Was slavery the principal cause of the American Civil War?

Question

In episode 3F20, "Much Apu About Nothing" of The Simpsons, a proctor is administering an American citizenship test to Apu Nahasapeemapetilon and the following exchange occurs:

Proctor:

All right, here's your last question. What was the cause of the Civil War?

Apu:

Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter--

Proctor:

Wait, wait... just say slavery.

Apu:

Slavery it is, sir.

It has been argued that slavery was not the cause of the American Civil War and that more specifically, essential differences between the Federalists and anti-Federalists were the true cause. My question is: with the full power of hindsight at our disposal, and keeping in mind that there was clearly not one single cause, was slavery the principal cause of the American Civil War?

If I can show that slavery was the primary cause of the secession, will you accept that as an answer? — Publius, May 15 '13 at 22:00
@Avi, sorry, I was asking Patrick to provide a notable source for the claim he wants examined. — , May 15 '13 at 22:35
@Avi The Simpson's doesn't show that anyone has actually made this claim. It's fiction. — , May 15 '13 at 23:45
Some characters made the claim. I don't see why that's insufficient basis for OP to ask the question. — Publius, May 15 '13 at 23:55
Fiction can not be used to demonstrate notability of a claim because it doesn't demonstrate that any real person believes it. If real people believe the claim, then there should be a non-fiction source that Patrick can point to. — , May 16 '13 at 00:33
Will this do for [notability](http://www.psmag.com/culture-society/of-course-the-civil-war-was-about-slavery-26265/)? “Probably 90 percent, maybe 95 percent of serious historians of the Civil War would agree on the broad questions of what the war was about and what brought it about and what caused it,” McPherson said, “which was the increasing polarization of the country between the free states and the slave states over issues of slavery, especially the expansion of slavery.” — Oddthinking, May 16 '13 at 01:09
+1 for referencing the Simpsons. -1 because the Simpsons reference is a joke about how shallow our sense of history is, and not really a claim that slavery was the principal cause (its more a statement that slavery happens to be the only cause most people remember). +1 for an interesting question. Net score: +1 :) — Beofett, May 16 '13 at 12:05
I don't see how this isn't a question about the motivation of people and thus offtopic. — Christian, May 17 '13 at 01:09

score 20 · Answer 1 · answered May 15 '13 at 22:24

20

Whether the following qualifies slavery as the "principal" cause of the Civil War is a matter of some subjectivity, but we can determine that slavery was the primary reason for the South's secession.

In his book The creation of Confederate nationalism: ideology and identity in the Civil War South, historian Drew Gilpin Faust explains:

leaders of the secession movement across the South cited slavery as the most compelling reason for southern independence. (Source)

The Vice-President of the Confederacy considered inequality of races and the institution of slavery to be the foundational principle of the confederacy. In what is now called the "Cornerstone Speech", given a few weeks after the secession of several states, he said:

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. (Source)

Several states that seceded, such as Texas, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Georgia issued declarations of secession, citing disagreement over slavery as the primary cause or a major cause of secession.

Given that disagreement over slavery was the primary cause of the secession, it seems reasonable to conclude that it was the principal cause of the civil war.

answered May 15 '13 at 22:24

Publius

3,443
2
23
26

6

This is fallacious logic. Secession leaders "cited slavery" just implies whoever those leaders are seemed to estimate it politically popular, not actually why they did it. – djechlin May 16 '13 at 00:22
8

@djechlin: We can't know the actual motivations of individuals. We can know the results of surveys of the public statements of groups. If you are right, and the politicians said it because it was politically popular, then that is the correct answer. – Oddthinking May 16 '13 at 01:06
2

@Oddthinking so "reason" is not precise enough for this purpose. To use a modern example, many people, particularly political liberals, are skeptical that George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq because Iraq had WMDs. But by your logic that would be the answer to this question, unproblematically. It would be more precise to say "We know secession leaders claimed slavery as the cause of the secession" but it's dubious to infer that's "the reason" (because "reason" is imprecise in this context.) – djechlin May 16 '13 at 01:10
5

