The Civil War began on April 12th, 1861 when the Confederate States of America ( a freshly formed organisation dwelling of 7 Southern American provinces following their sezession from the United States of America in early 1861 ) , attacked and captured an American military instillment at Fort Sumter, South Carolina ( Ward et al.,1994 ) . The staying provinces of the United States of America ( USA ) – referred to as the Union, sought to continue the USA in its pre-April 1861 political construction at any cost ; and therefore the action by the Confederates in April 1861 initiated a war that would last 4 old ages ( Ward et al. , 1994 ) . In the months following the April 1861 events, 4 more Southern provinces joined the Confederate attempt ( Ward et al. , 1994 ) .
A common misconception about the Civil War is that is was fought to liberate the slaves. Although the abolishment of bondage was a by-product of the civil war, it was far from the cause. In fact it could be said that there was no remarkable cause for the war at all. This essay seeks to reply the two proposed inquiries by briefly analyzing six key
factors back uping statements for and against emancipation of slaves in
the North and South severally. These factors are: 1: the mobilisation of voluntary ground forcess ; 2: spatially differentiated economic foundations ; 3: provinces rights and traditional American values ; 4: potency for international influence and engagement in the Civil War ; 5: the slave power consequence ; 6: and Free Soil issues.
Mobilization of ground forcess
Following the April 1861 onslaught, American president Abraham Lincoln called for voluntaries to fall in an ground forces to contend on behalf of the Union against Confederate forces Aiken, 1864 ) . It can be argued that Lincoln used emancipation of slaves as one manner to actuate inkinesss in the North to volunteer for his ground forces. Conversely, Confederate leader
Jefferson Davis used Lincoln ‘s emancipation of slaves ‘ ideals to mobilise Southern Whites to contend for the South in order to protect any figure of their involvements ( Trager, 1994 ) see following subdivisions.
Spatially differentiated economic foundations
One of the cardinal variables that differentiated the South and the North ‘s positions towards slaves was the foundations of their parts economic systems. The North was the industrial hub of the USA and therefore there was non so greater demand for slaves. Conversely, the South ‘s economic system was chiefly based upon agribusiness. Agricultural plantations in the South were reliant upon a big figure of slaves in order to stay economically
competitory and profitable ( Trager, 1994 ) . At the beginning of the Civil War, about 43 % of white households in the South owned slaves ( which accounted for 85 % of all slaves in the USA ) ( Randall and Donald, 1961 ) .
It can hence be argued that the one of the primary grounds that the North and the South were differentiated in their positions towards bondage was based mostly on what economic sectors were dominant in the two wider parts. The Union had small economic principle or footing to reason for the demand of slaves, whilst the South did ( Aiken, 1864 ) .
States rights and traditional American values
Many Southern provinces had merely late joined the USA following the US-Mexico War from 1846-1848 ( Gienapp, 1997 ) . These provinces had their ain individuality, civilization, and therefore to some extent felt socially distinguishable from the USA to the point that many felt they were sovereign from US regulation particularly Texas. The Southern provinces, including the late acquired provinces, were all slave provinces, and therefore they felt victimized and threatened by unconstitutional Acts of the Apostless by the North that infringed on their rights and threatened their traditional values of which holding slaves was an engrained manner of life ( Lee, 1865 ) . Confederates felt one of the chief focal points of the war was to continue provinces rights and
( their version of ) traditional American values.
Lincoln, conversely, sought to beef up the integrity of the USA. This strengthening ( economically, politically ) would happen in a North-South form. Emancipation of slaves was merely one manner the USA would be strengthened ( Douglass, 1862 ) particularly as the North had proven they were no longer needed and could really ensue 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 possible negative economic impacts that could originate from such actions as discussed above. They believed liberating slaves would increase their costs and therefore they would fight to stay competitory in European markets. Lincoln ‘s chief ground to liberate slaves in respects to international dealingss was to avoid international engagement in the struggle
peculiarly from France and Britain ( Jones, 1999 ) . Both states tended to be against contending for a government that supported bondage against a government that wanted to liberate it ; even if this dullard some economic costs on them ( France and Britain ) as they would non hold entree to cheap imported agricultural merchandises from the South.
The slave power consequence
Slave power refers to the power that a slave proprietor accrues merely because they merely really inexpensive mean to production ( Richards, 2000 ) . Anti-slave advocates in the North argued that slave proprietors were deriving disproportional power over Congress, the Supreme Court, and even the president through their economic power that they were deriving through holding inexpensive agencies of production. The anti-slave motion gained grip in the North based non on human-rights factors, but because of intensifying menaces that rich Southerners would come to command important and powerful places within the aforesaid establishments ( Richards, 2000 ) . Obviously dwellers of the South viewed this as much less of a cuneus issue sing slaves.
Free dirt issues
This concluding point refers to the fact that much of the West was being opened up to development of many types particularly agriculture. The North feared that rich white slave proprietors would be able to monopolise Western lands because they would hold far cheaper agencies of production ( i.e. slaves ) than Northern husbandmans ( Foner, 1970 ) . This factor supported the North ‘s statement for emancipation of slaves as this action would guarantee all husbandmans would hold similar agencies of production. Conversely, the South was against emancipation based on this variable, as they would lose their possible competitory border in the free dirts of the West.
This essay has considered a figure of the statements why the North was chiefly pro the emancipation of slaves, and why the South was chiefly against. This essay in no manner seeks to supply a complete list of the causal factors behind the differing positions in the South and the North, nor does it seek to reason that the above factors were
uniform in their relevant provinces. This essay illustrates, nevertheless, that statements between the North and the South sing emancipation were non based upon a individual factor bondage but more so a complex combination of incorporate and intertwined factors, many of which were linked in one manner or another with the issue of bondage.