includes recent graduates and a mix of mid-career professionals whose various perspectives enrich the classroom experience.

• Student Services & Resources
• Life at IWP
• Registrar’s Office
• Student Leadership

News & Events

Stay current with campus news, faculty publications, and special events. Track fellow students and alumni and see the impact of an IWP education.

• Kosciuszko Chair & Center for Intermarium Studies
• Press Releases
• Students & Alumni
• IWP Students Blog
• Upcoming Events
• Events for Students
• Special Events
• Event Policy
• Past Events
• An Evening to Honor Dr. John Lenczowski

National security is the highest public policy priority and is achieved by teaching future leaders all the instruments of power. Supporting IWP makes this possible.

• Special Initiatives
• Chancellor’s Council
• The 1947 Club
• The John Jay Legacy Society
• Alumni Giving
• Our Supporters

IWP students become leaders in the national security and foreign policy fields through the study of all the instruments of power, and 97% earn jobs in their field.

• Global Partnerships
• Our Mission
• Our Heritage
• Alumni Success
• Graduate Employment Facts
• Stay Connected
• Get Involved
• Accountability and Transparency
• Visit and Contact

Who/What Caused the Civil War?

• By: John J. Tierney Jr.
• March 4, 2019

The Civil War, America’s worst experience, was caused by people, as are all wars. But which ones? The title of this essay implies that either certain people or their institutions caused this calamity. Who or what? Thus, the ultimate causation was “nature,” either human or human-created.

Interesting, but not much else. Neither explanation separates the American Civil War from any other war. But can they be separated? Kenneth Waltz, in his profound inquiry on war, Man, the State and War (1959) examines three “levels of analysis” — human beings, the nature of their political institutions, and the “international system” (anarchy). 

But the American Civil War was within a shared political institution (democratic republic) and was, thus, “domestic” and not international. That leaves only the first cause, human, but, again, who?

Today, the legacy of the Civil War, more than a century and a half later, can still dominate public discourse. Daily reminders of slavery and “racism,” erasing of memorials to both and to the Confederacy have become commonplace in the media, entertainment, politics, and most all aspects of contemporary culture. (I recently toured Monticello, Thomas Jefferson’s home, and heard more of his slave/lover Sally Hemmings than of Jefferson).

Within this perspective, it is commonly held that slavery caused the Civil War. How can that be? The institution of slavery was present from the beginning and was still legal in all thirteen colonies in 1776. During the Civil War it existed only in the south and was not legally outlawed until after the war (thirteenth amendment). The United States was the only country in the world where a war was required to end slavery, but did the institution pull the trigger at Fort Sumter? 

How can an institution that existed for centuries in a country, and was universal, cause a military conflict that nearly terminated its own existence? What took so long? Why didn’t the Civil War begin in 1661 or 1761 or 1850?  And if slavery was the reason, why wasn’t it announced at the beginning of the war instead as a moral causation after the Battle of Antietam (Emancipation Proclamation).

The logical answer, of course, is that slavery was a “background” cause, not a precipitate one. But that relieves human decisions as causations and blames the institutions they created. That also means that only backgrounds cause wars.

The same can be said of democracy as inherently “peaceful,” as opposed to dictatorships as inherently warlike. In American history (“Wilsonianism”), this has grown into an article of faith. So has the slavery myth.

In turn, slavery has its own background: cotton and the invention of the cotton gin (1792). Translated into human beings, this means that Eli Whitney (the inventor) was more responsible for the war than Jefferson Davis. It means that the British demand for cotton was more important than the 1000 (or less) men who owned plantations. And it might mean that the southern climate created both plantations and cotton, then slaves, and then war.

If this list is too conflated for reality, then a closer examination is needed. What is more important for the Civil War, slavery or its mortal enemy, abolitionism? Slavery was condoned in the Bible, both Old and New, and was present in North America before Columbus. The abolition movement began around 1830 and was confined to the North, especially New England. Secession started in December 1860 in South Carolina, and the war began four months later.

Do the math.

