Observation 1 about Marc Egnal's Clash of Extremes: The Economic Origins of the Civil War
Economics, not slavery, as the cause of the Civil War
I am attracted to Marc Egnal’s book, Clash of Extremes: The Economic Origins of the Civil War, because the author goes against the grain, meaning that his views on the Civil War are different from what is normal or usual. Egnal calls the normal interpretation of the war the “idealistic” explanation.1 Egnal writes that this normal position simply blames everything about the Civil War on slavery:
Many historians now affirm the traditional wisdom that slavery caused the Civil War. The North, led by the Republican Party, attacked the institution, the South defended it, and war was the result. . . . In short, according to [leading historian James] McPherson and the historians who agree with him, the North’s passionate opposition to slavery and the equally fervent Southern defense of the institution caused the sectional clash.2
Egnal’s approach is fairly simple to summarize, and I must admit that I appreciate his forthrightness. He rejects the “idealistic” explanation because he thinks it has three major weaknesses. “The current emphasis on slavery as the cause of the Civil War is fraught with problems,” Egnal writes, because “it does not clarify the sequence of events, the divisions within the sections, or the policies and actions of the Republican Party.”3 The purpose of Egnal’s book is to provide a different interpretation of the Civil War based on economics because, according to Egnal, an economic approach fixes the weaknesses found in the “idealistic” approach. Egnal says that his economic interpretation “explains the sequence of events leading up to the war, the divisions within the North and South, and the goals and evolution of the Republican Party.”4
Based on my reading of Egnal’s introductory chapter, I think his book revolves around two major arguments. His first argument is basically that an economic revolution happened in the 1850s and this economic earthquake greatly undermined national unity. His second argument is that the Republican Party was primarily motivated by the selfish economic interest of developing the North, and that Republican “humanitarian” concerns for African Americans were of a secondary or short-lived nature. I will now go over these arguments in more detail, one at a time.
His first argument is that new patterns of commerce emerged in the 1850s and these new patterns of commerce destroyed the old unifying forces in the national economy. He begins by telling us about “the era from 1820 to 1850 and the unifying influence of the national economy. Business activity during these decades brought together the North and South for five reasons.”5 The five unifying reasons are:
trade along the Mississippi river united the Northwest and Southwest
the Border States (Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri) had strong and growing ties with the North
textile manufacturing and the cotton trade linked the mill owners and merchants of the North with the planters of the South
the Southwest had a strong reason to favor the Union, namely, the federal government pushed back the natives, Spaniards, and the Mexicans
there were two national parties and these parties shared a belief in a unified nation6
But then things changed in the 1850s, and these changes undermined national unity. One issue in particular that Egnal latches onto is the rise of the Great Lakes economy. His argument is that the north and south direction of trade along the Mississippi River that had existed from 1820 to 1850 no longer existed in the 1850s because of the new east and west pattern of trade:
Producers in the Northwest now conducted most of their business along an east-west axis that began with the lakes and included the Erie Canal and New York City. The booming lake economy required extensive spending on the waterways, higher tariffs to pay for those improvements, and an active federal government to oversee these programs. Using the language of nationalism, individuals in this region demanded the federal government assist the growth of the Northern economy.7
Egnal says that “by 1850 the South too had been transformed by economic change.”8 He mentions soil depletion in the South. He also mentions the desire of the South to expand. “Unfortunately, for these [Deep South] planters, the demand for new lands coincided with the growing opposition in the North to further expansion of the slave regime.”9 To me, it sounds like there was this huge “land grab” issue going on at the time and nobody wanted to share the land.
