THE OUTBREAK OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR:
POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, AND MORAL CONFLICT
DUE TO SLAVERY
JUNG JAE KIM

During the 19th century, the American Civil War between the North and the South
began when then president, Abraham Lincoln, declared that he would abolish
slavery. The political tension between the two sides was primarily caused by the
southern territories’ heavy reliance on slavery to fuel their agricultural industry.
The delicate relationship between the North and the South became tenser after
Lincoln declared the Emancipation Proclamation to free slaves in the South, which
eventually led to the Civil War and the abolition of slavery. Ironically, the
American Civil War helped the USA develop its power and become one of the
world’s leading nations.

The United States of America (USA) is unquestionably a leader among nations.
The country’s wealth and power allows it to play a significant role around the
world. However, the way that modern-day America was established was not a
simple path. During the 19th century, the USA struggled and suffered from internal
conflict that shook the nation. Slavery had always been a troublesome issue in the
USA and it is important to understand the internal conflicts that divided the northern
territories and the southern territories. The North banned slavery, while the South
relied on slavery. This conflict between the two eventually led to the American
Civil War. The South decided to secede from the North after Abraham Lincoln
⸺⸺ who declared that slavery was morally wrong ⸺⸺ won the presidential
election. In 1861, the American Civil War began, ending with the North’s victory
in 1865. The Civil War effectively ended slavery in the northern and southern
territories. Lincoln’s moral stance against slavery was the main deciding factor that
started the American Civil War, but it was the country’s rapid growth that ultimately
contributed to the economic and political problems that lead to tension between pro
and anti-slavery territories. Therefore, it seems like these three factors ⸺⸺ a

HiPo Vol. 1

57

March 2018

combination of political, economic, and moral conflict over slavery ⸺⸺ were the
major reasons that ignited anger in the South and led to the Civil War.
As the cotton industry was flourishing in the 19th century the southern territories
enjoyed “a virtual monopoly of the valuable commodity.” 1 In the South, the
slaveholders’ desire for their plantations to prosper and expand drove the demand
for more slaves. Even though the South “lagged in industry and urbani[z]ation,”2
the fact that “the cotton boom had extended slavery and the plantation system into
South Carolina” 3 shows why the South, especially South Carolina, relied heavily
on slaves. Great Britain, the wealthiest nation during 19th century, assumed the
South was the perfect trading partner to fulfill its need for raw cotton. 4 Therefore,
slaveholders in Georgia stopped at nothing to eradicate the entrepreneurs’ ambition
to proliferate their industrial economy. 5 The slaveholders in Georgia “did not
permit the development of an independent middle class with the potential to
challenge planter power.” 6 Furthermore, it was impossible for the slaveholders to
consolidate their powers without slavery. Since agriculture was the primary source
of income in the south abolishing slavery meant confiscating the slaveholders’
desire to export cotton and make profit.
The North did not need any slaves since they were mainly driven by an industrial
economy, while the South needed slaves since they relied heavily on agriculture. 7
Though the northern territories banned slavery it is a mistake to think that the North
was above reproach owing to its effort to release slaves, whereas the South was an
axis of evil due to its slavery. 8 In order to disguise their evil minds they exported
slaves to other nations:
With the demand for sugar climbing in Europe, sugar plantations covered
nearly every inch of islands in the Caribbean, and the needed for cheap
labor to produce it soared… Sugarcane was [very] profitable… little land
on the islands was devoted to growing food for slaves… Caribbean islands
became dependent upon provisioning by Northern farmers and other US
businessmen. 9

The northern territories became economically prosperous because they sponged off

1

Foner, "The Civil War and Slavery," 94.
Foner, 94.
3
Meadwell and Anderson, "Sequence and Strategy in the Secession," 207.
4
Nash, et al., The American People, 203.
5
Morgan, "The Public Nature of Private Industry," 27.
6
Morgan, 29.
7
Holzer, "Confederate Caricature of Abraham Lincoln," 26.
8
Frank, "The Complicity of Northern States in Slavery," 11.
9
Frank, 12.
2

