Why did the Civil War have to be fought? Couldn't the Union just let the secession be?

Question

Thanks, everyone. And I think the insights of Longhunter and David_the_Great are particularly informative.

I understand that the North and the South, at the time of the separation, had contending, if not irreconcilable, economic interests. And I, too, believe that was the major driving force behind the secession.

What I cannot make sense is that why the North would wage a full-scale war? What if they lost? bikinkawboy had pointed out what would happen if the North lost the war and I think Lincoln would never accept that scenario. I could only infer that before the North started the war they already knew that they would emerge as the winner, and only with this assertion in mind, could they conclude that it would be worth their while to eradicate the irritating Southern faction once and for all.

What made them so sure about their winning the war even before the war started? Who could elaborate on that?

It should be pinelake302 whose answer along side Longhunter's that are particularly informative, which I mistyped with the username, David_the_Great.

Answer 1

First and foremost, the South was irate over the tariffs that they had to pay over imported goods, moreso than the North. Southerners also were forced to pay taxes on goods shipped out to other countries, an unfair situation that did not always apply to Northern goods. Southern banks were paying higher interest on loans than were Northern banks. Due to increased population growth, the North was able to control more voting power in the government, something that Southerners resented. States rights were favored in the South, even over those of the Federal government.
The issue of slavery was also an irritant, as that institution had existed for years in the North and the South but as the South was largely agrarian, they posessed more slaves. Leaders on both sides knew that slavery was soon to be ended, it was just a matter of time.

The Southern leaders felt that they were not being treated fairly in Congress, and that they had no vote, so when Abraham Lincoln was elected, many Southerners felt that he represented only the abolitionists and the Northern businessmen, leaving the Southern states with little support.
Thus, the South seceeded, bringing South Carolina,North Carolina, Alabama, Texas, Georgia, Florida, Virginia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Mississippi into the new Confederacy. Oklahoma, then Indian Territory, gave the South strong support, and Missouri was Seceeded to the South by Governor Claiborne Fox Jackson. Maryland and Kentucky were claimed as Southern states, but were really divided in feelings towards secession. Both states provided fighting regiments for the South.

The fight at Fort Sumter began after lengthy negotiations to get the Union to return to South Carolina the fort that they believed belonged to their state. No shots would be fired unless the North made an attempt to fortify the small garrison there. When Lincoln announced that he would strengthen the garrison there and supply ships were known to be on their way, the guns of South Carolina thundered out in defiance at this perceived Northern threat. Fort Sumter fell, and the war began.

Slavery did not become a major issue of the war until Lincoln was faced with the possibility of not getting re-elected. Proposing his emancipation proclamation, he gathered the votes necessary to sustain him, but the proclamation did nothing to address the slaves held in the North, only those in the South. By and large, the average Northern soldier felt that they were not fighting for the freedom of the slaves, but rather the preservation of the Union itself. By the same token, many Southern boys had no problems fighting for the rights of the Southern states to self rule, but were not interested in dying so some rich man could keep his slaves.

Yes, Lincoln could have not invaded the Confederacy and perhaps negotiated the Southern states back into the Union. This would have taken time and a genuine attempt to reconcile those differences between the two regions. But the firebrand Northern government wanted only to punish the South through force of arms. Because of this, it would take five bloody years and thousands of dead to end the conflict.

Answer 2

Longhunt has given the truest answer here. Unfair and unequal taxes and tariffs were levied on the richer south of the times. When the south could stand it no longer they formed the Confederate States of America and seceded from the Union.

Lincoln was facing a large recession and with the loss of the southern taxes things were getting worse. He forced the hand on the south with Ft. Sumter by the addition of troops and arms in violation of requests by the south. The south said the union could keep the fort as long as it remained as it was or the south would fire on it. That part is history.

There were some issues on the slave situation mainly with the Missouri Compromise and the Dread Scott Decision but they played secondary roles in the war. Slavery was already on its way out. Because of more modern equipment used in farming and also the invention of the cotton gin the masses of human hand labor was becoming less needful. Slavery would have most likely been a dead issue in another twenty years or so.

