Could the Civil War have been AVOIDED??

Question

If you are argueing on the side that it was unavoidable how can you counteract the arguement that slavery would have eventually weeded itself out because it was hurting southern economy too much.

slavery WAS hurting the souths economy. THINK ABOUT IT!!! the north was industrialized and the south had slaves ... their land couldn't withstand all the cotton growing for too long and the slaves were slowing them down,,,,, sooner or later they would need to industrialize!!!

Answer 1

I'm not sure this is what you wanted. . . but for what it's worth. . .

The underlying CONFLICT between the sections could not be avoided... but it's possible the Civil WAR might have been. If one of a number of things had gone slightly differently --things that we can well conceive proceeding differently-- it is quite possible the South would NOT have seceded in 1860-1, and this delay may have provided enough time for the power of those pushing for secession (which was actually a MINORITY, though dogged in their efforts) to subside. This would have at least bought some time. . .

First, secession would NOT have happened at that time IF a Republican were not elected President. In fact, the Democratic Party at the beginning of 1860, with Stephen Douglas as the expected nominee, was in a very strong position to win. BUT... the Party split, and handed the election to Lincoln.

Thus, anything that prevented that Democratic Party split would likely have won Douglas the Presidency and prevented secession (and war).

Now the split was caused by RECENT Southern animosity toward Douglas (their one-time hero!), esp. from one very hard-line group that pushed Southern states to walk out of the convention when THEIR platform was rejected in favor of Douglas's.

So, how might the falling out with Douglas have NOT happened? Well, the first big piece was his break with President Buchanan -- specifically when Buchanan accepted the pro-slavery "Lecompton Constitution" for Kansas as a legitimate one in 1857, though everyone knew the voting for it had been fraudulent. Douglas was not willing to capitulate here. Unfortunately, it's not easy to see how this key split would have been avoided (though I may explore that).

BUT many think that, though Lecompton caused some anger, that could have been overcome, EXCEPT for what happened the next year... in the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Lincoln challenged Douglass to explain how DOUGLAS'S favorite idea of "popular sovereignty" (meaning, in this case, Congress's telling the TERRITORIES to decide for themselves whether to allow slavery or not) could possibly be carried out after the Dred Scott decision declared that Congress could make NO law restricting slavery in the territories.

Douglas responded at Freeport, the second city in their seven-city series, by arguing that no matter what any court decided, people could choose whether or not to support slavery in their midst by voting for OR against the sort of police provisions it required. This approach, dubbed the "Freeport Doctrine", infuriated many in the South... determining some to NEVER let Douglas become the party's nominee.

Now Dred Scott (which prompted this particular problem) had been a surprisingly FAR-REACHING decision, and that may well be because the Southern majority had found ONE Northerner to go along with their opinion, making it not appear so sectionally biased. It turns out that one justice was a Pennsylvanian whom then President-elect Buchanan (a fellow Pennsylvanian) had approached, urging him to join the majority.

Buchanan clearly wanted the issue settled "decisively", and knowing the direction the court was taking it, apparently believed his actions would accomplish that end. But IF he had failed, or thought better of interfering, the decision likely would have been much narrower, without its broad pronouncements about the territory. Result -- Douglas's ideas are not threatened, no Freeport Doctrine, much less opposition to Douglas as a candidate, no party split... Douglas elected President.

Meanwhile, some of the factors that enabled a minority to succeed in their push for secession were 'time sensitive'. For instance, the Kansas issue was subsiding somewhat (with Kansas about to be admitted as a free state after all), and further territorial disputes were distant.

Also, in the key state of South Carolina, the elite that had held power for generations DESPITE population trends away from their regions was losing that power as overdue electoral reforms began (i.e., the area where pro-secession fervor was so strong was very much OVER-represented, but that was about to change). Remember that the "fire-eaters" were always a MINORITY... so some key losses of position or momentum could seriously undercut their whole effort.

_____________

In fact, a change of VENUE for the convention might have made a difference -- the Democrats started out in South Carolina, hardly the best place for Douglas!

On the OTHER side, ironically, Lincoln might very well NOT have been the nominee had the Republican Convention that year been held somewhere other than his home state! Lincoln was the SECOND choice of many, and had he not had 'home-court advantage', likely one of the "main" contenders would have one... most likely William Seward.

Now there is some evidence from Seward's activities during the "winter of secession" that he MIGHT have been more open to compromise at some points, to accept some "terms" for preserving/restoring the Union that Lincoln would not accept, that might possibly have lured back states that had seceded (whether those were GOOD terms or not--I think not--is another story).


NO ONE can say where things might go from there, and how long it might all take. But the argument that one of several small, very conceivable changes (sometimes a simple choice by ONE person) could at least have delayed the final few steps to war, and bought the nation TIME to find another way.

Answer 2

Hurting the southern economy??? The Souths economy was based heavily on slavery. Think about it. Even today it would be cheaper to have slave labor that you only had to marginally feed, cloth and house than to pay minimum wage too.

Answer 3

It was unavoidable, and no, slavery was not hurting the southern economy, rather it was helping it. Taking away slavery is what really hurt the southern economy.

Answer 4

it wasn't so much the slvery, it was some of the things Lincon did that finally drove the South nuts.