# Was the American Civil War inevitable? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 3, 2012, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709 "2012-05-03T02:07:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/61 "2012-05-04T16:10:34Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I said I didn’t have much hope. Care to address the content at all, even a little bit? Come on you can do it. I find it disheartening that your research methods rely on “ctrl F” ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/62 "2012-05-04T16:18:34Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If only we had some clue as to what the causes of secession where.Some clue.Some little hint. > But I guess we’ll never know what their reasons were. I guess you missed the part where they state that it was through anti-slavery movement they hoped to reinstitute the tariff? If so you have missed the most important part of the document. The authors were most definitely afraid of the Republican Party’s opposition to slavery, but they were also keen to the reasons why this opposition was exploited. _Economy_, sir. > [@](#): > > But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all. > > All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/63 "2012-05-04T16:29:32Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If only we had some clue as to what the causes of secession where.Some clue.Some little hint. Why am I reminded of Robert L Fish’s “Schlock Homes” parodies, where one of the recurring gags was 1)a presentation of blindingly obvious clues, which 2)Homes would proceed to interpret in some absurdly counterintuitive manner? > [@](#): > > But I guess we’ll never know what their reasons were. If only we had two historical examples – one of [a secession threat provoked by a tariff](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis) and one of [a secession threat provoked by the election of an slavery-unsympathetic President](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War) – and could see which one fizzled out and which one led to war… ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/64 "2012-05-04T16:53:20Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > If only we had two historical examples – one of [a secession threat provoked by a tariff](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis) and one of [a secession threat provoked by the election of an slavery-unsympathetic President](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War) – and could see which one fizzled out and which one led to war… Yes every time something similar happens, the same result must follow. A guy beats his wife on monday. She threatens to leave, but does not. He beats her again on thursday, she leaves. Guy: “There must be some other reason she left, I beat her on monday but she didn’t leave.” ^Plausible reasoning to **Steve MB**. Crock of bullshit to every other living being. ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/65 "2012-05-04T17:03:08Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > What are you talking about? One attempts to explain why the North went to war, the other to explain why the South went to war. How would they form a counter argument? I believe you may be confused. What are _you_ talking about? They bombarded a US military installation, an act of treason. What sort of nation are you supposing, that allows an act of terrorism like that to stand? ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/66 "2012-05-04T17:07:07Z")
> [@saoirse](#): > > What are _you_ talking about? They bombarded a US military installation, an act of treason. What sort of nation are you supposing, that allows an act of terrorism like that to stand? What sort of nation allows a hostile fort in her waterways? It was no longer necessary for the Union to protect SC, so why did they arm a fort there? ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/67 "2012-05-04T17:21:32Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > What sort of nation allows a hostile fort in her waterways? It was no longer necessary for the Union to protect SC, so why did they arm a fort there? Good question. Here’s a similar one: Why would the United States maintain a coaling station in the Caribbean in 1962? Their ships didn’t use coal anymore. So if I understand your argument, you would say that the Castro government would be justified in bombarding a US facility as well. For that matter, Japan could well have been justified in doing so in 1941. But to answer your question, the US had a military installation near Charleston because Charleston was part of the United States, whose borders were established by treaties which were subsequently ratified by the Senate and signed by the President, and so were the law of the land. The borders of the United States could only be changed by Congress, regardless what a group of traitors thought. ---
