What Really Started the American Civil War?

Robert Gudmestad • January 9, 2024

This article is part of Curious Kids, a series for children of all ages, reprinted from The Conversation.


The U.S. citizenship test – which immigrants must pass before becoming citizens of the United States – has this question: “Name one problem that led to the Civil War.” It lists three possible correct answers: “slavery,” “economic reasons” and “states’ rights.”

But as a historian and professor who studies slavery, Southern history, and the American Civil War, I know there’s really only one correct answer: slavery.

White Southerners left the Union to establish a slave-holding republic; they were dedicated to the preservation of slavery.

What’s more, unlike slavery in the ancient world, slavery in the United States was based on race. By the time of the Civil War, Black people were the ones enslaved; White people were not.

Every American citizen, whether born in this country or naturalized, should understand that the conflict over slavery is what caused the Civil War.

The history

Slavery in the U.S. began at least as early as 1619, when a Portuguese ship brought about 20 enslaved African people to present-day Virginia. It grew so quickly that by the time Colonists fought for their independence from England in 1775, slavery was legal in all 13 Colonies.

As the 19th century progressed, Northern states slowly abolished slavery ; but Southern states made it central to their economy. By 1860, nearly 4 million enslaved people lived in the South.

Increasingly, the North and South were at odds over the future of slavery. White Southerners believed slavery had to expand into new territories or it would die. In 1845, they pressured the federal government to annex Texas, where slavery was legal. They also supported an effort to purchase Cuba and add it as a slave state.

In the North, people generally opposed the expansion of slavery into new territories, and many favored the gradual emancipation of enslaved people. A smaller group, known as abolitionists, wanted slavery to end immediately.

But even though many Northerners opposed the expansion of slavery, they did not favor equal rights for Black people. In most Northern states, segregation was rampant, Blacks were barred from voting and violence against them was common.

By the 1850s, it became more difficult for the federal government to satisfy either side. The Compromise of 1850 , a series of bills that tried to solve the problem, pleased almost no one.

The publication of the 1852 novel “ Uncle Tom’s Cabin ” – about the pain and injustice inflicted on an enslaved man – turned Northerners against slavery even more. In the 1857 Dred Scott decision , the Supreme Court ruled that enslaved people were not U.S. citizens, nor could Congress ban slavery in a federal territory. Two years later, the abolitionist John Brown attacked a federal arsenal in Harpers Ferry, Virginia , in an unsuccessful attempt to supply weapons to enslaved people.

Lincoln becomes president, secession follows

Amid this swirl of troubles, the presidential election of 1860 took place. A new political party, the Republican Party, was opposed to the spread of slavery throughout the western territories. With four major candidates running for president, Abraham Lincoln won the electoral vote – but only 40% of the popular vote.

The election of a president from a party that opposed slavery jolted White Southerners to action. Less than two months after Lincoln won, South Carolina delegates, meeting in Charleston, decided to secede from the Union – that is, to formally withdraw membership in the United States.

Other Southern states followed and said slavery was the primary reason for secession. Texas delegates wrote the abolition of slavery “would bring inevitable calamities upon both races and desolation ” in the slave states. The Mississippi secession document said, “our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest in the world.”

The hundreds of brutal, bloody battles of the Civil War took a terrible toll on the country.

Confederate supporters made their position clear

The vice president of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, also said slavery was the reason for secession, and that Thomas Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence – that all men are created equal – were wrong.

“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea,” Stephens told a crowd. “Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the White man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.”

Although the evidence shows slavery caused the Civil War, some Southerners created a myth – the “Lost Cause ” – that transformed Confederate generals into heroes who were defending freedom. To some degree, that myth has, unfortunately, taken hold. Some schools are still named after Confederate generals ; so are some military bases , although that is changing.

It’s important to know the real reason for the Civil War so the country no longer celebrates historical figures who fought to establish a slave-holding republic.

The Conversation

Robert Gudmestad is professor and chair of the History department at Colorado State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Common Sense for the Eastern Shore

