Southern Antebellum Economy

There have been countless journal articles written about the cause of the Civil War over the years. Historians, interpreting the materials that they obtained from that time period, have drawn a conclusion that either agrees or disagrees with the idea of whether or not slavery was overemphasized in the Civil War. Some insisted that slavery was undisputedly the cause of the War, while others state that it was just another factor, of many others, that contributed to the sectional issues. In professor Michael F. Holt's opinion, he maintained that both the Northern Republicans and Southern Democrats seized the slavery issue to sharply distinguish party differences. He argues that fragile systems put in place as a temporary fix eventually broke and from there Northern hostility towards the South increased. Also with the disappearance of the Whig Party does he agree that other sectional difficulties existed. The party was seen as the artificial second party system and voter realignment, yet connected back to the same underlying subject matter of slavery. Consequentially, I agree with the opinion of Michael F. Holt, where in fact slavery was the defining characteristic in drawing the lines between parties. Although Professor Joel Silbey makes the valid interpretation of slavery not being the only factor involved, in my opinion, slavery was an issue that was always present and could not be avoided; since the topic was one that was so prevalent in the lives of Americans in one way or another, especially leading up to the war, slavery was matter that could not be avoided and in fact effected and influenced many of the decisions leading up to the war.

Accordingly, I disagree with the point made by Professor Joel H. Silbey. He maintains that historians have overemphasized the sectional conflict over slavery, and that truly it was the regional interests that were driving the political forces. He believes that historians have neglected to analyze the "local enthnocultural issues" among the events leading up to the Civil War. This is indeed a valid argument and it is a natural one to see present in the discussion of the causes of the Civil War, but based on my own interpretations of the the two summaries by both professors and my general knowledge of American history, I hold the opinion that slavery was in fact the main cause of the Civil War.

It would make sense that there were other regional differences that were going on at the time period leading up to the war, but I believe that the movement towards the abolishment of slavery was too great to be ignored. Silbery states that the emphasis on sectionalism has increased the importance of one factor, while decreased the importance of other factors. This, be says, "ultimately distorts the reality of American political life between 1844 and 1861" (Silbey, 301). But one must ask, is it truly a distortion of reality? Were there other factors of great importance that have been overshadowed by the mainstream ones, or was it just that the one main factor was so large that was the driving force behind the trends of the time? I consider the latter point to be valid because the problem of slavery was too large and overwhelming to be counted as only one of a few factors.

According to Webster's American Heritage Dictionary, a slave is "A bond servant digested of all freedom and personal rights; a human being who is owned by and wholly subject to the will of another." Therefore, the definition of slavery is, "The owning and keeping of slaves as a practice or institution." Is this an acceptable way of living? This type of a question would be certain to come up especially in Northern states, where abolition had become more mainstream especially by the writing of Harriet Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin (1852), which strengthened the contemporary abolitionist cause with its descriptions of the sufferings caused by slavery. Slavery was becoming increasingly more of a moral issue in the time leading up to the war and yet, everyone had an opinion in one way or another. The South depended on slavery for it had become their way of life. Not every Southerner owned a slave, but all Southerners favored the slavery system because they knew it benefited them in the long run. They saw it as a permanent basis to their society. On the other hand, The Northerners were getting ideas that the South wanted to enslave the entire country through their control of the national government. They believed that the Slave Power would overthrow the Republican Government. The definition of slavery had gone from the institution of black slaves in the south, to the absence of liberty and equality with absolutely no Republicanism present. Slavery was taking over the nation.

In conclusion, have the historians overemphasized the effect of slavery on the Civil War? In short, no, they have not, because slavery was taking over the country. The South depended on it as a way of life, and the North saw this as a threat to the national government. The north was afraid that the overpowering Slave Power would eventually rise above the government and the South, in a sense would overtake the North. Therefore, the North fought for what they were against, and