@djechlin: It is tricky; my position is more subtle. The reason Bush ordered the invasion is unanswerable here, and is actually [an example of an off-topic question](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/621/politics-beliefs-and-motivations-questions-should-not-be-allowed-here). Asking the motivation of a single person or small group of people is unprovable. But, when it becomes a group large enough to legitimately poll and to expect answers that (while maybe biased and self-serving) are not dishonest, then we can start answering questions about their motivations with evidence. – Oddthinking May 16 '13 at 01:18
1

@Avi thank you for your answer. For one, your correction of my grammar was well executed, including both examples of proper use, that it bodes well for my continued contribution to this site. I am interested to hear more counter-arguments, but you make a great case. – Patrick Klingemann May 16 '13 at 04:34
@Oddthinking given that GWB published his reasoning in his personal memoirs which you can get cheap from Amazon in eBook format in a few minutes, that specific question is easy to answer :) – jwenting May 16 '13 at 05:34
@Avi the main reasons for secession were economic, the poor prices and high taxes imposed on the south by the north. While those were possible in part because of slavery (the higher density of slaves vs. citizens in the south meant the southern states had higher economic output per citizen but less representation per citizen in the federal government), that was an enabling factor, not the actual reason. Abolishment of slavery wasn't on the political agenda in the north until near the end of the civil war, or even after it. – jwenting May 16 '13 at 05:37
3

@jwenting: There is little doubt about what GWB *says* his rationale was. Some people don't believe him though. You should make your comment-answer a real answer so it can be voted upon. – Oddthinking May 16 '13 at 05:45
@Oddthinking you claimed that his motivation couldn't be proven, hence my comment :) As to my answer, maybe but I don't have time to dig up websites that would pass the fine comb of what some of the mods here think acceptable. – jwenting May 16 '13 at 05:52
Reading the secession justifications provided in the answer makes the primacy of slavery clear. Mississipi's declaration says: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." And the others are hardly less explicit. – Larry OBrien May 16 '13 at 18:57
@jwenting If the question were "Was emancipation the principal cause...?" I'd agree with you, but as it is I think it's a little too broad to claim "Abolishment of slavery wasn't on the political agenda in the north until near the end of the civil war". The abolitionist movement had (at least some) political power. And again, reading the secessionist justifications, the Federalist/Anti-Federalist example that's continuously referred to is the Fugitive Slave Law. – Larry OBrien May 16 '13 at 19:07
Abolitionism was already a strong political movement, which is why most of the northern states had abandoned slavery by that point. – Publius May 17 '13 at 20:37
Doesn't this entire argument rest on the presumption that a military force was necessary and justified? While there is no doubt that slavery was the principal reason for secession, that alone was not the principal cause of violent conflict. That happened when Lincoln ordered troops to march on the South. If Lincoln let's the Southern States secede, there is no war. – Thomas Jun 09 '13 at 06:20
Sure, if you want to analyze the proximal cause of the war you could say it was the attack on Fort Sumter, but I don't think the OP was asking about proximal causes, but rather political, economic, and environmental causes. – Publius Jun 09 '13 at 07:36
There are theories that Lincoln had a hand in the Ft Sumter incident, however, conspiracy theories aside, before Ft. Sumter happened, a peace envoy from the Confederacy had been in DC for a couple of weeks (so prior to Sumter) and Lincoln refused to see them. Lincoln consciously chose a military response over allowing secession. S. Carolina seceded in Dec 1860 but hostility did not start until July 1861 (Apr if you count Sumter). Slavery alone was not the cause of violent conflict; that secession must be stopped at all costs was. – Thomas Jun 10 '13 at 05:37
Who said slavery alone was? I said slavery was the principal cause, because that's what OP asked about. All you're doing is analyzing more proximal causes which, while not incorrect, isn't what I think the OP is asking for, though he can certainly clarify at any point. – Publius Jun 10 '13 at 09:34
I agree that clarity on the question is missing. Is the OP asking about the cause of the political dispute or about what escalated a political dispute into a violent conflict? I.e, what exactly is encompassed in "the war" when identifying principal cause? I disagree that Lincoln's obsession with keeping the union intact is proximal. IMO, it's crucial if not principal but that is difficult to determine given the lack of clarity. – Thomas Jun 10 '13 at 15:13
Related: http://history.stackexchange.com/a/608/943 – choster Mar 31 '14 at 21:37

Was slavery the principal cause of the American Civil War?

Proctor:

Apu:

Proctor:

Apu:

1 Answers1