civil war
Heather Dyer
“First, gallant South Carolina nobly made the stand;
Then came Alabama, who took her by the hand;
Next quickly Mississippi, Georgia and Florida,
All raised the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a Single Star.”
-- Harry Macarthy,
“The Bonnie Blue Flag”
Secession-- and the stage was set for the Civil War, the war which had the most profound emotional impact in American history. No period in our history has been more studied or written about. But was it really unavoidable? Was this war that holds such fascination for so many really inevitable? Of course, the answer to that question can never be absolute, because history is not a linear cause-effect string of events; it is a quite complicated net of happenings that are inextricably interrelated. The nearest we can come to answering that question is to consider the major historical events that are deemed to have been the cause and determine if, at any of these “checkpoints”, a war considered to be one of the greatest tragedies of all time could have been prevented. The answer to that question is a resounding “no”.
Of course, the most obvious and, therefore, priority event that led to the Civil War was the secession of the Southern states. Once those states seceded, was it possible to avoid war? Well, let’s consider the North’s position on southern secession. Northerners were, of course, in general, more industrial-minded. The South was an excellent source of revenue via the tariff that the north could not well have stood to lose. In addition, the United States of America was still a rather new country, having been in existence only about one century-- not long enough to be as established a power as the European nations. While the European nations were strongly tied to the southern states, they could not reasonably conquer or annex them, since their economy centered on a “peculiar institution” that was frowned on by both Britain and France. A free south would best serve Europe’s interests. However, the same did not go for the states that remained in the union. Northern competition for manufactured goods was certainly something Europe could do without, and a divided union would make the northern states very much endangered in terms of possible aggression by foreign powers. Thirdly, Manifest Destiny was kicking around. With the rise of popular democracy, Americans were taking a much more active interest in the government. This, in turn, increased a sense of patriotism and nationalism. This means that, not only were the states that did not secede closely tied the the ideals of union, freedom, and democracy, but as being so tied, the idea that the United States was the country of choice, chosen by God to expand its boundaries and its ideals across as much territory as possible. Clearly, considering these motives, it is not likely that the union would look kindly on losing such a large part of its territory. Also, we must remember that much of the north was quite convinced that the south was engaged in a “Slave Power Conspiracy” and therefore, did not trust them. It would hardly be prudent for the north to allow a potential enemy to establish itself at such close proximity as an independent nation. Finally, although not as significant as the other reasons, most people in the north would have preferred to see slavery come to an end-- not that they would have forced the south to give up their slaves had the south remained in the union, but they would have been quite pleased if the south had eventually freed their slaves. Considering this, it is easy to see that allowing the south to secede would have obscured the hope that North America would eventually become a free continent. Taking all these motives into consideration, I find it hard to believe that the north would have realistically coped with southern secession in a peaceful manner. Now let’s consider the south.
When the south seceded from the union it had many legitimate reasons for doing so. Firstly, and most commonly overlooked, is the fact that, by constitutional premise, the south was completely justified in seceding. One of the principles on which the constitution was based is the freedom to leave. In the Declaration of Independence, we are guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Why then, are there any laws at all? Why are we not allowed to pursue happiness in any manner we choose, even including murder or theft? The answer for this is not the argumentatively unsound “Well, you can’t infringe on anyone else’s rights”, but instead is this founded principle-- that by living here in this country, you enter a contract; a contract to obey the rules as established by the majority in exchange for protection under those same laws. If you disagree with the manner in which this country is governed, then it is your right, by constitutional premise, to leave it. That is exactly what the Southerners did. They were displeased with the direction the government was going so they announced “We’re taking our country, and we’re going home!”. Some people may interpret the constitutional premise to mean that the southerners who were displeased with the government should have physically moved to another location. However, not merely through this country, but in general, America was founded on the belief that regardless of where you live “all men... are endowed with certain inalienable rights”, and in capitalistic America, the right to own property was certainly one of them. The Southerners owned the lands and, by their laws, the slaves they took with them. Secession was completely within the bounds of the constitution. What’s more, just about everyone believed that. You’ll remember that back around the War of 1812, Federalist New England was considering and even borderline threatening to secede. South Carolina had threatened to secede in the Nullification crisis and had received part of what it requested through doing so. Secession was, indeed, the southerners right. Besides being legally in the right, the South also had significant motives for secession that could not easily be remedied. Firstly, as the slave state minority, they had lost control of both houses of Congress as well as the Executive Branch. Although they did have temporary control over the Supreme Court, that was fairly certainly not going to last for long under a northern president. In short, the South was very much on the verge of ending up as ineffective as a voting block. Although this might not have been so important in some issues, at the time when this overturning of power was occurring , many of the pertinent issues of the day were sectionally related. The issues of slavery, of the tariff, of popular sovreignty, etc. were all very sectionally oriented, and the south, powerless as a section, was understandably afraid of a government that was primarily Northerers. Of course, we also must consider that the South did not trust the North any more than the northerners trusted the southerners. They had seen through the North’s poor enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law following the Compromise of 1850. The South had only one part of that agreement of which they could aprove, and it was the Fugitive Slave Act. It is easy to see why they would have become upset at the north’s many attempts to undermine it. And undermine it they did, by mass protests, preventing the execution of the law as well as by passing laws that allowed the state government to interpose between the slaves and the federal government. In Wisconsin, the state Supreme Court went so far as to completely negate the Fugitive Slave Act in the decision of Abelman v. Booth in 1857. It is clearly no great stretch of the imagination to understand why the south should distrust the north. Thirdly, there were economic reasons as well. Besides the fear of losing their “peculiar institution”, the south had other economic reason to dislike their role in the union. For one thing, they would have been tickled pink at the thought of finally escaping, for once and for all, the “Tariff of Abominations” paid to the north. Free trade with European countries would boosted the Southern economy substancially. And the Southerners were proud. Once they had seceded, there was no way they would have agreed to rejoin the union unless the North had made a lot of concessions it was nowhere near willing to make.
It is clear in my mind that once Southern secession had occurred, war was inevitable. It further seems to me that, given the conditions the south would have had to endure if it had remained in the union, their secession was likewise inevitable. Nothing short of a major upheaval of American history would have prevented war. Sectional tensions were too high; the south had too much to gain to resist trying for secession and the north had too much to lose to let them.
“On the occasion corresponging to this four years ago,
all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending
civil war. All dreaded it-- all sought to avert it. While
the inaugural address was being delivered from this place,
devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, in-
surgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without
war-- seeking to dissolve the Union, and divide effects,
by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war; but one of
them would make war rather than let the nation survive;
and the other would accept war rather than let it perish.
And the war came.”
--Abraham Lincoln
Second Inaugural Address
March 4, 1865
