OCR Specification focus:
‘reasons for outbreak of hostilities reasons for outbreak of hostilities’
The outbreak of the American Civil War in 1861 was driven by deep sectional divisions, political failures, and escalating tensions over slavery and states’ rights.
Long-Term Causes of Hostilities
Sectional Divisions Between North and South
By 1860, the North and South had evolved into profoundly different societies:
The North was increasingly industrial, urbanised, and reliant on wage labour.
The South remained predominantly agrarian, dependent on slave labour for its cotton economy.
These structural differences created cultural and ideological tensions. Southerners defended slavery as a “positive good”, while many Northerners came to see it as a moral evil or, at least, a threat to free labour.
The Expansion of Slavery
One of the most contentious issues was whether slavery would expand into the western territories. Southern leaders argued that new states must allow slavery to preserve political balance in the Senate. Northerners, particularly those aligned with the Republican Party, opposed expansion, fearing the spread of what they termed the “slave power conspiracy”.
Political Failures
Breakdown of Compromise
In earlier decades, compromises such as the Missouri Compromise (1820) and the Compromise of 1850 had temporarily eased tensions. By the late 1850s, such agreements no longer satisfied either side:
Southerners demanded stronger protections for slavery.
Northerners increasingly resisted concessions that legitimised or extended it.
Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) and “Bleeding Kansas”
The Kansas-Nebraska Act allowed settlers to determine whether their territories would allow slavery through popular sovereignty. This overturned the Missouri Compromise line and led to violent clashes known as Bleeding Kansas.
A 1919 historical map showing the Kansas–Nebraska Act (1854) with the territorial layout and the former Missouri Compromise boundary. Source
The Dred Scott Decision (1857)
In the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, the Supreme Court ruled that African Americans could not be citizens and that Congress had no authority to ban slavery in the territories.
This ruling effectively nationalised slavery, enraging Northerners and emboldening Southerners.
The Role of Political Parties
Collapse of the Whig Party and Rise of Republicans
The Whig Party collapsed under sectional strain, giving rise to the Republican Party in the mid-1850s. The Republicans were founded on the principle of opposing the expansion of slavery. Their rapid growth alarmed the South, which saw them as a direct threat to its way of life.
Southern Fears of Northern Domination
By 1860, many Southerners feared becoming a permanent minority in the Union. The “Slave Power” argument in the North was mirrored by Southern fears of Northern aggression, with both sides interpreting the other’s actions as existential threats.
The Election of Abraham Lincoln
1860 Presidential Campaign
The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 was a decisive trigger for hostilities. Lincoln won on a Republican platform that opposed the expansion of slavery, though he did not advocate immediate abolition. Crucially:
Lincoln won without carrying a single Southern state.
A state-by-state Electoral College map for 1860, indicating victories for Lincoln, Breckinridge, Bell, and Douglas. The distribution illustrates the sectional polarisation of the electorate on the eve of war. Source
His victory convinced Southerners that their voice was no longer effective within the Union.
Secession Crisis
In response, South Carolina seceded in December 1860. Over the following months, six more Deep South states followed, forming the Confederate States of America in February 1861.
The secessionists argued they were defending states’ rights, but central to this was the right to preserve slavery.
Secession: The formal withdrawal of a state from the United States, justified by Southerners as a constitutional right, but rejected by the North as illegal rebellion.
The Failure of Compromise in 1861
Crittenden Compromise
In a final attempt to prevent conflict, Senator John Crittenden proposed reinstating the Missouri Compromise line and guaranteeing slavery south of it.
Republicans, including Lincoln, rejected the plan because it allowed for slavery’s potential expansion.
Southern leaders dismissed it as too little, too late.
Intransigence on Both Sides
By 1861, mutual distrust and hardened positions made compromise impossible:
Southerners believed only secession would secure their rights.
Northerners believed secession undermined the Union and threatened democracy.