In his classic study of “pragmatism” in America, The Metaphysical Club (2001), Louis Menand (CCNY Professor) notes the impact that the Civil War had upon abolitionism and its philosophical supporters, principally Oliver Wendell Holmes, William James, Charles Peirce, and John Dewey. Holmes, in particular, was wounded three times and looked upon the war as an unnecessary and tragic calamity engineered in large part by the insistence of abolitionism as a total and final solution to slavery. They later formed a “Metaphysical Club” at Harvard that tried to reconcile their pre-war beliefs with the calamity that the war had inflicted on the whole society, especially the horrible death toll (over 700,000 in a population of 32 million).

Thus, “pragmatism” was born, the sole American contribution to historic philosophic thought. Pragmatism sought to relieve “ideas” from immediate, drastic, or ideological action and to seek solutions in orderly, moderate (“pragmatic”) manners. This approach is often explained by a metaphor: if one tries to eat soup with a fork, he should not destroy soup or forks; he should simply invent spoons.

The impact upon Holmes, in particular, is described graphically by Menand: “The moment Holmes returned from the war he seems to have fast-frozen his experience, and to have sealed its meaning off from future revision. … he could not bear to read histories of the Civil War. He rarely mentioned the issues that had been the reason for the fighting or expressed a political opinion about the outcome. The war had burned a hole, so to speak, in his life.”

Thus, immediately after the war, the instigators knew full well who was responsible, and it wasn’t the slaveholders. Yet, it takes two to make a fight. While abolitionism was the immediate spark (the “primary” cause), blame also goes to the heirs of John C. Calhoun and the “sovereignty” apostolates of South Carolina. They erroneously viewed Lincoln’s election as a violation of “states’ rights” and the end of their cultural life. But Lincoln was not an abolitionist and opposed only the westward extension of slavery.

South Carolina voted for secession, and the die was cast.

Thus, the Civil War, like most all others, was begun by normal people, “politicians,” making terrible mistakes and not stopping long enough to see the consequences. Like it died almost everywhere else, and in the American North, slavery did not need a war to end it. It would have gone quietly (or “quieter”). 

Never Miss the Latest News

The Institute of World Politics 1521 16th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036-1464

IWP Reston Campus 1761 Business Center Dr. Reston, VA 20190-5307

202-462-2101 888-KNOW-IWP [email protected]

Copyright 2024 The Institute of World Politics. All Rights Reserved. | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer

Home — Essay Samples — History — History of the United States — Civil War

Essays on Civil War

Civil war essay topic examples.

The American Civil War is a significant part of our nation's past, filled with fascinating stories, debates, and events. Whether you want to argue, compare, describe, persuade, or narrate, we have a wide range of essay topics that will take you on a journey through this pivotal period in American history. Join us as we delve into the heart of the conflict, examine key figures, analyze strategies, vividly depict battles, and explore the moral imperatives that shaped the course of the Civil War. These essay topics will guide you on your historical voyage, offering insights into the complexities and enduring legacies of this era.

Argumentative Essays

Argumentative Civil War essays require you to analyze and present arguments related to this historical conflict. Here are some topic examples:

• 1. Argue whether the Civil War was primarily about slavery or states' rights.
• 2. Analyze the role of key political figures, such as Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis, in shaping the outcome of the Civil War.

Example Introduction Paragraph for an Argumentative Civil War Essay: The American Civil War stands as a monumental chapter in our nation's history, marked by conflicting ideologies and profound repercussions. In this essay, I will argue that at its core, the Civil War was a struggle over the institution of slavery and its implications for the United States.

Example Conclusion Paragraph for an Argumentative Civil War Essay: In conclusion, the argument for the centrality of slavery in the Civil War underscores its deep-rooted impact on our nation's evolution. As we reflect on this defining period, we are challenged to confront the enduring legacy of this conflict and its implications for our society today.

Compare and Contrast Essays

Compare and contrast Civil War essays involve examining the differences and similarities between various aspects of the conflict. Consider these topics:

• 1. Compare and contrast the strategies and leadership styles of Union and Confederate military commanders.
• 2. Analyze the impact of the Civil War on the lives of soldiers and civilians in the North and the South.

Example Introduction Paragraph for a Compare and Contrast Civil War Essay: The American Civil War featured diverse military strategies and leadership styles, alongside varying experiences for those directly affected. In this essay, I will delve into the differences and similarities between Union and Confederate military commanders and the profound effects of the war on individuals on both sides of the conflict.

