What Confederates Said Were the Causes of the Civil War

Updated on January 24, 2017
RonElFran profile image

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:

  1. Unfair Taxation
  2. States' Rights
  3. Slavery

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:

  1. Was there any event or condition that in and of itself precipitated the war?
  2. 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.


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.

Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States
Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States | Source

Jefferson Davis

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 causes of resentment such as tariffs, taxes and the like, Davis is clear that it is only the issue he is about to speak to, 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 States Vice President Alexander Stephens
Confederate States Vice President Alexander Stephens | Source

Alexander Stephens

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 a January 1, 1861 editorial on the theme “Vote For Secession,” the Augusta (Georgia) Daily Constitutionalist listed what it considered 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?

What was the #1 factor that caused the American Civil War?

See results

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.”

© 2013 Ronald E Franklin


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment
    • profile image

      Roald Garcia 

      7 weeks ago

      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

    • RonElFran profile imageAUTHOR

      Ronald E Franklin 

      2 months ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

      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.

    • profile image

      Dave Scearce 

      2 months ago

      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.

    • profile image

      Matthew Morrison 

      15 months ago

      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.

    • phoenix2327 profile image

      Zulma Burgos-Dudgeon 

      24 months ago from United Kingdom

      I look forward to reading your Lost Cause myth hub.

    • RonElFran profile imageAUTHOR

      Ronald E Franklin 

      2 years ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

      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.

    • Raymond Blacketer profile image

      Dr Raymond A Blacketer 

      2 years ago from Byron Center, Michigan

      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.

    • RonElFran profile imageAUTHOR

      Ronald E Franklin 

      4 years ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

      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.

    • RonElFran profile imageAUTHOR

      Ronald E Franklin 

      4 years ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

      Thanks, Christopher Jay T. I appreciate that.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      Larry Allen Brown 

      4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      @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.

      Very well done Ron.

    • Christopher Jay T profile image

      Christopher Jay Thompson 

      4 years ago from Fort Worth, TX

      I really enjoyed this. I really enjoy your writing.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      Larry Allen Brown 

      4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      You are right in that secession caused the war. Slavery caused the secession. The Confederate States seceded right after Lincoln won the election and before he was even inaugurated. They were convinced that Lincoln was an abolitionist and they broke away. Lincoln was committed to preserving the Union at all costs. Hence the war. Lincoln didn't start out to end slavery. His first motive was preserving the Union. The Confederates motive was to preserve slavery. Lincoln eventually took up the cause of abolition knowing that slavery had to go and signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

    • adagio4639 profile image

      Larry Allen Brown 

      4 years ago from Brattleboro Vermont

      "For example, here are what Kentucky Educational Television says are the causes of the war:

      Unfair Taxation

      States' Rights


      Kentucky Educational TV needs an education. Slavery was the cause of secession as far as Mississippi was concerned.

      "In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course."

      "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

      Mississippi couldn't be more clear as to their reason for secession.

      As for so-called "States Rights", there is no such thing. States don't have rights. People have rights. States have Powers. There is nothing in the Constitution that provides rights to the States. Institutions don't have rights. Governments don't have rights. They have powers. A cop doesn't have a right to give you a ticket. He has the authority to give you a ticket. The Treasury doesn't have a Right to print money. They have the power and authority to print money. The people give powers to the government. They don't give rights. In fact they can't. Rights are inalienable. They aren't transferable.

      The argument made by some comes from the 10th Amendment. But the argument fails.

      Amendment X

      The powers ( NOT Rights) not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

      Powers and rights are two different things. States don't have rights. The Constitution was written for the People. Not the States.

      We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

      "We the People" NOT "We the States". It's the people that are sovereign. NOT the States.

    • profile image


      4 years ago

      Well, I suppose it's worth a ccukhle. But as far as the socialism accusation goes, does that mean you think Republicans somehow operate differently? (Disclosure: I'm not partisan)I mean, they've created the biggest government we've ever had in our history - not to mention the most self-destructive. Homeland Security itself is an amalgamation of 300+ other agencies! And how about agricultural subsidies, they continue to flow in steadily increasing numbers. Let's be real, the Republicans are just as "socialist" as the Democrats, despite their hollow "free-market" rhetoric they love to spout.Do you believe we live in an entirely free market? Of course we don't; and precisely because we've learned from our mistakes. The very fact that the Fed controls the amount of money printed and sets interest rates fundamentally defies the notion of a free-market. Get it? Well, I'm going to quit writing because I don't know if you're even going to post this.Cheers,barmakid

    • profile image


      4 years ago

      Taxation: (not wanting to share the profits)

      Extreme values of I'm supreme (White Southerners)

      Slavery inhumane with justification

      Economic southern strong hold to feed the North and South (unconstitutional through slavery)

    • RonElFran profile imageAUTHOR

      Ronald E Franklin 

      6 years ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

      Thanks so much, KrisL. I really appreciate your words of encouragement.