Immediate Causes of Hostilities
Fort Sumter
The immediate outbreak of hostilities came in April 1861 at Fort Sumter, a federal stronghold in Charleston harbour.
Confederate forces demanded the fort’s surrender.
Lincoln chose to send provisions rather than withdraw, framing the conflict as a defence of federal authority.
On 12 April 1861, Confederate guns opened fire, marking the beginning of the Civil War.
Contemporary Currier & Ives lithograph of the bombardment of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbour. The image conveys the scale and setting of the first shots and the fort’s exposed position. Source
Lincoln’s Call to Arms
In response, Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to suppress the rebellion. This escalated the conflict:
Upper South states such as Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas joined the Confederacy.
The Union and Confederacy now faced each other in open war.
Key Reasons for the Outbreak of Hostilities
The war began because of:
Deep-rooted sectional divisions between North and South.
Irreconcilable differences over slavery’s expansion.
Political breakdown, with compromises failing to hold.
Lincoln’s election, symbolising Northern dominance.
Secession and the refusal of either side to back down.
Military confrontation at Fort Sumter, which made armed conflict unavoidable.
FAQ
Southern leaders framed secession in terms of states’ rights to make their cause appear constitutionally legitimate and to attract broader support.
However, in their declarations of secession, they repeatedly identified the defence of slavery as the core right they sought to preserve. States’ rights became the political language, but slavery was the substance.
Before Fort Sumter, Northern opinion was divided between compromise, coercion, and indifference.
Once Confederate guns fired on a federal installation, many Northerners united around the idea of defending the Union. Lincoln’s call for volunteers after the attack received enthusiastic support, signalling a decisive swing towards military action rather than negotiation.
Newspapers were highly partisan and fuelled sectional hostility.
Northern papers depicted the “Slave Power” as a conspiracy threatening free labour.
Southern papers portrayed Republicans as fanatics determined to destroy the Southern way of life.
This constant polarisation hardened opinions, making compromise appear both weak and dangerous.
Initially, the Upper South (e.g., Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas) hesitated to leave the Union.
Once Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to suppress rebellion, many Southerners in these states saw this as an act of coercion. Rather than take arms against fellow Southerners, they chose to join the Confederacy, tipping the balance of power.
The Crittenden Compromise tried to extend the Missouri Compromise line permanently.
Republicans rejected it because it legitimised the spread of slavery.
Southern secessionists dismissed it because they no longer trusted Northern promises.
Its collapse highlighted how both sides had lost faith in compromise, showing the Union had reached a point of no return.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks):
Identify two reasons why the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 increased Southern fears of Northern domination.
Mark Scheme:
1 mark for each valid reason identified.
Possible correct answers:
Lincoln opposed the expansion of slavery (1 mark).
Lincoln won without carrying a single Southern state, showing Southern weakness in national politics (1 mark).
His victory symbolised the growing strength of the Republican Party (1 mark).
Southerners feared the end of political balance between free and slave states (1 mark).
Question 2 (6 marks):
Explain how the Kansas–Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott decision contributed to the outbreak of hostilities in 1861.
Mark Scheme:
Level 1 (1–2 marks): Basic description with limited detail. May simply state that the Kansas–Nebraska Act caused violence or that the Dred Scott decision supported slavery.
Level 2 (3–4 marks): Some explanation of how these events increased tensions, for example: Kansas–Nebraska Act overturned the Missouri Compromise and led to violence in Kansas; Dred Scott decision declared Congress could not ban slavery in the territories, angering Northerners.
Level 3 (5–6 marks): Clear, developed explanation of both events linked directly to the outbreak of hostilities. For example: Kansas–Nebraska Act inflamed tensions by enabling popular sovereignty, leading to “Bleeding Kansas” and Northern distrust; Dred Scott decision nationalised slavery, convincing Northerners that compromise was impossible and Southerners that their position was secure, both of which escalated sectional division and made conflict more likely.
