Why the American Civil War?

[dilettante]

What caused the American Civil War?

It's an old and well worn historical question, but since there's almost always someone interested in discussing it and I'm in the midst of reading multiple books on the topic anyway, I thought I'd throw it out there again. Since I also put a version of this on USPO, I'll be interested in comparing responses (if any) based on forum.

I'll mostly just leave it open to anyone who wants to get things started. That said, however, here's a bit of a framework to build off of:

There are, for the most part, two broad interpretations that divide the professional historiography on the war:

One, the fundamental or "irrepressible conflict" interpretation views the war as the almost inevitable result of a long process of differentiation between the North and the South. In short, the two sections developed so differently (culturally, economically, socially, politically...etc) that perpetual union was not possible without the norms of one side establishments dominance over the norms of the other. If the war hadn't happened in the 1860s, it would have happened eventually.

The alternative, or revisionist, view is often called the "blundering generation" interpretation. This approach tends to focus on the politics of the 1850s and 1860, holding that the war was in no way inevitable but resulted from the poorly conceived (and often self-serving) efforts of politicians who risked national disintegration in order to be elected. According to this interpretation, the differences between the sections could have been peacefully reconciled (or simply ignored), had politicians and extremists not fanned the flames of partisanship, sectionalism and paranoia in order to achieve personal power.

There is, of course, plenty of room for overlap here, and most serious interpretations incorporate both schools of thought.

Regarding the ever contentious issue of slavery, in his second inaugural address Lincoln said that slavery "was, somehow, the cause of the war." And personally I find that impossible to disagree with, though that "somehow" masks immense complexity.

[Michael]

What caused the American Civil War?

It's an old and well worn historical question, but since there's almost always someone interested in discussing it and I'm in the midst of reading multiple books on the topic anyway, I thought I'd throw it out there again. Since I also put a version of this on USPO, I'll be interested in comparing responses (if any) based on forum.

I'll mostly just leave it open to anyone who wants to get things started. That said, however, here's a bit of a framework to build off of:

There are, for the most part, two broad interpretations that divide the professional historiography on the war:

One, the fundamental or "irrepressible conflict" interpretation views the war as the almost inevitable result of a long process of differentiation between the North and the South. In short, the two sections developed so differently (culturally, economically, socially, politically...etc) that perpetual union was not possible without the norms of one side establishments dominance over the norms of the other. If the war hadn't happened in the 1860s, it would have happened eventually.

The alternative, or revisionist, view is often called the "blundering generation" interpretation. This approach tends to focus on the politics of the 1850s and 1860, holding that the war was in no way inevitable but resulted from the poorly conceived (and often self-serving) efforts of politicians who risked national disintegration in order to be elected. According to this interpretation, the differences between the sections could have been peacefully reconciled (or simply ignored), had politicians and extremists not fanned the flames of partisanship, sectionalism and paranoia in order to achieve personal power.

There is, of course, plenty of room for overlap here, and most serious interpretations incorporate both schools of thought.
In order to rationally approach the question of which model better describes the situation, I think it would be helpful to do a bit of comparative analysis.

For example, I think the first model of 'irrepressible conflict' is questionable based on the fact that many other 'large' western nations had similarly radical socio-economic differentiations based on geography. Britain and France both faced economic and political challenges at that time with similiarly radical divisions of social or economic disparity between north and south. And yet, domestic or civil war is never any threat at all. And both France and Britain did have long histories with regional and civil conflicts, so it wasn't like this was virgin territory either. They had some serious linguistic, social class and cultural differences in their regions to go with substantial economic disparity. But there was no 'irrepressible conflict' of the type the US faced. In fact, the key threat in Britain/France in the mid-19th century would have been entirely class-based conflict, and indeed, 1848 is a famous year of social class conflict and failed revolutions in Europe.

On this basis, it makes it look like slavery was the key element that made the US situation fundamentally different than Western Europe at that time (which had already banned/banished slavery previously).

