It was definitely slavery, but there were extra steps. The tension of free vs. slave labor in the U.S. was definitively resolved by the end of the Civil War.
You're arguing semantics. The initial attack and declaration of war was Fort Sumter. Fort Sumter, however, was not the underlying tension that put the parties on the road to war. That was slavery. You can argue "economics" or "states' rights", but it was really the economics of slavery (the north wasn't happy that the south benefited from labor they didn't have to pay for) and the states' rights to maintain the system of race-based hereditary chattel slavery. These go all the way back to the constitution itself, so it's certainly arguable that the formation of the United States itself is a cause of the Civil War. But it wasn't the most proximate cause. The most proximate causes of the Civil War all link back to the underlying tensions about slavery.
What was the cause of World War I? Was it the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand? Was it the German occupation of Luxembourg? Was it the expiration of the German ultimatum to Russia that resulted in a de facto declaration of war? Was it the Balkan Crisis? Was it the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the consolidation and rise of Germany? The answer is "yes, all of these, in different ways".
Of course I'm arguing semantics, when arguing about controversial subjects, substance and precision is more important than posturing that a lot of people seem to be defaulting to.
And yes, of course it's "all of these". The problem is that again a lot of people insist that it was about slavery and nothing else. And that is factually wrong. The stance of the Union government was, for quite a while, that secession itself was illegal, and thr war was fought on the grounds on securing territorial integrity of thr United States. That slavery was the direct cause for the secession itself is undisputable. But hostilities commenced because secession was an illegal act, and not because the Union disliked the reason for that secession.
This is important because ACW secured a constitutional precedent. It is now law of the land that states cannot secede from the Union, and that is an important legal consequence that wouldn't be as much of a thing if slavery had been the sole cause of the civil war.
That no matter how you argue it, slavery was the proximate cause of the civil war. Arguing for anything else makes it look like you're trying to obfuscate the issue.
The union fought to preserve the union. Sure, but why was the union breaking up? Because the south was seceding. Why was the south seceding? Because they wanted to preserve slavery.
I really couldn't care less what "it makes it look like". Providing simple answers to complex issues is just trivializing and beneath any serious historical discussion.
46
u/SweatyTax4669 Jul 11 '24
The civil war started because South Carolina fired on U.S. military personnel at Fort Sumter.
Why did they do this? Because South Carolina unilaterally decided it didn’t want to be part of the United States anymore.
Why did they decide this? Because they were afraid the United States wouldn’t allow them to own people as property.