Example Conclusion Paragraph for a Compare and Contrast Civil War Essay: In conclusion, the comparison and contrast of military leaders and civilian experiences during the Civil War provide a multifaceted view of this historic event. As we examine these aspects, we gain a deeper appreciation for the complexities of this period in American history.

Descriptive Essays

Descriptive Civil War essays enable you to vividly depict events, battles, or notable figures from the era. Here are some topic ideas:

• 1. Describe the Battle of Gettysburg, emphasizing its pivotal role in the outcome of the war.
• 2. Paint a detailed portrait of Abraham Lincoln, focusing on his leadership qualities and the challenges he faced during the Civil War.

Example Introduction Paragraph for a Descriptive Civil War Essay: The American Civil War witnessed significant battles and iconic figures that have left an indelible mark on our history. In this essay, I will immerse you in the vivid details of the Battle of Gettysburg, a turning point in the conflict, and provide a descriptive portrait of Abraham Lincoln, the leader who steered the nation through this tumultuous period.

Example Conclusion Paragraph for a Descriptive Civil War Essay: In conclusion, the descriptive exploration of the Battle of Gettysburg and Abraham Lincoln's leadership underscores the indomitable spirit of a nation in crisis. As we reflect on these historical aspects, we gain insight into the resilience and determination that defined this era.

Persuasive Essays

Persuasive Civil War essays involve convincing your audience of a particular perspective or interpretation of the conflict. Consider these persuasive topics:

• 1. Persuade your readers that the Emancipation Proclamation was a turning point in the Civil War and a moral imperative.
• 2. Argue for or against the notion that the Reconstruction era effectively addressed the issues arising from the Civil War.

Example Introduction Paragraph for a Persuasive Civil War Essay: The Emancipation Proclamation and the Reconstruction era represent critical chapters in the aftermath of the Civil War. In this persuasive essay, I will present the argument that the Emancipation Proclamation not only altered the course of the war but also marked a moral imperative in the struggle for freedom.

Example Conclusion Paragraph for a Persuasive Civil War Essay: In conclusion, the persuasive argument for the significance of the Emancipation Proclamation challenges us to acknowledge the moral dimensions of the Civil War. As we examine this transformative period, we are urged to consider the enduring impact of this historic document on the journey toward equality.

Narrative Essays

Narrative Civil War essays allow you to tell a compelling story from the perspective of a historical figure or a fictional character during the Civil War era. Explore these narrative essay topics:

• 1. Narrate a day in the life of a Civil War soldier, conveying the challenges and emotions they faced on the battlefield.
• 2. Imagine yourself as a journalist covering the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and recount your experiences and emotions during that historic event.

Example Introduction Paragraph for a Narrative Civil War Essay: The American Civil War was a time of upheaval and turmoil, experienced firsthand by soldiers and civilians alike. In this narrative essay, I will transport you to the battlefield and the tumultuous events surrounding the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, offering a personal perspective on these historical moments.

Example Conclusion Paragraph for a Narrative Civil War Essay: In conclusion, the narrative accounts of a Civil War soldier's life and a journalist's experiences during the Lincoln assassination bring history to life in a profoundly human way. As we immerse ourselves in these narratives, we gain a deeper appreciation for the individuals who lived through these tumultuous times and the resilience they displayed.

The Economic and Political Causes of The Civil War in The United States

Causes of the civil war, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Power of Rhetoric in The Civil War

The 1861 to 1865 civil war between the northern and southern states of america, the civil war between the northern and southern states of america, the issues of state rights in the civil war, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The Civil War in America

The civil war – a sectional fight between north and south, civil war reconstruction, reconstruction's disappointment after the civil war, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

African Americans During The Civil War

An analysis of the reason for participating in the american civil war, the factors of civil war according to oates, the battle in gettysburg during the american civil war, in fact, the problem of slavery in america was not the cause of the civil war, how elite's efforts to maintain their social status has influenced the civil war, the north won the deadliest american civil war, civil war causes: westward expansion, compromise failure & south’s fear, the role of women spies in the civil war, was reconstruction a success or failure, historical memory and historical narrative in spain, free compare and contrast the two poetry sets portraying war, a research of harriet tubman – a heronie in the struggle against slavery, world war i as a turning factor in african history, the role of systemic oppression in shaping civil wars, plot summary and review of liberty's fire, the story of first lieutenant thomas jonathan jackson, the civil war and what it meant for arkansas, cotton and the civil war, an alternative side of the civil war in cold mountain by charles frazier.