As for the "blundering generation" model, that one is much harder to assess, though I am reminded of WWI here since it could perhaps be said to have 'started' on that basis as well. Britain, France, Germany, Austria and Russia really didn't have many actual or 'real' issues to fight about in 1914 - other than their nationalist pride of place. Sure there were a couple of actual disputes there - France and Germany did have a disputed border and Austria/Russia had a serious 'imperial' conflict in the Balkans. But that was about it. Not much reason for Brits and Germans to slaughter each other by the tens of thousands for - other than for pure nationalist pride and glory. :shrug:

On this basis, I'd have to say that the 'blundering generation' model does look like a viable theory - western political leaders can and did act with that kind of hubris.

Regarding the ever contentious issue of slavery, in his second inaugural address Lincoln said that slavery "was, somehow, the cause of the war." And personally I find that impossible to disagree with, though that "somehow" masks immense complexity.
Immense complexity indeed.

With respect to Lincoln's careful phrasing, I think you have to remember the context and not read too much into it - Lincoln was a politician and had to be careful not to alienate the citizenry of both north and south, no matter where they stood on the issue - Lincoln always appealed to a 'national' position, not necessarily a 'north' position. That is indeed why he's considered a great President. It has always been a very popular ideal in the south that the 'war between the states' had nothing to do with slavery. Thus, it was always politically necessary for Lincoln to pander to this view. Any outright statement from Lincoln that the war was due to slavery might well have made resolution of the conflict that much more difficult - since it would force a point of honor against some southerners and that's not productive.

Anyway, it is my personal understanding of the American Civil War, that the institution of slavery provides a complete explanation of the cause of the war. Without slavery, the conflicts over states' rights would have been just that - a political conflict fought in Congress and Presidential elections. It was the institutions of slavery - or rather the persistence of it after other nations had banned it - that made military conflict over the issue inevitable.

Given the powderkeg of the slavery issue and the 'blundering generation', that combination certainly does look like a substantially good explanation of the 'cause' of the Civil War.

[Michael]

Here's some particularly significant pieces of evidence for the question:

Here are some of the Confederate State's official declaration of why they are breaking with the Union and joining the Confederacy.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.”

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery– the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits– a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy.

Source (http://threews.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/confederate-history-month/)

I think these citations from the States' own declarations speaks very clearly that the slavery issue was not just the primary issue, it was the defining issue of the conflict.

[dilettante]

Indeed. It's the rare American historian these days who forcefully argues that slavery was not the primary underlying cause of the war.

However, this raises several follow up questions:


That majority of southern men (and the majority of Confederate soldiers) did not own any slaves and were not likely to become slave owners. Why would they fight for an institution in which they did not participate?
Most Northern men were, bluntly, racist. In 1860 those who supported immediate emancipation, much less racial equality, stood at the fringe of Northern society (the radical Garrisonians had foresworn politics altogether). Lincoln made it explicit that he had no intention of abolishing slavery as president, and its quite unlikely he would have been elected otherwise. So, if slavery was the issue, why did southerners secede upon the election of a non-abolitionist president from a non-abolitionist party? Seven states left the Union before Lincoln was even sworn in. The first emancipation proclamation wasn't until 1862, nearly two years after secessions began.
Similarly, why would northern men, who were mostly luke-warm about slavery at best, fight and die to end it?
Slavery had existed in the United States since its conception and been an issue of major division from the Constitutional Convention on. Crisis after crisis arose over slavery, and yet they were always settled politically without resort to secession or warfare. Why did a war over slavery break out in 1861 rather than, say, 1850? or 1820?
In 1865, the Confederacy began recruiting slaves, offering freedom in exchange for service. Plans were under serious consideration (supported by such heavy weights as Robert E. Lee) to initiate a gradual emancipation of all Confederate slaves if the South won. If slavery was the raison d'etre of secession, why would the Confederacy ever consider abandoning it?

