FIFTH PERIOD.

CIVIL WAR AND EMANCIPATION.

CHAPTER LVI.

CAUSES OF THE CIVIL WAR.

Slavery the real cause of the Civil War-Its origin in the United States-Its growth-Dies out in the North-But increases in the South-The cotton crop-Views of the founders of the government - The South seeks to control the nation - Proslavery legislation-The North at last gains the ascendency— The Abolitionists-The Kansas struggle and John Brown's raid-Threats of secession in previous years-State RightsMisunderstanding between the North and South-Misapprehension of the extent and character of the coming struggleThe eighth census-Greater population and wealth of the North.

SLAVERY in one word we may sum up the causes of the Civil War. Not that when hostilities commenced the South and the North proclaimed that they were fighting for and against slavery. The ostensible reason for the struggle was the assertion on the part of the South of the doctrine of State Rights-that any state could at its pleasure nullify an act of the national government and withdraw from the Union.. But the growth and maintenance of this doctrine in the south is directly traceable to the influence of slavery in that region of the country, and by briefly tracing the history of slavery in the United States we may readily see its effects.

Thirteen years after the founding of the first permanent English colony in America—that is, in 1620— the first slaves were brought to Jamestown, Virginia. The system of slave-labor existed at one time or another in every one of the thirteen original colonies. In 1790, just after the formation of our present government, there were nearly 700,000 slaves scattered through the various states. Massachusetts was the only state where there were no slaves; but throughout the north there were comparatively few. More than six-sevenths of the whole number were held south of the famous Mason and Dixon's line, which separated Pennsylvania from Maryland. The prevalence of slavery in this section of the country was partly due to the character of the settlers, who were less energetic than those of the north, and also largely to the influence of the warm climate, which increased their natural indolence and at the same time made it somewhat dangerous for white men to work in the fields and swamps. The natives of Africa.could endure the heat of the sun with less discomfort.

In 1793 an event occurred which increased the demand for slave-labor. This was Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton-gin, by which the preparation of cotton for the market was made much easier. The raising of cotton, therefore, became much more profitable, and the industry grew during the next half-century to vast proportions. Before the Civil War seveneighths of all the cotton crop of the world was raised in the United States. For the cultivation of cotton and tobacco slaves were required in greater numbers than ever, and in 1860 there were nearly 4,000,000 of them south of Mason and Dixon's line.

Many of the founders of our government-Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, Madison-saw the great evils of slavery, though Washington himself was a slave-holder. The proposition to pro

hibit slavery in the Northwest Territory was brought forward by Jefferson. After 1808 the importation of slaves was forbidden. But in the course of time, as the importance of slave-labor increased in the south, that section of the country became a practical unit for maintaining it, while in the north the abolition. sentiment was growing.

It soon became evident that the South and North were arrayed against each other on this question, and that Congress was the scene of their struggle. The more rapid increase of population in the north made it impossible for the South to control as many supporters in the House of Representatives as the opposing element. But to the Senate each state, large or small, elects two members. If, therefore, the South could prevent more free states than slave states from being admitted to the Union, they would preserve the balance of power in the Senate and thus have a check on the actions of the lower body..

To this end they devoted their energies, and with signal success. For a considerable time they held the upper hand in the main in controlling the government. The Missouri Compromise — 1820-21 -was more gratifying to the South than to the North. The admission of Texas in 1845 added a slave state to the Union and precipitated a war. The Omnibus Bill of 1850 secured a more vigorous fugitive-slave law. The Kansas-Nebraska Bill of 1854 practically repealed the provision of the Missouri Compromise prohibiting slavery in new territories north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes. The Dred Scott decision of 1857, rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States, declared that negroes could not become citizens and that Congressional restrictions on slavery were unconstitutional and therefore null and void.

For a while. too, the balance between free and slave

states was preserved. In 1848 there were thirty states, evenly divided in this respect. But in the next ten years the admission of California, Oregon, and Minnesota gave a majority to the North in Congress of six Senators and sixty Representatives. The struggle in Kansas resulted in a defeat of slavery. With the election of Lincoln the South felt that her political supremacy was gone-she no longer could control the government.

com

While the social and political power of slavery was growing in the south, a strong anti-slavery sentiment was rising in the north. Slavery was abolished in one state after another. Anti-slavery societies were formed. In 1831 William Lloyd Garrison menced the publication of The Liberator, advocating immediate emancipation. The steady persistence of Garrison and the burning eloquence of Wendell Phillips gathered a powerful following of abolitionists. Some of these went to the extreme of believing disunion would have to be resorted to, for they saw no prospect of crushing slavery in a constitutional way. Moreover, the North was not a unit against slavery as the South was for it. There were many who sympathized with slavery, or who at least did not indorse the anti-slavery enthusiasts. The leaders in that cause suffered much from social odium, and even met with violence at the hands of pro-slavery mobs.

But the abolition movement strengthened in spite of opposition. Aid was given to slaves in making their escape to Canada, where their freedom would be secure, and personal-liberty laws were passed by some of the states to insure the freedom of any slave who reached their borders. When the struggle began in Kansas numerous anti-slavery colonists were sent to that region. John Brown's raid evoked much enthusiasm in the north, and its hero was thought by many to have suffered the death of a martyr in the cause of freedom.

We are now in a position to see how it came about that slavery was not the immediate and apparent cause of the Civil War, while it was the original and essential cause. It was natural in a government constituted as our own is, in which so much power is left to the separate states, that a national policy which did not meet with the approbation of any section of the country should call forth threats of secession. In our earlier history as a nation it was New England that talked of withdrawing from the Union because of the injury to her commerce, which was inevitable in the foreign complications that culminated in the War of 1812. But when high duties were levied on imported goods to the benefit of the manufacturing localities and the detriment of the agricultural regions, the South began to talk of nullification and state sovereignty. It will be remembered that vigorous action was necessary from President Jackson, in 1832, to bring South Carolina to terms for recommending resistance to the collection of duties.

Now the doctrine of State Rights, or State Sovereignty, which had long been held in the south, was distinctly advocated once more. This section refused to be governed by the opponents of its cherished institution. It was asserted that the United States of America was a confederacy of sovereign states which could be dissolved for sufficiently grave reasons. These grounds, it was maintained, had been given by the election of a Republican President, which insured a vigorous policy against the extension of slavery and its political supremacy. The North on this point was much more unanimous than on the slavery question pure and simple. They asserted that the states were subordinate to the general government and that the Union was intended to be, and should be, maintained as an indissoluble bond. For these reasons both sides took up arms, and from the smoke of the conflict the nation emerged a united whole.