Was the US Civil War inevitable or could it have been prevented - explain?

Answer 1

We know it was not over Slavery Lincoln repeatedly offered to allow anyone back in the Union WITH THEIR SLAVES and a promise they could keep them! No one took him up on the offer.

It was inevitable. The 1810, 1830 and 1850 census showed the South to be made up of roughly 50% Celtic, 30% English and the remaining 20% were German, French or Spanish. The Irish Potatoes famine of 1846-1850 killed a million plus Irishmen, the problem there was food but the British took it for themselves. Another good example of who has suffered under slavery. The real point the majority of English settled up North and continued to this day their opinion of superiority and want of control over our lot. .

There are these who have the need to demonize and discredit anything they don't like with or understand. Was the War over Slavery? Yes and no, it was a part, not as much as many would have you believe but again more than others would have you think. The renowned Shelby Foote, stated after his appearance in Ken Burns “Civil War” that the producer manipulated and edited his statements to make it appear that he the leading authority on the war was saying the war was over slavery, when he and any reasonable scolder knew better.

The war was over money. In the 1770s, the South had every reason to continue the relationship with England, one of its best customers. It was the manufacturing North that was getting the short end of that stick. Southerners joined the Revolutionary War out of patriotism, idealism, and enlightened political philosophy such as motivated Jefferson, not patriotism, philosophy and economic betterment which inspired the North.

In 1860, the shoe was on the other foot. Southern agrarians were at heel to the nation's bankers and industrialists. That just got worse with the election of the Republican Lincoln, bringing back into power the party favoring the wealthy supply side, as it still does.

Then as now central to that, party's interest was keeping down the cost of manufacture. Today labor is the big cost, so today they move the plants offshore and leave US workers to their fate. Back before the US labor movement existed the big cost was raw materials, and the GOP was just as unprincipled toward its Southern suppliers as it is today toward labor. Thanks to modern graveyard science and surviving records, researchers know that in 1760, 100 years before the War Between the States, Charleston, South Carolina, had the largest population of slaves and we say proudly the SECOND LARGEST SLAVE POPULATION WAS IN NEW YORK CITY.
One of the main quarrels was about taxes paid on goods brought into this country from foreign countries. This tax was called a tariff. Southerners felt these tariffs were unfair and aimed toward them because they imported a wider variety of goods than most Northern people. Taxes were also placed on many Southern goods that were shipped to foreign countries, an expense that was not always applied to Northern goods of equal value. An awkward economic structure allowed states and private transportation companies to do this, which also affected Southern banks that found themselves paying higher interest rates on loans made with banks in the North. As industry in the North expanded, it looked towards southern markets, rich with cash from the lucrative agricultural business, to buy the North's manufactured goods. The situation grew worse after several "panics", including one in 1857 that affected more Northern banks than Southern. Southern financiers found themselves burdened with high payments just to save Northern banks that had suffered financial losses through poor investment. However, it was often cheaper for the South to purchase the goods abroad. In order to "protect" the northern industries Jackson slapped a tariff on many of the imported goods that could be manufactured in the North. When South Carolina passed the Ordinance of Nullification in November 1832, refusing to collect the tariff and threatening to withdraw from the Union, Jackson ordered federal troops to Charleston. A secession crisis was averted when Congress revised the Tariff of Abominations in February 1833. The Panic of 1837 and the ensuing depression began to gnaw like a hungry animal on the flesh of the American system. The disparity between northern and southern economies was exacerbated. Before and after the depression the economy of the South prospered. Southern cotton sold abroad totaled 57% of all American exports before the war. The Panic of 1857 devastated the North and left the South virtually untouched. The clash of a wealthy, agricultural South and a poorer, industrial North was intensified by abolitionists who were not above using class struggle to further their cause.
In the years before the Civil War the political power in the Federal government, centered in Washington, D.C., was changing. Northern and mid-western states were becoming more and more powerful as the populations increased. Southern states lost political power because the population did not increase as rapidly. As one portion of the nation grew larger than another, people began to talk of the nation as sections. This was called sectionalism. Just as the original thirteen colonies fought for their independence almost 100 years earlier, the Southern states felt a growing need for freedom from the central Federal authority in Washington. Southerners believed that state laws carried more weight than Federal laws, and they should abide by the state regulations first. This issue was called State's Rights and became a very warm topic in congress.

