Introduction
The American Civil War is still a pivotal moment in American history. The primary reason for the conflict has been subject to dispute, with some arguing that it was about preserving the Union, while others contend that it was about slavery. While some believe that the Civil War broke out to preserve the Union, the primary cause was the issue of slavery, as the antebellum South relied heavily on it for economic growth, making a peaceful abolition an unlikely option. Despite the efforts of individuals like Thomas Jefferson to explore alternative solutions, the financial impact of freeing enslaved people, coupled with political and social tensions, ultimately led to the secession of Southern states and the outbreak of war.
Slavery as the Primary Cause of the Civil War
According to Paul Finkelman’s article “How the Proslavery Constitution Led to the Civil War,” the primary cause of the war was slavery (2013, 405). Finkelman argues that the Constitution was proslavery and that the Founding Fathers who wrote it enabled and encouraged the expansion of slavery. Unsurprisingly, despite the North’s resistance, the ancestors of national politics were enslavers themselves. This, he contends, was the root cause of the conflict, as the Southern states believed that slavery was essential to their economy and way of life, while the North saw it as a moral issue.
The antebellum South, or deep South, significantly relied on slavery for its economic development, and the enslaved people were regarded more as property or as a means to maintain policies. The early language of the Constitution, which was essentially proslavery, was influenced by this. The South’s perception that its constitutional rights, particularly the safeguards provided by the Constitution of 1787, made achieving the abolition of slavery difficult through constitutional means and assisted in the South’s secession. Finkelman’s argument suggests that the Civil War was primarily about slavery, and preserving the Union was a secondary concern.
A Possibility for Peaceful Abolition
Ben Branch’s article “Could Thomas Jefferson Have Ended Slavery? An Economic Analysis” suggests that it was possible to abolish slavery without the Civil War (2018, 1). Despite being an enslaver, Thomas Jefferson initially had this goal. Branch argues that Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers, had proposed a plan to end slavery, but it was rejected. He believes that if this plan had been implemented, slavery could have ended peacefully. Branch’s argument implies that the Civil War was not inevitable and that slavery could have ended earlier without resorting to violence.
Jefferson explored a possible way to end slavery peacefully by considering the principles of equality and a massive land purchase known as the Louisiana Purchase. However, the costs of such a peaceful abolition, including the economic impact and the potential challenges for the South in managing their workforce, since they heavily relied on slave labor. Ultimately, a peaceful abolition of slavery would have been feasible, but it would have come with a heavy price tag.
Freedom, Property, and Conflicting Ideals
Carole Emberton and Stephen Kantrowitz’s article “Unwriting the Freedom Narrative: A Review Essay” offers a slightly different perspective on the causes of the Civil War. They argue that the war was not solely about slavery but was also about the concept of freedom (2016, 377). The authors discuss the financial impact of abolishing slavery on the South, which heavily relied on slave labor. As prices for enslaved people began to drop and with no compensation for their emancipation, politicians in the South felt they had no other option but to secede. Enslaved people were considered property then, and their value contributed to much of the South’s wealth.
Enslavers had already suffered financially after the Emancipation Proclamation was passed, and the threat of war further lowered prices. The South fought vehemently to protect slavery because of its significant economic impact on the region. Emberton and Kantrowitz suggest that the North fought to preserve its vision of freedom, which included equality. At the same time, the South believed that their freedom was based on their ability to own property, including enslaved people. According to the authors, this difference in interpretation of freedom led to the conflict. Emberton and Kantrowitz’s argument suggests that while slavery was a critical issue, it was not the only cause of the Civil War.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the American Civil War was a turning point in American history that had a lasting impact on the country. Whether the Civil War was about slavery or preserving the Union remains contentious. While there is some debate about the primary cause of the war, the evidence suggests that slavery was the central issue. The South’s dependence on slave labor for economic growth made a peaceful abolition unlikely, and the Constitution was proslavery in its early lexicon. The North’s resistance to slavery as a moral issue further deepened the divide between the two regions.
While figures such as Thomas Jefferson considered various approaches to ending slavery, the financial impact and political tensions made a peaceful solution unlikely. These different perspectives highlight the issue’s complexity, and these factors likely played a role in the Civil War. Nonetheless, it can be argued that slavery was a significant issue that was at the center of the conflict and that the war ultimately resulted in the end of slavery in the United States.
References
Branch, Ben. “Could Thomas Jefferson Have Ended Slavery? An Economic Analysis.” B>Quest. 2018, pp. 1–24. Web.
Emberton, Carole, and Stephen Kantrowitz. “Unwriting the Freedom Narrative: A Review Essay.” Journal of Southern History, vol. 82, no. 2, 2016, pp. 377–394. Web.
Finkelman, Paul. “How the Proslavery Constitution Led to the Civil War.” Rutgers Law Journal, vol. 43, no. 3, 2013, pp. 405–438. Galileo. Web.