Clash of Extremes: The Economic Origins of the Civil War Reprint Edition, Kindle Edition

Ok, I give it 4 stars because I can't give it a 3.5. This book will enlighten you as to some of the lesser known (even to serious students of the Civil War) economic reasons that caused the War Between the States. It's full of good facts and numbers and maps. The author did his research well. I've read hundreds of books on the causes and reasons of this conflict as it has been a lifelong passion of mine because I feel that the national narratives on it are far too oversimplified. "The North was good. The South was bad. The whole war was all and only about slavery." Nothing could be further from the truth. The author does point out how little concern the North had for African Americans, which is important, because the way the story is told today, one would think that the war was completely a moral fight for the betterment of black people. That is simply not so. Even Frederick Douglass noted that nowhere in the country were blacks shunned and treated worse than in Northern states during the 19th century. You have to understand that to be anti-slavery in that era, went primarily in hand with being anti-black. It was a very racist society, both North and South. The book fails to make note of how Southern states paid for upwards of 80% of the entire revenue of the federal government in the years leading up to the war, and the vast majority of that money constantly being spent in the North. That was a huge issue (i.e.. Tariff of Abomination 1832). There is also a good deal of praise for Lincoln and his violating every one of the first 10 amendments of the Constitution throughout the war. It also fails to mention the Corwin Amendment (look that one up) which was offered to the South by the North and rejected by the South, and would have enshrined slavery in the Constitution forever. The book definitely has a pro-north slant to it, but give it a read. You won't be sorry, but whatever you do, don't let this one book define your understanding of the War Between the States. The reasons for it are many: money, power, refusal to compromise on BOTH sides, manifest destiny, slavery, state's rights versus centralized government, cultural differences, control of western territories...

I began reading this book in part because I was inclined to agree with the stated thesis. I finished the book convinced that the author has, by dint of excellent research and perceptive insight to the relations between the States, utterly and completely disproven his stated conclusion.

Over and over again, Mr. Egnal demonstrates how Slavery near breaks the Union, and only the economic dependency of North upon South forces the Northern States to disagreeable compromise.
By constant recitation of the role that Slavery played in shaping events, (and how the North agonized over compromise), the body of the text argues effectively against the thesis stated.

Mr. Egnal does an thorough job of showing how the South became a less significant part of the North’s economy. As that process accelerated, the North became less willing to accept the expansion of slavery in return for economic gain. The wealthier the North became and the less trade depended on the South, the easier it was to stand against compromise. This was not so much an economic motive to suppress slavery as it was removal of an incentive to abandon principle.

The book documents that, by the time of the rise of the Republican Party, you find a fairly consistent Northern consensus on three issues. First, that the Free States had the right to outlaw Slavery within their borders. Second, the expansion of Slavery to new territories was unacceptable. Third, that individual Northern States had the right to refuse to return runaway slaves who reached their borders.

The author then shows that the Slave State leaders understood that accepting this consensus meant the eventual dismantling of their society; possibly sooner than later.

The South’s system could not survive a free North that would accept runaway slaves and turn a blind eye to future John Browns. Add to that a cap on expansion of slavery to the Territories, and slavery had a very short life expectancy. Recognition of this reality is why the South’s leadership demanded a constitutional amendment to make slavery legal throughout the United States and territories. When it became rapidly apparent that this was not forthcoming, the South had no choice other than between the eventual destruction of their feudal system or a war to try and regain their former supremacy in government. It was not to start a new country that the Confederate States seceded; it was to take the old one back. So, while the North did not initially fight the war for abolition, it was the North’s stand on slavery that made war almost inevitable. The South began the war to preserve Slavery through re-achieving domination; the North reacted to prevent that.

What mainly seems to offend Mr. Egnal is that pre-war anti-slavery forces do not meet his modern moral standards. He creates a narrow definition of what it meant to be “Anti-Slavery”. You must be for immediate nationwide abolition and integration of male ex-slaves as equal citizens to meet his test. This is a moralistic and modern way of looking at the issue. It was entirely possible to be sincerely opposed to Slavery and still be a racist. These positions are not inconsistent. To believe sub-Saharan Africans are incapable of the exercise of equal rights did not require acceptance of their enslavement. You could also be against Slavery, but not wish to see a bloody and destructive war for immediate abolition. This “peace at any price” position was not due to lack of adherence to principle; but from recognition that life often faces us with the choice of the lesser of evils. If you broaden the definition of “Anti-Slavery” to include the racists and the pacifists, you then get a much more accurate picture.

In short, I think this book shows that the origin of the war was the North’s refusal to accept slavery, and the South’s reaction to that refusal. I would recommend that the reader skip the introduction and final chapter, wherein it is demonstrated clearly that not all men are Saints. Shocking, I know.

I've been looking for years for a book with this type of analysis: the US Civil War wasn't due to Northern abolitionists realizing slavery was morally wrong. Rather, it was due to economic change that caused the North to want different government policies and investments than the South did. The new manufacturing/industrial economy's needs were different than they had been in the earlier colonial period, when Northern financial, shipping (=slave ships and other trade that supported slavery in the South and the Caribbean), and voracious need for cotton for manufacturing, were well integrated with the slave states.

This is a review from a non-American with little prior exposure to the history of the US Civil War. The book gives a very well researched and closely described view of the interaction of political and economic factors interacting in the United States prior to, during and subsequent to the Civil War. There is a slightly quaint and unfamiliar touch in the potted descriptions of the physical characteristics of some of the key actors. I suspect this is a hangover's from the traditional way of teaching history is driven by the wishes and needs of the key actors of the day. That aside, I found the book insightful and enlightening and well worth reading.

It's okay. I expected a better digression on how economics influenced the origins of the war. Not too many facts and associations between cause and effect.

This book gives a great perspective of what cause the Civil War, even though I don't agree with the author's argument it is still a very interesting read.