Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Cathedral
What you have to look forward to!
An Interactive Way to Learn US History
The Cathedral
Users
Blog Archive
What you have to look forward to!
I feel that the Civil War was inevitable to a certain extent. If there was any opportunity to compromise or prevent a war from erupting, the North and the South were both too blinded by their own personal agendas to take note of it. The South was set in their agricultural way of life and rejected the idea of change. The North objected to the slavery of the South and wanted to force them to change. Each side had too much of an "us vs. them" mentality to avoid a war. In addition, tensions were running high. With every action the North took against slavery, the South got more anxious and angry. Look at Harper's Ferry, for example. John Brown led a group of men to free slaves. The South was outraged and the court of Virginia had Brown executed. This incident demonstrates how afraid the South was of the idea of freeing their slaves and how set the North was on doing so. Then there was South Carolina's Ordinance of Secession, which showed that the South could not put up with the North's completely opposite agenda any longer. They felt their way of life was being unjustly quelled. The great differences between the North and South and the high tensions between the two regions made a Civil War inevitable.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Civil War was definitely inevitable. The tensions between North and South escalated until the point of political parties becoming representatives of each side. Because the country was divided physically by North and South already, people of the separate regions were able to split apart easily. The South favored secession because the federal government did not represent its opinions. They had always known that secession would bring about a war, but now the southern states were mostly in favor of seceding and could defend themselves. The issue of slavery had become a great moral, economic, and social issue, and could not be decided or compromised by debate or negotiation. South Carolina's reasons for secession included anti-slavery laws enacted by a list of northern states. The ordinance of South Carolina's secession also states that agitation against slavery had steadily increased for 25 years, and this agitation was also aided by the power of the common government. South Carolina was actually correct in this statement, as anti-slavery laws had been increasing tensions for decades before the Civil War took place. The abolitionist movement, anti-slavery laws, and other events made the Civil War bound to happen.
ReplyDeleteThe Civil War was inevitable. There really wasn't any way it could've been prevented what with how deep southern and northern tensions ran. The division within the nation wasn't just something that suddenly sprung up in time for a skirmish; it existed since the before the Industrial Revolution. There weren't only economic divides between North and South (the north was more into manufacturing and industrialization while the south relied heavily upon its booming cotton business), there were also social divides having to do with slavery and abolition. Compromise after compromise was made, but honestly, there really couldn't be a middle ground; the nation couldn't just be divided and still function as one nation, Abraham Lincoln knew that. It either had to go one way, or the other, and honestly the way the north was going would yield more in the long term than the way the south was pursuing. The war was definitely bound to happen at some point; there had to be some confrontation between north and south that would decide the direction of the entire nation as a whole.
ReplyDeleteA civil war was definitely inevitable. Throughout the 1850’s and even before the tensions between North and South over the issue of slavery were there but not completely recognized. They were different politically, economically, socially and physically. However, these tensions soon became extremely apparent with events like Harper’s Ferry, Lincoln winning the election and the South Carolina Ordinance of Secession. John Brown led a raid of the federal arsenal with both black and white men and with the intention of arming and freeing slaves. Even though he and his men were caught, the attack placed an even greater fear in the south. An uprising of blacks was their biggest fear and it infuriated them that it could escalate to that point. When Lincoln was elected, many southerners feared that he would use his power to abolish slavery. Then again, he never outright held a stance on slavery as seen in his “House Divided” speech. He simply said that a decision had to be made. Many southerners believed that they could no longer count on the government and seceded, like South Carolina did with their Ordinance of Secession. South Carolina did not want to follow the laws that they were being forced to follow so they thought that it would be better to become completely independent from the rest of the United States. Most of the other southern states followed soon after and created their own declarations of independence.
