Origins of slavery and the path to civil war: a timeline

¶ … Civil War Timeline

1619 the Origins of Slavery in the United States

While indentured servants had always been part of the colonies, slavery came to the future United States when English settlers purchased 20 African indentured servants from a Dutch ship. At that time, indentured servants could work their way to freedom, but these people were not brought willingly to the New World. This began a precedent of people forcefully taken and sold into a life of service to others. Before long, all arriving Africans were treated as slaves (the Civil War Home Page, 2009).

1663 Slavery Becomes a Life Sentence

Maryland became the first colony to enact slaves recognizing slavery for life, and removing the possibility of freedom for those who converted to Christianity (the Civil War Home Page, 2009).

February 1688 First Protest of Slavery

A group of Quakers in Germantown, PA stages the first organized protest against slavery in the New World. The Quakers remained opponents of slavery (the Civil War Home Page, 2009).

July 1776 All Men, well White Men, are Created Equal

The Declaration of Independence declares that all men are created equal.

1777 the Tide Begins to Turn against Slavery

Vermont is the first American territory to abolish slavery (the Civil War Home Page, 2009).

1783 the First State Recognizes Blacks as Citizens

"Massachusetts abolishes slavery and grants voting rights to blacks and Native Americans" (the Civil War Home Page, 2009).

1787 Debating Slavery

Though the Constitutional Convention did not discuss abolishing slavery, it discusses ending importing slaves. South Carolina and Georgia threatened not to join the union without a promise that the slave trade could not be restricted for 20 years (the Civil War Home Page, 2009).

1828 Abominable Tariffs?

Congress again raises tariffs with the Tariff of Abominations. Because the tariffs benefit industry rather than agriculture, they aid Free states, not slave states (the Civil War Home Page, 2009).

1833 Compromising on Tariffs

A Compromise Tariff Act is passed as a means of gradually reducing the tariffs of concern in the southern states (the Civil War Home Page, 2009).

1834 the End of Slavery in the British Empire

Slavery abolished throughout the British Empire (the Civil War Home Page, 2009).

1854 the Kansas-Nebraska Act

Congress passes the Kansas-Nebraska, opening the Northern territory to slavery for the first time since the beginning of the country (the Civil War Home Page, 2009).

1855 Bloody Kansas

Kansas becomes a battleground as it prepares for the elections that will determine whether it is a free or slave state (U.S.History.org, 2011).

March 1857 a Dreadful Decision

In a case referred to as the Dred Scott Decision, the Supreme Court rules that blacks are not U.S. citizens, and that slaveholders have the right to take existing slaves into free areas of the country without losing their property rights in those slaves. Essentially, this decision strips Free states of their right to outlaw slavery (Dred Scott v. Sanford, 1857).

1860 Abraham Lincoln Elected President

Abraham Lincoln is elected President, though he was not on the ballot in the Deep South. This triggers the beginning of states seceding from the Union, despite the fact that Lincoln did not run on an abolitionist platform.

The Inevitable American Civil War

Those who suggest that the Civil War was about anything other than slavery are revisionists, because that claim belies the dramatic history of strife over the institution of slavery that existed in the United States since well before the colonies ever became a country. While the Civil War may have been fought over the issue of states' rights, the only right over which they were truly concerned was the right to own other human beings. Anyone who questions that fact need only look at the secession documents written by each state that seceded, wherein each individual state made clear that the issue of slavery was what caused them to secede from the Union. That does not mean that the Civil War was fought because of a concern about human rights. While many abolitionists were concerned that slavery was a human rights violation, there was not the tremendous press for human rights in either the antebellum North that many imagine. Instead, for many, the question of slavery had nothing to do with civil rights and everything to do with economic and political dominance. However, the fact that many people did consider slavery a human rights violation certainly lent both weight and breadth to the issue of abolition. Looking at these struggles over slavery, one begins to see that, as time progressed, slaveholding states became unwilling to accept compromise and that a major conflict was inevitable.

