The Inescapable Conflict: Slavery as the Primary Catalyst of the Civil War

Isabella Garrido

AMH2010: American History

Professor Osborn

November 5, 2024
 2

The American Civil War alone had 620,000 fatalities,1 which is almost 5 times more

deaths than World War I. It was a defining conflict in the nation’s history and was fueled by

deep-rooted divisions, yet no single issue was more central to the tension than slavery. While

various political, economic, and social factors contributed to the growing chasm between North

and South, the institution of slavery became the primary cause that ultimately ignited the war.

The formation of the Republican Party, the Compromise of 1850, and debates over popular

sovereignty reflected the intensifying national struggle over slavery’s place in American society.

The Southern economy’s dependence on enslaved labor, conflicts over the expansion of slavery

into new territories, and mounting moral opposition in the North only intensified these divisions.

These opposing stances reached a breaking point that would lead to a four-year conflict and,

eventually, a transformative outcome for the United States, exemplified by the passage of the

13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments and a shift in economic power favoring the North. This essay

examines how slavery served as the primary catalyst for the Civil War, setting the stage for

monumental social and economic changes in its aftermath.

The years leading up to the Civil War saw a series of political developments that

underscored the divisive issue of slavery and intensified sectional tensions between the North

and South. The formation of the Republican Party, the Compromise of 1850, and the doctrine of

popular sovereignty each contributed to a growing divide that made war inevitable. The 1850s

marked a turning point with the passage of the Compromise of 1850, an effort to address

mounting sectional discord. The Compromise aimed to provide a comprehensive solution to the

status of slavery in new territories by admitting California as a free state, establishing the

territories of Utah and New Mexico without prohibiting slavery, and implementing a new

1
U.S. Government Printing Office, The Medical and Surgical History of the War of the Rebellion, Vol. 6
(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1870).
 3

fugitive slave law to satisfy Southern interests2. However, rather than stabilizing relations, the

Compromise fueled animosities. The North’s refusal to comply with the fugitive slave law

angered Southerners, who viewed it as a betrayal of Southern rights, while Northern states

resented what they saw as forced complicity in the institution of slavery. This legislative

“solution” ultimately deepened mistrust between the regions, as both sides saw the Compromise

as benefiting the other. In response to Southern expansionist goals and the inability of traditional

parties to address slavery’s divisive influence, the Republican Party was formed in the early

1850s, openly opposing the spread of slavery into new territories. This platform directly

challenged the South’s pro-slavery stance and advocated for containing slavery within its

existing bounds, if not abolishing it entirely. William H. Seward, a prominent Republican,

famously declared, “Slavery can be limited to its present bounds; it can be ameliorated. It can be,

and IT MUST BE, ABOLISHED.”3 The Republican Party’s foundation marked a new era of

organized political opposition to slavery, intensifying sectional rivalries and giving the North a

unified anti-slavery stance that Southern politicians found threatening. The doctrine of popular

sovereignty emerged as yet another attempted solution, allowing new territories to decide the

status of slavery through local vote.4 This doctrine, however, inflamed the debate over slavery

even further. As settlers flooded into territories like Kansas, violent conflicts erupted between

pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions, leading to a period known as "Bleeding Kansas." The

violence demonstrated how deeply slavery divided Americans and underscored that compromise

over this issue was becoming increasingly unachievable. Together, these events reflect a pattern

of failed compromises and rising political tensions, each rooted in the issue of slavery. The
2
William E. Gienapp, “The Whig Party, the Compromise of 1850, and the Nomination of Winfield Scott,”
Presidential Studies Quarterly 14, no. 3
3
The Johns Hopkins University Sheridan Libraries, The Doctrines and Policy of the Republican Party: As given by
Its Recognized Leaders, Orators, Presses, and Platforms (Washington City: National Democratic Executive
Committee, 1860), 35.
4
“Popular Sovereignty,” Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed., March 2021, 1.
 4

growing entrenchment of both Northern and Southern positions demonstrated that the nation was

increasingly divided over slavery’s role and expansion, setting the stage for the outbreak of civil

war.