HiPo Vol. 1

58

March 2018

the external slaves. 10 Although Africans played a significant role in the USA’s
economic prosperity they were still mistreated and detested by Americans. During
the Civil War, Africans were not permitted to participate in the war because
“‘[whites wanted] …niggers to keep out of [the war]; [it was] a white man’s
war.”’ 11 This shows that Americans detested Africans and did not allow them to
step into the whites’ affair until “Congress passed the Second Confiscation Act and
Militia Act” which allowed blacks to participate in the Civil War. 12
Henry Clay, a member of the Whig Party, made efforts to maintain the Union and
soothe the tension between the North and the South. In 1820, Clay passed the law
called the Missouri Compromise, which meant above the 36 degree/30 slavery
should be barred. 13 Clay’s political strategy satisfied both the North and the South,
but this solution was only temporary since the USA was expanding towards the
West. 14 Therefore, Clay revised the Compromise to solve the land issue and to
intensify the Slave Act. Clay was unable to pass the Compromise so Stephen A.
Douglas, a member of the Democratic Party, altered the Compromise until it was
passed in 1850 under his leadership. 15
A serious problem soon agitated the North and the South due to the Compromise
of 1850: the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Since slaves were “scourged and abused
by [their masters],” 16 they escaped from the South to seek freedom. However,
whenever slaves escaped they would be sent back to slaveholders. 17 As a result,
the North was frustrated since it was against slavery and wanted to differentiate its
policy from the South. The pride they had from not relying on slavery was
vanishing and the North was become no different from the South. Furthermore, the
fact that hired policemen in northern communities helped the South’s effort to
capture the slaves 18 was a shock to those who were against slavery.
Unlike Clay, Douglas’s main concern was to win the presidential election, not to
appease the northern and southern territories. The Kansas-Nebraska Act,
introduced by Douglas, was the bill that repealed the Missouri Compromise
restriction. 19 The Act let settlers in Nebraska Territory “exercise popular
sovereignty,” 20 the doctrine that allowed the settlers to participate in voting to
10

Frank, 11.
Taylor, "A Politics of Service," 459.
12
Taylor, 462.
13
Johnson, Abraham Lincoln, Slavery and the Civil War, 37.
14
Nash et al., 283.
15
Nash et al., 310.
16
West, "Tensions, Tempers, and Temptations," 5.
17
Nash et al., 310.
18
Blackett, "Dispossessing Massa," 128.
19
Nash et al., 313.
20
Pierson, "Bleeding Kansas," 24.
11

HiPo Vol. 1

59

March 2018

determine whether territories should be for or against slavery. 21 However, his
veiled purpose was to connect the Transcontinental Railroad that went through the
Nebraska Territory to the West, 22 where the gold was found. 23 In order to seek
fortune he split the Nebraska Territory into two, Kansas and Nebraska, so that
popular sovereignty could play a role. Since traffic from Chicago had to pass
through the northern part of Nebraska to reach the West, he used popular
sovereignty to persuade Kansas settlers who ⸺⸺ mostly occupied by southerners
⸺⸺ wanted their territory to prosper by running the railroad through St. Louis. 24
Supported mostly by Kansas settlers, the South won the vote and gained another
slave state; in return, they allowed Douglas to put the railroad in Chicago. 25 As a
result, he was confident that the South would support him. At the same time, he
believed that the North would support him because he helped the North gain another
free state, Nebraska, and develop the railroad. 26 However, repealing the
Compromise and voting for another territory aroused the North’s anger. 27 As a
politician, resolving the tension between the North and the South should have been
his priority.
Abraham Lincoln, who later became the 16th president of the USA, was frustrated
by Douglas’s decision. Lincoln opened a debate with Douglas in his 1858
senatorial campaign to present his opinion on slavery. 28 He claimed that he had no
intention “to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it
[existed],” 29 which shows that Lincoln’s priority was to soothe slaveholders’ anger
and prevent secession. Although he failed to win the election to the Senate, his
speech helped him defeat Douglas in the presidential election. When Lincoln was
elected the USA’s 16th president the South decided to secede from the Union and
created their independent government: the Confederacy. South Carolina knew that
Lincoln would ultimately abolish slavery because Lincoln “[had] declared that
‘Government [could] not endure permanently half slave, half free.” 30 Since slaves
were viewed as property in the South eliminating slavery meant confiscating the
slaveholders’ assets.
Thomas Jefferson, a former president of the USA, and Henry Clay both agreed that
slavery was immoral. 31 However, they both realised that tolerating slavery was
21