These are facts not emotions or unsupported claims, now what was the War over?


God Bless You and The Southern People.

Answer 2

First off it was not a civil war as that has to happen within one country. The South had succeded and was a seprerate nation therfore it was a war of northern agression. The only reson called a civil war was because the north won. Slavery only became an issue half way during the conflict.Like any war economics played a major factor. Slaves where cheap labour source for the south being an agriculture society while the north was more industrialized. The federal government forcing to control the individual rights of States brought this unfortunate time about. 30 years prior the new england states where about to leave due to their percieveing of unjust federal interference in their affairs. Even now states that lay againest the Canadian border are feeling more alainged to that country politically and socially so in time may end up succeding. Yet to regress the war was bound to happen sooner or later just like a bad marriage where spouses cannot get along divorce is inevitable.

Answer 3

Slavery is NOT the main issue.

The country had been divided sectionally/regionally long before the Civil War or the threat of war. These differences were economic in nature. Because of these differences, tariffs for any purpose would favor one region over the other. Also, the needs of one region would always be different than the needs of another. Slavery was just one more "sectional" issue.

It is often argued that slavery would have eventually "taken care of itself" with a gradual mental shift or awareness, much the same as had occurred in England, where slavery had become illegal in 1808 (if memory serves me that is the year).

As far as preventing the Civil War, the issues and problems associated with sectional differences would have had to be addressed to prevent the South from leaving a nation that was not benefiting it.

Answer 4

It was probably inevitable.
The fundamental question of states' rights and the Constitution was not going to be decided by negotiation. Ultimately, the question was "who has the say-so?" in this ball of wax we call the USA. Lincoln and the Federals said "We do". The states of the Confederacy disagreed vehemently.
The end result was the evisceration of half of the nation, and the retardation of the nation's development for more than a century. The US is only now realizing a portion of its potential, but in so ham-fisted a fashion it remains questionable whether it can servive, even as a perverted version of itself.
Another 25 years of federalism may see the end of the experiment. We'll have to wait and see.

Answer 5

The civil war could absolutely have been avoided. Had Lincoln allowed the southern states to secede, there would have been no war. Lincoln didn't really care about the slaves, his only goal was the preservation of the union. Of course we'd likely be two countries nowadays.

Answer 6

There were many attempts to prevent it and even after separation there were many in the North who did not want to go to war to keep the South in the Union. In fact, the whole idea of the "union" trumping the rights of sovereign states was highly questionable and not at all constitutional. So, in the end, it was inevitable since its motivations were monetary, not ideological.

Answer 7

Perhaps this war could have been prevented if the slave states did not take over Federal property (arsenals, mints, post offices, etc.) by intimidation or force after they seceded from the Union. Firing on Fort Sumter because it was about to be resupplied did NOT help prevent the Civil War. It was another violation, another possession of Federal property by force or intimidation, and another failure at compromise.

Answer 8

Isis is right and John is wrong. It was about states rights. The constitution states after all is said and done that any powers not specifically granted to the federal government are to be given to the individual states. As you are aware, nearly all southerners who fought in the war did not own slaves. They felt their states rights were being trampled by the federal government. I believe they were right.

Answer 9

For most people today their telescopic view focuses on the slavery issue which is really a rewriting of history. Or more correctly put, a lack of teaching of history.

The thirteen colonies (come States) were, to varying degrees, separate cultures. Their common connection was in the historical English root of Old English Common Law. They were had common cause due to the heavy handedness of the English Crown and mercantile interests and the realization of their growing economic independence. The war forced them into a confederation of necessity, if not preference.