**Author:** ![Oldeb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ea666f/32.png) [@Oldeb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oldeb)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/68 "2012-05-04T17:24:59Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > First of all, Vallandigham was subsequently nominated as the Democratic candidate for governor of Ohio in 1863 (though he lost in a landslide). Also, he was heavily involved in the party’s presidential convention in '64 and his peace plank was passed. To characterize him as a “loon”, “fringe”, and “disgraced” is either wrong or dishonest. There was obviously a contingent that supported his views. How does a small, vocal contingent of followers (the aforementioned Copperheads) and two overwhelming losses in both post-Sumter elections not _define_ fringe group? What more could the majority of voters have done to convince you that they didn’t agree with Vallandigham? Kick him out of Union controlled territory? Oh, wait. _They actually did that._ > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > I believe it wasn’t inevitable, the Union could have let the states secede, but they did not. As **Little Nemo** noted early on in the thread, it’s easy to avoid a war when one side doesn’t show up. You might as well point out that the Battle of Hasting wouldn’t have occurred if King Harold had just given his country to the Normans. To repeat his question, why didn’t the South just avoid seceding and prevent the war? To repeat my question, are you somehow incapable of seeing the USA as a single entity? > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > What sort of nation allows a hostile fort in her waterways? It was no longer necessary for the Union to protect SC, so why did they arm a fort there? You seem confused. The seceding States were never a nation. We quite literally had a war over this point, and it was most definitively settled at a court house in Appomattox. They were in fact taking up arms against their own country, the USA. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/69 "2012-05-04T17:35:22Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Crock of bullshit to every other living being. I only see one person here whose arguments are being generally rejected as a crock of bullshit, and his initials are WF. (Apparently the “T” got lost somewhere in the intertubes.) ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/70 "2012-05-04T17:37:10Z")
> [@Oldeb](#): > > How does a small, vocal contingent of followers (the aforementioned Copperheads) and two overwhelming losses in both post-Sumter elections not _define_ fringe group? What more could the majority of voters have done to convince you that they didn’t agree with Vallandigham? Kick him out of Union controlled territory? Oh, wait. _They actually did that._ So his opinions, which are substantiated by other sources I have provided, are void because he lost elections? He was influential in his party. That removes “fringe” from his description. > [@](#): > > As **Little Nemo** noted early on in the thread, it’s easy to avoid a war when one side doesn’t show up. You might as well point out that the Battle of Hasting wouldn’t have occurred if King Harold had just given his country to the Normans. To repeat his question, why didn’t the South just avoid seceding and prevent the war? To repeat my question, are you somehow incapable of seeing the USA as a single entity? Are you somehow incapable of seeing the USA as a union of states? > [@](#): > > You seem confused. The seceding States were never a nation. We quite literally had a war over this point, and it was most definitively settled at a court house in Appomattox. They were in fact taking up arms against their own country, the USA. If they were still part of the U.S., why were they not afforded representation in congress? The answer is because they were seceding, as was their right, and formed a seperate government. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/71 "2012-05-04T17:46:12Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > I only see one person here whose arguments are being generally rejected as a crock of bullshit, and his initials are WF. (Apparently the “T” got lost somewhere in the intertubes.) I’m merely presenting the evidence for my side of the argument. Using mostly primary sources from the era, I have made my case. You have presented jokes and an argument that was dispatched with one post; afterwards, you responded with a less funny joke. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/72 "2012-05-04T17:59:25Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Anyway, this only explains why the states seceded, not why there was a war. The North could have let the states secede. The South could have not opened fire on Fort Sumter. I think that pretty well explains why there was a war. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/73 "2012-05-04T18:33:45Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > So his opinions, which are substantiated by other sources I have provided, are void because he lost elections? Losing elections, by definition, proves that he did not represent the views of the nation. > [@](#): > > He was influential in his party. That removes “fringe” from his description. This definition leads to absurd results (e.g. it excludes Birther crackpots from the description “fringe”), and is therefore rejected. > [@](#): > > Are you somehow incapable of seeing the USA as a union of states? Yes – a UNION. Traitors tried to break the union, they got shut down (and treated with remarkable mercy compared to the usual punishments meted out for treason). > [@](#): > > If they were still part of the U.S., why were they not afforded representation in congress? Their elected representatives refused to show up for work. Anyone who felt unrepresented should have taken it up with them. