Ron is a student of the American Civil War and writes about it frequently. His focus is not so much on the battles as on the people.
If you ask the question, “What caused the American Civil War?” you will inevitably get an argument. Too often that question is answered based not on historical data, but on a particular viewpoint someone wants to uphold. For example, here is what Kentucky Educational Television says are the causes of the war:
- Unfair Taxation
- States' Rights
What possible objective historical analysis could be cited to establish “unfair taxation” as the #1 issue that precipitated the Civil War?!
Rankings like this raise the question of whether the issue being addressed is what actually happened in history, or the needs and agenda of a particular constituency today. Since Kentucky, which remained in the Union, is often said to have become far more Confederate after the war than it ever was while the war was being fought, perhaps KET’s list isn’t so surprising after all.
How to determine what caused the Civil War
Given that any discussion of what caused the Civil War still, after more than 150 years, stirs strong emotions, is it even possible to arrive at any objective and historically credible answer to the question of what brought the war on? Actually, I think it is possible. The key is asking the right questions.
Rather than go head-on at the question of what caused the war, let’s approach it by asking two slightly different questions that I believe are easier to answer objectively:
- Was there any event or condition that in and of itself precipitated the war?
- What caused that precipitating event to occur?
What precipitated the Civil War
I define a precipitating event as one that was both necessary and sufficient to bring on the war.
- “Necessary” means that without it there would have been no war.
- “Sufficient” means that, given political conditions at the time, this event by itself would inevitably lead to war.
Was there any event that occurred in the early 1860s that meets the test of being both necessary and sufficient to cause the onset of war?
Clearly, there was, and Abraham Lincoln put the spotlight directly on it in his first inaugural address. He said,
In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."
What Lincoln was talking about was, of course, the secession from the Union that seven Southern states had proclaimed before he was even inaugurated.
Read More From Owlcation
Secession triggered the war
The new president was affirming that without secession, the Federal Government would have no reason to “assail” its own citizens, and there would be no war. However, he wanted it clearly understood that he was absolutely committed to the nation doing whatever it took to prevent its own dismemberment. If secession could only be reversed by war, there would be war.
Had the Southern states not seceded, there would have been no war. But with Lincoln as president (I shudder to think what might have happened had Stephen Douglas won the presidency instead of Lincoln in 1860) war was inevitable unless the seceding states reversed their action. They didn’t.
So, what brought on the Civil War? Only one thing: Secession.
That brings us to …
The real question: What caused Secession?
It seems to me that the only way to bypass the all-too-common practice of 21st century constituencies imposing their own perceptions and desires on 19th century events is to allow the people who were there to tell their own story. The best ones to answer the question of what brought on secession are those who argued for it, voted for it, and who finally led their states to enact it. The opinion shapers and political leaders who brought their states to take the momentous step of withdrawing from the United States were eager to explain why they believed it was necessary. Let’s allow them to speak for themselves.
For the sake of space, I have quoted excerpts from primary source documents. But it cannot be stated too strongly that these excerpts are fully representative not only of the documents from which they are taken, but of Southern opinion as a whole. They reflect the sentiments expressed in the overwhelming majority of Southern newspapers, secession conventions, and public forums of all kinds on the eve of the war. Links to the complete documents from which the excerpts are drawn are provided. Bold print within an excerpt represents my added emphasis.
Southern Grievances That Motivated Secession
I would think there could be no more authoritative voices regarding why the South considered secession an unpalatable but necessary step than the men who were selected to lead the new Confederate government. Both President Jefferson Davis and Vice President Alexander Stephens spoke clearly and comprehensively to the issue.
In his Message on Constitutional Ratification delivered to the Confederate Congress on April 29, 1861, Jefferson Davis echoes a theme that runs loudly and consistently through all the pro-secession commentary that occurred both before and during the war. After presenting arguments for the Constitutional right of any state to leave the Union at will, he went on to sum up the South’s grievances against the North that caused the Southern states to choose to exercise that right:
In addition to the long-continued and deep-seated resentment felt by the Southern States at the persistent abuse of the powers they had delegated to the Congress, for the purpose of enriching the manufacturing and shipping classes of the North at the expense of the South, there has existed for nearly half a century another subject of discord, involving interests of such transcendent magnitude as at all times to create the apprehension in the minds of many devoted lovers of the Union that its permanence was impossible.
Although he mentions several causes of resentment such as tariffs, taxes and the like, Davis is clear that there is one singular issue, a grievance of “transcendent magnitude,” that convinced Southerners who had loved the Union “that its permanence was impossible.”