This brings me to Egnal’s second argument. He is somewhat obsessed with downplaying the “humanitarian” side of the Republican Party. I guess this makes sense because Egnal dislikes the “idealistic” explanation of the Civil War. Instead, he wants to paint the Republicans as motived by self-interest and especially by their economic self-interests. According to Egnal, the Republicans were basically land grabbers who did not want to share with anyone. I think it is understandable why they did not want to share land with the Deep South planters. What I find somewhat surprising is that the Republicans did not want to share the land with the African Americans:
Unquestionably Republicans, like virtually all free state residents, condemned slavery. But for most Republicans, opposition to bondage was limited to battling its extension into the West. Few Republicans advocated ending slavery—except in the distant future. Party members roundly rejected abolitionist demands for immediate action. Moreover, most Republicans (like most Northerners) were racists and had little interest in expanding the rights of free blacks. Indeed, many Republicans advocated free soil and a prohibition on the emigration to the West of all African Americans, free and slave.10 [bold italics mine]
Here is another example of Egnal downplaying the “humanitarian” side of the Republican Party. The Republicans, according to Egnal’s telling of the story, did little to help the African Americans. In fact, they only did one thing to help the African Americans:
Reflecting their roots, Republicans enunciated both antislavery and economic policies, but their clear priority was Northern growth rather than helping African Americans. Even more fervently than other Northerners, Republicans condemned slavery, citing the Declaration of Independence and its affirmation that “all men are created equal.” But the only significant initiative Republicans advocated to assist blacks was free soil [bold italics mine], a program that furthered both economic and humanitarian goals. Declaring the new territories off-limits to slaveholders, this policy assisted Northern farmers at the same time that it struck a blow against slavery by limiting its expansion. Mainstream Republicans pointedly refused to condemn the Fugitive Slave Act, the inter-state slave trade, or slavery in the District of Columbia and federal shipyards. The party acquiesced in the racism that defined Northern society. Although eschewing [intentionally avoiding] programs to help blacks, Republicans vigorously supported economic initiatives including higher tariffs, free homesteads, internal improvements, land grant colleges, and a trans-continental railroad.11 [bold italics mine]
Egnal is fairly relentless in attacking the “humanitarian” side of the Republican Party. He really wants to portray the Republicans as being a strictly “economics driven” party. According to Egnal, the Republicans quickly dropped their support for African Americans after the war, but they stuck with their Northern development agenda:
After the war Republicans again hoped to make progress on both fronts: defending the basic rights of blacks and fostering economic activity in the North. Faced with the intransigence of white Southerners, who refused to accept the moderate program advocated by mainstream party members, Republicans adopted strong measures. They divided the South into military districts, enfranchised blacks, and took the vote away from former Confederates. However, Republican support for these measures was short-lived. State by state they abandoned their African American allies and the progressive regimes in the South [bold italics mine]. By contrast, Republican determination to assist Northern business continued undiminished. Currency policies, lucrative subsidies to corporations, regressive taxation, and the use of troops to suppress strikers and relocate Indians helped the rich get richer and made possible the rise of monopolies and oligopolies.12
I am going to stop here. I think this is a fair summary of Egnal’s introductory chapter. He really wants to downplay the “humanitarian” side of the Republican Party. He wants to focus on economics, especially on the Republican Party’s economic agenda to develop the Great Lakes and Northern economy. I now need to read the rest of his book to see what kind of evidence he has to support his economic interpretation of the Civil War. I am looking forward to reading the rest of his book.
Marc Egnal, introduction to Clash of Extremes: The Economic Origins of the Civil War (New York: Hill and Wang, 2010), 5.
Marc Egnal, introduction to Clash of Extremes: The Economic Origins of the Civil War (New York: Hill and Wang, 2010), 4-5.
Marc Egnal, introduction to Clash of Extremes: The Economic Origins of the Civil War (New York: Hill and Wang, 2010), 7.
Marc Egnal, introduction to Clash of Extremes: The Economic Origins of the Civil War (New York: Hill and Wang, 2010), 14.
Marc Egnal, introduction to Clash of Extremes: The Economic Origins of the Civil War (New York: Hill and Wang, 2010), 8.
Marc Egnal, introduction to Clash of Extremes: The Economic Origins of the Civil War (New York: Hill and Wang, 2010), 8-9.
Marc Egnal, introduction to Clash of Extremes: The Economic Origins of the Civil War (New York: Hill and Wang, 2010), 9.
Marc Egnal, introduction to Clash of Extremes: The Economic Origins of the Civil War (New York: Hill and Wang, 2010), 10.
Marc Egnal, introduction to Clash of Extremes: The Economic Origins of the Civil War (New York: Hill and Wang, 2010), 11.
Marc Egnal, introduction to Clash of Extremes: The Economic Origins of the Civil War (New York: Hill and Wang, 2010), 6.
Marc Egnal, introduction to Clash of Extremes: The Economic Origins of the Civil War (New York: Hill and Wang, 2010), 9-10.
Marc Egnal, introduction to Clash of Extremes: The Economic Origins of the Civil War (New York: Hill and Wang, 2010), 13-14.