Personally, I believe the Civil War was fought due to land lust and greed and the differing ideology the Northern and Southern states had in regards to this. Additionally, each time we acquired new land mass throughout early American history violence ensued at the cost of some entity (Schultz, 2009). Consider the Indians, England, and Mexico as recipients of hostile land acquisition; consequently, during the Civil War area, America was fighting itself over land due to man’s greed. The Civil War was caused by political differences, social differences, and economic differences between Northern and Southern states. Additionally, these dividing issues were not entirely new notions just prior to the war, but rather issues that were generally ignored …show more content…
Furthermore, the push for western territories federally brought the fear that the South’s precarious political ideology could be forever lost with the introduction of new states into the union. However, the majority of the Northern states believed that the Southern interest politically was controlled by a minority of rich planters whose interest were for themselves and not what was best for the South (Schultz, 2009). Also, the supreme court ruling on the Dred Scott case led the North to believe that the South wielded an alarming amount of power in the political realm. Accordingly, the election of Abraham Lincoln as President in 1860 without winning a Southern state was the turning point politically towards civil war. The social differences between the North and the South were extreme; the North was highly populated, industrial and far more forward thinking (Schultz, 2009). The South, however, remained sparsely populated, agricultural, and desired little, if any, change. The South’s lack of desire for change led the North to believe they were regressive and wanted to halt the progress of the nation. However, the South perceived the North as arrogant, pretentious and wanting to end the Southern way of life. Socially, the North was progressive and industrial, while the South was traditional and
Sectionalism was the underlying cause of the Civil War. The North and South could not agree on anything which caused a lot of animosity between the North and South. The collapsing of the two party system and the rise of sectionalism started the Civil War. Every act and policy can be traced back to sectionalism. The South valued State’s Rights and always tried to use them against the North. The North tended to favor Central Government. The question of slavery was also a good example because neither side could collaborate and find the right answer. From the Tariff of 1832 to the Fugitive Slave Act neither North nor South was pleased at the same time. The Civil War was going to happen no matter what as long a sectionalism was an issue.
No one is one hundred percent sure why the American Civil War came to be. However, one theory that repeatedly comes up is the issue of slavery and whether it was just or wrong in America the land of the freedom throughout history and discussions. Charles B. Dew the author of, Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and The Cause of The Civil War, claims to be a southerner himself and explains his thoughts and education growing up in the south. In his youth, he was taught by his family that the reason the South went to war was to fight for their State’s rights but as an adult he explains that it may not have been the only reason they fought after researching for himself.
The American Civil War was caused because of the North and South differences in economies, disagreements about abolishing slavery and whether the state or federal government had more power. These three factors played a key role in America's deadliest war. Understanding the causes of the Civil War is important because the war was one of the most important events in our nation's history. After the Civil War all men were truly created equal, it reunited the country as one, and redefined what it meant to be an
There are various explanations as to who and what really caused the Civil War. It is even fair to say that sometimes morals stand in the way when deciding who really started the war. Therefore, the facts must be analyzed clearly and in depth. It is true that the north played a major role in the Civil War, however, the south would not release their strict traditional beliefs of slavery. As time progressed, slavery debates pressured the South more and more to stand by their strict beliefs. Fugitive acts, Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Secession all showed how the south used brutal methods to preserve slavery. Therefore, since the popular sovereignty doctrine, the pro-slavery souths’ strict use of slavery and decisions to secede from the nation, angered the north, leading to a civil war.
What caused the Civil War is not solely one. The main cause of the Civil War is economic difference between the North and the South, which had been set up since American colonial times. The economic division also caused political division and different arguments regarding slavery because both the North and the South fought to protect their own economic system.
Yes, slavery was the cause of the Civil War, half of the country thought it was wrong, and the other half just could not let it go or continue. The war was fought overall in different places, and the monetary and property loss cannot be calculated. Arguments about the causes and consequences of the Civil War, as well as the reasons for Northern victory, will continue as long as there are historians to wield the pen ? which is, perhaps even for this bloody conflict, mightier than the sword (Oates 388). The Civil War was a great waste in terms of human life and possible accomplishment and should be considered shameful. Before its first centennial, tragedy struck a new country and altered it for an eternity. It will never be forgotten, but adversity builds strength and the United States of America is now a much stronger nation (Oates 388).
What started as a war to prevent the South from seceding quickly turned into a war against slavery following President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. At the start of the Civil War, both Union and Confederate sides believed that they would had a quick and decisive victory. The North’s population and industry was vastly greater than the South’s, but the South had superior military leadership, a large white population that was united against invading Union armies and a hope that France or Britain would intervene on their behalf.