April 12, 1861 - April 26, 1865

United States

Confederate States of America, United States

Battle of Antietam, Fort Pillow Massacre, Battle of Gettysburg, Battle of the Monitor and Merrimack, Battle of Monocacy

Abraham Lincoln, who served as the 16th President of the United States. Lincoln's leadership and steadfast commitment to preserving the Union were instrumental in guiding the Northern states to victory. General Robert E. Lee, who served as the commander of the Confederate Army. Lee's military prowess and strategic genius earned him respect even among his adversaries. Clara Barton, known as the "Angel of the Battlefield," made a lasting impact as a nurse and humanitarian during the war. She later founded the American Red Cross, which continues to provide humanitarian assistance worldwide.

The American Civil War, fought from 1861 to 1865, was a defining moment in the history of the United States. It emerged from a complex set of circumstances and prerequisites that spanned several decades. One of the primary prerequisites was the issue of slavery. The institution of slavery had long been a divisive issue between the Northern and Southern states. The expansion of slavery into newly acquired territories, such as the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, heightened tensions and fueled regional conflicts. Economic differences also played a significant role. The Northern states had undergone rapid industrialization, while the Southern states relied heavily on agriculture, particularly cotton production. This led to differing priorities and conflicting interests between the two regions. Political factors, such as debates over states' rights and the balance of power between the federal government and the states, further exacerbated the tensions. The election of Abraham Lincoln as President in 1860, who opposed the expansion of slavery, intensified the divide and prompted several Southern states to secede from the Union. The historical context of the American Civil War was characterized by deep-rooted divisions over slavery, economic disparities, and political conflicts. These factors ultimately culminated in a devastating conflict that reshaped the nation's history and had long-lasting consequences for both the United States and the institution of slavery.

One of the most significant effects was the abolition of slavery. The Civil War served as a catalyst for the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, which declared slaves in Confederate territories to be free. Ultimately, the war led to the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1865, officially abolishing slavery nationwide. The Civil War also had far-reaching political consequences. It solidified the power of the federal government over the states and established the supremacy of the United States as a single, indivisible nation. The conflict clarified the relationship between the federal and state governments, paving the way for the expansion of federal authority in subsequent years. Moreover, the war's aftermath brought about significant social and cultural changes. Reconstruction efforts aimed to rebuild and integrate the Southern states into the Union, but the process was marked by challenges, resistance, and the rise of racial segregation. These struggles set the stage for the civil rights movement in the following century. Economically, the war transformed the United States into a more industrialized nation. The demand for supplies and weaponry during the war accelerated industrialization in the North. Additionally, the emancipation of slaves created a labor force that contributed to the country's economic growth.

In the Union states, there was a prevailing sentiment that the war was necessary to preserve the Union and end the institution of slavery. Many Northerners supported the cause, viewing it as a fight for justice and the preservation of the nation's democratic ideals. Abolitionists and those who opposed the expansion of slavery were particularly vocal in their support of the Union cause. In the Confederate states, public opinion leaned towards defending their perceived rights to self-governance and the institution of slavery. The idea of states' rights and the defense of Southern traditions resonated strongly among many Southerners. They believed in the necessity of secession to protect their way of life and preserve their economic system. Public opinion within individual communities could also vary. Families were often divided, with some members fighting for the Union and others for the Confederacy. People in border states, such as Kentucky and Missouri, experienced particularly complex and nuanced views due to their proximity to both sides. Over time, public opinion on the Civil War has evolved. The war's causes and consequences have been reevaluated and interpreted through different lenses, leading to ongoing discussions and debates. Today, the Civil War is widely recognized as a pivotal moment in American history, with public opinion encompassing a range of perspectives that continue to shape our understanding of the conflict.

Films: "Gone with the Wind" (1939), "Glory" (1989), "Lincoln" (2012). Literature: "The Red Badge of Courage" by Stephen Crane, "Cold Mountain" by Charles Frazier, "The Killer Angels" by Michael Shaara.

