Slavery and the American Civil War

¶ … Perception performance criteria stakeholders

The Civil War was the most devastating war in which the United States of America has ever participated. Similarly, one can also argue that the institution of chattel slavery that was prevalent in the country prior and during the Civil War, and which only ended as a result of this martial encounter, was one of the most horrific series of practices ever engaged in within the borders of the U.S. Although there certainly were a variety of factors that contributed to the Civil War (not the least of which includes the economic conflict between the northern and the southern regions of the U.S. regarding a full-fledged conversion to industry vs. A traditional agriculturally-based economy), the issue of chattel slavery was one of the more eminent ones. A thorough examination of the history of chattel slavery and its effects which contributed to the war reveals that the Civil War was largely fought to eradicate this institution, which had significant economic impacts upon the country at large.

The warring factions during this martial encounter were largely stratified due to their stances on slavery. The northern section of the country, for example, largely outlawed slavery (particularly along the Eastern seaboard in places such as New England). Slaves would frequently travel to the north from the Southern portion of the country, where slavery was not only considered legal but also resulted in major consequences regarding the economic and social life of the region. Prior to discussing these ramifications, it is vital to note that not only was slavery not practiced in the northern segment of the U.S., but it was also largely considered immoral (Warsshauer 37). A number of abolitionists believed that there were issues of religion and god that prohibited the owning of other people as property. Moreover, many of these abolitionists also considered the particular practices associated with chattel slavery in the south -- such as the wanton raping of female slaves and the emasculating, murdering, and beating of all slaves -- as unjust, immoral, and at conflict with their more liberal ideologies.

Thus, one of the goals of the Union -- as the northern section of the country became known as once various states in the south succeeded -- army was to end slavery in an effort to actuate these liberalist ideologies. It is pivotal to note that Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation during the long, dreary months of war in an effort both to destroy this institution that had played a role in dividing the country and as an essential stratagem in the war. Until the final year of the Civil War, the outcome was greatly in doubt since the South began the affair with superior military leaders and much more experience on the battlefield (Johnson 114). Thus, it was essential for Lincoln to sign the Emancipation Proclamation -- not only to reward his libertine supporters in the north, but also to provide an additional means of bolstering what at the time was the flailing Union army. The president was well aware of the fact that by outlawing slavery across the country, newly freedmen would be extremely likely to take up arms and join the Union army to defeat the Confederacy: if for no other reason, than to ensure that the pernicious system which had previously enslaved them would never be erected again.

It is interesting to observe the plethora of reasons for why the Confederacy was willing to dissolve the union, and to fight and die to preserve a way of life which was largely dependent on chattel slavery. As previously stated, the South was largely agriculture in nature, which was the principle means of fueling its economy as well as its social system. From an economic standpoint, slaves were required to operate the machines and till the soil with which the Southern states were able to produce an abundance of potentially lucrative crops -- cotton and indigo being just a few of myriad examples (Pillai). As such, slaves were viewed as a necessity for simply sustaining life in this region. Interestingly enough, part of the economic conflict between the north and the south stemmed from the fact that the South could export its crops directly overseas and receive remuneration without involving the northern seaports. Thus, from this perspective, the slave-based economy of the south and the northern industry-based economy was mutually exclusive of one another, and therefore grounds for warfare. The social ramifications of the institution of chattel slavery in the south were no less vital than its economic ones, although the two were intrinsically related to one another. The plantation-based lifestyle upon which the South thrived required slaves for the simple fact that large landowners owned huge tracts of land without any means of effectively controlling it -- except through the use of slave labor. Plantations, then, regardless of their economic significance, would not be able to literally exist without slaves to actually populate them. So the south needed slaves for its social and economic way of life -- the latter of which was in direct conflict with that in the north. Consequently, southern slave owners were willing to do whatever it took to preserve the right of slavery, including succeeding from the U.S. And engage in warfare as a result.