    • RonElFran profile imageAUTHOR

      Ronald E Franklin 

      6 years ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

      Thanks, cascoly. I haven't seen Foner's book yet, but I look forward to reading it.

    • KrisL profile image


      6 years ago from S. Florida

      This hub strikes me as a model of how to present history on hub pages -- fascinating, deep in meaning but easy to read, and relying on original sources rather than repackaging a book the author read.

      Voted "awesome" and shared.

    • cascoly profile image


      6 years ago from seattle

      Great hub & well reasoned - no single issue can be shown to be the underlying cause of the Civil War (as opposed to the precipitating event, which was probably Lincoln's election and the south's projection of the next 4 years)

      I have a bibliography at http://cascoly.com/bookstore/civilwar.asp which is mostly related to the military aspects, but Eric Foner's 'Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men' and 'Reconstruction' are excellent

    • RonElFran profile imageAUTHOR

      Ronald E Franklin 

      6 years ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

      Thanks, Heidi. Southerners had convinced themselves that whites couldn't do field work in that climate (but they could take to the field to fight a war?), so they thought their agricultural production required black slave labor. The sad thing, in my opinion, is that they allowed economic considerations to shape their morals, rather than the other way around.

    • heidithorne profile image

      Heidi Thorne 

      6 years ago from Chicago Area

      Very well documented and presented hub (as usual)! I have a saying that explains about every problem in this world: "Everything's economic." Without slavery, a.k.a. free and/or cheap labor, Confederate business and plantations would have likely been completely unprofitable. They were protecting their incomes and "business as usual." Protecting slavery was the one thing that made that possible.

      I think it's also interesting that the Industrial Revolution and the rise of machines to replace labor reduced or eliminated the need for slave labor. So we had a Civil War over something that, mere decades later, was becoming irrelevant.

      Sad commentary on society.

    • RonElFran profile imageAUTHOR

      Ronald E Franklin 

      6 years ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

      Thanks, HSchneider. Ironically, Alexander Stephens made similar points, though, of course, in defense of secession. If you haven't read his Cornerstone Speech, I think you'll find it interesting.

    • profile image

      Howard Schneider 

      6 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey

      Slavery was the only intractable underlying cause of the Civil War. All the others were smokescreens and false justifications. The Founding Fathers punted the issue down the road in the Constitution. Succeeding governments kept the issue in abeyance but the issue of slavery made war inevitable. Excellent Hub, RonElFran.

    • RonElFran profile imageAUTHOR

      Ronald E Franklin 

      6 years ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

      Thanks, kschimmel. It's true that Lincoln expanded federal power, taking unprecedented steps he thought necessary to win the war. That, I think, illustrates the issue of whether the goals of having a tiny government and one that is effective even just for defense are compatible in the modern world.

    • RonElFran profile imageAUTHOR

      Ronald E Franklin 

      6 years ago from Mechanicsburg, PA

      Thanks, phoenix2327. It's amazing the amount of misinformation on this subject that has come through some of our schools. I hope bringing out what the people involved actually said will help with that.

    • kschimmel profile image

      Kimberly Schimmel 

      6 years ago from North Carolina, USA

      I would have been an abolitionist, but I wish we could have abolished slavery without ushering in an all-powerful federal government and destroying the 9th and 10th amendments in the process. As a libertarian, I want all men to be free AND I want a little, tiny federal government that just defends us from foreign invasion and maintains a court system. Now we are all becoming slaves to a smothering federal government that far exceeds its constitutional authority and has for well over a century.

    • phoenix2327 profile image

      Zulma Burgos-Dudgeon 

      6 years ago from United Kingdom

      Excellent hub. I always felt the reasons presented to us in school for the American Civil War were too simplistic. Thanks for filling in the blanks.


    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, owlcation.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://owlcation.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)