Was the American Civil War inevitable?

Answer 1

Answer
Yes, due to issue of state's rights issues over slavery (new territories to be admitted as free or slave), led to conflict. In the 1820 the Missouri Comprimse estalblished that all new territories admitted as states would be done as follows: north of latitude 36*30 (Missouri was the exception) were to be free states, any south were to be slave states. But after the Mexican War, the congress wanted all territories to be free. The southern states knew if this happened that eventually they would be outnumbered and their voice lost. So the Civil War resulted



Answer
It was probably inevitable. Several compromises had been tried; if it weren't for the compromise of 1850, disunion might have happened then; instead, it took another 10 years. It's not quite right to say that Congress wanted all territories to be free; free soilers(wanted no expansion of slavery), the precursor of the Republican party, wanted this, but they only had the strength of a 3rd party. As the Republican party, they gained strength as the 1850's proceeded, but still were a minority in the 1860's. Plenty of lower South people felt the opposite, that all territories should be slave territories and states, as they felt the Constitutional right of property meant a slaveowner should be able to take his slaves wherever he wanted. A compromise position was popular sovereignty, the view that each individual state should decide whether it was slave or free by referendum, etc. The South only supported this to the extent that it made formerly free territory become potential slave territory; but when, as a test case, Kansas ended up being a farce, it became clear that the South was about making a slave state, not about a fair election, and a split between Northern and Southern Democrats resulted, enabling Lincoln's election in 1860. Only if Northern and Southern Democrats had been able to work together might Lincoln's election have been prevented, and disunion been (at least temporarily) averted.


atp

Answer 2

Yes, but not because of slavery...

And, the Civil War was not our nation's first brush with rebellion. When Congress passed a whiskey tax in 1794, citizens of Pennsylvania and nearby states rose in rebellion. George Washington raised an army and marched against the rebellion. However, the rebels dissolved before there was a battle.

There were constitutional crisis over the War of 1812, when New England threatened to suceed from the United States over James Madison's War and the Tariff Act of the 1830s. Other lesser conflicts were over the Louisiana Purchase, the national bank and national road systems.

These Constitutional conflicts grew from the compromises required to form the Constitution.

I think we forget the environment that gave birth to the Constitution. On one hand, our Founding Fathers had a bad memory of strong, centralized government in the form of England. And, they wanted to avoid such a system. But, they learned through the Articles of Confederation that the central government had to have real power.

Further, you had the nascent industrial north, which was not suited to large farms, versus the agricultural south, which was suited to large farms. And, the issues here go much further than slavery. Industry needs banks, roads and traiffs, and strong national government to encourage business. Agriculture regions don't. They need a government that is strong enough for protection, e.g. one that provides for the common defense, but not one that takes a lot of revenue through taxes.

The compromises forged in Philadelphia led to a federal form of government. However, left unanswered was the question of supreme authority: states or the national government.

The compromises that allowed the north and south to come together as a nation resulted in the Civil War. The Civil War finally answered the great question: was the United States a confederation of largely soverign states or was the United States a sovereign nation comprised of semi-autonomous states?

Or, before the Civil War, someone talking about this nation would say, "The United States are prepared to do this and that." After the Civil War, the same person would say, "The United States is prepared to do this or that."

Veto

Answer 3

Yes

Slavery was the catalyst that sparked the war but a great deal of consideration should be given to the concern of states rights verse the federal government. This debate has been on going since the formation of the continent, and as it split the nation it also split our founding fathers. Look at differences and divisions between Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Madison, and Hamilton. Washington be the power of unification and mediation.

Adams, believe that the Federal Government through Congress had the ability to create and enforce law within the US. A Bill passed by congress and signed into law by the president became law in the entire US. and the US had the right to enforce that law.

Whereas Jefferson believe that this feel inside the realm of the states, and the Federal government was limited in the enforce ment of the Constitution, the defense of the nation, international, trade, relations and diplomacy.

These patterns of thought divided our forefathers, and later the nations. The prevailing fear in the South was that the federal government woulld pass into law a measure to free the slave. Therefore it was convienent to believe that this issue was a right of the individual states.

Look at the difficulties Lincoln had in rasing an army. He had to ask for volunteers, ask the governors for volunteers and funding to pay for them. The states had a firm grasp on power over the federal government and sooner or later the United States would have to resolve this issue.

Answer 4

No as Mr Shelby Foote said in Ken Burns' Civil War the Civil War came about because we were unable to compromise.

As long as the South and the North were unable to meet in the middle of a problem such as slavery or the lost of political power by the south, the Civil War was going to come. If the North had talked to the South the war would have been avoided.

Answer 5

I believe that yes, the Civil War was inevitable. Increasing sectional tensions, and the dispute over whether a new state admitted should be free or slave, were two huge issues that divided the nation. In addition, the South had withdrawn from the Union and become their own independent Confederacy. So, it was necessary for the Union to fight back for those states.

Answer 6

The rift between North and South had grown plenty because of the fact the 1830s that it replaced into basically a remember of time in the previous somebody snapped. opposite to correctly-known thought, they weren't scuffling with over slavery. It replaced right into a remember of money, taxes, and massive government. conflict of 1812 - Taxes enhance in the time of and after the conflict and proceed to attain this. Panic of 1819 - national recession Nullification disaster of 1832 - intense taxes and fee lists are destroying the Southern financial device mutually as the Northern financial device is flourishing. Panic of 1837 - Banks stop accepting paper income desire of silver and gold foreign places money The Six year melancholy (1837 to 1843) - Recession will become melancholy, plant life are undesirable, no commerce with Europe, the South is hit stressful. Tariff of 1846 Panic of 1857 - yet yet another financial downturn, government classes have been inflicting the defecit. The Morill Tariff (1857-1860) From that mess of fee effective failures, you get the conflict between the States

Answer 7

Yes.

Slavery really wasn't that big of a deal of making it inevitable. Considering that slavery was completely eradicated in the Americas by the 1880's, America definitely would have abolished it too. Heavy tariffs on industry and the dispute over central govmnt V. states rights are what really made it inevitable.

Answer 8

I believe it was inevitable. The slave owners of the south were unwilling to change and the abolitionists of the north were unwilling to change. The only way for the problem to be resolved was to fight it out or let the southern states secede from the union. There was no way that the southern states could be allowed to secede and the only way to keep them as part of the United States of America, was to make them stay.
It was, as it always is, an economic issue.

Answer 9

Absolutely. If it wasn't then, it would have happened eventually. The Constitution, and the balance between state and federal government, had to be tested at some point.

Answer 10

yes, as long as any man imprisons another as his slave, there will be those who oppose him enough to fight him to the death!
a.r. beasley