[Michael]

Indeed. It's the rare American historian these days who forcefully argues that slavery was not the primary underlying cause of the war.
I strongly doubt that. That particular viewpoint is considered entirely radical by the US media and most of the Republican party (certainly the 'Southern' portion of it). And Southern-based academics still pump out lots of propaganda on this issue (common blog reference to these types are "apologists for TDOS" - that would be 'treason in defense of slavery'). Quite a popular 'tag' at several academic political blogs - reflecting the amount of material that is available.

Indeed, the Governor of Virginia has been publicly denying it all week. The mass media doesn't seem to even notice it. :shrug:

However, this raises several follow up questions:

That majority of southern men (and the majority of Confederate soldiers) did not own any slaves and were not likely to become slave owners. Why would they fight for an institution in which they did not participate?
1. The majority of German men (and a majority of German soldiers in WW2) did dream about baking Jews in ovens, so why would they fight to support the Jew-hating Nazi elite?

2. The majority of American men & women presently serving in the US military are not millionaires, do not own corporations and do have multi-million dollar family trust funds. Why would they fight to make the world safe for American corporations?

Most Northern men were, bluntly, racist. In 1860 those who supported immediate emancipation, much less racial equality, stood at the fringe of Northern society (the radical Garrisonians had foresworn politics altogether). Lincoln made it explicit that he had no intention of abolishing slavery as president, and its quite unlikely he would have been elected otherwise. So, if slavery was the issue, why did southerners secede upon the election of a non-abolitionist president from a non-abolitionist party? Seven states left the Union before Lincoln was even sworn in. The first emancipation proclamation wasn't until 1862, nearly two years after secessions began.
Most Brits and French were as racist and anti-semetic as the average German (circa 1930). :shrug:

As for the Southern States, I'd venture to say that they read the writing on the wall. This was a political-slavery crisis that the foresaw they could not win by the usual means.

Please keep in mind that previous 'slavery-disputes' had to be resolved in favor of the slave-states or there was no resolution at all. The slavery-dispute of 1860 was one that the slave-states were not going to win.

In other words, when the US legal-governmental system was going to bend to their favor, the Southern Slave-Regime was willing to work out slavery conflict issues. Once the Southern Slave-Regime realized that they were going to lose on an issue, they stopped playing politics and decided that guns were a better argument. :shrug:

Similarly, why would northern men, who were mostly luke-warm about slavery at best, fight and die to end it?
This seems to be a weak argument that can be raised for just about anything.

Why do southern working class whites consistently vote against their economic self-interests? Why do north-eastern liberal professions consistently vote against their own economic self-interests? Why did Canadians sign up to fight against Germany in 1939 when many of them probably couldn't have located Poland on a map?

It is impossible to ascertain motives of contemporary voters, let alone motives of voluntary soldiers.

Besides which, soldiers in the Civil War weren't entirely a volunteer army at all - there was various forms of conscription.

Slavery had existed in the United States since its conception and been an issue of major division from the Constitutional Convention on. Crisis after crisis arose over slavery, and yet they were always settled politically without resort to secession or warfare. Why did a war over slavery break out in 1861 rather than, say, 1850? or 1820?
In 1865, the Confederacy began recruiting slaves, offering freedom in exchange for service. Plans were under serious consideration (supported by such heavy weights as Robert E. Lee) to initiate a gradual emancipation of all Confederate slaves if the South won. If slavery was the raison d'etre of secession, why would the Confederacy ever consider abandoning it?
[/LIST]
Anti-semetism had been around in Europe for centuries. Why did it become a huge issue in the 1930's and 1940's?

Or alternatively, Britain, France, Germany, Austro-Hungary and Imperial Russia had all kinds of imperial disputes in the pre-1914 period. Why all of a sudden did one dead Austrian-Archduke cause Germany to invade France? Why didn't Germany invade France the year before?

And if you really want to get complicated, the official reason for WW2 was that Britain and France had a treaty with Poland, so that when Germany invaded Poland, that caused an immediate declaration of war by Britain and France. Why then did Britain and France not declare war against Soviet Russia fifteen days later when Russia invaded Poland?