ReplyDeleteI definitely feel that the Civil War was inevitable at the time. The North and the South were already heavily burdened by tensions that had built up and manifested over several years. There was no way that they would compromise as they were both too stubborn and too convinced that they were right in the political debate involving slavery and other issues. The separation between the North and the South was obvious even before the Civil War grew near as the North had always been the industrial counterpart and the South as the agricultural counterpart. There would always be that division between the two as totally different regions. At the time before the Civil War broke out, Southerners were too set in their mindset that slavery was okay and that they held the “white man’s burden” and the Northern people were too set in their mindset that slavery was not okay and that abolitionism needed to take off. It was a matter of differences that were rooted long before the question of slavery became so big. It’s like putting a piece of candy in between two children. They are bound to fight over it and in the end; one of them will undoubtedly get it. There is no sharing. Like Lincoln said, the country could go only one way and that one way would either satisfy the North or the South, it couldn’t possibly satisfy both. If it can’t satisfy both sides, both regions were willing to fight in a war to prove that they were right.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Emily. It would have been too hard or impossible even to get the north and south to agree with each other. They were too different in too many ways to be able to reach a concrete decision. The south was so set in their ways with using slaves and having an agricultural based economy. The North had the same problem except they were more urban and had a strong abolitionist population. On the issue of slavery there could be no middle ground anymore. In order to continue and function properly, the country had to make a decision. The country itself would not be able to work if there was constantly the issue of slavery. There was no more room for compromise and with both sides pulling in opposite directions, there was bound to be a civil war.
ReplyDeleteI believe it is safe to say that the chance of the Civil War happening was ridiculously high. The Civil War was the zenith of the conflict between the north and the south. During the mid 1800s, events questioned the validity of slavery. Acts like the Missouri Compromise and the Louisiana Purchase banned slavery in certain territories. Already, tensions were growing because the southern states were in favor for every state to be a slave state, but the north opposed them. The issue tipped as a result of John Brown's actions at Harper Ferry, but more importantly, due to Abraham Lincoln's rise to presidency. Many of the southerner's felt that Lincoln would use his office to try to abolish slavery. Southern politicians felt that the only way to preserve their way of life and ideals was to secede from the nation. They believed that when, "form of government becomes destructive... it is the right of that people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." (FTR, 575-576). The tension that was building up between the north and the south, and the south's decision to secede ultimately led to conflict. The south just didn't like Lincoln.
ReplyDeleteCarly makes a good point about how deep the differences between the North and South ran. They were not just economic, but social as well. The fact that they had opposing ideas in almost every aspect of their lives made it impossible to compromise and satsify both sides. Emily also makes an interesting point by saying that both sides were willing to fight to prove they were right. The problem wasn't just that the North and South had different ideas. It was also that they were so passionate about their ideas and so convinced thay they were right. This made them more ready to fight each other than try to comprimse and ultimately led to a war.
ReplyDeleteThe civil war was inevitable, because the regional differences would, seemingly never stop until something big happened. Since the country’s birth, there have been tensions between the south and the north. The agricultural and industrial gap was very strong and the south was too stubborn to change its ways. Because of the regions, the south could not let go of slavery because they needed the slaves for cheap labor. This problem would inevitably tear the country apart. Lincoln planned for the country to not be torn apart, but to keep together; with or without slavery. Even politically, the US was divided because abolition and non abolition tears the democrats apart. No party or region is able to hold America together anymore. Therefore, the clash of north and south is inevitable.
ReplyDeleteLike Dana and Carly mentioned, tension practically surrounded every aspect of society whether economic, political, or social. Having these tensions so heavily rooted into societal functions and behaviors undoubtably takes its tole on the American people. It was like the Americans practically dug a hole for themselves, and as the tensions grew deeper, so did the hole, and eventually the people are gonna want to find a way out of the hole any way possible.
