Arun ( 2018 ) highlights many different factors that would have played a part at the beginning of the Civil War in America, as mentioned earlier on. These causes can be split into several different categories, though the main one, other than slavery, issues in the Government played an important role. For example, State Rights was a cause of the Civil War. There had been many different political debates over what power belonged to the Federal government, which were the northern states and free of slavery, and what belonged to the Sovereign States, which were in the south and were known as slave states. This became a power struggle between the two political parties created, one for each power, The Democratic-Republican Party representing the South and favoring State Rights, and the Federalists which represented the North and believed in a centralized national government with strong fiscal roots. On the other hand, it is believed that one of the main root causes of these power struggles was Slavery as the South believed that slavery was a State issue and therefore it should be up to the states that slavery was in to deal with it, making them extremely unwilling to accept any outside influences intervention, especially from the Federal Government. This example shows that while there were other causes of the civil war in America, most of these smaller causes had, in some shape or form, a link to the slavery arguments that were running through the whole of America. However, while this source seems to be reliable, Arun is not only an educationist but also a fantasy writer and so, from the information found about him, he isn't a well-known or well-regarded writer, which makes his assumptions and his writings questionable.
Moreover, whilst Slavery was a major issue in the Civil War, it was not the only issue that pushed the county into conflict with itself, is Trumann (23 March 2015). He states that while Slavery was a major issue, it became intertwined with other issues, such as state rights, the power of the federal government, and the South's 'way of life'. The South heavily relied on its agriculture and, as a result of this, many of the plantation owners relied on having slaves in order to run. This meant that the South's economy heavily relied on having its slaves and the run-up to the civil war was a threat to their way of life. On the other hand, the North was filled with industries and welcomed entrepreneurs. There was a mixture of nationalities and religions with no slaves, though the low-paid workers lived lives like the slaves in the South. The conflict between the two in terms of power became worst when the North tried to intervene in how the South ran itself, an example being when South Carolina passed a bill that prevented the Federal tariff legislation of 1823 and 1832 to be enforced on their states and, after February 1833 making it so that the tariffs would not be recognized. This, as a result, brought both South Carolina and the Federal government into direct conflict before Congress pushed the Force Bill through that allowed the president to use the Military to force the state of South Carolina into line. This resulted in South Carolina promising it would be the last time that this worked. This piece of information is most likely reliable as this was written for a history learning website, but it is unknown where this information has come from, which means that it may not be as correct in terms of the facts. However, what remains clear and reliable is the idea that it was not just Slavery that resulted in the American civil war breaking out, but also the tensions between the North and the South.
As previously mentioned, Martin Kelly also puts forward the argument that it was also the problems caused within the government of the Americas that caused the American Civil War which allowed it to become a war due to the divided desires on both sides. Governments have tried to create an equal number of both states, but this has become increasingly difficult. As a result of these new states, things like the Fugitive Slave Act were created in order to protect the best interests of both the North and the South, but problems continued to occur, one in the form of a violent race in Lawrence, Kansas into something that became known as Kansas' Bleeding. This has also led to struggles within the Senate. Kelly also raises the point that America's federal and state rights also played an important role in causing the civil war. As pointed out, there have always been two sides to America, the independent states and the federal states. Although attempts had been made to alleviate the animosity between the two, such as the Constitution, problems were still encountered that led to the creation of the United States Constitution. This ignored the rights of states, which should have had a choice, but instead, it led to even greater problems. One such problem was the idea of annulment which would have granted states the right to declare federal acts unconstitutional, meaning that they should not have followed them and could eventually have them removed. However, this was rejected, with the result that the southern states felt like they were no longer respected and had very little power and leaving them to contemplate succession thoughts. Other reasons Kelly raised as main causes were The Abolitionist Movement and The Election of Abraham Lincoln, both of which fall under the causes of the government due to their political side of the argument. Kelly's argument about there being more than just one reason for the beginning of the American Civil War is a compelling one, with all of the problems in America showing some form of leading factor to the Civil War, however, they all have one common factor, Slavery. This could mean that even though there could be other major causes, they are all connected to one major cause, or it could mean that while these causes do have a similar start they are all separate from one another in terms of reasons for the War to start. Kelly's works by Lui are majorly reliable due to his occupation by Lui as a history teacher that specializes in America History, which means that he does in fact know what he is talking about as it is what he has mostly learned about in great depth.
North-South Divide
Martin Kelly ( May 2019 ) states that, instead of there being lots of little causes, there are five main causes as to why the American Civil War began. He states that one of these was Slavery in the Economy and Society, with the South allowing slavery which played a major role in the economy and the society of the South. It had been firmly established within the Southern States and emphasized ' white supremacy, especially since there were very few black people and slaves were not allowed to own property or the right to vote. This became worst once the South became reliant on cotton, which resulted in them becoming much more dependent on Slavery. On the other hand, the North was an industry-reliant economy that had many movements toward removing Slavery from being legal. This resulted in the abolishment of laws and the removal of slavery. This led to an influx of European immigrants that helped to strengthen their economy, even though these immigrants were relying on low wages. Another cause was the arguments between slave and non-slave states which also contributed to the North-South divide, with America expanding it led to the creation of many new American states, but it couldn't be agreed on whether they would be slave states or non-slave states. Overall, Kelly's argument about there being more than just one reason for the beginning of the American Civil War is a compelling one, with all of the problems in America showing some form of leading factor to the Civil War, however, they all have one common factor, Slavery. This could mean that even though there could be five major causes they are all connected to one major cause, or it could mean that while the five major causes do have a similar start they are all separate from one another in terms of reasons for the War to start. Kelly's works are majorly reliable due to his occupation as a history teacher that specializes in America History, which means that he does in fact know what he is talking about as it is what he has mostly learned about in great depth.
