Economic Causes Of The American Civil War

The American Revolution (1765-1783) was an armed conflict that saw colonists reject Great Britain's rule, culminating in the United States' independence. On the other hand, the American Civil War was (1861 to 1865) an internal conflict pitting the Union against the secessionist states, ending in the abolition of slavery. The origin of the two conflicts had their roots in various factors. This essay evaluates whether the wars were fought for economic or moral reasons. The essay asserts that the two wars had their roots in economic factors as the antagonists sought to protect and advance certain economic interests.

The causes of the American Revolution are dominated by economic factors as opposed to moral dynamics. In particular, the Revolution

was ignited by a string of critical economic decisions made by Britain following the conclusion, in 1763, of the Anglo-French conflict. The conclusion of the conflict saw Britain radically change its economic policies toward the colonies, of which some of the most significant were tax policies. Britain's triumph over France came at a huge expense. The war alone led to total government debt increasing by almost 100%. At the end of the war, Britain also decided to maintain about 10,000 active soldiers in North America. This military buildup was very expensive. As a result, Britain sought to make the American colonies share the cost (Dunn, 2001, p. 4). With taxes in Britain being considerably higher than in the American colonies, Britain believed that time was ripe for the colonies to start paying a larger share of the cost of running the empire.
Consequently; Parliament enacted a string of tax acts, with the revenue generated from the implementation of the acts expected to be used by Britain to maintain a standing army across America.

In an attempt to reduce smuggling by the colonists and thus increase tariff revenue, Parliament enacted the Sugar Act in 1764. Accordingly, the Act reduced tariffs on non-British commodities originating from the West Indies. In 1765; Parliament enacted the Stamp Act, requiring stamps for a wide variety of legal documents and non-legal documents. In the same year, Parliament enacted the Quartering Act that required the colonists to house British military units, transport them and provide provisions. The Townshend Acts of 1767 established a customs office to collect revenue across the colonies, and also imposed tariffs on an assortment of imported commodities (Archer, 2010, p.

7-100).
The American colonists bitterly resented these Acts.

Initially, they tried to have the Acts reversed by lobbying and petitioning Parliament. Later, they resorted to boycotts. In 1765, for instance, representatives of nine colonies met in New York and agreed to boycott imported English commodities. Though the boycott and subsequent political pressure succeeded in forcing Parliament into repealing the Townshend Acts, Stamp Act, and the Sugar Act, Britain enacted the Declaratory Act. The Act affirmed Britain's full authority to enact laws to govern the colonies. By repealing the Acts, the Declaratory Act maintained, Britain had merely overturned the policies and not the principles. Thus, it was just a matter of time before Britain enacted new laws, the most significant of which was the 1773 Tea Act. The Act allowed the British East India Company to directly transport tea to America. In reaction, several colonists, in December, threw overboard chests of tea owned by the company. In response, Britain enacted a series of laws, collectively known as the Intolerable Acts. Among the effects of the Acts were the restriction of town meetings in Massachusetts and closure of the Boston port. These actions gradually fanned the embers of the revolution. Massachusetts patriots reacted by creating an alternative shadow regime and started training militia (Alexander, 2011, p. 187-94). By the time Britain was enacting the 1774 Quebec Act, the colonists had no much regard for new laws enacted

