Was the Civil War Inevitable?

[rangerrebew]

Was the Civil War Inevitable?

Many reasons tell us that the answer to the question, 'Was the Civil War inevitable?', is a yes. But could there be another side to that debate? Read on to find out...

Historyplex Staff

The American Civil War is one of the most prominent events in American history, and it changed many things not just in America alone, but in the world as well. Rapid thought tells us that yes, this was an inevitable event. But historical events are not that easy to decipher. There are numerous examples that show us that, prominent and important historical events do not occur due to one reason or due to some easily identifiable reasons. Instead, a confluence of a large number of unpredictable and seemingly, unrelated events lead to the specific outcomes, we have studied for many years.

https://historyplex.com/was-civil-war-inevitable

[Absalom]

Worthy and provocative topic which requires assessment of a very large element of our heritage.
It deserves reflection and comment yet sadly won't get either as the table thumpers rule!
---------
While the Almighty willed us our existence, we mortals are the deciders in this life;
as such, we are responsible for whatever becomes inevitable!
----------------------------------
A name long forgotten/ignored is critical here, namely Rowan Helper, a Carolinian of the pre-War
South, schooled in economics and history.
In 1857, he published "The Impending Crisis in the South"; whose thesis was direct and simple.
From our earliest days, the South continued to fall behind the North economically, as it had
embraced the production of cotton as its economic center, which was land and water intensive,
crowding out mercantile/industrial opportunities common in the North.
Additionally, Cotton production had empowered an agrarian Aristocracy of Plantation holders who
insisted that their vision for the South was the correct one; despite the increasing political alarm
bells ringing over slavery.
Helper, uninterested in sanctimonious moralizing, asserted that slavery was an economic disaster
for the plain folk of the South, as it allowed the Plantation Aristocracy to prevent their economic independence and advancement. Soon, he was driven from the South and in time became an advisor to Potus Lincoln.
Ironically, during this time, while Britain was approaching is zenith of power, another entity became increasingly prominent, namely Prussia!
German genius in Music and Mathematics had startled the world and became increasingly
obvious in mechanics. By mid-century they had created machinery that could replicate simple
labor intensive tasks such as the picking and processing of commodities such as cotton.
Yet two elements stood in the way; the protectionists in the North who controlled Congress
and opposed any threat to our industries as well as the Southern Plantation Class who insisted
on their vision; realizing that any backtracking meant the loss of their power.
Such is a classic example of the consequences of the road not taken!!!

[corbe]

   It's certainly been awhile since Briefers weighted in on the War of Northern Aggression.

[Absalom]

   It's certainly been awhile since Briefers weighted in on the War of Northern Aggression.

---------------------------------
Consider this scenario:
*In 1860, the British Empire was effectively at it's zenith of power, w/a Navy of some 500 Warships.
*The British Empire and our South were both free traders and natural economic allies because of cotton.
*If Britain had allied w/the South they could have closed all Northern Ports in an instant.
*Britain maintained some 50,000 regulars in Canada, allowing them to open a second front and threatening Boston, New York and Philadelphia.
Suspect the Civil War would have have turned out far differently.

[Bigun]

Was the civil war inevitable?

Nope! But all the big money behind Honest Abe demanded it and he made it happen.

[TomSea]

   It's certainly been awhile since Briefers weighted in on the War of Northern Aggression.

What does that mean? Lost Causers defend the evil of slavery? It may have been a long time but we never have gotten an answer on that.

And it was clear, the slave states wanted to expand slavery into new areas.

A great moral wrong.

[TomSea]

There's a lot to say too, that the South was flirting with a huge slave rebellion, at one point, South Carolina was 80% slave per population but no right to vote? Good luck with that.

We always hear the incendiary language. Well, a picture's worth a thousand words.



@corbe   For your incendiary words since your comments are often just bomb throwing with no interest in any debate.

[Bigun]

What does that mean? Lost Causers defend the evil of slavery? It may have been a long time but we never have gotten an answer on that.

And it was clear, the slave states wanted to expand slavery into new areas.

