Brother Against Brother: A Comprehensive Study of the Causes of the Civil War

The American Civil War was the bloodiest war in American history, with casualties clocking in at 600,000 men—a percentage that, when converted, would be today’s equivalent of the state of Washington being completely wiped off the map. The Civil War is notorious for being so controversial that it tore families apart—turned brother against brother. What could have caused carnage and controversy of such great magnitude? The average person might immediately, and unthinkingly, blurt out “slavery”. While this is technically true, the full answer is much more complicated and split, just like the United States right before the War. In this report, one will attempt to understand what led to the start of this horrific war. First, the differing economies of the North and the South led to rising sectional interests. Second, their different ideas about slavery increased tensions and carved the way to the formation of the Confederate States of America. Finally, the United States’ failure to efficiently and effectively create a political compromise finally broke the back of the South and sparked the most horrific war in American history. Learning the full extent of the cause of the Civil War will be difficult; to start, one should look at the differing economies of the North and the South.

The drastic distinctions between the economies of the industry-mogul United States and agriculturally-based Confederate States are extremely prominent and can be easily proved. Firstly, if one looks at the number of railroads in comparison to the amount of cotton produced and slave density, one would see that most of the railroads are criss-crossing the North, while all of the slaves and cotton are in the would-be Confederacy and the border states. This suggests that the North was industrialized (thus the need of railroads to transport machinery and other goods), while the South was centered around farming (thus the little need of railroads; the South typically used the Mississippi River to move cotton). If one looks harder, one would see that typically the density of slaves is directly proportional to the amount of cotton produced, further suggesting that the South, to grow cotton and thus create revenue, needed slaves to do it (Document 1). Secondly, if one were to compare the different resources of the Union and the future Confederate States, one would see an obvious trend of differing financial systems. The North had 92% of all industrial workers and 91% of the revenue, whereas the South had a 100% of all cotton bales grown in the United States—a whopping 5 million. The South also had 88% of all slaves, which would again suggest the Southern policy of “slaves = cotton” (Document 2). Finally, if one were to examine the opinion of one North Carolinian, Hinton Helper, it is apparent how the different economies led to rising tensions. Hinton Helper, a well-known political writer, stated in his book The Impending Crisis of the South, among other things, “It is a fact well known to every intelligent Southerner that we are compelled to go to the North for almost every article of utility…that we are dependent on Northern [manufacturers] for the means necessary to build…public improvements” (Document 3). This affirms the fact that the South, having little manufacturing, relied on the North, therefore making the South uneasy about the power-hold the North had over them. As illustrated in these evidences, the conflicting economies led, over time, to the Civil War. Next, upon learning this information, it is crucial to acknowledge that different North-South beliefs about slavery contributed greatly to the rise of the Civil War.

Second in our quest for the truth is the idea of slavery and the different reactions to it between the North, the South, and even slaves themselves and how it caused the Civil War. First, the Southern view of slavery must be presented in the form of George Fitzhugh’s book Cannibals All! Or Slaves Without Masters. George Fitzhugh, a sociologist who is again from North Carolina, says many things about slavery, including “The Negro slaves of the South are the happiest, and, in some sense, the freest people in the world. The children and the aged infirm work not at all, and yet have all the comforts and necessities of life provided for them. They…are neither oppressed by care nor labor. The women do little hard work…The Negro men and stout boys work…not more than 9 hours a day…they can sleep at any hour.” Fitzhugh’s writing plainly shows the common Southern belief that they are taking care of the slaves opposed to abusing them (Document 5). Second, one should look at the point of view of a slave to get a fuller comprehension. Fredrick Douglass, a famous African-American abolitionist, gave a speech on July 5th, 1852 titled “The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro”. Douglass spoke about how July Fourth, to the slave, is a meaningless sham and “hollow mockery”. He accuses the United States of “bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy” and of “crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages”. Douglass’s speech really conveys the point of view of a slave that free Americans do not truly take time to think about (Document 4). Third, the reaction to the John Brown incident illustrates how different the responses are between the North and the South when provoked with the issue of slavery. John Brown was a staunch radical abolitionist who attempted to organize a slave rebellion to overtake Harpers Ferry (a federal arsenal) in Virginia. The endeavor was, however, to be his last. John Brown took his five sons to spread the word to the slaves and to attack the arsenal. His call, unfortunately for him, remained unanswered, so when it came time to attack, Brown led a whopping “band of 18 men, black and white, into Harpers Ferry” to stand up to throes of local troops and U.S. Marines. All of his five sons were killed, along with five others and Brown was turned over to Virginia for trial. In the end, Brown was publicly hanged for treason. The real story, though, starts here when the hanging sparked fierce reactions from both sides. Northerners called Brown’s motives “sublime” and “expressed admiration for him or his cause”. In the North, “Bells tolled at the news of his execution, guns fired salutes, and large crowds gathered” and some Northerners even hailed Brown as “a martyr for the sacred cause of freedom”. The extreme reaction in the North, however, mirrors the one in the South. Outraged mobs would attack suspected antislavery whites Southern whites became paranoid that Northerners were plotting slave uprisings everywhere. How did this lead to the Civil War, though? John Brown’s antics caused the South to think more seriously about secession. Even long-time Union supporters changed their minds about secession. One former Unionist explained that “I am willing to take the chances of…disunion, sooner than submit any longer to Northern insolence and Northern outrage” (Document 6). Obviously, this finalizes the fact that the opposing views on slavery led to the secession of South Carolina and the start of the Civil War. Now that we are even more aware of why the Civil War started, one must examine how the failure of creating an effective political compromise to fill in the final missing piece.