The colonies began as a part of the British Empire, and slavery, as well as other imperialist practices, was an established part of empire-building. Moreover, many willing immigrants to the New World came as indentured servants, who were essentially short-term slaves working off loans, which usually consisted of the money used to pay for their transportation to the New World. However, in 1619, the practice of indentured servitude in the colonies changed (the Civil War Home Page, 2009). It was then that English settlers purchased 20 African indentured servants from a Dutch ship. Though these servants were ostensibly freed after their period of indenture, this is the first time that white Americans purchased blacks in the slave trade, a practice that would shape and define the future. As is well-known, eventually to be black in certain parts of America was to be a slave. Moreover, the question of the slave trade actually played a role in the formation of the United States. This practice did not, at the time, create any strife between North and South, but it helped establish the color-code that would eventually tear apart the nation.

By the time that the colonies revolted from Britain, this color-classification had become entrenched. While there were free men of color in the North and the South, and while many of those men played a role in the American Revolution, the issue of slavery received little moral attention in the Constitutional debates. However, the ratification of the Constitution was one of the events that can be seen as directly contributing to the eventual division between the North and the South. Although slaves were not given the rights of citizens, the Three-Fifths Clause permitted each slave to be counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of representation in Congress, giving slaveholding states a tremendous advantage in the House of Representatives (the Civil War Home Page, 2009). Not only did this give slaveholding states a tremendous advantage, by giving each of its registered voters a much weightier vote, but it also gave actual slaveholding individuals greater power. The Representatives were undoubtedly aware that their power literally came from the institution of slavery, making it even more likely that they would represent their wealthy patrons at the expense of the average citizen. This compromise helped establish a tension between the North and the South whereby the institution of slavery was directly responsible for a disparity in political power. To abolish slavery would not only threaten property rights, but also challenge the political and economic status quo. However, as the Supreme Court made clear years later, slaves might count as people, but they did not count as citizens, even partial citizens (Dred Scott v. Sanford, 1857).

The tension between the industrial North and the agricultural South was greatly exacerbated in March of 1794, when Eli Whitney patented his Cotton Gin. Prior to that time, cotton simply was not a profitable crop. However, the Cotton Gin made cotton profitable, and those profits only increased with cheap labor. While the South had always been dependent on agriculture, it would be fair to suggest that agriculture was more subsistence-based, and that the northern states were the southern states main trading partners. However, when cotton became king, the South became an economic power in its own right. By exporting cotton around the world, the South was able to assert economic independence from Northern states. The response to that independence was a series of tariffs, and the ensuing struggle over those tariffs, which aided the North but hindered the South, formed the financial backdrop for the events of the war.

All of these economic struggles may have been open to resolution if the worldwide attitude towards slavery had not undergone a dramatic shift. In 1834, the British Empire abolished slavery (the Civil War Home Page, 2009). Great Britain had remained one of the United States' largest trading partners and was, at that time, still the most influential nation in the world. Moreover, Great Britain had retained slavery after many other countries ended the practice. The end of slavery in Great Britain also meant that those in the North who wanted the abolition of slavery could support their assertions that the world viewed the United States as backwards and barbarous because of the practice of slavery. Moreover, it certainly changed the potential for allies in the Civil War. Though not a monarchy, the South was an aristocracy and both Britain and France were then-ruled by monarchies. As long as the struggle was about a states-right government rebellion, the root cause of that rebellion, slavery, could be ignored and European countries could provide aid to either side without real fear of repercussions. However, after Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, it was impossible for anyone to pretend that the war was about anything other than slavery. The governments in Britain and France could no longer aid the South without supporting the institution of slavery, which they could not do given their own positions on the matter. This meant that the Confederacy was without allies, and, lacking the manufacturing power of the North, this lack of allies meant that they would be technically inferior for the duration of the war.

Obviously, there is not one single point at which the Civil War became inevitable. In fact, although Lincoln's election was seen as the direct catalyst for succession, that is difficult to understand. Lincoln was anti-slavery, but had not run on an abolitionist platform. Had the Southern states not seceded, it is questionable whether Lincoln would even have tried to intervene in the issue of slavery. However, the fact that Lincoln was anti-slavery was enough to prompt secession. That makes it clear that it was the whole combination of prior events that dictated that major conflict was going to occur before the United States could settle into peaceful co-existence. To come into the modern world, the United States was going to have to deal with the issue of slavery.