By Friends of Megan Outten July 29, 2025
Megan Outten, a lifelong Wicomico County resident and former Salisbury City Councilwoman, officially announced her candidacy recently for Wicomico County Council, District 7. At 33, Outten brings the energy of a new generation combined with a proven record of public service and results-driven leadership. “I’m running because Wicomico deserves better,” Outten said. “Too often, our communities are expected to do more with less. We’re facing underfunded schools, limited economic opportunities, and years of neglected infrastructure. I believe Wicomico deserves leadership that listens, plans ahead, and delivers real, measurable results.” A Record of Action and A Vision for the Future On Salisbury’s City Council, Outten earned a reputation for her proactive, hands-on approach — working directly with residents to close infrastructure gaps, support first responders, and ensure everyday voices were heard. Now she’s bringing that same focus to the County Council, with priorities centered on affordability, public safety, and stronger, more resilient communities. Key Priorities for District 7: Fully fund public schools so every child has the opportunity to succeed. Fix aging infrastructure and county services through proactive investment. Keep Wicomico affordable with smarter planning and pathways to homeownership. Support first responders and safer neighborhoods through better tools, training, and prevention. Expand resources for seniors, youth, and underserved communities. Outten’s platform is rooted in real data and shaped by direct community engagement. With Wicomico now the fastest-growing school system on Maryland’s Eastern Shore — and 85% of students relying on extra resources — she points to the county’s lagging investment as a key area for action. “Strong schools lead to strong jobs, thriving industries, and healthier communities,” Outten said. “Our schools and infrastructure are at a tipping point. We need leadership that stops reacting after things break — and starts investing before they do.” A Commitment to Home and Service Born and raised in Wicomico, Megan Outten sees this campaign as a continuation of her lifelong service to her community. Her vision reflects what she’s hearing from neighbors across the county: a demand for fairness, opportunity, and accountability in local government. “Wicomico is my home; it’s where I grew up, built my life, and where I want to raise my family,” Outten said. “Our county is full of potential. We just need leaders who will listen, work hard, and get things done. That’s what I’ve always done, and that’s exactly what I’ll continue to do on the County Council.” Outten will be meeting with residents across District 7 in the months ahead and unveiling more details of her platform. For more information or to get involved, contact info@meganoutten.com
By John Christie July 29, 2025
Way back in 1935, the Supreme Court determined that independent agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) do not violate the Constitution’s separation of powers. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935). Congress provided that the CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, would operate as an independent agency — a multi-member, bipartisan commission whose members serve staggered terms and could be removed only “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office but for no other cause.” Rejecting a claim that the removal restriction interferes with the “executive power,” the Humphrey’s Court held that Congress has the authority to “forbid their [members’] removal except for cause” when creating such “quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial” bodies. As a result, these agencies have operated as independent agencies for many decades under many different presidencies. Shortly after assuming office in his second term, Donald Trump began to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of several of these agencies. The lower courts determined to reinstate the discharged members pending the ultimate outcome of the litigation, relying on Humphrey’s , resulting in yet another emergency appeal to the Supreme Court by the administration. In the first such case, a majority of the Court allowed President Trump to discharge the Democratic members of the NLRB and the MSPB while the litigation over the legality of the discharges continued. Trump v. Wilcox (May 22, 2025). The majority claimed that they do not now decide whether Humphrey’s should be overruled because “that question is better left for resolution after full briefing and argument.” However, hinting that these agency members have “considerable” executive power and suggesting that “the Government” faces greater “risk of harm” from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty,” the majority gave the President the green light to proceed. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented, asserting that Humphrey’s remains good law until overturned and forecloses both the President’s firings and the Court’s decision to award emergency relief.” Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to “overrule or revise existing law.” Moreover, the dissenters contend that the majority’s effort to explain their decision “hardly rises to the occasion.” Maybe by saying that the Commissioners exercise “considerable” executive power, the majority is suggesting that Humphrey’s is no longer good law but if that is what the majority means, then it has foretold a “massive change” in the law and done so on the emergency docket, “with little time, scant briefing, and no argument.” And, the “greater risk of harm” in fact is that Congress provided for these discharged members to serve their full terms, protected from a President’s desire to substitute his political allies. More recently, in the latest shadow docket ruling in the administration’s favor, the same majority of the Court again permitted President Trump to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of another independent agency, this time the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Trump v. Boyle (July 23, 2025). The same three justices dissented, once more objecting to the use of the Court’s emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency as established by Congress. The CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, was designed to operate as “a classic independent agency.” In Congress’s view, that structure would better enable the CPSC to achieve its mission — ensuring the safety of consumer products, from toys to appliances — than would a single-party agency under the full control of a single President. “By allowing the President to remove Commissioners for no reason other than their party affiliation, the majority has negated Congress’s choice of agency bipartisanship and independence.” The dissenters also assert that the majority’s sole professed basis for the more recent order in Boyle was its prior order in Wilcox . But in their opinion, Wilcox itself was minimally explained. So, the dissenters claim, the majority rejects the design of Congress for a whole class of agencies by “layering nothing on nothing.” “Next time, though, the majority will have two (if still under-reasoned) orders to cite. Truly, this is ‘turtles all the way down.’” Rapanos v. United States (2006). * ***** *In Rapanos , in a footnote to his plurality opinion, former Supreme Court Justice Scalia explained that this allusion is to a classic story told in different forms and attributed to various authors. His favorite version: An Eastern guru affirms that the earth is supported on the back of a tiger. When asked what supports the tiger, he says it stands upon an elephant; and when asked what supports the elephant, he says it is a giant turtle. When asked, finally, what supports the giant turtle, he is briefly taken aback, but quickly replies "Ah, after that it is turtles all the way down." John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes.
By Shore Progress, Progessive Maryland, Progressive Harford Co July 15, 2025
Marylanders will not forget this vote.
Protest against Trumpcare, 2017
By Jan Plotczyk July 9, 2025
More than 30,000 of our neighbors in Maryland’s first congressional district will lose their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid because of provisions in the GOP’s heartless tax cut and spending bill passed last week.
Farm in Dorchester Co.
By Michael Chameides, Barn Raiser May 21, 2025
Right now, Congress is working on a fast-track bill that would make historic cuts to basic needs programs in order to finance another round of tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations.
By Catlin Nchako, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities May 21, 2025
The House Agriculture Committee recently voted, along party lines, to advance legislation that would cut as much as $300 million from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SNAP is the nation’s most important anti-hunger program, helping more than 41 million people in the U.S. pay for food. With potential cuts this large, it helps to know who benefits from this program in Maryland, and who would lose this assistance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities compiled data on SNAP beneficiaries by congressional district, cited below, and produced the Maryland state datasheet , shown below. In Maryland, in 2023-24, 1 in 9 people lived in a household with SNAP benefits. In Maryland’s First Congressional District, in 2023-24: Almost 34,000 households used SNAP benefits. Of those households, 43% had at least one senior (over age 60). 29% of SNAP recipients were people of color. 15% were Black, non-Hispanic, higher than 11.8% nationally. 6% were Hispanic (19.4% nationally). There were 24,700 total veterans (ages 18-64). Of those, 2,200 lived in households that used SNAP benefits (9%). The CBPP SNAP datasheet for Maryland is below. See data from all the states and download factsheets here.
Show More