The Civil War was driven primarily by the deep-rooted issue of slavery, which shaped

the economic foundation, territorial ambitions, and moral values of the South and created an

unbridgeable divide with the North. Southern dependence on slavery underpinned its entire

economic system, especially for labor-intensive crops such as cotton, rice, and sugar. Southern

leaders argued that only enslaved African Americans were "constitutionally adapted to labor in

those climates where the great staples of cotton, rice and sugar can be produced," and warned

that emancipation would turn the South’s prosperous regions into a “howling wilderness.”5 This

perspective shows how slavery was far more than an economic tool; it was seen as essential to

the South's prosperity and societal structure. Any challenge to slavery’s existence, therefore, was

perceived as a direct threat to the Southern way of life, deepening Southern resistance to

Northern anti-slavery efforts. The push to expand slavery into new territories intensified this

divide. After the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which established the 36°30' line as the

boundary between slave and free territories, Southern states sought to spread slavery into newly

acquired lands to maintain economic and political power. As Northern states grew increasingly

resistant to the expansion of slavery, Southern states insisted on their "equal right to enter all the

new territory with their slaves," viewing any restriction as an assault on their economic security

and status within the Union.6 The controversy over new territories revealed an irreconcilable

conflict between the North and South: while the North saw limiting slavery’s expansion as a

5
Pro-Slavery Convention of the State of Missouri, An Address Delivered before the Pro-Slavery Convention of the
State of Missouri, 1855
6
Edward McMahon, “Stephen A. Douglas: A Study of the Attempt to Settle the Question of Slavery in the
Territories by the Application of Popular Sovereignty—1850-1860,” The Washington Historical Quarterly 2, no. 3
(1908): 212.
 5

means of containing an unjust institution, the South saw it as a threat to their economy and way

of life. This dispute over territory underscored the idea that slavery was central to the conflict, as

each new attempt to restrict its spread fueled Southern fears of an existential threat. Meanwhile,

moral opposition to slavery in the North grew stronger, reframing the issue as not just political or

economic but fundamentally immoral. Many Northerners, influenced by Christian values, began

to see slavery as a violation of the principle to “do to others as we would be done by.”7 This

sentiment, rooted in religious and ethical beliefs, called for the abolition of slavery on moral

grounds, positioning it as incompatible with American values of liberty and equality. The spread

of these abolitionist ideas, largely within the newly formed Republican Party, further divided the

North and South and made compromise increasingly unlikely. For Southern states, the North’s

growing moral opposition to slavery represented not only an attack on their economic system but

a condemnation of their entire way of life. The Southern reliance on enslaved labor, the ongoing

conflicts over slavery’s expansion, and the growing moral opposition to slavery all demonstrate

how deeply embedded this institution was in American society, leading to escalating tensions

between the North and South. These divisions, centered on slavery, ultimately made war the only

path to resolve the issue. Each step in this progression highlights how slavery was not merely

one cause among many, but the primary, inescapable cause that led to the Civil War.

The end of the Civil War marked a radical shift in both legal and social structures,

primarily driven by the abolition of slavery. The 13th Amendment officially abolished slavery,

reshaping the identity of Black individuals in the United States as “the opposite of the slave…a

freeman,” paving the way for their full participation in American society. 8 This legal

transformation was accompanied by significant economic shifts, particularly in the North, which

7
James Reddie, “Slavery,” The Anthropological Review 2, no. 7 (1864): 281.
8
Southern Historical Association and Southern Historical Association. Journal of Southern History (Online). Baton
Rouge, La: Southern Historical Association, 1935.
 6

emerged from the war with newfound prosperity and dominance. Observers in the post-war

period noted a “new sense of satisfaction” and a clear intention to leverage this “Northern

victory” for long-term economic power.9 Following this momentum, the 14th Amendment

addressed issues of citizenship and legal equality, ensuring that “all persons born in the United

States are citizens thereof,” a monumental assertion of birthright citizenship that guaranteed due

process and equal protection under the law.10 This amendment not only expanded the definition

of American citizenship but also fortified federal authority over civil rights, diminishing state

powers that had historically oppressed African Americans. Finally, the 15th Amendment sought

to protect the voting rights of Black men, emphasizing that the “Fifteenth Amendment must

shine distinctly” to safeguard against racial discrimination in voting.11Together, these

amendments laid the legal groundwork for a more inclusive nation, though the full realization of

these rights would take many more years of struggle.