ReplyDeleteThe Civil War was inevitable, and if it didn't occur when it did, it would have erupted soon after. Years and years of build up-even from the beginning of our nation in regards to how to handle slavery- had led to the point where our country needed to break. No one saw it coming simply because they were so focused on everything else going on. The North was deeply rooted in their economic and industrial expansion, and also many northerners were extremely focused on abolishing slavery, not even looking at the consequences. Similarly, the south was deeply rooted in their cotton industry, and working to maintain slavery while simultaneously coping with their fear of slave revolt (or really any form of revolt) and handling the fact that the Southern state were practically being ignored within the federal government.
ReplyDeleteIn a way, South Carolina's secession represented their attempt at getting some sort of voice heard among the nation, and there message significantly spread among the other Southern states that followed. The south was tired of being overpowered and outdone by the thriving northern states, and simply began to prepare to defend themselves against the north's growth. Events like Harper's Ferry, where now a white northern man was leading such an extreme revolt, demonstrated to the South that even "their own kind" were going against them, and intensified the fear of what was to come. What was foreshadowed through Bleeding Kansas was now reaching the national level, and there was really no other way to settle the now-overflowing tensions among society. In order to reunify the nation, it had to physically divide and than work its way back to whole.
Chanel brings up a good point corresponding to the agricultural and industrial gap between the two regions. I believe that if they were on similar terms regarding a universal economy, tensions would not have escalated to the level they did. Ultimately, the stubbornness of both sides contributed to the war. It is interesting to think whether a war would have occurred if the north or the south tried to come to even terms with the other side. I guess we will never know for sure.
ReplyDeleteSooner or later, a civil war between the North and South was going to happen, being completely inevitable. Right from the beginning, the geographic features and climate of the North and South were very different causing their economies to be based off of different industries. The North thrived on industrial expansion and factories while the South depended on agriculture. This difference was the root of all problems and tensions that occurred between the North and South. Each region would now have different wants and needs in order to improve their industries and solidify their economy. With this being said, when slavery was introduced it worked for the South and allowed their agricultural economy to thrive, as thousands and thousands worked hard on the plantations for little or no money. Labor was key in the South because they needed people to work on the plantations and slavery was a great source of that. On the other hand, the North had little or no use for these slaves and therefore developed a desire to abolish slavery. This divided stand on slavery caused the differences between the North and South to become even more apparent and tensions to grow. Each region focused too much on what was best for themselves and never did what was best to keep their nation unified. As the anger of the North continued to rise more and more people began to take action to abolish slavery. Harper’s ferry was an example of this. A man named John Brown led a party of men, encouraging slaves to join, on a raid to protest slavery and demand for it to be abolished. Virginia quickly executed these men and the South became increasingly fearful of the North. The South believed that the North was preparing for a widespread attack which caused them to tighten their slave laws even more. Overall, the South was incredibly angered by the actions of the North causing civil war to seem closer and closer to happening. Lastly, the succession of South Carolina was a very important event that showed civil war was soon to come. The South was tired of their unfair treatment and amount of power the North had over them. For them, there was nothing else left to do other than secede, hoping that other would follow so that they could prove their point and show they do not need the North. Sure enough, many followed after and the South was slowly breaking apart as tensions between the North reached an all time high. From the very start, civil war between the two regions was going to happen.
ReplyDeleteThe Civil War was inevitable. Tensions between the North and South had crossed the line there was no turning back. They were both under such hatred for each other and were so focused on their own agendas’ that there was no room for compromise. The South was willing to stick to their one livelihood, slavery, at all costs because this stimulated their economy. Meanwhile the North was becoming more and more abolitionist. The North kept putting pressure on the South to end slavery as the years progressed because they did not understand why the South actually really needed slavery. Also an event such as Harper’s Ferry scared the southerners because they can control their slaves from rebellion, but there is no stopping a northerner from attacking an arsenal and raising a slave army. They were afraid of more John Browns. Also the 1860 election was the last straw because this proved that the South had no say in any political actions because Lincoln won the election even though he was not on ten southern state ballads. This all just goes to show you how imminent civil war was because of these extreme tensions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jenna on the point that regional ideas taking priority over national ideas were a problem in this time period. This undoubtedly was one of the sole reasons for the Civil War. An event such as the Kansas Nebraska Act showed how that generation of leaders was looking out for their states or region. This can prove to be deadly because this behavior leads to splits in political parties such as dividing the Democrats into northern and southern Democrats. Also the Union was destroyed because of preexisting and new issues between the North and South.
