The Civil War began on April 12th, 1861 when the Confederate States of America (a newly formed organization consisting of 7 Southern American states following their secession from the United States of America in early 1861), attacked and captured an American military instillation at Fort Sumter, South Carolina (Ward et al.,1994). The remaining states of the United States of America (USA) - referred to as the Union, sought to preserve the USA in its pre-April 1861 political structure at any cost; and thus the action by the Confederates in April 1861 initiated a war that would last 4 years (Ward et al., 1994). In the months following the April 1861 events, 4 more Southern states joined the Confederate effort (Ward et al., 1994).
A common misconception about the Civil War is that is was fought to free the slaves. Although the abolition of slavery was a byproduct of the civil war, it was far from the cause. In fact it could be said that there was no singular cause for the war at all. This essay seeks to answer the two proposed questions by briefly examining six key
factors supporting arguments for and against emancipation of slaves in
the North and South respectively. These factors are: 1: the mobilization of volunteer armies; 2: spatially differentiated economic foundations; 3: states rights and traditional American values; 4: potential for international influence and involvement in the Civil War; 5: the slave power effect; 6: and Free Soil issues.
Mobilization of armies
Following the April 1861 attack, American president Abraham Lincoln called for volunteers to join an army to fight on behalf of the Union against Confederate forces Aiken, 1864). It can be argued that Lincoln used emancipation of slaves as one way to motivate blacks in the North to volunteer for his army. Conversely, Confederate leader
Jefferson Davis used Lincoln's emancipation of slaves' ideals to mobilize Southern whites to fight for the South in order to protect any number of their interests (Trager, 1994) see following sections.
Spatially differentiated economic foundations
One of the key variables that differentiated the South and the North's views towards slaves was the foundations of their regions economies. The North was the industrial hub of the USA and thus there was not so greater need for slaves. Conversely, the South's economy was primarily based upon agriculture. Agricultural plantations in the South were reliant upon a large number of slaves in order to remain economically
competitive and profitable (Trager, 1994). At the beginning of the Civil War, approximately 43% of white families in the South owned slaves (which accounted for 85% of all slaves in the USA) (Randall and Donald, 1961).
It can therefore be argued that the one of the primary reasons that the North and the South were differentiated in their views towards slavery was based largely on what economic sectors were dominant in the two wider regions. The Union had little economic rationale or basis to argue for the need of slaves, whilst the South did (Aiken, 1864).
States rights and traditional American values
Many Southern states had only recently joined the USA following the US-Mexico War from 1846-1848 (Gienapp, 1997). These states had their own identity, culture, and thus to some extent felt socially distinct from the USA to the point that many felt they were sovereign from US rule especially Texas. The Southern states, including the recently acquired states, were all slave states, and thus they felt victimized and threatened by unconstitutional acts by the North that infringed on their rights and threatened their traditional values of which having slaves was an engrained way of life (Lee, 1865). Confederates felt one of the main focuses of the war was to preserve states rights and
(their version of) traditional American values.
Lincoln, conversely, sought to strengthen the unity of the USA. This strengthening (economically, politically) would occur in a North-South pattern. Emancipation of slaves was just one way the USA would be strengthened (Douglass, 1862) especially as the North had proven they were no longer needed and could actually result in economic inequality issues and disparity issues as discussed below.
International influence in the Civil War
The South remained against emancipation of slaves because of the potential negative economic impacts that could arise from such actions as discussed above. They believed emancipating slaves would increase their costs and thus they would struggle to remain competitive in European markets. Lincoln's main reason to emancipate slaves in regards to international relations was to avoid international involvement in the conflict
particularly from France and Britain (Jones, 1999). Both countries tended to be against fighting for a regime that supported slavery against a regime that wanted to emancipate it; even if this bore some economic costs on them (France and Britain) as they would not have access to cheap imported agricultural products from the South.
The slave power effect
Slave power refers to the power that a slave owner accrues simply because they only very cheap mean to production (Richards, 2000). Anti-slave proponents in the North argued that slave owners were gaining disproportionate power over Congress, the Supreme Court, and even the president through their economic power that they were gaining through having cheap means of production. The anti-slave movement gained traction in the North based not on human-rights factors, but because of escalating threats that rich Southerners would come to control crucial and powerful positions within the aforementioned institutions (Richards, 2000). Obviously inhabitants of the South viewed this as much less of a wedge issue regarding slaves.
Free soil issues
This final point refers to the fact that much of the West was being opened up to development of many types especially agriculture. The North feared that rich white slave owners would be able to monopolize Western lands because they would have far cheaper means of production (i.e. slaves) than Northern farmers (Foner, 1970). This factor supported the North's argument for emancipation of slaves as this action would ensure all farmers would have similar means of production. Conversely, the South was against emancipation based on this variable, as they would lose their potential competitive edge in the free soils of the West.
Conclusion
This essay has considered a number of the arguments why the North was primarily pro the emancipation of slaves, and why the South was primarily against. This essay in no way seeks to provide a complete list of the causal factors behind the differing views in the South and the North, nor does it seek to argue that the above factors were
uniform in their relevant states. This essay illustrates, however, that arguments between the North and the South regarding emancipation were not based upon a single factor slavery but more so a complex combination of integrated and intertwined factors, many of which were linked in one way or another with the issue of slavery.
