Was the American Civil War Inevitable? Causes Examined

Introduction: The Inevitability Thesis

The American Civil War was fought from 1861 until 1865 between forces from 23 northern states and 11 southern states of the newly formed Confederate States of America, which had declared secession from the Union.

The central thesis of this paper is that the historical evidence points to the fact that the Civil War was inevitable, given the particular historical, economic, and political situation at the time. One of the central reasons for this inevitability was that the secession of the South resulted in two separate political and economic entities with very different labor, economic, and ethical views — differences that precluded any federal or negotiated solution. The moral issue surrounding slavery was also the most divisive question of the era, and, coupled with the election of President Lincoln, it was a factor that was inevitably going to lead to conflict.

There are of course many other underlying issues that must be taken into account in order to understand the inevitability of the conflict. These include the fact that the South had lost power and influence in the national government and decided to secede from the Union — which left President Lincoln with little choice but to initiate a strategy that would prevent the country from dividing into two antagonistic sections. Critics also point out that even if the Civil War had not begun at that time, the situation would almost certainly have developed into some form of conflict at a later date.

However, there are many different views about whether the Civil War was truly inevitable. While abolitionist leaders such as Frederick Douglass "saw the Civil War as the inevitable consequence of man's inhumanity to man and a necessary conflagration to break the bonds of slavery" (African-American Civil War History in the National Park System), there were many historians and critics who countered this view. These counterarguments must be engaged before affirming the central thesis of this paper.

The Case Against Inevitability: Secession and Self-Determination

A prime example of the alternative view comes from historical commentators who claim there was no real reason for the inevitability of the war. Their stance is that the issues surrounding the conflict could have been resolved through compromise and negotiation. They also claim that the initiation of the war by the North was in reality a blatant act of aggression against the South and against the South's right to its own independence.

One of these commentators, Stromberg, clearly states that the South had a right to self-determination and that secession was a valid act: "Revolutionary self-determination was good and should have been upheld in 1861, whereas war was evil and should have been avoided" (Pressly 254). Furthermore, he argues that "it would have been more correct morally and practically to let the South go … instead of armed hostilities between North and South … A sensible, and highly libertarian, solution would have been peaceful construction of two or more smaller federations in place of the old Union" (Pressly 254).

According to this view, the central reason for the war was the secession of the Southern states. As Stromberg writes, the organization of the Confederate States of America was "an authentic Revolution, and the Federal Government's decision to suppress that Revolution caused the War" (Pressly 254). The Federal Government was controlled by the North in 1861, and it was the North's "aggressive nationalism" which led to war — aggressive nationalism that stood in contrast to "the fundamentally defensive posture of the CSA" (Pressly 254).

Other historical commentators agree with this view. Hummel, for example, states that "the overriding issue in 1861 … to the virtual exclusion of all other issues was a principle of universal applicability, the revolutionary right of self-determination." He argues that this right of secession "is universal and unconditional" and should have taken precedence over all competing considerations (Pressly 254).

Some historians go even further, directly blaming Lincoln for provoking the war. Francis Butler Simkins states that Lincoln should be blamed "for causing the firing of the war's first shot in April 1861: 'with a subtlety approaching the diabolical, [Lincoln] provoked the Confederates into firing upon Fort Sumter in order to solidify Northern public opinion'" (Pressly 254). A number of other historians and critics concur with this assessment and hold that the war was forced rather than inevitable.

Slavery, Economics, and the Southern System

The larger factors that led to the inevitability of the Civil War include not only the issue of slavery — a central divisive force — but also other subsidiary and contributing causes, particularly the interaction between economics and politics at the time. Slavery was closely linked to, and in fact indispensable to, the economy of the South. It follows that any concessions regarding slavery would have been unacceptable to the Southern states, as such concessions would have devastated their economic prosperity.

The South's economic system was built upon cotton — and slavery. Political leaders of the South, such as Robert Barnwell Rhett of South Carolina, William Lowndes Yancey of Alabama, and Robert Augustus Toombs of Georgia, recognized that if the South lost her enslaved labor force — that is, if slaves had to be paid wages comparable to those of white laborers — the entire socio-economic system of the South would likely collapse (Causes of the Civil War: A Balanced Answer).

This economic reality was the real engine of the conflict, rather than idealistic notions of freedom and independence. Because of this impasse, the North was left with little alternative but to halt the secession, as allowing it would have led to the eventual polarization of the entire country. As one source summarizes: "With two fundamentally different labor systems at their base, the economic and social changes across the nation's geographical regions — based on wage labor in the North and on slavery in the South — underlay distinct visions of society that had emerged by the mid-nineteenth century" (American Civil War: Wikipedia).

This fundamental incompatibility between the two labor systems meant that the moral and political pressure to abolish slavery could never have been resolved through simple negotiation. The South's economic survival, as its leaders understood it, depended entirely on the continuation of slavery — making compromise structurally impossible.

Conclusion: Why the Civil War Could Not Be Avoided

In conclusion, there is no doubt that the war was inevitable for the following central reasons. Firstly, secession could not be allowed, as it would divide the country politically, morally, and economically. This dynamic tended only to highlight the differences between North and South. The differences in terms of labor and ethics represented two almost diametrically opposed systems that could not long coexist within a single national framework.

Secondly, the war was inevitable due to one overriding issue: slavery. While many complex questions — such as independence and economics — can be debated, the moral and ethical weight of the slavery question was the primary element that made the Civil War inevitable. It was a factor that could not have been bypassed or resolved through discussion or compromise alone. The fact that the South opted for independence from the Union placed the nation on an inevitable trajectory toward conflict, the result of which was the Civil War.

Bibliography

African-American Civil War History in the National Park System. September 20, 2005.

American Civil War: Wikipedia. September 20, 2005. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

Causes of the Civil War: A Balanced Answer. October 1, 2005.

Higham, Robin, and Steven E. Woodworth, eds. The American Civil War: A Handbook of Literature and Research. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1996.

Pressly, Thomas J. "'Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men': Modern Libertarians Interpret the United States Civil War, 1960s–1990s." Civil War History 46.3 (2000): 254.

Why the Civil War Came. Ed. Gabor S. Boritt. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.