Of the seven deadly sins, the one that has plagued the United States the most throughout its history is greed.. Greed -- i.e., "the excessive desire to possess wealth or goods with the intention of keeping it for oneself." – can be seen in 1614, when Thomas Hunt sailed to Spain from his expedition in America with a ship packed with Patuxet Indians, bound to be sold into slavery. It can also be seen in 1773 as a major factor of the Boston Tea Party, where King George III was yearning for more control over colonial governments and hungry for the revenue from it. Greed can also be seen in 1830 during the Indian removal act, where President Andrew Jackson (backed by many other white Americans) signed a law that forced the five civilized tribes (Creek, Choctaw, Cherokee, Seminole, and Chickasaw) off of their land and dragged to different territories in Oklahoma. In each of those instances, greed served as the ultimate cause of behavior. Despite the many factors that played a significant role in the American Civil War, greed once again served as the catalyst and ultimate cause of the American Civil War. While anti-slavery movements, the idea of states' rights and the vision of "one union" each represented powerful arguments (or justifications for plunging the United States into civil war), the ultimate cause stemmed from fundamental differences between the "North and South" over control of economic power – i.e., modes of production, property, and money.
The North and South were forming completely different economies, and therefore completely different geographies, from one another during the period of the Industrial Revolution and right before the Civil War. The North’s economy was based mainly upon industrialization from the formation of the American System, which was producing large quantities of goods in factories. The North was becoming much more urbanized due to factories being located in cities, near the major railroad systems for transportation of the goods, along with the movement of large groups of factory workers to the cities to be closer to their jobs. With the North’s increased rate of job opportunities, many different people of different ethnic groups and classes ended up working together. This ignited the demise of the North’s social order. The South was not as rapidly urbanizing as the North, and therefore social order was still in existence; the South’s economy was based upon the production of cotton after Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin. Large cotton plantations’ production made up the bulk of America’s...
Between the economic, political, and social quarrels that evolved throughout the 1850's, the North and the South underwent many changes that led to the start of the Civil War. The most attributing factor to this war was that of a moral dispute between two sections who both wanted different things. Slavery became the issue that spread across the nation and was disputed back and forth between the North and South sections of the country.
The American Civil War fought from 1861 to 1865 is described as “the bloodiest conflict in the history of North America” (Feature Causes Of The Civil War). The Civil war or war between the states was fought for many economic, political and moral reasons tracing back to the very start of America. The civil war fought between the Northern and Southern states is truly a significant event in the history of the United States because it involved American citizens fighting against each other. The American civil war was initiated through the controversy over slave labor, unfair actions toward Southern states and the vast division between the Northern and Southern states.
Both sides desired a republican form of government. Each wanted a political system that would “protect the equality and liberty of the individuals from aristocratic privilege and…tyrannical power.” (404) However, the north and south differed greatly in “their perceptions of what most threatened its survival.” (404) The secession by the south was an attempt to reestablish republicanism, as they no longer found a voice in the national stage. Prior to the 1850s, this conflict had been channeled through the national political system. The collapse of the two-party system gave way to “political reorganization and realignment,” wrote Holt. The voters of the Democrats shifted their influence toward state and local elections, where they felt their concerns would be addressed. This was not exclusively an economically determined factor. It displayed the exercise of agency by individual states. Holt pointed out, “[T]he emergence of a new two-party framework in the South varied from state to state according to the conditions in them.” (406) The “Deep South” was repulsed by the “old political process,” most Southerners trusted their state to be the safeguards of republicanism. (404) They saw the presidential election of Abraham Lincoln, a member of the “the anti-Southern Republican party,” as something the old system could not
The last political cause was simple; Lincoln’s election into office. He was elected in November, and the first southern state seceded in December. Southerners thought that he would become a tyrant based on the fact that he was a Northern Republican. They felt so threatened that, to them, “the election of Abraham Lincoln was the signal for secession-and separation-and war to come.” (Harwell
The rift between northern and southern political ideals grew as the Civil War approached. Many southern politicians felt that their interests became less important as liberal Northerners dominated the political arena. As the years ticked on and more and more states were accepted into the Union, it was clear that northern and southern citizens had different sets of interest that had to be accommodated in different ways. The 1820s brought the emergence of the territory issue—which states would be accepted into the Union, and with what provisions—and mass sectional politics (as northern and southern ideals grew apart). Southerners felt that their needs were not being represented in Congress, since even though the Senate was balanced, the House had slightly more northern representatives than the south. In 18...
...ers mobilized in 1860 behind moderate Abraham Lincoln because he was most likely to carry the doubtful western states. In 1857, the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision ended the Congressional compromise for Popular Sovereignty in Kansas. According to the court, slavery in the territories was a property right of any settler, regardless of the majority there. Chief Justice Taney's decision said that slaves were, "...so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." The decision overturned the Missouri Compromise, which banned slavery in territory north of the 36°30' parallel.