The right of property in slaves was protected by law. This property was recognized in the Constitution, and provision was made against its loss by the escape of the slave…
A persistent and organized system of hostile measures against the rights of the owners of slaves in the Southern States was inaugurated…the constitutional provision for their rendition to their owners was first evaded, then openly denounced as a violation of conscientious obligation and religious duty…owners of slaves (seeking to recapture escapees in the North) were mobbed and even murdered…laws were passed providing for the punishment, by ruinous fines and long-continued imprisonment in jails and penitentiaries, of citizens of the Southern States who should dare ask aid of the officers of the law for the recovery of their property.
Davis went on to say that Northern anti-slavery policies, by “rendering the property in slaves so insecure as to be comparatively worthless,” would cost the South billions of dollars. He contended that because the agricultural production of the South could only be carried on by slave labor, Northern antipathy toward slavery made secession the only viable option for the slave-holding states to avoid economic ruin.
Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens was no less direct and unequivocal in defining the reason for secession. Although he initially counseled against secession, once it was decided on and the Confederacy initiated, he became an eloquent defender of the course the Southern states were taking. In his famous and influential “Cornerstone” speech given at Savannah, Georgia, on March 21, 1861, Stephens laid out both the rationale for secession and the justification for starting a new Southern government.
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African Slavery as it exists amongst us —the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.
This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution…
They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man…*
Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that Slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. [Applause.] This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical and moral truth.
* I list this sentence ahead of where it appears in the speech in order to clarify the following paragraph.
The importance of white supremacy as a reason for secession
A critical element of Stephens’ rationale for secession is its focus on “the proper status of the negro” in the Southern social system. It is often argued that most soldiers who fought for the Confederacy were non-slaveholders, and thus were not motivated by the desire to protect what Stephens called the South’s “peculiar institution.” Yet, in the run-up to the war, the Southern press repeatedly urged upon non-slaveholders that their stake in slavery was even greater than that of slave owners because slavery was the bulwark of white supremacy.
For example, in an editorial on the theme “Vote For Secession,” which was published on January 1, 1861, the Augusta (Georgia) Daily Constitutionalist listed what it considered to be the most persuasive reasons why its readers should support their state leaving the Union. The first of these was to “assert the freedom of the white, and the proper servitude of the black.” Included was a special “appeal to the women of the land. If they would keep our fair South free from the curse of negro equality; would keep forever the slave in the kitchen and cabin, and out of the parlor.”
Lincoln’s election was the occasion for, but not the direct cause of secession
During the presidential campaign of 1860, many Southern newspapers urged that if Abraham Lincoln was elected, the South would have no choice but to leave the Union. It wasn’t so much that Southerners objected to Lincoln as a person, but that his election signaled a national power shift that they considered a grave threat to their institutions.
A December 14, 1860 editorial called “The Policy of Aggression” in the New Orleans Daily Crescent was typical:
It is a mistake to suppose that it is the mere election of Lincoln…that has driven the States of the South into their…present determination to seek that safety and security out of the Union which they have been unable to obtain within it. The election of Lincoln is merely the confirmation of a purpose which the South had hoped would be abandoned by the opponents of slavery in the North. It is a declaration that they mean to…(weaken) the institution at every point where it can be assailed either by legislation or by violence, until, in the brutal language of Charles Sumner, “it dies like a poisoned rat in its hole.” The election of Lincoln…reiterates the intention of the party to destroy slavery.
Was Kentucky Educational Television Right?
Official declarations by the states of their reasons for seceding
Several of the seceding states wanted to make absolutely clear their reasons for the drastic step they took. So they adopted “Declarations of Secession,” consciously modeled after the US Declaration of Independence, to record for posterity what they considered to be their just causes for leaving the Union.
South Carolina Adopted December 24, 1860
An increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution…
Those States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery…
Georgia Approved January 29, 1861
The people of Georgia…present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery…
By their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union…
To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States…
Texas Adopted February 2, 1861
(Texas) was received (into the Union) as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time…
They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States…
For these and other reasons…We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof.
Mississippi Adopted January 9, 1861
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union…
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth…There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
What did the Confederates say caused the Civil War?
The people who brought on the Civil War by attempting to take their states out of the Union made their motivations absolutely clear. They were overwhelmingly concerned about preserving one social and economic institution. In the documentation they very carefully crafted to make their thinking clear to posterity, nothing else comes even close.
Why did Southern states secede from the Union, thus bringing on the Civil War? Mississippi’s declaration of the causes of secession sums up the answer to that question very succinctly:
“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.”