While those Articles of Confederation function through the war, its end resulted in the 1783 Treaty of Peace signed in Paris between Great Britain and the governmental representation of those (now) States. Article One of these Treaty named each of these States and declared them as “each” Free, Independent, and Sovereign. At that point they were recognized on the world stage as separate entities.

Even with the end of that war, there was need for these fledgling States to work in common cause in specific areas and it was also clear that the then existing Articles of Confederation as then composed was not suited to such a task. In the convention to strengthen the Articles of Confederation came the conflict of visions. The concept of union won the day, but it was not easy, nor was it certain, nor was it satisfying to all States and personalities. Many things were left unresolved and ratification only had a chance with the commitment to a Bill of Rights, something not desired by all parties.

The functional form of that constitution was as a representative republic with limited elements of democratic functions in a federal structure, all to create a “limited” general government. That is, a general government was created from, and was in every respect defined by, the delegated powers within the Constitution. Not all parties were pleased with such a proposed agreement (contract). These detractors included such as Alexander Hamilton (New York Delegate, who desired a strong general government over the States), to Patrick Henry (Not a Delegate, who wanted to stay with the Articles of Confederation emphasizing the States over the general government), to such as Virginia Delegates Edmund Randolph and George Mason, Massachusetts Delegate Elbridge Gerry (all refused to sign). Rhode Island did not even send delegates to the Convention.

Then there were those States which signed the Constitution after the 21 June 1788 ratification:
Virginia, 25 June 1788.
New York 26 July 1788.
North Carolina 21 November 1789.
Rhode Island 29 May 1790.
Vermont 10 January 1791.

Keep in mind that only nine States were required to sign the Constitution to make it valid and in force. No other State would ever have to join the Union and could have gone their own way or stayed within the Articles of Confederation. It is interesting to note, that those articles were signed in “perpetuity” meaning that the signatory States would “never” leave it. Clearly their State ratification of the Constitution signified a secession from the Articles of Confederation.

From the time of the ratification of the Constitution until 1861 and the federal attack against the sovereign country of the Confederacy, there was a continual weakening of the words of the Constitution as well as the sprite of the Founders’ intent. The Virginia Resolution (written by James Madison) which recognized the power of the States to each and individually nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal government and the Kentucky Resolution (written by Thomas Jefferson) recognizing the power of the States to secede demonstrated a concern of a growing intrusiveness of the federal government into State affairs. This was further emphasized in the 1828 Exposition (written by John C. Calhoun).

Carrying on in the mode of the Hamilton concept of a strong general government the 1819 United States Supreme Court (in McCuloch v. Maryland) laid the basis for Congressional extra-constitutional actions by opining that (in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18) the words “necessary” and “proper” had the same meaning. This provided the justification for Congress to act outside of their delegated powers. Both Madison and Jefferson expressed they disagreement with this decision.

There is far more of such acts than can be written here, but each one was one more proverbial straw on the on the camel’s back for those States which believed in the Founders’ Constitution. The Founders believed that left to its own desires, the federal government would grow beyond the Founders’ intent and the words of the Constitution, and time has certainly proven this to be true.

For all of the opinions that can be written about slavery, it was an issue used by Lincoln to demean and tear the Constitution and to force States to remain within the Union. The act of nullifying State secession was never decided in law or in Constitutional restrictions, rather it was decided in war and blood and force of arms. This is exemplified with the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment never met Constitutional requirements for ratification, and yet, it exists and is enforced by the federal government since 1868. The case of Texas v. White [1869] justifies this as a power of the federal government due to force of arms.

The point is that, if the Constitution had been followed, the war of federal government aggression of the 1860s, never had to occur. However, the Founders realized that if allowed it is in the nature of governments to expand and take over all power. The federal government created by the States in the delegated powers of the Constitution has done that very thing. It has perverted that constitution by using the 14th Amendment (and force of arms) to apply the Bill of Rights to the States which was never intended by the Founders. The federal government continues to expand and intrude on the people of the United States.

Answer 10

It was inevitable, because the South wanted to keep their slaves, and the North wanted to free the slaves.