Believe It Or Not, The Civil War Didn’t Start Because Of Slavery

Attention all antifas, fascists, progressives, and anyone else who believes that the Civil War began because of slavery. It didn’t. It was economics.

There were many differences between the North and the South. Basically, it was bifurcated. This means that they were on opposites sides on almost all issues.

Before the war started, Congress was represented by two groups: the North were Republicans and the South were Democrats. The north was industrialized and had already banned slavery. In addition, they had 90% of all of America’s skilled labor force. The south was plantation agricultural-based that used slave labor.

There are three economic issues that put the spotlight on why the Civil War began.

Banking

There was a difference between the North and the South regarding banking. 60% of all banks were located in the north. By 1860, there was strong support 

For the creation of a system of banks that would be chartered and regulated by the federal government. But in the South, which had little need for local banking services, there was little enthusiasm for such a proposal. However, the Republican sponsored bill for a national bank failed because of the Democrat-controlled congress.

Transportation

The country was growing from the 1840s to 1860. The expansion of the railway required government subsidies favored by the north. The South

Required far fewer internal improvements than people in the Northwest, and they tended to view federal subsidies for such projects to be part of a “deal” between western and eastern interests that held no obvious gains for the South.

The Pacific Railway Bill of 1860 was designed to build a transcontinental railway link to the Pacific. However, the bill failed because of the southern Democratic voting block.

Tariffs

The North was populated with industrialized companies. This led to the desire for the north to have high tariffs “as protection against cheap British imports.“ Not only that, high tariffs were also a source of revenue for the federal government. But the South needed low tariffs with Europe in order to sell their cotton and still make a profit.

Hence the major economic division between the north and south was over tariffs. During the period of the 1830s, 40s, and 50s, the Democrats in Congress kept the tariffs low. However, things changed in the 1860s election when the Republicans took over and almost immediately increased the tariffs.

During the period of the 1830s, 40s, and 50s, the Democrats in Congress kept the tariffs low. However, things changed in the 1860s election when the Republicans took over and almost immediately increased the tariffs.

Yes, there were other differences between the North and South beside economics: The North agreed with the Founding Fathers that the republic was perpetual; the South argued secession. The two groups argued over the slavery issue when the territories of California, Oregon, and Kansas were brought into the Union. The North wanted the states to be slave-free, whereas the South believed that idea interfered with their “rights” to own slaves which they considered to be property. The end result was all three new states became slave free.

The North wanted the states to be slave-free, whereas the South believed that idea interfered with their “rights” to own slaves which they considered to be property. The end result was all three new states became slave free.

Things were so divisive that the Southern states warned they would secede if Abraham Lincoln was elected president. Barely one month after the election, South Carolina seceded on Dec. 20, 1860, and the cotton states 

Of Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas followed suit, seceding in January and February 1861.

The war began when the South bombarded Fort Sumter on April 12-13.

Here is one final economic note: In his article entitled, “The Civil War and the Democrat Distortion,” Adrian Vance hypothesized that the Civil War could have been prevented. At the time, slaves were each worth about $800. A bond issue of $4 billion could have freed all the slaves and provide each newly freed slave $200 each. Considering the Civil War cost an estimated $6 billion, it would have saved money if the federal government had taken this economic action. Obviously, this idea never happened.

Yes, slavery was a large issue when the Civil War started. But economics was the primary factor.

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Chuck Yarling has had many titles in his career thus far: veteran, engineer, math teacher, consultant, technical writer, book author and publisher, and triathlete. He was a member the Military Order of the Purple Heart and Bugles Across America, which plays Taps at military funerals and special events. Spec. 5 Chuck Yarling served with the 26th Combat Engineering Battalion in Vietnam as an awards clerk. His service with the U.S. Army resulted in being awarded the Bronze Star, Purple Heart, and Army Commendation Medal. You may reach Chuck at [email protected]

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.