Was the American Civil War an Irrepressible Conflict or Not?

Introduction

Numerous interpretations try to explain why the Civil War started. These interpretations generally fall into two main categories of thought: blundering generation and irrepressible conflict. In the view of the blundering generation interpretations, a “blundering generation” of leaders seemingly made several misjudgments and mistakes that created extremism; thus, gradually leading to the Civil War. Conversely, the irrepressible conflict interpretations hold that the South and the North were totally transforming different communities, especially on the issue of slavery. Hence, they could not co-exist in one geographical setting leading to the Civil War. This paper holds that the American Civil War was an irrepressible conflict considering that neither the South nor the North was ready to compromise on the issue of slavery. Conflicting ideas on the issue of slavery catalyzed other minor differences between the South and the North like economic and social difference; hence, collectively triggering the war.

The Civil War 

Slavery was one of the main reasons for the Civil war of the 1860s. The Southern states needed slaves to work in their vast cotton farms amid firm opposition from the Northern states. The Northern states owned many mills and factories that white workers had dominated. The two sides never agreed on how to tackle the slavery issue, and made continuous compromises on this topic. The first compromise was the Missouri Comprise, which commenced in 1820. It banned any act of slavery in the ex-Louisiana Territory. Consequently, Maine earned a free state entrance to the Union while Missouri entered as a slave state. The Missouri Compromise restricted the Southern states from taking their property into these states and indicated some sort of victory for the Northern states. However, this anxious compromise made a foundation for a series of subsequent confrontations. A number of Acts followed in 1850 with the aim of settling various disputes over slavery expansion. Entrance of California to the Union, with the status of a free state, brought imbalance between free states and slave states in the senate. The imbalance favored the free states.

With the aim of pleasing the Southern states, the Union approved New Mexico and Utah’s applications for popular sovereignty. Surprisingly, the South still felt dissatisfied leading to the passing of the Fugitive Slave Act. The justification behind the resolutions on Utah and New Mexico was that other free states would still emerge from the South in coming years. After the Fugitive Slave Act, the hopes of Southern secessionists foundered. Additionally, unionist contenders defeated secessionist candidates in the 1851-52 Southern states election. This proved that a section of the Southerners had begun supporting the Union. The division among the Southern states and their support for the Union clearly indicates that the Civil War was irrepressible, and compromise was necessary for securing unity and peace.  

Eventually, the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act repealed the Missouri Compromise; thus, affirming that slavery was a critical issue, and needed appropriate addressing. As introduced by Senator Stephen Douglas, the bill created the territories of Kansas and Nebraska from the region west of Missouri. Although Northern states supported the bill, the Southern states had little interest in the bill, as the new territories would join the Union as free states due to the Missouri Compromise. Since Douglas needed the support of the Southern states in passing the bill, it appeared that he had no choice, but to amend the bill to allow Southern states to extend slavery in these new states. However, he believed in popular sovereignty, and decided that the people of Kansas and Nebraska would decide on their own whether to legalize or illegalize slavery in their states. He hoped that his decision would win him the support of the South. However, several issues arose as both the North and the South showed interest in influencing popular sovereignty. President Pierce made a substantial individual error in appointing a pro-slaver, Andrew Reeder, as the governor of Kansas. In the first election on the issue of whether Kansas should join the US as a slave state or a free state, several pro-slavers from Missouri voted illegally after crossing the border.

Consequently, the voting fraud tarnished the idea of popular sovereignty. The legislature met at Lecompton, and passed several strict laws on pro-slavery. For instance, assisting a fugitive slave would constitute a capital offence. Events turned worst after a pro-slavery posse consisting of southerners ‘sacked’ Lawrence in an attempt to arrest anti-slavery leaders. Lawrence was a centre for anti-slavery settlers. After the sacking of Lawrence, John Brown and other abolitionists murdered five pro-slavers who were living at Pottawatomie Creek. It led to a chain of tit-for-tat murders or the ‘Bleeding Kansas’. Evidently, if President Pierce had neither appointed the pro-slaver as Kansas governor nor supported the Lecompton Legislature, these aggressive political confrontations would have not occurred. Again, even with the appointment of governor John Geary to fix the situation, the tensions were already beyond containment. This situation of Nebraska and Kansas is a perfect example of conflict between pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions on issue the issue of slavery that is exaggerated by blundering politicians.  