The topic of the American Civil War holds immense importance for academic exploration and essay writing due to its significant impact on American history and society. This conflict, fought between the Northern and Southern states from 1861 to 1865, centered on fundamental issues like slavery, states' rights, and the preservation of the Union. Studying the American Civil War allows us to delve into the complexities of the nation's past and comprehend the deep-rooted divisions that led to this brutal conflict. It provides a platform to analyze the moral, political, and socioeconomic factors that shaped the war's outcomes and repercussions. Furthermore, exploring the Civil War fosters a deeper understanding of the struggle for civil rights and the long-lasting consequences that continue to shape the United States today. By examining primary sources, historical narratives, and varying perspectives, essays on the American Civil War can shed light on pivotal events, influential figures, military strategies, and the experiences of individuals affected by the war. It offers an opportunity to critically analyze the causes, motivations, and legacies of this watershed moment in American history, ultimately contributing to a comprehensive understanding of the nation's past and its ongoing pursuit of equality and justice.

1. Foner, E. (2010). The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery. W. W. Norton & Company. 2. McPherson, J. M. (1988). Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. Oxford University Press. 3. McPherson, J. M. (2003). Crossroads of Freedom: Antietam. Oxford University Press. 4. McPherson, J. M. (2007). This Mighty Scourge: Perspectives on the Civil War. Oxford University Press. 5. Miller, R. J. (2003). Lincoln and His World: The Civil War Era. University of Nebraska Press. 6. Oakes, J. (2012). Freedom National: The Destruction of Slavery in the United States, 1861-1865. W. W. Norton & Company. 7. Potter, D. M. (1990). The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861. Harper Perennial. 8. Robertson, J. I. (2002). Civil War: America Becomes One Nation. DK Publishing. 9. Symonds, C. L. (2001). The American Heritage History of the Battle of Gettysburg. HarperCollins. 10. Ward, G. C. (1990). The Civil War: An Illustrated History. Alfred A. Knopf.

Relevant topics

• Westward Expansion
• Great Depression
• Industrial Revolution
• Pearl Harbor
• Civil Rights Movement
• American Revolution
• Manifest Destiny
• Imperialism
• Frederick Douglass

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

America's Wars, Causes of

• War of 1812
• Mexican War

Terminology

Reference sources, search suggestions, primary sources.

• Spanish-American War
• World War I
• World War II
• Vietnam War
• Persian Gulf Wars

Poli Sci and Peace Studies Librarian

Hesburgh Library 148 Hesburgh Library University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 46556

(574) 631-8901 [email protected]

• War between the States
• War of Northern Aggression
• War of Southern Independence
• War for the Union
• Second American Revolution
• War of the Rebellion
• War of the Great Rebellion
• Freedom War (African-American)
• The American Civil War (England)
• War of Secession (in several European languages)
• United States -- History -- Civil War -- 1861-1865 (LCSH)

Tip: In contemporary documents especially in the South the terms "property" and "servants" tend to appear in discussions and debates rather than the terms "slaves" and "slavery."

• The American Civil War by Steven E. Woodworth Call Number: General Collection E 456 .A447 1996 ISBN: 0313290199 Publication Date: 1996-12-09 The first guide to Civil War literature to appear in nearly 30 years, this book provides the most comprehensive, up-to-date, and informative survey and analysis of the vast body of Civil War literature.
• The Encyclopedia of Civil War Usage by Webb Garrison; Cheryl Garrison (As told to) Call Number: General Collection E 468.9 .G373 2001 ISBN: 1581821867 Publication Date: 2001-04-21 There are few systematic guides to the language used by the generation that fought the American Civil War. In the 150 years since the great conflict, our language has changed, and as meanings have become obscure or lost, links with this vibrant past have dissolved and much of that which had meaning to our forefathers no longer has the same meaning to us.
• Historical Dictionary of the Civil War by Terry Jones Call Number: 10th Floor Reading Room E 468 .J777 2011 ISBN: 9780810878112 Publication Date: 2011-07-15 The Civil War was the most traumatic event in American history, pitting Americans against one another, rending the national fabric, leaving death and devastation in its wake, and instilling an anger that has not entirely dissipated even to this day, 150 years later. This updated and expanded two-volume second edition of the Historical Dictionary of the Civil War relates the history of this war through a chronology, an introductory essay, an extensive bibliography, and hundreds of cross-referenced dictionary entries on persons, places, events, institutions, battles, and campaigns. This book is an excellent access point for students, researchers, and anyone wanting to know more about the Civil War.
• Historical Dictionary of United States Diplomacy, 1776-1861 by Debra Jean Allen Call Number: General Collection E 183.7 .A445 2012 ISBN: 9780810861862 Publication Date: 2012-09-13
• Historical Times Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Civil War by Patricia L. Faust (Editor) Call Number: 10th Floor Reading Room E 468 .H57 1986 ISBN: 0061812617 Publication Date: 1986-11-01 With over 1,000 illustrations and maps, this is the most complete reference ever produced on the Civil War.
• Atlas of the Civil War by Steven E. Woodworth; Kenneth J. Winkle; James M. McPherson (Foreword by) Call Number: 10th Floor Reading Room E 468 .W754 2004 ISBN: 0195221311 Publication Date: 2004-12-02 Offering the clearest and most comprehensive examination of the conflict that transformed the United States, the Atlas of the Civil War reveals the full dimensions of this historic confrontation.