Pierson, 24.
Pierson, 24.
23
Nash et. al., 283.
24
Billington, Westward Expansion, 241.
25
Billington, 241.
26
Billington, 241.
27
Pierson, 24.
28
Johnson, 69.
29
Schwartz, "The Emancipation Proclamation," 591.
30
Loewen, "Using Confederate Documents," 43.
31
Danoff, "Lincoln and the "Necessity" of Tolerating Slavery," 50.
22

HiPo Vol. 1

60

March 2018

necessary to maintain the country’s peace. 32 Lincoln acknowledged Jefferson’s and
Clay’s stance on slavery, but his ultimate objective was to abolish slavery. At the
start of the war, he declared that the “Emancipation Proclamation was ‘an act of
justice,’ its constitutional justification was ‘military necessity;’” 33 his dream to
abolish slavery could only be attained by winning the American Civil War. On
January 1st, 1863, at the height of the Civil War, Lincoln declared the Emancipation
Proclamation. 34 Consequently, slaves were “legally free under the terms of the
president’s order.” 35 On April 9, 1865, the American Civil War ended with the
Union’s victory over the Confederacy. 36
Sometimes an economic conflict converts into a political conflict. As the USA’s
economy had been proliferating, the country needed to protect and grow the
country’s industry. 37 However, a problem emerged on the horizon:
New England and mid-Atlantic states, the center of manufacturing,
favored tariffs. The South had long opposed them because they made it
more expensive to buy northern and European manufactured goods and
threatened to provoke retaliation against southern tobacco exports…some
worried that the federal government might eventually interfere with
slavery… 38

To the slaveholders interfering with slavery meant interfering with their cottonbased industry. Andrew Jackson, the president of the USA, firmly believed that
states should not have the right to disorient the Union. 39 However, as John C.
Calhoun, the vice president from South Carolina, resigned in 1832 and prepared to
nullify the tariff in South Carolina. 40 However, as the crisis had been strangling the
Union, it seemed that the newly-revised tariff issue 41 was paramount. The new
policy finally soothed South Carolina’s resentment. The economic and political
conflicts were inter-connected; although the nullification crisis started from an
economic problem, a political issue ensued. Since the political conflict had already
been intensified, the suppressed crisis was about to erupt. This crisis was the
prelude to the American Civil War.
The moral conflict caused by slavery also played a significant role in American
32

Danoff, 50.
Danoff, 47.
34
Nash et al., 341.
35
Holzer, "How Jefferson Davis Lost His Slaves," 22.
36
Nash et al., 350.
37
Weisberger, "The Nullifiers,” 20.
38
Nash et al., 258.
39
Nash et al., 259.
40
Nash et al., 259.
41
Nash et al., 259.
33