ReplyDeleteJustin makes a great point how the North misunderstood the South and their need to slavery. If they took the time to pay attention to the effects of slavery on the South's economy and how important it was many problems would have been solved. In order for these two regions to have worked together as one nation communication with one another was needed. If the North and South were more understanding of eachother a peaceful solution could have been made rather than fighting a civil war.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Justin Tocci that Harper's Ferry and the 1860 elections both proved the Civil War to be inevitable. Harper's Ferry proved that not only slaves would resort to violence in order to combat slavery, and definitely made southerners more wary of future violence. The 1860 elections are an example of the disunion that had already taken place before the Civil War, as the majority of the southern states didn't really matter when it came to voting for the president. The South felt as though the federal government was against them and that even more violence from the North was soon to erupt. These events escalated tensions and made the Civil War ever more inevitable.
ReplyDeleteAlmost everything about the North and the South were different. When trying to fix issues between two VERY different sides arguments are inevitable and war is the extreme. The North and the South have been on very different terms for a long time and civil war was definitely inevitable. The big issues of slavery started from the very beginning and was very hard to deal with because it was such a big part of life at that time. Splitting up the states into slave and non-slave labels was not a good idea for the unity of the country because there were different agendas. The new mindset during this time period caused the rise of abolitionists and in turn, the slave revolts(eg Harper's Ferry). The different sides that the North and the South took really altered their relationship and in the end, it was simply inevitable. Like Lincoln said, a house divided cannot stand... it will become one thing or all the other. Lincoln was a smart man to realize that it had to be one or the other, otherwise they wouldnt be able to get anything done because they would be stuck on this issue.
ReplyDeleteErin brings up a good point about the laws. Without laws there is no order and there is no common ground. For South Carolina to oppose the laws and find that the government is no longer reliable, there is definitely a problem. When someone argues all the time about the rules, they always end up doing something rash. They would have wanted to break away eventually, because, why would they be part of something when their voices werent even heard? If I were to put myself in a Southerner from Carolina's shoes I honestly would have thought the same thing. I would have been sick and tired of laws that dont apply to me, or restrain what I "owned". When slaves were essential to southern living, the north was selfish to try and take it away because they had a different lifestyle. they didnt understand the differences but they still tried to force it. So in the end, the north ended up pushing the south away.
ReplyDeleteThe Civil War was inevitable because the social and economic differences were so deeply rooted. The South was always heavily dependent on agricultural economy while the North adapted to manufacturing goods. Therefore, while the South needed to have slaves in order to have a cheap labor force, the North did not have to rely on having slavery in order to produce goods. This division on whether or not slavery was a necessary part of economic life placed a huge gap between northerners and southerners. Abraham Lincoln understood that a country cannot stand with two totally contrasting sides, one supporting and one against slavery. The US needed to make a choice whether or not to allow slavery in order to keep unity within the country, and that decision would be made through the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteI really like Emily's analogy of children and candy versus the United States and slavery. It really drives the point that either way, one side is going to win and the other side will lose; there is no possible way that both pro-slavery and antislavery legislatures and supporters could not sustain unity in the United States.