If invading Poland was the official cause of the war, the Soviet invasion of Poland would have produced the same result as Germany's invasion of Poland. It didn't. The key point here is that the actual reasons that wars are declared is often hidden from any public examination or rational analsys.

As for the 1865 Southern last-ditch attempt to stave off complete defeat, that is rather predictable isn't it? The military situation for the Confederates in 1865 was 'desperate' at best. Union victory was pretty much guarenteed at that point. Propaganda about releasing slaves was likely just that - propaganda. Not to mention that Lee was just a military general, not a political leader driven by ideology. No surprise that Lee might consider such a plan. But I doubt think that plan ever got off the drawing board. Indeed, it was probably just the opening salvo in the never-ending 'Southern' battle ever since their defeat in the Civil War to deny that slavery was the definition of the war.

[dilettante]

I strongly doubt that. That particular viewpoint is considered entirely radical by the US media and most of the Republican party (certainly the 'Southern' portion of it). And Southern-based academics still pump out lots of propaganda on this issue (common blog reference to these types are "apologists for TDOS" - that would be 'treason in defense of slavery'). Quite a popular 'tag' at several academic political blogs - reflecting the amount of material that is available.

Indeed, the Governor of Virginia has been publicly denying it all week. The mass media doesn't seem to even notice it. :shrug:

The distinction has to be made between trained historians, "history buffs" and the general populace (or the media). Regardless of the popular mindset, the 'general consensus' of 19th century historians has settled on slavery as the primary underlying cause, though that still leaves plenty of room for disagreement.


1. The majority of German men (and a majority of German soldiers in WW2) did dream about baking Jews in ovens, so why would they fight to support the Jew-hating Nazi elite?
...


I don't quite see the relevance of the WWII reference since, as best I can tell, few people would say that antisemitism was the 'root cause' (or even a major cause) of WWII. Though of course I can't claim to have studied it...


As for the Southern States, I'd venture to say that they read the writing on the wall. This was a political-slavery crisis that the foresaw they could not win by the usual means.

Please keep in mind that previous 'slavery-disputes' had to be resolved in favor of the slave-states or there was no resolution at all. The slavery-dispute of 1860 was one that the slave-states were not going to win.

In other words, when the US legal-governmental system was going to bend to their favor, the Southern Slave-Regime was willing to work out slavery conflict issues. Once the Southern Slave-Regime realized that they were going to lose on an issue, they stopped playing politics and decided that guns were a better argument. :shrug:


I think that probably accurately sums of their position, at least WRT to South Carolina and the Deep South states.

Of course, at this point is probably worth noting that 'the South' was hardly a unified bloc when it came to secession. Virginia voted down calls for secession in 1860 when the Deep South began leaving the Union and (along with Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina) only joined the Confederacy upon Lincoln's call for volunteers to suppress the 'rebellion' in South Carolina in April of '61.


Why do southern working class whites consistently vote against their economic self-interests? Why do north-eastern liberal professions consistently vote against their own economic self-interests? Why did Canadians sign up to fight against Germany in 1939 when many of them probably couldn't have located Poland on a map?

It is impossible to ascertain motives of contemporary voters, let alone motives of voluntary soldiers.

I can't get behind that kind of throwing in the towel. From a historians point of view, those are all worthwhile questions, not hopeless imponderables. WRT to the soldiers of the Civil War in particular, the vast majority of them (on both sides) were literate and they produced copious quantities of written material, both published and private, explaining their thoughts and motivations.

But to answer my own question, I'd suggest that the evidence indicates that Union soldiers initially fought for duty/devotion to the Union itself, to uphold their masculine honor, and (similarly) to seek manly adventure. It was only as the war progressed, and Union soldiers encountered and worked with more and more ex-slaves in the South, that they developed an increasingly anti-slavery outlook.


Besides which, soldiers in the Civil War weren't entirely a volunteer army at all - there was various forms of conscription.

True, but (IIRC) such conscription never accounted for a majority of soldiers, nor did it begin in earnest until after the war was well underway.