HiPo Vol. 1

61

March 2018

history. Lincoln declared that “he did not advocate or desire full political social
equality for blacks,” 42 yet declared that Africans needed education in order for them
to be full citizens.43 Lincoln’s attitude shows that although he was racist, he still
believed that blacks deserved to be treated as humans. Whereas Jefferson and Clay
had approached the slavery issue in a cowardly way, Lincoln approached the matter
bravely because his moral stance did not allow him to tolerate it. Lincoln was afraid
that slavery would eventually corrupt moral conscience. 44 From his perspective,
slavery stemmed from human greed and selfishness. 45 The South was against
Lincoln’s moral stance and waged the Civil War.
The political conflicts between pro- and anti-slavery territories led to the American
Civil War. The political, economic, and moral conflict was so intense that a peace
negotiation between the North and South was impossible. Ironically, the war helped
the USA develop an industrial-capitalist economy, removing slavery to its future
expansion. If the Union had lost the American Civil War then the Confederacy
might have engulfed the northern territories and shaped them into agriculturally
dependent states. This could have delayed the USA’s urbanization. When toddlers
try to walk they will undoubtedly fail multiple times before they can stand on their
own; however, toddlers’ failures are the steps they need to take so that they can
walk properly. Similarly, in order for a country to prosper it needs to face failures.
The United States of America was only able to grow into a leading nation because
it was able to successfully overcome the challenges it faced.

42

Johnson, 70.
Danoff, 62.
44
Danoff, 55.
45
Danoff, 50.
43

HiPo Vol. 1

62

March 2018

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BILLINGTON, RAY ALLEN. Westward Expansion, 6th ed. Albuquerque: University
of New Mexico Press, 2001.
BLACKETT, R. J. M. "Dispossessing Massa: Fugitive Slaves and the Politics of
Slavery After 1850." American Nineteenth Century History 10, no. 2
(2009): 119-136.
DANOFF, BRIAN. "Lincoln and the "Necessity" of Tolerating Slavery before the
Civil War." The Review of Politics 77, no. 1 (2015): 47-71.
FONER, ERIC. "The Civil War and Slavery: A Response." Historical Materialism
19, no.4 (2011): 92-98.
FRANK, JENIFER. "The Complicity of Northern States in Slavery." Agora 45, no. 1
(2010): 11-16.
HOLZER, HAROLD. "Confederate Caricature of Abraham Lincoln." Illinois
Historical Journal 80, no. 1 (1987) 23-36.
HOLZER, HAROLD. "How Jefferson Davis Lost His Slaves." America's Civil War
26, no. 3 (2013): 22-24.
JOHNSON, P. MICHAEL. Abraham Lincoln, Slavery and the Civil War: Selected
Writing and Speeches. Boston, United States: Bedford/St. Martins, 2001.
LOEWEN, JAMES W. "Using Confederate Documents to Teach About Secession,
Slavery, and the Origins of the Civil War." OAH Magazine of History 25,
no. 2 (2011): 35-44.
MEADWELL, HUDSON, and LAWRENCE M. ANDERSON. "Sequence and Strategy in
the Secession of the American South." Theory and Society 37, no. 3 (2008):
199-227.
MORGAN, CHAD. "The Public Nature of Private Industry in Confederate Georgia."
Civil War History 50, no. 1 (2004): 27-46.
NASH, GARY B., JULIE ROY JEFFREY, JOHN R. HOWE, ALLAN M. WINKLER, ALLEN
FREEMAN DAVIS, CHARLENE MIRES, PETER J. FREDERICK, and CARLA
GARDINA PESTANA. The American People: Creating a Nation and a Society,
8th ed., Edited by Gary B. Nash and Julie Roy Jeffrey. Boston: Pearson,
2017.
PIERSON, PARKE. "Bleeding Kansas." America's Civil War 22, no. 3 (2009): 24.
SCHWARTZ, BARRY. "The Emancipation Proclamation: Lincoln's Many Second
Thoughts." Society 52, no. 6 (2015): 590-603.
TAYLOR, BRIAN. "A Politics of Service: Black Northerners' Debates Over
Enlistment in the American Civil War." Civil War History 58, no. 4 (2012):
451-480.
WEISBERGER, BERNARD A. "The Nullifiers." American Heritage 46, no. 6 (1995):
20.

HiPo Vol. 1

63

March 2018

WEST, EMILY. "Tensions, Tempers, and Temptations: Marital Discord among
Slaves in Antebellum South Carolina." American Nineteenth Century
History 5, no. 2 (2004): 1-18.

HiPo Vol. 1

64

March 2018