ReplyDeleteDue to the overwhelming differences between the North and South, Civil War was inevitable. If there was any opportunity to compromise or prevent a war, the North and the South were too concerned with their own personal agendas to recognize it. The root of the problem is that each region was set in their ways and each had a separate idea of how the country should be run. Although there were good intentions behind their ideologies because they both just wanted the country to be successful, this disunity was ultimately detrimental to the nation. The South believed agricultural was the key to success and resisted change because they found that simple agriculture already brought them success. The North objected to the slavery of the South, partially because it wasn't essential to their agriculture, and wanted to lead the South to change because that's how the North became successful. Each side was set in their ways of how to be successful instead of accepting the differences between the regions. Clearly what works in the North won't always work in the South because they are geographically, socially, and economically different.
ReplyDeleteThis caused alot of tensions and turmoil that only grew throughout the years. With every action the North took against slavery, the South got more angry. The best example is Harper's Ferry, when John Brown (white Northener) led a group of men to capture an arsenal and form a slave army. The South was outraged and Brown was executed. This extreme incident shows how enthusiastic some people in the North were to abolish slavery. The South demonstrated their refusal to entertain such nonsense. They put a stop to Brown very quickly and took actions to prevent this kind of event from reoccurring.
In the election of 1860, Lincoln won by a landslide even though his name did not even appear on the ballot in TEN S. states. The South clearly had less power than the North in government. After the election, South Carolina issued an Ordinance of Secession, in hopes that other Southern states would follow. When they did, the North saw that the South no longer wanted to be powerless in government. The great differences between the North and South made a Civil War inevitable.
I think Jenna is right when she says that regionals came before the country. with the new generation of politicians, regions came before the nation as a whole. With last generations politicians, they always tried to preserve the union. Without this ideology, the new politicans start tearing America apart more;politically. From policial tearing, the country becomes more cecptible to civil war.
ReplyDeleteClaudia makes a really good point in noting that Lincoln's overall victory even though his name didn't even appear on ballots in ten Southern states really showed how inferior the South was to the North. It was the South's feelings of inferiority that really led them to want to backlash against the North and be separate. They wanted to feel powerful without feeling like an insignificant region.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the mid-19th century, regionalism had polarized America, especially its Congress, into such staunchly opposed sides that by the start of the 1860s an "either you're with us or against us" attitude began to develop. Sure, not all people felt as strongly about the issues as others, but it grew increasingly difficult to stay neutral. The question of slavery could no longer be ignored, the South's disadvantage in politics increasing, and the vast economic differences growing even more obvious. What would become the Union and Confederacy were already in two vastly different worlds, and these affiliations between states was already showing up in the 1850s every time a problem was posed to Congress. There were compromises, but every time the squabbling built up, gradually growing worse, and they would keep on doing so until the Civil War happened. With the issues so deeply rooted into the foundation of southern society, such as slavery's pivotal role in its economy or their lesser population leading to less representation in government, the disputes would eventually have to grow non-negotiable, only rooted out forcibly by something like the war.
ReplyDeleteClaudia makes a good point about John Brown. Even before the Civil War, some American citizens were already resorting to violent means to support their causes, showing the turbulent era this was. It might've been better, actually, that the Civil War happened, rather than American society dissolving into endless riots and Bleeding Kansas or John Brown situations.
ReplyDeleteThe Civil War was inevitable because there were mounting tensions between the north and the south regarding slavery since the creation of the constitution. The constitution pushed off dealing with the slave issue until a later date, which caused more and more problems to build up, instead of get solved. Also the connection between the north and the south was becoming less and less strong because of economic differences along with the social ones. Whether or not slaves were a necessary for the economy of the United States was another issue that divided the north and the south.
ReplyDeleteThere were also the many slave revolts that occurred just before the start of the civil war that led to secession. When whites began to fight against slavery it caused many problems for the southerners in support of slavery.
I agree with what Claudia said about Lincoln's involvement in the division between the north and the south. His name wasn't included on the ballot in 10 southern states and he still won the election, which could have angered southerners who thought he was an abolitionist. This also showed that the south had less power and influence in government than the north did, which angered the South and helped to lead to secession. When they pulled away from the north, the north was able to see that the civil war would soon follow, and that the south needed more influence in government.