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/74 "2012-05-04T20:23:04Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Losing elections, by definition, proves that he did not represent the views of the nation. He lost elections, so it follows that he was wrong about the intentions of Northern war hawks? No you are wrong. > [@](#): > > This definition leads to absurd results (e.g. it excludes Birther crackpots from the description “fringe”), and is therefore rejected. When Birthers get a plank passed at the convention come talk to me until then you are wrong. > [@](#): > > Yes – a UNION. Traitors tried to break the union, they got shut down (and treated with remarkable mercy compared to the usual punishments meted out for treason). Unions can’t be broken? Ok I’ll take your word for it. > [@](#): > > Their elected representatives refused to show up for work. Anyone who felt unrepresented should have taken it up with them. This doesn’t explain why they weren’t afforded representation after the war when extra-constitutional requirements were set before they could be represented. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/75 "2012-05-04T21:37:47Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > I guess you missed the part where they state that it was through anti-slavery movement they hoped to reinstitute the tariff? If so you have missed the most important part of the document. The authors were most definitely afraid of the Republican Party’s opposition to slavery, but they were also keen to the reasons why this opposition was exploited. _Economy_, sir. Was the Missouri Compromise about the tariff? Was the fighting and bloodshed in Kansas about the tariff? What do you think the South feared the most - an increase in the tariff, which could be easily reversed, or the banning of slavery, which could not be? Which do you think threatened their way of life more? ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/76 "2012-05-04T22:17:39Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > If they were still part of the U.S., why were they not afforded representation in congress? The answer is because they were seceding, **as was their right** , and formed a seperate government. The bolded part is where you go off the rails every time. You are wrong, you will always be wrong. The states did not, do not, nor will they ever have the “right to secede.” Period. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/77 "2012-05-04T22:39:06Z")
[QUOTE=silenus] The bolded part is where you go off the rails every time. You are wrong, you will always be wrong. The states did not, do not, nor will they ever have the “right to secede.” Period. [/QUOTE] Well…it was a gray area until the Civil War pretty much settled the question. Before that there seems to have been a presumption that (formerly sovereign) states COULD leave the Union just as they had joined it, but it was never really put to the test until the CW pretty much settled the question. At least that’s what my history prof always contended…which, according to him, was why no one in the Southern government was tried for treason. I do know that original Articles of Confederation (IIRC) that the original 13 colonies subscribed to had a large number of states withdrawing from several years after it was first ratified, and that there wasn’t anything in the original Constitution that specified that membership was permanent…and, I believe that was by design, since a lot of states (who were sovereign before hand) might have balked at joining a union they couldn’t leave at a later time. Of course, this is all moot now, since the Civil War pretty much settled this question once and for all. -XT ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/78 "2012-05-04T22:53:53Z")
> [@XT](#): > > I do know that original Articles of Confederation (IIRC) that the original 13 colonies subscribed to had a large number of states withdrawing from several years after it was first ratified, and that there wasn’t anything in the original Constitution that specified that membership was permanent…and, I believe that was by design, since a lot of states (who were sovereign before hand) might have balked at joining a union they couldn’t leave at a later time. The only thing that could be described as states leaving the Articles of Confederation was when a bunch of them got together to set up a _stronger_ federal government (that is, the current Constitution). Incidentally, the Articles of Confederation talked about a “Confederation and perpetual Union” between the thirteen states, for what that’s worth. (And the current Constitution mentions a “more perfect Union”.) ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/79 "2012-05-04T23:08:43Z")
Nationalism or economic self-interest aside, the pragmatic answer to why the North contested secession is simply that no government can ever- for any reason good, bad, or indifferent- acquiesce to a diminishment of it’s authority, short of absolute defeat. A government that cannot or will not enforce it’s will is a nonentity. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2012, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709/80 "2012-05-04T23:32:20Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Care to address the content at all, even a little bit? Come on you can do it. Okay, if you insist. You are wrong. You are absolutely and completely and totally wrong. Everything you have said in this thread is wrong. What you have posted here demonstrates a profound ignorance of history, economics, politics, law, and military science. There. I think I’ve addressed everything you’ve written. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-american-civil-war-inevitable/620709.md?page=5)