Civil War Question?

Some historians have argued that the Civil war could have been prevented. Support, modify or refute this statement providing specific evidence to justify your response.

Update:

The American Civil War.

6 Answers

Relevance
  • larry1
    Lv 6
    1 year ago
    Favorite Answer

    I would choose....refute...because history and the vast majority of historians since the Civil War happened 150+ years ago have always recorded it as unavoidable. It seems the only ones saying it was avoidable are some recent day book writers who want to say something controversial no one else agrees with, to boost their book sales. Specific evidence is abundant, but you'll have to research to get the details of these reasons for this essay question....

    Reasons.....War unavoidable......

    The Southerners had been threatening secession to keep their black slavery as an ever increasing shrill constant droning in public discourse since at least 1840.

    The disaster of the Kansas- Nebraska Act (1854),

    a.) repealed the Missouri Compromise Compromise of 1820 that had kept US Senate seats equal between North and South.

    b.) even worse adopted 'popular sovereignty' the rule that future states of the West would be 'put up for grabs' to whichever side North or South could control them 1st, by any means fair or foul, setting the stage for direct South North violence and guerilla warfare.

    Bleeding Kansas.(1854-61), the 1st open guerilla war between South v North over who would get 1st new West state Kansas...black slave South or free North.

    Dred Scott Ruling by the Supreme Court (1857), requiring all Northern citizens to cooperate in Southern black slavery whether they wanted to or not, by having to return escaped blacks to their Southern White slave masters. The ruling infuriated public opinion in the North and was seen then as now as unconstitutional and political.

    The continued ongoing/ accelerating industrial growth, modernization and huge European immigration fueled population growth of the North (all 3 being refused by the refusing to change South), that by 1860 gave the North 3 times the white population and 10 times the power of the South.

    The 1860 easy election of against slavery but moderate Lincoln without any Southern states votes.

    By 1861 the South saw they would lose every or any elections even voting as a block, and eventually the US Senate, that they could never catch the North in development, power or modern wealth, that even guerilla warfare in the West they'd lose...so...their days of a whole society based on black slavery and 18th century ways was over.

    Their unavoidable decision....secede and fight to the death to keep their black slaves ('they're way of life' as they called it).

    • Rangana1 year agoReport

      Thank you. This is really informative and helpful

  • Anonymous
    1 year ago

    Avoidable No Lincoln no civil war

    I would like to list many of the crimes committed by Lincoln and his Administration.

    Also Lincoln's Violations of the US Constitution.

    The Presidential oath of office that Lincoln swore to was "to preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution of the US.

    I apologize up front for truthful, accurate, factual posts here that may hurt any Lincoln fan's feelings...

    Secession of states was not prohibited by the US Constitution at that time. Therefore it was completely legal for states to decide

    #1 Lincoln ordered the military blockade of Southern ports.

    This an act of war.

    Only Congress can do that.

    At that time Lincoln certainly violated the US Constitution.

    #2 Lincoln ordered hundreds of Northern newspapers who dared to speak out against him to be shut down. And their owners and editors were arrested for disloyalty.

    This is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution that Lincoln swore to uphold.

    #3 Lincoln ordered the arrest of Ohio Congressman Clement Vallandigham for the crime of speaking out against him.

    Can you imagine that?

    #4 Ex parte Merryman,

    Chief Justice of the US Roger Taney, sitting as a judge of the United States Circuit Court for the District of Maryland, ruled that Lincoln had violated the US Constitution when he illegally suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

    After hearing this Lincoln signed an arrest warrant to have the Chief Justice of the US arrested.

    #5 US Constitution Article lll...

    Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them.

    Lincoln committed treason.

    Lincoln waged war upon his own country. Unless one considers secession legal and the Confederacy was a sovereign nation.

    #6 Lincoln sent Union troops door to door in areas of Maryland, a Union state, to confiscate weapons.

    This is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.

    Many Constitutional violations against Maryland

    'Maryland my Maryland' was published calling Lincoln a tyrant and a despot and a vandal.

    Lincoln as already mentioned, trashed the Constitution by suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus and sending troops door to door confiscating weapons in areas of Maryland.

    Maryland was a Union state.