In conclusion, this essay demonstrates that slavery was the primary cause of the Civil

War, driven by political, economic, and moral conflicts. The formation of the Republican Party,

the Compromise of 1850, and popular sovereignty exemplified how slavery dominated national

discourse and heightened sectional tensions. The South's reliance on slave labor and the moral

opposition from abolitionists intensified the divide. Following the war, the passage of the 13th,

14th, and 15th Amendments sought to address the injustices of slavery and promote civil rights,

although challenges remained. Ultimately, the legacy of slavery not only instigated the war but

also shaped America's ongoing struggle for equality and justice.

9
Franklin, John Hope. Reconstruction After the Civil War. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.
10
United States Circuit Court. Eastern District of Virginia. United States v. Petersburg Judges of Election. United
States v. Petersburg Registrars of Election. The American Law Register (1852-1891) 23, no. 4 (1875): 238–45
11
University of Texas at Austin. School of Law, issuing body, issuing body State Bar of Texas. Individual Rights and
Responsibilities Section, issuing body University of Texas at Austin. School of Law, and issuing body State Bar of
Texas. Individual Rights and Responsibilities Section. Texas Journal on Civil Liberties & Civil Rights. Austin, Tex:
University of Texas School of Law, 2003.
 7

Bibliography
 8

The Johns Hopkins University Sheridan Libraries. The Doctrines and Policy of the Republican

Party : As given by Its Recognized Leaders, Orators, Presses, and Platforms. Documents.

Washington City : Issued by the National Democratic Executive Committee,

1860. https://jstor.org/stable/community.35007164.

Gienapp, William E. “The Whig Party, the Compromise of 1850, and the Nomination of

Winfield Scott.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 14, no. 3 (1984): 399–

415. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27550101.

“Popular Sovereignty.” 2021. Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th Edition, March,

1. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspxdirect=true&AuthType=shib&db=a9h&AN=13

4488904&site=ehost-live.

Pro-Slavery Convention of the State of Missouri (1855 : Lexington, Mo.), The Johns Hopkins

University Sheridan Libraries, Shannon, James, 1799-1859, and Pro-Slavery Convention

of the State of Missouri (1855 : Lexington, Mo.). An Address Delivered before the Pro-

Slavery Convention of the State of Missouri, Held in Lexington, July 13, 1855,: On

Domestic Slavery, as Examined in the Light of Scripture, of Natural Rights, of Civil

Government, and the Constitutional Power of Congress. Constitutions. St. Louis, Mo.,

Printed at the Republican book and job office

https://jstor.org/stable/community.35006632.

McMahon, Edward. “Stephen A. Douglas: A Study of the Attempt to Settle the Question of

Slavery in the Territories by the Application of Popular Sovereignty—1850-1860.” The

Washington Historical Quarterly 2, no. 3 (1908): 209–

32. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40473911
 9

Reddie, James. “Slavery.” The Anthropological Review 2, no. 7 (1864): 280–

93. https://doi.org/10.2307/3024976.

U.S. Government Printing Office, The Medical and Surgical History of the War of the

Rebellion, Vol. 6 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1870).

https://digital.lib.usu.edu/digital/collection/Complicat/id/3616/

Southern Historical Association., and Southern Historical Association. Journal of Southern

History (Online). Baton Rouge, La: Southern Historical Association, 1935.

https://web.p.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=7&sid=e0562d89-a3dc-

414f-8f52-17e41acf5648%40redis

Franklin, John Hope. Reconstruction After the Civil War. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 1994. https://books.google.com/books?

hl=en&lr=&id=GH1W13Xv5y8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=north+after+civil+war&ots=ou

D1fRpq-j&sig=OePh-menHzONvfmKIp2dzS_cGRU#v=onepage&q=north%20after

%20civil%20war&f=false.

“United States Circuit Court. Eastern District of Virginia. United States v. Petersburg Judges of

Election. United States v. Petersburg Registrars of Election.” The American Law Register

(1852-1891) 23, no. 4 (1875): 238–45. https://doi.org/10.2307/3304507.

University of Texas at Austin. School of Law, issuing body, issuing body State Bar of Texas.

Individual Rights and Responsibilities Section, issuing body University of Texas at

Austin. School of Law, and issuing body State Bar of Texas. Individual Rights and
 10

Responsibilities Section. Texas Journal on Civil Liberties & Civil Rights. Austin, Tex:

University of Texas School of Law, 2003.