James Oakes ( August 30, 2012 ) also questioned whether slavery was really the cause of the Civil War in America or about the divide found between the Northern and Southern States, which slavery factored into. In his research, he claimed that revisionists have come up with other reasons for the Civil War. These included the fact that slavery was beginning to die out in the Southern States, becoming less important to their economy and society though it still existed. It was more due to the Southern leaders being more concerned about defending their state rights than slavery that they joined the Civil War. As well as this, they believed that the North didn't go to war over slavery and they didn't begin to emancipate any of the slaves. Instead, it was more for the interests of Northern capitalism vs the South agrarians, those who advocated for a redistribution of landed property. This suggested that the Civil War was more of an accident brought on by the clumsy attempts of politicians, especially as it was believed that there was a tiny minority of abolitionists as most Northerners shared the belief of black racial inferiority. However, while some of this can be written off as just myth, especially considering that Slavery never began to die out as it was still very profitable and important to their economy, it does demonstrate the fact that most of the reasoning did come from the differences found between the Northern and Southern States and how they wanted things to be run. Oakes also found that abolitionists did make plans in order to free slaves, found within Section Four of the Confiscation Act that specifically authorized the forfeiture of slaves. As well as this the Republicans came up with two possible policies, the first being made to ensure freedom national and restrict slavery to the states where it already existed, meaning that no new slave states could be added to the Union and that the South could no longer enforce the Fugitive Slave Clause. Once this was accepted by the rest of America, with weak compensation being given to those that had lost their slaves, the Republicans would then enforce their second policy which was direct military emancipation, immediate and uncompensated. Overall, this source of information is both informative but also unreliable. The reason that this is informative is that, while it does give some facts that can be considered as myths and untrue, these would have stemmed from some information about the time that was true, meaning that somewhere in the reasoning for the Civil War was due to the divide between the Northern and Southern States. However, it is unreliable as it is unclear which of the facts are myths in some cases. This means that all the facts that are given by this source cannot be taken at face value but should be investigated in more detail to ensure they are correct. Due to these reasons, while this source can be used as a reference for some of the causes, it should not be relied upon completely to gain the answers needed.
Moreover, Peter Fitzgerald ( Aug 15, 2011) while also agreeing that slavery was a cause, there were other main causes for the American Revolution, such as the State vs Federal rights problem. This was mostly due to the South feeling as if they had begun to lose control over their own interests, leading to them creating arguments using their state rights to claim that slavery rights should continue to protect their interests. This also led to their argument that any specific rights that they already had from any decision in the past should be kept, meaning that if a Southerner decide to move into a Northern State with all their belongings, including a slave. the slave would continue to be a slave as it counted as one of their belongings. This coincided with the creation of the US Constitution which was created without the knowledge of the Southern Governors. This led to the South gaining the impression that the Constitution, due to it not being created with their input, would suppress their rights and their power to act independently as it implements one set of rules that everyone, no matter the states, had to follow. This source does put forth a compelling argument for an alternate reason for the beginning of the Civil War, however, it can not be considered extremely reliable as there are no actually sold pieces of evidence to support the argument given. While it does raise valid points that can be seen as the reasons, there is no factual evidence mentioned that shows it to be true so unless it is researched into further, this source is to be read as a guideline into what the causes were, but can not really be relied upon fully to be supporting evidence to claim slavery was not the main cause for the Civil war on its own.
Economy
The economy in America was also an issue that had an impact on the start of the American Civil War, as pointed out by Fitzgerald. With it being known that the South was a mostly agricultural area for work, it is understandable why the need for workers was so high. The main crop in products was cotton, which had a very strong market value, demonstrating that this was one of the methods that earned the South most of its money. However, this crop needed a large amount of labor, which was why the slaves were important. The slaves could be paid very little or not at all for the plantation owners to make large sums of cash. Due to this fact, the abolition of slavery in lots of the American states meant that the economy in those areas, if they were slave states in the South, would result in a collapse of the economy as they were unable to produce the amount of cotton or other products to generate enough money. While this source does provide us with a motive for the economy being a cause of the Civil War, it doesn't give us any factual evidence that proves this to be a true cause of the civil war, those it dies to coincide with other evidence for other sources. As well as this, it is also a cause that links to slavery, which demonstrates the fact that, while it may not have been the main cause, slavery did play a key role in this cause as it was the loss of slavery that would have caused the economy to collapse. This means that, yet again, while this source can be used as a guideline to find the answer and where to look, it isn't a reliable source to use to back an argument.
Another who agrees that the Civil War was impacted by something other than slavery is Bruce Chadwick ( n.d. ) who agrees that the economy had a larger impact on the cause of the Civil War than it is given. With the differences in the economies between the North, which was industrial, and the South, which was agricultural, showed that the fallout of the slavery debate would have a different impact on each of the different groups of states. The loss of slavery in the North would have had very little impact, given the fact that the factories had industrialized and were now run by machines meant that their economy would carry on running strong, with very little damage to their economy. However, for the South, this was very different. Due to their heavy reliance on slave labor, when the abolition of slavery came around it meant that any of the big profits that were being made by the plantation owners at the time were being reduced to a much smaller amount, leading to a crash in the South's economy as the production levels reduced. This means that while the loss of slavery would have been a problem for the South and the slave states, it was more of the economical difficulties that would have been the main aim of the disagreements, especially in the face of the North's continuing success. This is proven to be factually correct as in the work it is stated that the information used was found within textbooks along with census data and other journals to provide evidence for the opinion that it was the agricultural economy that had an impact on the cause of the American Civil war, although he does also state that this would not be the only reason it was an important one. This source is more reliable and Chadwick is a historian, lecturer, and author of 28 books on various topics including the Civil War, suggesting that he is well-advised on the topic of the causes of the civil war.