was the civil war unavoidable?

Question

why or why not?

Answer 1

It was avoidable...

The union could have accepted the secession of the southern states and dealt with them as a soverign nation.

That would have given the Confederation of Southern States what they wanted and prevented the war. But on the other hand it would have created border disputes within those states who were undecided.

Under the circunstances that developed in the late 1850's the war ended up the only way to force the reunification of a nation divided against each other.




g-day!

Answer 2

what's in this for me? brownie points? a good grade on YOUR essay? huh? look, the American civil war , if that's what you're talking about, was certainly unavoidable, sad to say. most civil war are because the true issues that cause civil unrest are never addressed until after the event. like shutting the barn doors after the horses have gotten out. i can say this (and you can take this to the bank), the war was put off some 50 years due to the war of 1812. all those sore spots between north & south were present & hurting by 1800 but with english/american hostilities, all this was put on hold. after the war and by 1820, nothing was done. pushed under the carpet, so to speak. by 1850, all kinds of compromises were made & met but know what they say about a compromise, don't you? it's a huge bandaid on an even bigger sore. nothing is solved & everything still hurts. by 1861, it was too late. what i found amazing was that during battles, early on, people would attend the bloodshed with lawn chairs and watched as observers (no kidding). the states actually thought it would be quicker than it was but it was not - or at least four years too long. a lot of hatred fueled the fire and that fire burns even today. moral of the story? when something bothers you that much that it can or might cause a distruption of daily life (personal or not), meet it head-on & say what's on your mind. what's the worst that can happen? two people might not be talking by this time tomorrow but i think that's a better trade-off than killing each other, agree?

Answer 3

The answer to this question is depended on the WHEN of it. Could it have been avoided in 1850? And the answer is yes. Could have it been avoided during the Buchanan Administration (1857-1861) is no. The two sides were not absolutely locked into their positions. But the Southern States were still strong enough to win. By 1861 they were not.

The Civil was about much more than slavery. It was about the questions: 1. Was the U.S. going to be dominated by industrialism and urban growth? 2. What was the future government of the future lands, in the West, that were being settled? Would they be "free states" (slave holding)? 3. Was the rapid growth in population in the North going to overwhelm the South in the Congress and the Electoral College? Would the transcontinental railroad be built from the South (Memphis, New Orleans) where it would have been cheaper and quicker.
4. Was the growing level of democracy in the North be the norm for the country? Or would the South be able to keep its paternalistic aristocracy in charge?

Answer 4

Frankly, it was not. First, of course, it wasn't a 'civil war' since that term means that two sides contend to rule the same nation. The South wished to LEAVE the Union, not rule it.

Secondly, the real reason for the war was a new 'vision' of the nation which differed from that of the Founding Fathers. If you look at the Constitution, you will see that the power resides in the 'sovereign states' and the people; the power of the central (federal) government was limited to those expressed duties defined by the Constitution such as response to foreign aggressors (the common defense) and such things as interstate commerce (domestic tranquility). The 10th Amendment of the Constitution specifically states that any and all obligations, duties, responsibilities and powers NOT granted to the central government devolved upon the states and the people.

In the 19th century, a movement took place in the country that wished to change this 'interpretation' of the nation, giving more powers to the federal government than the Constitution permitted including such things as the draft and a federal income tax. Southern states by and large rejected this movement and saw in many of the acts of the government in Washington, an effort to establish a more powerful federal government at the expense of the rights of the states and the people. In the end, eleven states determined that - for that reason and others - they wished to secede and create their own nation more in keeping with the vision of the Founders. As the two 'visions' for the nation were diametric and the 'North' would not permit a peaceful secession, war became inevitable.

Answer 5

When the constitution of the United States was passed in 1787, the issue of slavery was both contentious and ticklish, that it would never be ratified unless left alone. By leaving it alone, the forefathers made the decision to hold off on the solution of slavery until battle lines were drawn by 1860. Between 1787 and 1848, slavery remained a very hot, smoldering issue among the states until re-ignited by both John Brown's raid and the publishing of "Uncle Tom's Cabin"by Harriet Beecher Stowe. Then Three presidents - Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan failed to make stands on the issue of slavery until the south was armed enough to break away from the Union by 1860.

There was a real good comment made in the first volume of PBS' "The Civil War": "The cause of the Civil War was passed when the US became a country with slavery in place."
This made the Civil War become inevitable. Hope this helps. Take care.

Answer 6

I would have to say that it was avoidable, but the consequences would be vastly different from what has occurred due to the war (I assume you're talking about the American Civil War, as civil war in Iraq was completely avoidable and the world would likely be a better place if it was avoided).
The American Civil War could have been avoided if Lincoln and the northern members of congress had agreed to let the southern states to continue to act as they had in order to remain in the union. I believe that had that been the case, the southern states would never have seceeded from the union, as they would have no need to (they get their way, overall "safety in numbers", etc.).
Had this occurred, though, life as we know it would be drastically different - primarily with respect to working conditions, but also with civil rights and the overall state of our nation. Think about it: slavery would have eventually ended, and it might have ended peacefully, but it would have been quite a time later than when it did, and most likely with the cessation of the southern states, and possibly, a civil war.
You could also make the argument that it would have delayed worker's rights around the turn of the century, which would have probably put that issue off until after the world wars. Who knows when women or African Americans would have earned the right to vote and attend the same schools as whites? This, also might lead to a civil war, although I don't think that it would happen in a more modern America.
Overall, the American Civil War could have been avoided, but if so, it would most likely only be delayed.

Answer 7

It's easy to say that all wars are avoidable, but you pose a very good question here. You could argue that is WAS unavoidable because there were uncompromising hotheads on both sides who would not listen to reason. It was a time of immense pride with manly honor cherished above all things including preservation of life. Men would fight duels rather than accept an insult. Without compromise, the essential difference between north and south could not be resolved without a massive duel. 'Trouble is, the hotheads who started it were not the ones in the lines taking the bullets and artillery rounds.

Answer 8

unavoidable

The desire to exchange a good, in a world where imperfect allotment of goods is the great albatross around each individual's neck, happens as often as the gas-tank of a Hummer demands a refill. There is no avoiding this universal predicament of the disproportional wants and needs in the world. Such is the impetus that drives the practical and economic principle of bartering. This principal has been followed, adhered to, and even preferred over monetary systems since the disputable beginnings of man. Yet at some points in history the change of preference is not freely chosen, but forced due to unavoidable economic factors.
http://economics.about.com/cs/moffattentries/a/civil_war.htm

Answer 9

unavoidable because the north wouldnt like the south to seced from the union. they wouldve invaded the south within a year

Answer 10

Yes I think so. Because the South's industry depended so heavily on slavery and the North wasn't going to give in. I can't think of any kind of resolution that could have stopped it. Pax - C