ReplyDeleteThe Civil War was inevitable. The belief of the Manifest Destiny was a major reason for this. It basically split the parties and politics. Entering the mid eighteen hundreds slavery was a big issue, and a lot of the controversies were caused by territorial expansion. With more lands being acquired the number of slave state and Free State representatives in Congress became unbalanced. California came in as a free state and the south disagreed with this decision. Also the Kansas-Nebraska act was a big issue. Because there was a lot of discussion on whether to make this territory a slave state or a free state, Stephen Douglas decided to use popular sovereignty. This completely contradicted the Missouri Compromise and this ended up cause the North to disagree and controversy would form. This caused distress among the senators and representatives. All of these tensions would lead to abolitionists like John Brown, attempting to end slavery which would in the end lead to secession in South Carolina and a domino affect would occur with the secessions of other southern states.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Liz on how the Constitution was a major reason for the tension build ups. The constitution never really cleared any issues rearding slavery. Even when Thomas Jefferson tried to make a plan, people just complained so he ended up leaving the issue out. I also agree with how economics played a part in the growing tensions. The north had a lot more benefits with for example industrialization. A lot of railroad plans were made for the North and the south was left out. This doesnt relate to slavery, but this may have caused tensions to rise.
ReplyDeleteToo many people are saying the Civil War was inevitable so let me take the Devil’s advocate standpoint for this one. The Civil War was our countries greatest disaster, even to this day. As with most disasters, what normally occurs is a series of unfortunate, isolated, and improbable events that slowly build up until a catastrophic system failure occurs, as with plane crashes. The Civil War can be seen as no different. We have many isolated incidents occurring all over the country, such as revolts and murders, that each could be taken care of individually quickly and quietly. Then added on that are the new generation of politicians, and other major factors which eventually erupted into the Civil War. But if one were to remove one of these factors from the system, a Civil War would likely not have broken out. All that was needed could have been some simple negotiation and less strong headed people. One clear such evidence as to why there was a chance the Civil War could have been avoided was the speed at which people decided to succeed. It seems as if their decision was a spur of the moment and no clear thought went into it. If they had waited a little longer before deciding they could have called it off. Moreover, many other students are listing the regional differences as a cause of the war, especially the North being industrial and the south being agricultural. If anything, these differences would have made the connection between the two parts stronger because they would both have to rely on each other to keep their economies going. In the end, it seems that the Civil War could have been avoided and was just a spur of the moment decision made by a few hot headed radicals.
ReplyDeleteI think the Civil War was definitely inevitable at this time. The North and South had continuous tensions between them so it was expected for them to release this anxiety sooner or later. Also, due to the fact that South Carolina succeeded on December 20th, many other southern states began to follow and a chain reaction of succession began. (Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, and so on) Bleeding Kansas foreshadowed this event as well because of their own little civil war. There was already fighting and tensions there so it would only spread. Lastly, the event at Harper’s Ferry was extremely significant as well. In this situation, southerners were afraid of slave rebellions so they held a tighter grip among them. Therefore, this attack to seize arsenal to revolt against slavery further increased the anxiety among the North and South which would inevitably lead to the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Justin’s viewpoint upon Harper’s Ferry. This situation was certainly important because this rebellion was led by a Northern whit man. Therefore, it was different from other previous slave revolts. Also, it further contributed to the fear in the southerners which led them to start forming small militias in the south to protect themselves. As a result, this event influenced the Civil War as being inevitable.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that the Constitution was a major contributing factor to the rising tension. The constitution did not have any solid stance on slavery so the North and South got lost in translation. It was their interpretations that caused separation. When Thomas Jefferson tried to make a plan, there was so much controversy that he had to leave it out. I also agree with how the different economies created tension. The north was more industrialized, while the South was agriculturally based. It seems that tension came from several sources and contributed to one outcome of disunity amongst the North and South.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the Civil War was extremely inevitable. There were far too many disagreements between the North and South, especially once secession began. Once secession began, the only choices were the country dividing or a war to try to keep it together. With Lincoln as the president, war was bound to happen, because he was very dedicated to the Union.