Furthermore, Buchanan and the supreme court judges also made poor decisions in the Dred Scott case; hence, demonstrating that it would be possible to prevent the Civil War if politicians never made these grave political miscalculations, or showed weak leadership skills. Dred Scott, a slave, claimed he was a free person as he was living in Illinois, which is a free territory. His case had eventually reached the Supreme. The Supreme Court differed with Scott on three separate accounts. Firstly, Scott was slave, not a citizen; hence, had no right for suing his slave master in a federal court. Secondly, since Scott was a Missouri resident, Illinois law was irrelevant to his case. Finally, merely living in a free state could not free a slave. The court affirmed that blacks, whether free or slaves, had no right of becoming US citizens. According to the court, the Missouri Compromise was also not within the precincts of the constitution. The verdict aroused dissatisfaction in the North, especially after claims from Republican leaders that Buchanan influenced the verdict. Although the situation likely portrays a political failure, sectional tension was already imminent regardless of whichever verdict of the court could have made. Moreover, it is arguable that President Buchanan’s ‘hidden’ support for slavery might have led to the court’s controversial verdict.  The election of Lincoln and the emergence of the Republican Party in the North also stirred the secession of the South, spread disillusionment, consequently causing conflict. The Republican Party arose in 1854, and it firmly opposed slavery. The party proposed for a powerful and effective federal government that would support industrialization in the North. Due to the sudden and steady growth of the party, it is arguable that significant economic and social differences existed between the south and the north. Lincoln was a Republican candidate, and his election was mainly due to his promise of peace during his campaign. Lincoln’s election campaign concerned the Southerners in two ways. Firstly, the Southern states believed that North would tax them heavily through elevated tariffs. Secondly, it was obvious that the Republican Party was a regional party that was purely representing the North. Therefore, the South was convinced that the Republican party would only serve its own interest. Lincoln ascended to the presidency in 1860. In December that same year, the Southern States started seceding beginning with South Carolina. Lincoln and a number of Republicans perceived events occurring in the Southern states as a continuance of conspiracy for slave power. Many Northerners thought that the secession was just a mere bluff, or that extremist minorities might have held power despite majority wish. Nevertheless, even with retrospection, it is impossible to determine the best action that Lincoln would have accomplished to changed the situation before his election. The social and economic disparities between the North and the South, and the varying views on the issue of slavery were excessive for political compromises.

The Fort Sumter problem was responsible for triggering the commencement of the Civil War. Lincoln sent unarmed ships to resupply basic commodities to Fort Sumter. Hence, the Confederacy fired the first shots, and this marked the beginning of the Civil War. Sending unarmed ships to the base of the Confederacy is an indication that Lincoln was ready to risk the possibility of war if it was what it would take to preserve peace in the nation. Fort Sumter surrendered on 13 April 1861 after the relief team arrived late, and was too small to change events. Possibly, the events at Fort Sumter served to indicate that the Civil War was a war of aggression of the South since they fired the first shot. On the other hand, one could argue that since Fort Sumter is in the South, it was rightfully theirs, and, so, the war with the North was not necessary. It is true that the South fired the first shot, but the pressure from the North worsened the situation. Although the south fired the first shots, tension came from the north. Therefore, the Civil War came not just because of aggression from the South or the North, but might have been from accumulated tension and pressure due to the mistakes and misjudgments from either side. After the Fort Sumter incident, some states like Virginia decided to support the Confederacy.          

As stated previously, various interpretations try to justify whether the civil war was an irrepressible conflict. Progressives like Charles Beard view the war as a contest between industrialization and agriculture, and not between freedom and slavery. Revisionists argue that sectional conflicts between the South and the North were indisputably influential. They hold that blundering politicians brought the war by their action of failing to come to compromises, for instance, the Crittenden proposal failure.

Conclusion

Despite the weight of these arguments, the above discussions clearly demonstrate that slavery was the chief cause of the Civil War. The need to expand slavery polarized America. Slavery led to the rise of issues like the Kansas-Nebraska Act or the Missouri Compromise, subsequently, threatened the Union. Additionally, the Northerners agreed to support the Republican party after being convinced of the South’s conspiracy for slave power. It is also worth noting that though the Confederacy claimed protection of the rights of states as a justification for its actions, this right was merely the need to preserve slavery in the South, and this created the conflict. With these fundamental disparities, secession was inevitable as well as the Civil War. Hence, the American Civil War was an impressible conflict.