Was the civil war a choice or a necessity?

Question

hmm...I think it's sort of both, but just wondering.

Answer 1

Lincoln and members of his cabinet, especially William Seward, thought it was a choice and that they could persuade SC and the other Southern states to return to the fold. Lincoln decided to find out the thinking of the Southerners by sending an envoy:

Lincoln's envoy to Charleston, Stephen Hurlbut,
"...had grown up in Charleston, and his sister still lived there. Speaking privately to old friends, he could test Seward's assumption that Unionist sentiment throughout the South would continue to strengthen so long as government refrained from any provocative action or perceived aggression. Hurlbut spent two days in his native city. He returned with 'no hesitation in reporting as unquestionable' that Unionist sentiment in both city and state was dead, 'taht separate nationality is a fixed fact.'"

My conclusion from this is that it was the choice of the South to make war (indeed, it was South Carolinians who fired on Ft. Sumpter), which made it a necessity for the North to respond.

Answer 2

It was a choice by the south. The issued in 1860 was about the spread of slavery, not the destruction of the slave economy in the south. Lincoln said he was fighting to preserve the union, so if he had just said bye bye to the slave states, the war could have been stopped, at least for a period of time, so it was a choice for the north also. The basic conflict between slave and free states would probably resulted in war eventually over the control of the territories, and free states offering refuge for escaped slaves. However the Confederacy may have disintegrated before that happened so the north may have been able to control the situation.

Answer 3

Bruce Catton suggested once in his books on the Civil War, that the bottom line is, they fought this war because they wanted to fight it.

However, having said that, there is the argument out there that the North HAD to precipitate a war because there was no way they could outlaw or limit slavery legally. After the Dred Scott case there were no more 'free states" only places where slave owners could take their property. William Lloyd Garrison suggested in the 1950s in his abolitionist newspaper that the only way for the USA to be done with slavery was for the North to secede from the South ...

It's all a matter of perspective ... but I think I agree with you

Answer 4

The civil war was more of a choice. The southern states suceeded so Lincoln chose to fight to keep them as part of the united states out of fear that more states would suceed and break the country apart. While in some ways it was necessary to continue the act of abolishing slavery, the states could have been let go.

Answer 5

Definitely a necessity. All the little events of the antebellum have contributed to this war. This war had to be fought in order to put a resistance to slavery and to stop secession of southern states it was a cause that they had to fight for, couldn't have been done any other way.

Answer 6

because of the fact we're not functionally illiterate. because of the fact which you probable don't have all day to study something, right this is the fast version. "Secession" and "commencing a conflict" at the instant are not even comparable issues. Claiming otherwise is like claiming strolling out of your place is the comparable as placing fireplace to it. as with any links any Democrat has ever published, yours DISPROVES your declare. no longer something you presented right here inspired conflict in any respect. needless to say slavery become a brilliant part of the inducement to SECEDE yet no longer A single LINE of what you published or which would be chanced on by ability of chasing your link shows GOING TO conflict. NO State and NO individual ever inspired "going to conflict to guard slavery." It merely under no circumstances surpassed off - as YOUR aspects make common.

Answer 7

in my opinion it was a necessity. it was unavoidable. There was lots of tension at the time that couldn't be cooled down easily. The war was gonna either take palce because of the slaves or the power and control of govt. and state rights. In other words it was unavoidable.

Answer 8

I will let John Brown answer this question

"I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood. I had, as I now think, vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed it might be done."

Since he was alive before the Civil War I would accept his answer as the true answer.

Answer 9

Necessity, It would have happened sooner or later. It was good to get it out of the way.

Answer 10

I believe it was a necessity, that's just my opinion, but if I remember my history correctly, it's right.