by Parliament and were already drilling militia and making other preparations for war (Greene, 2005, p. 123-51). Simply, the colonists could no longer put up with the severe economic impacts of the Acts and thus decided to go to war with Britain in order to end British rule in America.
Besides the negative economic impact of the British tax policies causing the immediate dispute between the colonists and the British government, sparking off the Revolution, averting future control of colonial trade by the British was another major incentive for independence. Moreover, apart from the present tax burden leading the colonists to take up arms against the British, future economic burdens that the colonists expected from continuing being members of the British Empire strengthened their resolve to fight for independence. Indeed, the British government made it clear in the Declaratory Act that it still retained the right to levy taxes on the colonists despite the colonists demonstrating strong opposition toward the tax policies. This fear of future economic burdens was exacerbated by the fact that the colonists had no representation in Parliament. Without representation, the colonists believed the tax burden would only increase rather than decrease.
Just like in the case of the American Revolution, the American Civil War was primarily fought for economic reasons rather than moral reasons. Though there is no denying the fact that the Civil War was largely a dispute over slavery, the institution of slavery was deeply embedded in economic dynamics. By the eve of the Civil War, major differences held the North from the South. Varying points of view, dating back to as early as the colonial period, had driven the two regions far in different directions. One major difference between the two regions was the nature of their economic systems. While the North's economy was anchored on thriving factories and powered by mechanical labor, the economy of the South was agriculture-based and powered by slave labor. With the election of President Lincoln in 1860, the South increasingly viewed the political change as a serious risk to slavery- the soul of their agricultural economy. For the South, the election of Lincoln meant that the North would attempt to keep slavery within its current boundaries (Gatewood & Whayne, 2015, p. 71).
The economic aspect of slavery, which the South fought to retain, is obvious. By the eve of the war, slaves in the South represented an enormous investment of billions of dollars. The enemies of slavery, represented by the industrial North, blamed it for the apparent failure by the South to keep pace with the North in terms of urban growth, manufacturing, infrastructure development, and development of key social institutions like schools. As Huston notes, understanding the relationship between slavery, prosperity and property rights across the South gives great insight into South's political behavior and how it led to the Civil War. For Huston, the South advanced the property rights argument as the definitive defense of slavery (Huston, 2003, p. 25). Their attempt at seceding, therefore, was aimed at securing their property rights of keeping slaves. The issue of property rights was intertwined with that of state rights, and each side employed the states' right argument whenever convenient to support their position. Indeed, representatives from the South passed the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act with the aim of suppressing the rights of the northern states (Stampp, 1992, p. 59). The Constitution protected the slave property rights of southern states, and slave owners across the South demanded the strengthening of federal power such that they take precedence over the laws of northern states. However, northern states opposed these attempts and these slowly escalated tensions and hastened the outbreak of the war.
The economic origin of the Civil War can also be traced in the notion of protective tariffs, which became one of the most acrimonious subjects in the America's pre-Civil War politics. Following the War of 1812, some Congressmen and nationalists like Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun supported an American system that was anchored on rapid economic modernization, facilitated by protective tariffs among other programs. The ultimate goal was to develop the country's industry as well as international commerce. Seeing as much of the resources required for industrialization were in the North, this tax plan caused bitterness in the South considering that the South's economy was agriculture-based (Ellis, 1994, p. 826-829). To southerners, the tax plan was a demonstration of favoritism toward northern industrialists. In particular, the South fought against the tariff because it produced raw agricultural commodities such as cotton and tobacco and had to purchase finished goods from other parts of the country or from abroad. A protective tariff would increase prices and cause southerners to lose more income. To the southerners, a protective tariff amounted to another tax which they would pay but northerners were favored in the arrangement. In truth, however, the northerners could not survive on agriculture alone and thus industrialization was indispensable (Sauers &Weber, p. 14). This controversy widened the South-North divide, effectively laying the ground for secession as the South sought to protect its economic interests. Indeed, the tariff of 1832 created a dangerous sectional rift, with some militant southerners in South Carolina hinting at seceding from the Union in reaction.
In light of the above argument and keeping in mind the already mentioned economic difference between the North and the South, it can be concluded that incompatibility of the two economic systems increasingly pushed the country toward a civil war. The South needed access to virgin land as the land under cultivation became increasingly infertile. The South also needed lower tariffs in order to secure more markets for its cotton. However, this directly conflicted with the economic interests of the industrial North that sought more protection for its fledgling industries via the imposition of relatively high tariffs on imports. By 1860, a political alliance between the North and the West had already developed as northern businesses supported the demand by western farmers for land. In return, the West supported the North's protectionist trade policies. The South reacted aggressively to this economic coalition, effectively igniting the Civil War (Ishiyama, p. 47).
Summing up, the American Revolution and the American Civil War were fought for economic reasons rather than moral reason. The former was largely an aggressive reaction by the colonists toward a string of British government's tax policies that sought to make the colonists pay for part of the cost of maintaining British troops in America. For the latter, it was the incompatibility of the North and South economic systems that ignited the Civil War as each side sought to advance and protect its economic interests.