As for the 1865 Southern last-ditch attempt to stave off complete defeat, that is rather predictable isn't it? The military situation for the Confederates in 1865 was 'desperate' at best. Union victory was pretty much guarenteed at that point. Propaganda about releasing slaves was likely just that - propaganda. Not to mention that Lee was just a military general, not a political leader driven by ideology. No surprise that Lee might consider such a plan. But I doubt think that plan ever got off the drawing board. Indeed, it was probably just the opening salvo in the never-ending 'Southern' battle ever since their defeat in the Civil War to deny that slavery was the definition of the war.

Quite so.

[Non Sequitur]

While I loath to talk about inevitabilities as a history major the Civil War gets about as close to an inevitability as you can get. This is because of what I identify as the root causes of the problems:

1.Cultural differences: While both the North and South sprang from the historical, and later mythological, understanding of the American Revolution, by 1861 the North and South were fundamentally different cultures. The South was based on an aristocratic format and the North was moving toward a more immigrant and post-agricultural society. They even worshiped differently with the South being an Anglican majority (associated with aristocracy again) and the North being more Congregationalist and Methodist (being associated with a more “democratic” nation). This helped contribute to a feeling that there really was two different nations.

2.Economic differences: this point usually gets forgotten because it is complicated, but by the 1840's the North and South were really two very different and mutually exclusive economies. The big economic issue of the day was the national tariff. The North, with it's developing industrial economy, wanted a high protectionist tariff. The South, with it's agricultural and cash crop economy wanted a low tariff so that goods could be imported for cheaper. The South largely won this battle because of their stranglehold in the Senate. This produced heavy economic resentment from the North producing a wide spread belief of the Southern interests that were governing the country at the expense of the majority. Thus, the Civil War was not just about the Union, but about wrestling the reins of power from the undemocratic and un-capitalistic Southern planting interests.

3. Slavery was the institution that focused the various cultural and economic differences. The North understood Slavery to be economically inefficient, undemocratic, and for some religiously evil. For the South, Slavery came to represent the aristocratic and honor driven society they loved. Even the poor loved the institution because in the status driven society there was always a group below you no matter how poor you were. Some information shows that the most vehement defenders of slavery were poor whites. It was also the focus and sustainer of the South's wealth (it's historically debated whether slavery was actually economically efficient, but I tend to agree with the historians that say it was). Slavery, as an institution was not just about human bondage, but it came to represent all the differences between the North and South. The Mason-Dixon line functioned as a border of sorts separating free north and Slavery South.

Put these factors together with other problems (inept administration, both sides underestimating the others commitment, and sometimes just plain misunderstanding the other) and you get a conflict that is extremely likely. As I said, I'm uncomfortable with the word “inevitable”, but I don't think you blame the entire conflict on bad presidents and senators. There were deep cultural, political, and economic causes.

[Non Sequitur]

Indeed. It's the rare American historian these days who forcefully argues that slavery was not the primary underlying cause of the war.

However, this raises several follow up questions:


That majority of southern men (and the majority of Confederate soldiers) did not own any slaves and were not likely to become slave owners. Why would they fight for an institution in which they did not participate?
Most Northern men were, bluntly, racist. In 1860 those who supported immediate emancipation, much less racial equality, stood at the fringe of Northern society (the radical Garrisonians had foresworn politics altogether). Lincoln made it explicit that he had no intention of abolishing slavery as president, and its quite unlikely he would have been elected otherwise. So, if slavery was the issue, why did southerners secede upon the election of a non-abolitionist president from a non-abolitionist party? Seven states left the Union before Lincoln was even sworn in. The first emancipation proclamation wasn't until 1862, nearly two years after secessions began.
Similarly, why would northern men, who were mostly luke-warm about slavery at best, fight and die to end it?
Slavery had existed in the United States since its conception and been an issue of major division from the Constitutional Convention on. Crisis after crisis arose over slavery, and yet they were always settled politically without resort to secession or warfare. Why did a war over slavery break out in 1861 rather than, say, 1850? or 1820?
In 1865, the Confederacy began recruiting slaves, offering freedom in exchange for service. Plans were under serious consideration (supported by such heavy weights as Robert E. Lee) to initiate a gradual emancipation of all Confederate slaves if the South won. If slavery was the raison d'etre of secession, why would the Confederacy ever consider abandoning it?