    Lincoln ordered the arrest of thousands Marylanders for the crime of 'suspected Southern sympathies'.

    Lincoln ordered the arrest of US Congressman Henry May representing Maryland. #7

    Lincoln also had arrested...

    Most of the Maryland State Legislature #8

    Most of the Baltimore city council #9

    The police commissioner of Baltimore #10

    The mayor of Baltimore #11

    Thousands of prominent Maryland citizens. #12

    These people were arrested and held in Military prisons, without trial, some of them for years.

    This trashing of the Constitution upset many Marylanders. One of them was named Booth.

    Committing so many crimes against Maryland would end up giving Lincoln a big "headache".

    SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

    April 25 1861, When it looks as though Maryland may secede from the Union, Lincoln sends a letter to General Winfield Scott giving him permission to bombard Maryland's Cities.

    This war criminal Lincoln couldn't wait to bombard innocent civilians. We call that Terrorism these days.

    #13 Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation.

    This is a direct violation of the US Constitution and the US Supreme Courts decision on the matter.

    #14 The Lincoln administration allowed the taking of private property for public use without just compensation or due process of law.

    This is a clear violation of the 5th Amendment.

    A prime example is the Union army stealing Robert E Lees home, Arlington House, which they used as Headquarters.

    Since dead Union soldiers were stacking up like cordwood, they started burying them in Lee's yard. There were so many Union soldiers graves here, this was to become Arlington National Cemetery.

    #15 The Lincoln Administration routinely used water torture against the thousands of Union prisoners arrested and jailed without trail.

    This violates the 8th Amendment,

    "Cruel and unusual punishment".

    #16 Lincoln was Commander-in-Chief of an Army whose invasion of the South resulted in the deaths of 50,000 Southern civilians.

    And Only a war Monger would destroy a whole town meriden no longer exists

    After the destruction of the economic and military infrastructure of Meridian, Sherman is reported to have said, "Meridian with its depots, store-houses, arsenal, hospitals, offices, hotels, and cantonments no longer exists all for Nothing there was No CSA army there

    Lincoln never cared about the slave because Congress had to Introduce the 13 Amendment to Free all the 900,000 slaves in the Union states Grant still had slaves 12 months after the war Proving it was to save Lincolns Job and nothing to do with slavery

  • Athena
    Lv 7
    1 year ago

    OK.

    Um what am I suppose to do when I finish?

    After all, it is a DOC file on my computer.

  • humpty
    Lv 7
    1 year ago

    The American Civil War can be placed firmly on the shoulders of James Buchanan, who was president when the south seceded. We must remember that the secessionists moved before Lincoln was ever inaugurated.

    It is important to remember that at that time the Democrats controlled the southern states because the newly formed Republican party was supported by the anti slavery abolitionists. There were hard line slavery advocates who managed to convince their constituents that a Republican victory automatically meant abolition, just as today there are many hard line Republicans who insist electing Democrats will lead to gun confiscation.

    William Yancey was a leading Democrat who felt that secession was the only way to preserve slavery, and deliberately engineered a breakdown of the Democratic convention in 1859 to prevent the nomination of Stephen Douglas and divide the party, thereby ensuring a Republican victory and providing the excuse for secession. He succeeded with the active assistance of President James Buchanan, who wnred to retain control of the party and hated Douglas. Thus the upset victory of the Abraham Lincoln.

    In the months between Lincoln's election and inauguration the South seceded without a preventative effort from Buchanan. Members of his cabinet openly moved federal arms and arms manufacturing equipment into the seceding states ro enable the creation of a Confederate army and once again Buchanan did nothing because he needed the southern conservatives to retain his control of the party.

    Had Buchanan acted promptly when the first states seceded, or prevented the transfer of military equipment, or reinforced and resupplied bases like Fort Sumpter in a timely manner, the Civil War could have been prevented or, at the very least, contained within a few months with much less loss of life. Because Buchanan put party before nation this did not happen.

    Source(s): "The Coming Fury" and "This Hallowed Ground" by Bruce Catton. "Team of Rivals" by Doris Kearns Goodwin
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Tina
    Lv 7
    1 year ago

    Possibly Charles I could have been less intransigent.

  • Anonymous
    1 year ago

    Yes the King could have been less profligate and listened to Parliament.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.