This content is accurate and true to the best of the author’s knowledge and is not meant to substitute for formal and individualized advice from a qualified professional.
© 2013 Ronald E Franklin
Ronald E Franklin (author) from Mechanicsburg, PA on February 28, 2020:
Karl, thanks for taking the time to read and comment. However, I think your comment is reacting to ideas not presented in the article. Recall that the title is "What CONFEDERATES SAID Were the Causes of the Civil War."
The article simply documents what the Confederates themselves said about why they seceded from the U.S., thus bringing on the war. So Northern sentiment about black citizenship or colonization or whatever simply isn't relevant to what the article is discussing.
The statements by Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens and others are very clear and are exceedingly well documented historically.
Karl Burkhalter on February 28, 2020:
What one sided nonsense. What is omitted is North was not offering Blacks citizenship, but deportation. US Joint Congressional Sub-committee Report of July 16 1862 declared the "Continent was meant for Anglo Scandinavian and Celtic Races only." Protecting Slavery was preventing Colonization.
More Free Blacks lived in the South because of the severity of the Northern Black Codes. Richest Blacks, by far lived in the South. All Blacks had more legal protection under Code Noir Laws than any Black under Illinois antebellum Black Codes. One million Freedmen starved to death under Union Contraband policy before Confederates were allowed to vote, because the North wanted to be free of Blacks not free for Blacks. Union General Nathaniel Banks Contraband policy became the Jim Crow Laws that mirrored Illinois antebellum Black Codes to facilitate the North's#1 revenue source, textiles. Whether the Transcontinental RR went over the Southern Butterfield Stage route or Northern Union Pacific route was worth a fortune and Congress had been closing Forts in the South and sending troops North as the Mexican Reform War spilled over the Border. The Texas and Arizona declaration mentioned this before Slavery. But this very biased article omits that sailent fact. The North invaded for cotton and tariffs not to do Blacks any favors.
Northern Banks held a million Slaves as Collateral. Immediate uncompensated emancipation meant foreclosure for Plantations, starvation for Slaves and siezure of Cotton Lands by Textile Industry. This happened anyway but the South was justified in trying to prevent it.
Next time try including Corwin Amendment and Crittenden Comprise in your very biased accounts.
Roald Garcia on July 25, 2019:
Thank you for your article. It has become increasingly clear to me that that to view the United States as one country of united states, has never existed. The most important tenet of the American philosophy is the conviction that all humans are born in equal value and dignity. The civil rights movement ,and the women's equal rights movement was predicated on this idea. The region of the country that has fought ,tooth and nail to snuff out these movements has consistently been in the states that seceded from the Union . As a culture they have rejected every effort, sometimes violently , to extend equality to anyone outside their in-group. Richard Nixon understood this and made it his campaign strategy, which he called the "southern strategy" . Trump, Mcconnell ,and other natural racists have built on this two country system to harden their base.
Let's not kid ourselves .The Confederate States of American has a core philosophy that is exactly the opposite of the United States of America- and now they have a bigot for president who can openly support their in-group racism proudly as they wave their flag (the confederate rag), whose army killed more US troupes than any other enemy army except for the Nazis
Ronald E Franklin (author) from Mechanicsburg, PA on July 06, 2019:
Thanks for your comments, Dave, and welcome to HP. I think your take on the states rights argument is on target. It's hard to miss the irony of Southerners claiming that states rights justified them doing as they wished about slavery, but then being aghast when Northern states asserted their right to do as they wished in refusing to comply with the Fugitive Slave Law.
Dave Scearce on July 06, 2019:
Thank you for such an excellent article, I have only now stumbled onto this site, and am glad I have.
We are too apt to hear an opinion we like on a subject and just repeat it as fact rather than going back to the source and verifying that the opinion is based on fact.
As you pointed out in the beginning of the article, one of the most commonly repeated defenses of the Confederate cause is that the war was about States Rights. For modern defenders of the Confederacy, the war as about states rights to defend against perceived federal overreach that did not exist until after the war. The Confederate leaders themselves evoked states rights, the right to own and defend slavery and to succeed from the union. The true irony is, even the Republican party, in their 1860 platform, evoked states rights, the right of northern states to not enforce the Fugitive Slave law. As you pointed out, Jefferson Davis decried this state right in his inauguration speech, so even the strong defenders of states rights see some rights as more import than others.
