Question

Which statement best explains why the issue of slavery contributed to the outbreak of Civil war?
A- the economies of the confederate states relied on slave labor
B- fugitive slaves from the south were creating social tensions in the north
C- settlers in newly acquired territories did not want to allow slavery in their states.
D- the federal government refused to take action to suppress slave uprisings in the south.

Answer 1

These are all poor choices.

A. While slave labor was important to the plantations, it was by no means the entire basis of the Southern economy. The most profitable aspect of slavery by the 1850s was actually the breeding and selling of servants -- not their use in agriculture. It would be more correct to say that the Southern economy would suffer severe disruption if slavery were abruptly abolished, for many reasons, but that is not the same as saying the eonomy relied upon slave labor.

B. While this is true, it is a minor effect. It's true abolitionism was a minority opinion the North, but the plight of escaped slaves generally enjoyed at least tolerance, if not sympathy, broadly. There is NO chance either side would have gone to war over this minor issue.

C. Some did, some did not. This gets close to the major reasons for the Civil War, but the issue was not what settlers in the new states thought of slavery, but what the old existing states thought about the consequences of leaving slavery in new states up to the settlers thereof (vide infra).

D. There were none of significance, and such as there were were suppressed by local and state authority. Federal intervention would, at that time period, have been viewed with considerable askance.

One of the major reasons for the Civil War ws the struggle between North and South over control of the Federal Government, and one of the major reasons for this struggle was the fear, by the Southern states, that if the North gained dominance in the Federal government, it could use that dominance to suppress slavery where it already existed, in the older states.

The reason this connects to the territories is that representation in the Federal government occurs in many ways state by state, not person by person. For example, in the Senate, each state gets just two votes, no matter how large of small the state. In the Electoral College, every state gets a minimum of 3 votes, no matter how small.

So new states, even if they are very small -- have a very small population, that is -- can wield outsize influence on the Federal government. In the 1840s and 1850s the United States acquired a considerably amount of new territory out west, as a result of the war with Mexico, negotiations with Great Britain, and pushing the Indians off their land. Floods of European immigrants to the East were contributing to a steady flow of immigrants towards the west, and it could easily be foreseen that many new states would be joining the Union -- necessarily affecting the balance of power in the Federal government, for reasons outlined above.

Would these new states be "slave" or "free" states? The question is not whether they themselves would have slaves, but whether they would align with the older, existing slave or free states. THAT is the question that burned in Southern minds, particularly because, in fact, slavery was not well-suited to the economies of Western states (excepting Texas perhaps), and also because the North, with the larger and more rapidly growing population, was supplying more of the immigrants. The South greatly feared the new Western states would be mostly free and tip the balance of power in D.C. decisively towards the North.

Hence the series of compromises and proposals and arguments -- including actual fighting, e.g. in "Bleeding" Kansas -- about the nature, slave or free, of the new territories and future states. The South was disastrously arrogant about their attempts to preserve their power, and the North simply didn't give a damn, since time and population growth would ensure their victory sooner or later. Besides which, slavery was repugnant to most men, North or South, and the North had no reason at all to defend it nevertheless as some kind of tradition and an economic institution. The resulting volatile mix of fear, ambition, arrogance, contempt, guilt and greed pushed along the resolution of the conflict through armed force.

Answer 2

A is the correct choice. @Carl_Pham - your explanation is contradictory: "The most profitable aspect of slavery by the 1850s was actually the breeding and selling of servants" - this is a form of labor. Choice A does not distinguish between argricultural labor and other servitude. Therefore, to argue that outlawing slavery would not have enormous impact on the Southern economy is a hollow argument.

Answer 3

No it's not. Relatively few Southerners owned slaves, and any perceived necessity for slave labor was obviously bogus -- because the North did just fine without it. As I said, abolishing slavery abruptly would be disruptive, but not because the Southern economy depended on slavery. The reason would be just because suddenly abolishing slavery would mean an abrupt shift in paper wealth from slaveowners to slaves, people with contract for free labor, and other lower-class but free workers. No part of the economy would necessarily stop working, but all of a sudden some people who felt they were rich -- and acted that way -- would no longer be. Naturally they would change their plans a lot, and it would be that reaction that would have substantial economic effects.

It's must the way a stock market crash wipes out paper wealth, and then all the newly-poor formerly "rich" (on paper) people abruptly stop spending, et cetera, and it is this reaction that has the dire economic consequences. Or you can look at the results of the housing crash, which had the same effect -- wiping out $trillions in purely paper wealth.

Answer 4

Regardless of the size of the impact, there would be an economic impact. Hence, the main reason the South opposed abolition. If not A, then C is the only other choice here. I still maintain that A is a better choice because it shows a direct effect of abolition that the South would not stand for.

Answer 5

The question wasn't why the South opposed abolition, the question was how the issue of slavery contributed to the outbreak of the Civil War. If the South had been 100% convinced that there was zero chance the North would ever use the power of the Federal government to interfere with slavery where it already existed, e.g. South Carolina and Georgia, then there would have been no Civil War. The South had no interest in extending slavery to the North, and they didn't even really care about extending it to the territories -- they just didn't want it interfered wth at home.

It's a perfectly reasonable position, very American, and if the South had undertaken it on ANY OTHER ISSUE than their supposed right to be left alone to enslave other men, they would have been fully in the right. As it is, they were moral idiots. It is not possible for men of conscience to adhre to the principle of "live and let live" when the other guy is praticing slavery. The South might as well have wanted to be left alone to practice human sacrifice or infanticde.

I'm not concerned about finding the best answer choice among those offered. Maybe it's A, maybe it's C. Who knows? As I said, I don't think any of the answer choices offered are good. It's as if the question was "What color is the sky?" and the answer choices were green, black and red. Probably one of those choices is the best, but I'd have a hard time deciding, and would probably not attempt to.