A great moral wrong.

And you still think it was about slavery! 

 

[HoustonSam]

The war was not inevitable.  Lincoln could have recognized the right of the seceding southern states to govern themselves, but refused.  That slavery was a monstrous evil justifies the war no more than one could have justified war against states that legalized abortion prior to Roe v. Wade.

He admirably called both sides to reconciliation and charity in his Second Inaugural, but would have been more honest had he stated :

"Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation liberty survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came."

"...and the war came", in the passive tense, was also intellectually dishonest.  He brought the war.

[Absalom]

What does that mean? Lost Causers defend the evil of slavery? It may have been a long time but we never have gotten an answer on that.

And it was clear, the slave states wanted to expand slavery into new areas.

A great moral wrong.

---------------------------------------
Suggest dispensing w/the pious and sanctimonious moralizing, while considering a timeline.
The English Pilgrims arrived in 1620, while we took charge of our own destiny w/the ratification
of our Constitution in 1789, a span of some 170 years.
So who was in charge previously?
The Dutch for a brief period followed by the British, for some 150 years. Let's move along.
When were the slaves set free?
In 1863 w/the Emancipation Proclamation; some 75 years after we were in charge.
So why didn't the British eradicate slavery earlier? Hmm............
After we were in charge, we did it in half the time. Hmm............
 

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

What does that mean? Lost Causers defend the evil of slavery? It may have been a long time but we never have gotten an answer on that.

And it was clear, the slave states wanted to expand slavery into new areas.

A great moral wrong.

Serious question here.  I don't know the answer.

But didn't the southern states give up their claims on the "new areas" when they seceded?

[catfish1957]

And you still think it was about slavery! 

 

Don't argue with this <Nope>.  When he's not falsely accusing Briefers of pedophilia he's analogizing them as supporters of alQaeda and ISIS.

He's TBR's <Nope>.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

The war was not inevitable.  Lincoln could have recognized the right of the seceding southern states to govern themselves, but refused.  That slavery was a monstrous evil justifies the war no more than one could have justified war against states that legalized abortion prior to Roe v. Wade.

He admirably called both sides to reconciliation and charity in his Second Inaugural, but would have been more honest had he stated :

"Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation liberty survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came."

"...and the war came", in the passive tense, was also intellectually dishonest.  He brought the war.

I've read the arguments from both sides, trying to find the truth.  I'll never find it, but my gut says there didn't need to be a war.  A split may or may not have been inevitable, but not war.  Unless, of course, one side had something the other wanted and wasn't willing to give up.

[HoustonSam]

A split may or may not have been inevitable, but not war.  Unless, of course, one side had something the other wanted and wasn't willing to give up.

I believe Lincoln was right in citing scripture, that a house divided against itself cannot stand.  It seems to me that a split was inevitable given the viewpoints and passions of those times.  Were our divisive issues today aligned more clearly with regional boundaries then I believe we would similarly be bound for an inevitable split.

In logical fairness I suppose one must ask whether the war was inevitable to some particular end.  Stated that way, to the end of union, then I suppose it was inevitable.  But this is simply ontological sugar-coating on the belief that federal power must reign supreme.

You raise the question whether one side had something the other wanted.  During my grad school days north of the Mason Dixon, a drinking buddy of mine once suggested over a pitcher of beer that if the South had won the war, "Dixie" would be the national anthem.  Of course I corrected him; the Confederacy did not want to rule the entire United States, only itself, and would have left the union alone.  We didn't want to command, we simply wanted to leave.  Lincoln, however, wanted to command.  The South *did* have something that Lincoln (and other, but not all, Northerners) wanted - authority over itself.

Was the war inevitable to the destruction of slavery in the United States?  We cannot know that because it hypothesizes a history that did not occur.  Clearly it hastened the end of American slavery, but I suspect it also hardened reactionary racial attitudes among the defeated Confederates, which attitudes were then sustained for another century.  But again in fairness, we cannot know whether Jim Crow would have died aborning in a free CSA, because that is also a history that did not occur.