In one of the comments, it questioned whether the southern crops like cotton and tobacco required slave labor to be economical, that the continuation of slavery was necessary for the southern economy (and so a reason to fight to maintain it). This clearly cannot be the case as cotton and tobacco production flourished long after the war, and slavery (at least in name) ended. There were plenty of non slave owning whites in the south who could have farmed the land and grown the cotton and other crops, and likely have been better off for it. It was the plantation system that depended on slavery (or at least cheep labor) and the plantation owners that had the most to lose.
As this article points out, the south succeeded not because Abraham Lincoln was elected, but because the north supported the policies of the new Republican party, and had the will and political clout to get Abraham Lincoln elected. Non-slave states in 1860 had 1.6 people for every 1 in slave states (slaves included). This was up from about 1:1 in 1800, and every day the population advantage in the north grew a bit more. Opposition to slavery in the north was growing, due in part to growing moral objections but also at least as much to a fear, by the northern working people, of competition with southern style slave labor, especially in the western territories. With growing northern power because of population growth, and northern opposition to slavery, succession was inevitable, and most likely the Civil War as well.
Matthew Morrison on June 14, 2018:
The Southern Revolution of 1860 was caused by English interference in the South as the Untied Kingdom was the weapon supplier of the Confederacy, allowed the colony of Ireland officially support the Confederacy and the Confederacy to raid from Canada on Maine, was in the "Great Race" cold war aginst the US and had a large population vocally supporting the CSA. (The Canadian Confederation was inspired by the Southern one.) The secession documents of certain states (It is not all as the cherokee seceded because they liked the CSA best.) use wording that is only in England such as "African race." ( This puts Afrikaaners into the same race who are clearly white.) This idea was even pointed out in the film "National Treasure II" The reason for this is simple to defend Canada from the US and prevent the country from supporting the revolutions in Erin as Fort Erie (Ontario) fell to American veterans in 1866 only for the United States Government to back track. However the question of slaveries connection to the war is still active as the British empire had outlawed Chattel Slaver but other types were active, the Constitution of United States guaranteed the right to Chattel slavery. Lincoln was a supporter of imperial slavery as in the United Kingdom. The War created the idea of the American Empire whilr making it too weak The other question is about "white supremacy." The war did show English superiority as Americans were killing each other.
Zulma Burgos-Dudgeon from United Kingdom on September 18, 2017:
I look forward to reading your Lost Cause myth hub.
Ronald E Franklin (author) from Mechanicsburg, PA on September 14, 2017:
Thanks, Ray, I really appreciate that. As a matter of fact, an article about the rise and impact of the Lost Cause myth is on my writing calendar. But that's a pretty full list, so I'm not sure when I'll get to it.
Dr Raymond A Blacketer from Byron Center, Michigan on September 13, 2017:
I just read several of your articles. Excellent scholarship, historical method, and writing. The relevance of the articles has just skyrocketed because of the debate about monuments of the so-called confederacy. I'd love to see you write one on the history of the mythology of the Lost Cause.
Ronald E Franklin (author) from Mechanicsburg, PA on August 12, 2015:
Many thanks, adagio4639. The history is clear, and modern historians are almost unanimous in naming slavery as the fundamental issue over which the South seceded, pitching the nation into civil war. Yet polls show that about half of all Americans still think states rights was the cause of the war. But we are making progress in educating people, and I hope this hub contributes to that effort.
Ronald E Franklin (author) from Mechanicsburg, PA on August 12, 2015:
Thanks, Christopher Jay T. I appreciate that.
Larry Allen Brown from Brattleboro Vermont on August 12, 2015:
@Ron: Well Ron, you and I often differ on a lot of issues, but you hit a tape measure home run with this Hub. Congratulations on the incredibly accurate and well researched essay. It's a brilliant examination of the cause for the war. In fact, it should be taken word for word and put into every history textbook in every school in America. Every word is the truth and you deserve a standing O for speaking it with such eloquence.
There has been so much obfuscation on this subject I can only conclude that those that attempt to claim that it was all about taxes or "states rights" do so because they know in their heart that slavery was completely immoral and left an indelible scar on the soul of America. The racism that flows from that hideous institution has been with us ever since. These apologists for slavery attempt to treat it as an issue of property rights, as if there is some kind of justification for having property in another human being. I believe that the cause of the Civil War has always been a burden too great to bear for most Southerners who know by now that their cause was unjust and immoral, which is why we hear about "Southern Pride", and "Southern Heritage" so often. Something that you never hear from Northerners. When one speaks of a "regional" pride, the very fact of that is divisive. We're all Americans after all. But Southerners still see themselves as separate and different, and the institution of White Supremacy is still something that they have a hard time letting go of.