Although many compromises were tried, they all failed in the end, leading to higher tensions between the seceding states and the Union. To prove such a point, one should analyze several different sources for confirmation. Firstly, if one looked at a Supreme Court case by the name of Dred Scott vs. Sandford, one would see some interesting things. Dred Scott was a slave whose owner had taken him to live in the free North for many years. After his master had died and he had moved back to Missouri, Scott sued for his freedom on the basis that by living on free territory, he had become a free man. It was continually appealed until it made it to the Supreme Court and, after nine years, Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled in 1857 two things. First, he stated that “slaves…had no rights which the white man was bound to respect…And, accordingly, a Negro of the African race was regarded by them as an article of property…”, basically saying that African Americans had no rights and that they were property instead of people. Second, Taney used the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution as grounds for voiding the Missouri Compromise. The Fifth Amendment “provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law” and the Missouri Compromise “prohibited a citizen from holding and owning…slaves in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned”. By this logic, Taney concluded that if no one can be deprived of property without due process of law and if slaves were property, then Congress could not prohibit slavery in any territory of the United States. Taney’s ruling essentially wiped the United States of all free soil; there was no more “free” territory now. Slaves, as property of their owners, could be taken anywhere as easily as you could take a purse or a book. The Northerners became furious at this decision, which soon led to the Civil War a mere 5 years later. The Dred Scott decision is a prime example of how the government’s inadequacy infuriated the people into war (Document 9). Secondly, another example of this insufficiency would be the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. The Act granted popular sovereignty for the Kansas and Nebraska territories, repealing the Missouri Compromise line of 1820. When Stephen Douglass enacted popular sovereignty, a bitter contest between the pro-slavery and anti-slavery supporters broke out. The pre-Civil War was simply over one thing: control of Kansas. The Kansas-Nebraska Act is another chief reason the Civil War started. Thirdly, the caning of Senator Charles Sumner on the Senate floor sparked a reaction equally extreme on both sides, helping to lead to the Civil War. On May 19 and 20, Sumner gave a long speech entitled “The Crime Against Kansas” insulting South Carolina and the well-liked Senator Andrew Butler. He also affronted the pro-slavery men, saying they were “hirelings from the drunken spew and vomit of an uneasy (unstable) civilization”. Two days after the speech, House member Preston Brooks stormed into the Senate and beat Sumner with his cane. The North and the South had drastically different reactions to this incident. The North published thousands of copies of Sumner’s speech and vilified “Bully Brooks”. The South send Brooks dozens of gold-headed canes emblazoned with the words “Hit Him Again!” to replace the one he broke giving Sumner brain damage. The Sumner-Brooks incident was a horrible example of the political tensions in the pre-Civil War United States. Now that one has examined all of these evidences of failure of political compromise, one must go over all of the points again to cement these causes.

In brief, many factors influenced the start of the Civil War, but there were three main reasons. The first was the giant economic difference between the North and the South. Since the two were so different, sectional loyalty and interests continued to rise among both sides until a clash was eventually inevitable. The second was both sides’ wildly opposite beliefs concerning slavery, which obviously caused problems on both sides. The opposition flared when a controversial event took place that concerned slavery, making it only a matter of time when a larger incident would spark the Civil War. The third was the government’s failure to reach an effective political compromise, leading to rising tensions with each failed negotiation. The carnage and controversy in the American Civil War was higher than any other war in America; now, by reading this report, one would know why it started—a crucial portion of American history that all Americans should know.