1. As I said in my previous post, some information says that Southern whites had something culturally invested in slavery. Bluntly, it made them feel better about themselves. This combined with a Southern version of the American dream (work hard enough and you too can be a plantation owner) made slavery a thing worth fighting over

2. The best explanation for this has again been a cultural one. The election of Lincoln by the entire North was a purely sectional candidate and offended Southern Honor. It meant that they had to respond. is it irrational, yes. But a lot of the conflict is irrational.

3. Once slavery became the issue it paradoxically became not really about slavery. Lincoln staged fighting slavery as a fight to save liberty and freedom. Thus people were willing to fight to preserve their own freedom.

4. Frankly, because the North was ready for the war. The compromises of 1820 and 1850 happened because neither side was entirely ready for war. The North new that the south was better at fighting. By 1861, the North was not willing to be pushed around by the Southern bully and could sustain a fight.

5. The Emancipation Proclamation put the North on a higher moral plain than the South. Once it was issued, the European powers couldn't intervene. I suspect that this move was largely to try and seduce European intervention again. that's just my thought though.

[Michael]

The distinction has to be made between trained historians, "history buffs" and the general populace (or the media). Regardless of the popular mindset, the 'general consensus' of 19th century historians has settled on slavery as the primary underlying cause, though that still leaves plenty of room for disagreement.
Fair enough, but there more than a few academic historians in US colleges that do hold to this 'Confederate' cause and write/publish on the topic. It may not be 'bestseller' material, but there is a pretty large block of establishment opinion floating in the background here that is extremely supportive of the non-slavery interpretation.

I don't quite see the relevance of the WWII reference since, as best I can tell, few people would say that antisemitism was the 'root cause' (or even a major cause) of WWII. Though of course I can't claim to have studied it...
My reference was specifically German. And one cannot deny that Hitler's war machine was built to rid the world of Jews. Hitler said so quite publicly. It is stated so in Mein Kampf. Russia was always the key enemy of Hiter and the Nazis from day one - and that was because they believed the Communists were the Jews - and the USSR was run by the Jews. That was the game all along. Even WW1 German strategy was all about Russia. France and Britain were to be held off - Russia was always the goal.

The point being that Germans of 1939 could not rationally claim to be ingnorant of Hitler and the Nazi party's visceral hatred of all Jews. Fearful Jews had been emigrating out of Germany for years.

My point is that soldiers fight for their country, right or wrong. Patriotism is way deeper than politics.

I think that probably accurately sums of their position, at least WRT to South Carolina and the Deep South states.

Of course, at this point is probably worth noting that 'the South' was hardly a unified bloc when it came to secession. Virginia voted down calls for secession in 1860 when the Deep South began leaving the Union and (along with Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina) only joined the Confederacy upon Lincoln's call for volunteers to suppress the 'rebellion' in South Carolina in April of '61.

I would expect that the decision to secceed would have been a very difficult one for all such states. I would not surprise me that some states might have had a hard time going 'all the way' on that one - until some event pushed them over the edge.

That doesn't in any way undercut the argument. Uniformity of political purpose and coordination is not a requirement for a mass political movement to occur.

I can't get behind that kind of throwing in the towel. From a historians point of view, those are all worthwhile questions, not hopeless imponderables. WRT to the soldiers of the Civil War in particular, the vast majority of them (on both sides) were literate and they produced copious quantities of written material, both published and private, explaining their thoughts and motivations.
The selection of such exerpts of historical documentation can only be considered 'un-representative' samples by definition. Any conclusions drawn would have to be statistically suspect.

