Assertions regarding the underlying causes of the American Civil War have a tendency to attempt a level of intellectual superiority that blurs the issue and leads to largely meaningless debate. Many have advanced the thesis that the war’s origins had little direct connection to the issue of slavery while, at the same time, arguing that the fundamental question of states’ rights was far more important. To a certain degree, this assertion is tautological. The issue of states’ rights had been with the nation since its inception, with the Articles of Confederation’s replacement with the final draft of the Constitution illustrating the distinctions between those favoring maximum latitude on the part of individual states and those arguing for a more centrally-controlled union. This fundamental issue of states’ rights and confederacy versus federalism is interwoven into the fabric of the United States, and those Revolutionary-era debates set the stage for the Civil War that would occur almost a century later. The Founding Fathers were split over this question, with prominent and influential figures from that period lining up on either side of the debate. So contentious was the issue that it was only at the very end of the Constitutional Convention, on December 15, 1791, that the assembled dignitaries were able to agree on language that addressed the question of federalism versus states’ rights, the language that became the 10th Amendment to the Constitution and that read as follows:
“The powers 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.”
This amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, is vague and subject to interpretation, with such contentious issues as reproductive rights (i.e., abortion) subject to repeated deliberations by the U.S. Supreme Court with respect to the rights of individual states to legislate on matters of common interest.
All of this “ancient history” is provided for a reason: The seeds of the Civil War were planted at the nation’s inception. Federalism remained an intractable issue, with the growing divergence between the economies of the northern and southern regions of the country exacerbating that underlying conflict. The Industrial Revolution would add to the mix with the efficiencies provided by new means of production, and especially in the area of cotton production. Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin that mechanically separated seed from fiber and consequently made cotton an economically more appealing agricultural commodity fundamentally changed the economy of the American South and increased the demand for cheap labor – a demand satisfied through the trade in human beings forcibly imported under cruel conditions from Africa. While the North’s economy would feature a far greater exploitation of the fruits of the Industrial Revolution, the South’s economy would remain tied to the labor-intensive production of this one commodity.
Given the inherent linkage between the debate over federalism and the growing issue of slavery, the thesis statement provided -- the Civil War was fought for economic and political liberty and freedom, over a commitment to market capitalism and political representation – is essentially worthless. Yes, the Civil War was fought for economic and political liberty and freedom, but economic and political liberty and freedom meant different things to different people, with the population of the more economically-diverse North opposed to the use of slave labor while the population of the South viewed the issues of economic and political liberty and freedom as granting it the right to conduct its affairs as it saw fit, and those affairs involved the use of slaves to perform the manual labor that was essential to the agricultural-based economy of the South. And, the phrase “market capitalism” implies economic freedom. “Market capitalism” simply means the freedom to exchange goods for other goods or for money. Capitalism IS economic freedom, although corporate excesses invariably result in the imposition of regulatory structures by the federal and state governments as part of the governmental responsibility for protecting the population from harm. To suggest, as the thesis statement does, that there is a distinction between “economic and political liberty and freedom (an unusual distinction between “liberty” and “freedom” implied here) and “market capitalism” is to fail to understand the meaning of either phrase.
James McPherson’s 1997 study For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought the Civil War examines the perspectives of the men who fought in that protracted and bloody conflict. As with “grunts’-eye views” of all wars, including the two world wars, Vietnam, Iraqi Freedom and many other examples of armed conflict, McPherson’s examination of the Civil War through the eyes of the soldiers who fought it provides an invaluable perspective. It is not, however, a meaningful perspective from a public policy perspective. In his book, McPherson quotes a Northern soldier's letter to his mother in which the soldier, a member of the 57th Massachusetts, wrote the following:
“Mother, if all our army felt as I feel when I go into battle, the war would soon be over but I am sorry to say that we have got too many in the army that are not fighting for there [sic] country but for money and all they think about when they go into battle is how to . . . skulk behind the first stump . . . [and] keep out of danger.”
This, and many other quotes in McPherson’s study are invaluable for the insights they give into the motivations and thoughts of individual soldiers. As with all wars started by old men for young men to fight, however, it is not particularly relevant to the larger question of why the Civil War occurred. It occurred because of the vastly divergent perspectives on the nature of liberty dividing the northern half of the country from the southern half. That vast body of literature devoted to the perspectives of individual soldiers and others caught in the wars started by their governments cannot be read in a conceptual vacuum. The Civil War was fought because of the views and decisions of the men at the top of the hierarchy. Individual soldiers fought in it for a variety of reasons, from the need for money to an ingrained belief in a cause. Had Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln and myriad other prominent individuals from American history, including Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, George Washington, and others, successfully resolved the issue of states’ rights without allowing the South to exclude dark-skinned people from the category of humanity, the war could have been avoided. McPherson’s book, important as it is, tells only a part of the story. McPherson’s most recent book, The War that Forged a Nation: Why the Civil War Still Matters, should be read alongside his For Cause and Comrades. That larger perspective cannot, and should not, be neglected, valuable though the latter study remains.
