The Civil War: Seminal Event in American History

WE are 4 weeks into my Civil War graduate class titled ” The Civil War: Seminal Event in American History.” I think the class is going fairly well. The weekly discussion topics have produced interesting correspondences. Most of my classmates have displayed thoughtful reflection and comprehension. I have been surprised by the fairly light reading load. We have been assigned three books, two of which I have already read.

Hattaway, Herman & Jones, Archer. “How the North Won: A Military History of the Civil War.” (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1991.)

McPherson, James. “Battle Cry Of Freedom.” (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.)

“This Mighty Scourge: Perspectives on the Civil War.” (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2007.)

Our week three and four questions for class discussion were as follows: “Was slavery the issue that led to the Civil War?” and “Should Abraham Lincoln have been the point of no return for the South?”

I was first struck by the universal agreement among my classmates that slavery was the main cause of the war. I teach high school history and we have several staff members who teach that slavery was not the main cause of the war, but one of several important ones: state’s rights, taxes/tariffs, ect.

No doubt our readings helped led us to this common assessment, though I think that is also because McPherson is right.

McPherson describes the causes of the war as: (1) slavery, (2) differences between agricultural and industrial society, (3) states’ rights, and (4) differences in power between the North and the South.

Our class came to the conclusion that to best answer this question we needed to ask a counter-factual question: Had the institution of slavery never existed in the Colonies and hence the United States, would there have been the above differences that led to the conflict? It seemed clear to us that the answer to this questions was obviously, No.

As for Lincoln’s election, this produce a wide swath of answers and debate. Here’s my answer. It generated some debate and overall I am not 100% happy with it:

Of course not, but what it represented to the South was the beginning of the end, though it should not have.

As we know, the South still had the votes in congress to block any attempt by the “radical” republicans to emancipate the slaves or end slavery’s expansion constitutionally.

They still had enough votes to probably win any future election if they could simply unite.

Slave power was still strong legally. Lincoln also made it clear he would abide by the constitution. The only threat to the South was a loss of power in the congress and that was not yet the case. Remember, 2/3 vote to override any veto and to establish legislation. The South was still in control.

So with that being said. The election of Lincoln simply triggered what had become a very animosity ridden and emotionally charged political conflict between North and South that essentially had nothing to do with slavery by this point. The hatred and contention between both sides had reached the boiling point and even though the South still had what they wanted, they threw it away in a heated meltdown that crescendoed out of control.

Any suggestions or help? This week’s discussion is over and I did receive full credit so I can’t nor need not expand on it. I was able to defend it well enough to get my weekly points so…