Books, Videos, etc.

For books, etc. held by Notre Dame analyzing the causes of the Civil War use:

• Advanced Search
• United States History Civil War, 1861-1865 Causes

For books, etc. providing contemporary (1845-1890) opinion & analysis use:

• ("United States" OR america*) AND ("Civil War" OR "War between the States") AND (cause* OR origin OR origins)
• 1845 to 1890
• Use "facets" (left column) to further narrow results

For materials held by other libraries:

• Repeat search in WorldCat

For scholarly articles:

In one or more of the recommended article databases

• limit search terms to title, subject or abstract,
• adjust search by adding or removing or modifying search terms, and/or
• limiting search results to "peer reviewed" or "refereed" articles.

For contemporaneous popular opinion & analysis (1845-1890):

• adjust search by adding or removing or modifying search terms

Tip: Do not truncate (use the *) with origin. This will retrieve "original" material dealing with the actual conduct of the war rather than its causes. Therefore it may produce many irrelevant records.

• Voices from the Gathering Storm by Glenn M. Linden (Compiled by) Call Number: General Collection E 415.7 .V65 2001 ISBN: 0842029982 Publication Date: 2001-08-01 Voices from the Gathering Storm explains the dramatic change in thinking about the nature and value of the American Union from 1846 to 1861 which impelled citizens from 11 southern states to declare independence and the remaining 22 states to fight the bloodiest war in the nation's history.
• Disunion! the coming of the American Civil War, 1789-1859 by Elizabeth R. Varon Publication Date: 2008
• In the Hands of Strangers by Robert Edgar Conrad Call Number: General Collection E 441 .I49 2001 ISBN: 027102089X Publication Date: 2001-03-07 In the Hands of Strangers is a collection of sixty-seven documents by writers and witnesses from the past, both black and white, that offer perspectives on the trade and movement of slaves. Many elucidate the long-standing discord between North and South over the issue of slavery. Documents are divided into three parts that cover the African slave trade, the internal U.S. slave trade, and the series of conflicts and crises that led to the Civil War.
• Prologue to Sumter; the beginnings of the Civil War from the John Brown Raid to the surrender of Fort Sumter, woven into a continuous narrative. by Philip Van Doren Stern Call Number: General Collection E 436 .S839 Publication Date: 1961
• Ordeal of the Union by Allan Nevins Call Number: General Collection E 415.7 .N417 Publication Date: 1947
• At the Precipice by Shearer Davis Bowman ISBN: 9780807895672 Publication Date: 2010-10-04 Focuses on the different ways in which Americans, North and South, black and white, understood their interests, rights, and honor during the late antebellum years.
• The Politics of Dissolution by Marshall L. DeRosa (Editor); Marshall DeRosa (Editor) Call Number: General Collection E 459 .D37 1998 ISBN: 1560003499 Publication Date: 1997-01-30 This collection of late antebellum U.S. Senate speeches exemplifies the official statements of the public men from the South, North, and West as they struggled with the questions of national identity and the right of self-government within the context of the rule of law.
• The origin of the late war traced from the beginning of the Constitution to the revolt of the Southern States. by George Lunt Publication Date: 1866
• << Previous: Mexican War
• Next: Spanish-American War >>
• Last Updated: Oct 26, 2023 9:33 AM
• URL: https://libguides.library.nd.edu/causes-of-american-wars

Need help? Ask us.

Report a problem