ReplyDeleteThen, as slavery came into question, the tension rose and smaller fights began to break out. Once this happened, the war was basically already started, as there was no turning back and no way to mend relations without determining whose rules would be followed.
Scott's points about the "for or against us" attitude also played a huge role in the inevitability of the war. As the differences between the North and the South grew, especially politically and economically, a war was looming. I also agree with Laura and Liz's views on slavery. There really couldn't be both in the country anymore, due to new abolitionist ideas and people finally taking definitive stances on slavery.
ReplyDeleteThe Civil War was an inevitable conflict that was bound to explode due to the differences between the North and South societies and politics. However the key ingredian that exploded the bomb was slavery. In the north, many abolitionists were crying for an end to slavery and the north was coming to a conclusion that these abolitionists were right. The South, however, thought that the north was trying to take away their way of life by freeing the slaves. The southern economy depended on the slaves and if they were to be freed the plantations would be deserted. This disagreement was the main reason a war was inevitable. Also The South and North also had very different economies. The North was all about manufacturing and the south was heavy on cotton production and plantations. They never worked hand in hand. This was another problem. Lastly, the south never felt that it had a say in the government and with Lincoln winning the election. It was the last straw for the south as many states succeded. All in all, a person can easily look back and say that a civil war would of broken out eventually and that it was inevitable.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Toy in that another reason for the divide was territorial expansion issues. This goes hand in hand with having non-slave states and slave states. When it was becoming aparent to the south that the north was getting more and more states that were non-slave they were angry. They started to realize that they were out numbered and that they would not have an equal say in governmental affairs.
ReplyDeleteI do not think the civil war inevitable. Was the North and South developing differently, yes. Were there great problems surrounding slavery, yes. Could this all have been avoided, yes. The people at the time were becoming very emotional surrounding their beliefs. Neither side, the North or South were willing to compromise with the other. Unlike Clay, Webster and Gremlin, the leaders of America before the civil war were not focused on holding the nation together but their own personal gains. Although the north and south seemed vastly different they still relied on each other to get cotton and manufactured goods. The southerners at the time were so worried about Lincoln if they opened their eyes they would realize that he was not going to completely end slavery. The civil war did not happen because of differences between the north and south, but because political leaders were unwilling to compromise with the opposing side.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Marco said. The Civil war was caused mainly by a few hot heads. It was really like a large scale revolt which is how Lincoln treated it. Just because you disagree with the way things are happening in the government does not mean you pick up arms and kill one another. They should have had a civil discussion and acted like civilized human beings.
ReplyDeleteCivil War was not inevitable at the time, but any other solution would likely have taken longer and solved less. Without the Civil War, underlying tensions would not have been solved, but pushed under the carpet once again as they had been in the past. Eventually, issues like slavery would rise up and there would be no effective way of talking it away because Southerners were simply very unwilling to give up their slaves. Civil War was a way of making them accept its end as sort of a necessary payment for losing a war.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the states that seceded had trouble with the Union from the start. So if they were somehow "talked back" into the union, there is a possibility that they would demand some sort of payment for coming back, which would give them more power, and in turn split up the Union more. Even if this individual secession crisis was solved, eventually tensions would rise to a point where people were unwilling to give in to just the negotiations of a government and Civil War would eventually break out, even if not at that very moment. Tensions have to be solved eventually.
Marco raises the point that the Civil war was avoidable if not for hot-headed politicians. To this I respond like I did in my previous post, that while that specific struggle COULD have been talked away, it could not be fully talked away. Tensions would continue to rise. The Civil War in the 1860's could have been avoided, but some fighting would eventually break out because the North and the South had already shown themselves unwilling to negotiate on certain matters.
ReplyDelete