Economics was the main issue for the "War of Northern Aggression"

As a side note, When the states of the south were readmitted to the north one by one I might add, only Texas held out for better grounds of readmission. To this date, not one of the agreements between Texas and the Union have been complied with by the Union. As such, by the agreements of that agreement, Texas could automaticly seced from the Union today and the Union could do nothing about it. If you dig into it deeply enough you can also learn that Texas was never legally brought into the union in 1846 or 1866 and can even today not be considered a true state of the United States.

Answer 3

I think by 1860-61 a peaceful settlement was beyond reasonable to the North. After putting up with Southern temper tantrums for years and threats of seccession they'd had enough. The opinion of the Republicans and most Northerners was that the Union could not be dissolved, that it was perpetual. So when the South decided to call it quits, the North was determined that they would be brought to heel. Certainly some Northerners said "good riddance." But once the South rather rashly opened fire on Fort Sumter, Northern opinion was hardened and an overwhelming majority stood behind Lincoln and his unilateral action to quash the rebellion. The fact is that in order to understand why the North wanted to fight, you have to back and read about the incredible antagonism between North and South that had been going on for decades. I'd recommend "Road to Disunion" by William Freehling. "The Impending Crisis" by David Potter. And "Days of Defiance" by Maury Klein to get much of the background information on what led to war.

Answer 4

It relies upon. The civil conflict replaced into pointless and the shortcoming of one hundred 000 individuals will consistently be unjustifiable, yet shape-sensible the South had each and every precise to secede whether it would have destroyed the two the North and the South's economies, and replaced into no longer the wisest action to take. The North's financial equipment replaced into capitalist and industrialist, while the south replaced into extra protectionist, communal and agrarian, yet capitalism might have unfold to the south whether that they had effectively seceded. Slavery, like in Britain and the the remainder of the international, might have died out so a conflict replaced into no longer needed interior the abolition of slavery. no longer purely that, yet many abolitionists interior the North thought that it replaced into slavery-like attempting to circumvent states from seceding and and overwhelmingly great style of abolitionists supported the CSA! in my opinion, i might take the abolitionists' section, yet no longer the North's section. playstation - It replaced into approximately state's rights, because of the fact Lincoln himself stated: "If i could desire to shop the Union without liberating any slave i might do it, and if i could desire to shop it by ability of liberating each and all the slaves i might do it; and if i could desire to shop it by ability of liberating some and leaving others by myself i might additionally do this. What I do approximately slavery, and the coloured race, I do because of the fact i think it helps to shop the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because of the fact i do no longer believe it would help to shop the Union."

Answer 5

There's one other thing that hasn't been mentioned. Great Britian. The South provided GB with most of their cotton and possibaly still smarting from losing the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, was a supporter of the South. Maybe not the slavery part, but definately from the financial standpoint of protecting their own industries.

Had the North calmly let the South seceed, it's more than likely GB and the South would have become best buddies in commerce, seafaring and maybe even military. That potential threat would of had the North sweating bullets, fearing that with the help of GB, the South would be the ones taking over them. After having been kicked in the butt twice by the Yanks, I bet GB would have been more than happy to not only finance, but maybe even join in overrunning the North.

Had that happened, we'd all be eating chips instead of french fries, drinking ale instead of beer, cakes instead of cookies, tea several times a day and we'd all have bad teeth.

Answer 6

The civil war was fought over State's Rights... whatever else led up to it.. it was State's Rights that were the driving issue. Slavery was a side issue at the time and not really popular with anyone. Lincoln used the Emancipation Proclamation as a last ditch effort to keep the war from happening... and it didn't work.. but the proof is, the Emancipation Proclamation was not signed into law for almost a YEAR after the war started so.. regardless of what the revisionists want you to believe.. SLAVERY was just a side issue.

Answer 7

It was fought on the Union Side to perserve the union. Later in the War, it was to free the slaves. The South fought it because they want a weak central government. Their cause is mainly states rights.

No. Thier actions were undermining the Union and the United States Constitution.

Answer 8

The two couldn't coexist next to each other with that many differences, it was a breeding ground for war. Not only that but had the secession taken place, the economy would of been devastated, and the two weakened countries would be open to foreign invasion.

Answer 9

No, because both countries would have had to be weak not powerful and there might always be conflicts between them. Plus there would have been big fights over the west, and later the south would have had to give up slavery any way.

Answer 10

Because secession is a separation movement and in any history of nations, separatism or rebels were dealt seriously. Often times even if it meant war.