Sure, one can look at the thoughts and motives of the elites themselves, for they are active players. But for average soldiers, specifically in a historical context, studying motive in any real sense of the term is just arbitrary.

Indeed, humans themselves are probably very bad judges of their own motivations anyway. ;)

But to answer my own question, I'd suggest that the evidence indicates that Union soldiers initially fought for duty/devotion to the Union itself, to uphold their masculine honor, and (similarly) to seek manly adventure. It was only as the war progressed, and Union soldiers encountered and worked with more and more ex-slaves in the South, that they developed an increasingly anti-slavery outlook.
I would say that this generally applies to almost all soldiers in almost all modern armies (post-mercenary era).

Soldiers generally sign up due to ideals about honor, duty, patriotism, public service and/or sacrifice. It is a system of military discipline (and unit comradery) that makes them stand and fight (and possibly die).

True, but (IIRC) such conscription never accounted for a majority of soldiers, nor did it begin in earnest until after the war was well underway.
But still, it colors the 'motive' question and given the 'big numbers' involved here, that was still a very large number and a significant proportion.

And I would still fall back on the argument that individuals are generally poor judges of their own motives - they tend to have too many ulterior motives in any given account.

[Michael]

While I loath to talk about inevitabilities as a history major the Civil War gets about as close to an inevitability as you can get. This is because of what I identify as the root causes of the problems:

1.Cultural differences: While both the North and South sprang from the historical, and later mythological, understanding of the American Revolution, by 1861 the North and South were fundamentally different cultures. The South was based on an aristocratic format and the North was moving toward a more immigrant and post-agricultural society. They even worshiped differently with the South being an Anglican majority (associated with aristocracy again) and the North being more Congregationalist and Methodist (being associated with a more “democratic” nation). This helped contribute to a feeling that there really was two different nations.

2.Economic differences: this point usually gets forgotten because it is complicated, but by the 1840's the North and South were really two very different and mutually exclusive economies. The big economic issue of the day was the national tariff. The North, with it's developing industrial economy, wanted a high protectionist tariff. The South, with it's agricultural and cash crop economy wanted a low tariff so that goods could be imported for cheaper. The South largely won this battle because of their stranglehold in the Senate. This produced heavy economic resentment from the North producing a wide spread belief of the Southern interests that were governing the country at the expense of the majority. Thus, the Civil War was not just about the Union, but about wrestling the reins of power from the undemocratic and un-capitalistic Southern planting interests.

3. Slavery was the institution that focused the various cultural and economic differences. The North understood Slavery to be economically inefficient, undemocratic, and for some religiously evil. For the South, Slavery came to represent the aristocratic and honor driven society they loved. Even the poor loved the institution because in the status driven society there was always a group below you no matter how poor you were. Some information shows that the most vehement defenders of slavery were poor whites. It was also the focus and sustainer of the South's wealth (it's historically debated whether slavery was actually economically efficient, but I tend to agree with the historians that say it was). Slavery, as an institution was not just about human bondage, but it came to represent all the differences between the North and South. The Mason-Dixon line functioned as a border of sorts separating free north and Slavery South.

Put these factors together with other problems (inept administration, both sides underestimating the others commitment, and sometimes just plain misunderstanding the other) and you get a conflict that is extremely likely. As I said, I'm uncomfortable with the word “inevitable”, but I don't think you blame the entire conflict on bad presidents and senators. There were deep cultural, political, and economic causes.
Agreed on all points.

Though there is one point that is overlooked here. War was inevitable only in the short-medium term. Within a decade or two the point would become entirely moot as the industrial revolution continued its evolution and would have destroyed the plantation-slave-based economy of the south anyway. Likewise with the abolition of slavery - a democratic majority was going to vote that in eventually - especially after the economic argument for it was gone.

Indeed, given the progress of industry and commerce, slave-based plantation production was going to have to increase in productivity more and more just to keep up - this would make the system more and more oppressive over time. The future of the Southern plantation culture was doomed all along, civil war or not.