Although some historians feel that the Civil War was a result of
political blunders and that the issue of slavery did not cause the conflict,
this interpretation fails to consider the two main causes of the war
itself: the expansion of slavery, and its entrance into the political
scene. By considering the personal opinions of people living in both the
North and the South at the time of the war, as well as the political
decisions made, one can understand the reasons behind the war, and then
The revisionists believe that the issue of slavery was not a major
cause of the war. Some argue that the war was caused by careless decisions
made by politicians, who caused people to react with emotions that were
out of proportion with the issues involved. Others feel that the
slavery problem could have been solved without war. The problem with these
theories is that the revisionists do not recognize slavery as the main
difference between North and South. They also fail to realize that it was
not simply political blunders that caused the war, but the discussion
of slavery publicly among politicians.
In his theory of the war, Michael Holt primarily considers the timing
of the conflict. He feels that the breakdown in the two party system
created a panic among citizens and that this panic erupted into war. The
only problem with this theory is that it is not the citizens of a
country who decide whether or not to go to war, it is the politicians. The
reason that slavery could exist without war in the United States until
1861 was because up until that time there was always enough land to
expand. It was when the amount of land available for expansion became
scarce that the North and South began to feel friction as to who would
control more states, free or slave. The South wanted more slave states,
where the North wanted more free states, to give them more land and power
in ...