Blog #9 – Was the CW inevitable?

Antietam, Emancipation Proclamation, Fort Sumter, Gettysburg, Lincoln, Uncategorized, compromise, elections, inevitability, slavery May 12th, 2009 Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)

15 Responses to “Blog #9 – Was the CW inevitable?”

1.   Megan T Says:
   May 13th, 2009 at 4:06 am

   How would the war have changed if McClellan had LOST the battle of Antietam?
   There would have been many things that change if McClellan lost the battle. First of all it seemed like McClellan had all of the advantages and the plan was all set up to attack. He should have won easy but he seemed to screw things up. So there could have been a loss for the union that day. If McClellan would have lost the battle there might not have been an emendation proclamation. This would be because the south would have shown that they have the power over the union. That it does not matter if they have less people. They have better generals. Also Lincoln would want to do something about them having the power but he did not want this army to fall because they kept on losing. Another thing that the south would have if the union lost was the momentum. They were going strong and winning all their battles. The union needed this win to turn the direction. Also if the union would have lost more men would be dead or wounded. Also Lincoln would have fired McClellan sooner if he learned he screwed the attack up. So many things would have affected the war if the union had lost the battle.

2.   myles williams Says:
   May 13th, 2009 at 4:32 am

   When Lincoln was elected the southern states had to succeed, because that was the only way they would get a change. The South was already feeling like they weren’t being treated fairly by the North and Lincoln being elected was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Once there was a republican elected in the office, the south thought a democrat would never get elected again, because the republicans would free all the slaves and the slaves would vote for all the republicans every time. The only way the South could get their point across to the North was is to succeed. If the South never succeeded then there would still be tension between the North and South today. The only way they could have worked out their problems was by fighting it out, and forcing the losing side to give in. I really believe that the south had to succeed, to restore the union and free the slaves.

3.   Andrew SM Says:
   May 13th, 2009 at 2:10 pm

   From the beginning, the Civil War was about slavery. There was no way around it. Even
   though it was not addressed right away, the south seceded simply because they were afaraid to loose slavery. Had Lincoln started the war from the beginning against slavery and sought to stamp it out in the confederacy, the war would have been shorter and simpler. If the first years of succession the south was unorganized and unprepared. If Lincoln had made the war about slavery in the beginning, he would have gotten the organized union army together an stamped out slavery in one fell swoop. The south would not have known what had hit them. I imagine if all of the slaves were freed at once o would imagine there would be repercussions due to acts of revenge against slave owners. It is just like the holocaust. When all of the Jews were freed in a matter of days, there were acts of revenge against the Germans. I think the way the war played out was one of the best ways it could short of not happening at all.

4.   Josh F. Says:
   May 13th, 2009 at 2:44 pm

   Was war inevitable? I think not. I believe everything happens for a reason, and it was fate. You could see the problems before the war even started, and you knew something was going to happen sooner or later. Once Lincoln was elected, I don’t think it was neccessary for the South to secede because Lincoln wasn’t going to change a drastic amount (Because Lincoln wasn’t a radical). Lincoln wasn’t going to free slaves right away, or change the USA immidiately; and just because he was republican people over reacted and left to form the CSA. If the South had stayed together with the North, there might have been way more tention, so maybe it was a good idea to secede…There are MANY of reasons why/ or why not the South should have or shouldn’t have seceded. I believe they should have seceded because it was fate, and it somewhat sloved many issues. I believe the war let some of the tention between the Union and CSA decrease, after the war. Also, if McClellan had lost Antietam, there would have been major problems and I believe the Union would have lost the war due to the Union having no turning point during the Civil War. Overall, I believe in fate, and whatever happened, happened because it’s fate!

   Josh F.

5.   Devin E. Says:
   May 13th, 2009 at 4:05 pm

   Was the war inevitable? I think that the war was not inevitable because the war didnt just happen for one or two reasons. The war happened because of many previous events. There was no way that it was inevitable. and the south seceded because of how they thought that the war would turn out. They were just worried about losing and that why they seceded. They thought that would make it so they wouldnt want to fight anymore and maybe stay out of the war. I do believe in fate for some things. The war yes i do believe that it was meant to happen and it was gone happen sooner or later

6.   Rob Salton Says:
   May 13th, 2009 at 4:08 pm

   When Lincoln was elected, the southern states didn’t have to secede. A main reason some states seceded was because the unionists were pulled onto the bandwagon and had to vote to secede. When Lincoln was anounced as canadate, the south imediatly pitched a fit claiming their life was coming to an end. The south wouldn’t allow any change to occur. The south threatened to secede if Lincoln became president. That right there wasn’t inevitable. The south simply acted like wusses! They didn’t like not being in charge, they they decided to up and run!? Thats not inevitable, it’s pathetic. If the south had acted as “manly” as it claimed to be, it would have stayed in the union and tried to regain control of the government (filibuster powers go…). Then when Lincoln became president, the south put their tail between their legs and ran. It wasn’t an inevitable act, it was a bunch of frustrated poloticians who were to weak to try and change anything; so they ran away. Lincoln even said he wouldn’t touch slavery where it already was, so the south just didn’t want to deal with the fact that they had lost the election, and the seat in government.

7.   Gabriele S Says:
   May 13th, 2009 at 4:29 pm

   In my opinion the war was inevitable since everything started because of slavery and I don’t really think that south and north were going to solve everything in a peaceful way. But in this blog I want to talk about the battle of Antietam. I think that if McClellan had lost this battle the south would’ve won the civil war. I’m saying this because the morale of the Union was really low and it could’ve become even lower after a big loss like Antietam and I think that the morale is the key of winning battles no matter how big or small is your army. But McClellan didn’t lose the battle even if he did a really bad job and the Union had time to reinforce and win at Gettysburg. At the end I have to say that I really wanted to see Lee victorious at Antietam because his army was a lot smaller than McClellan’s and he almost win the battle.

8.   sydney f Says:
   May 13th, 2009 at 4:36 pm

   I do think that the civil war was inevitable due to the divided position in slavery within the country at the time. As Lincoln said, a house divided against it will fall. I think that the compromises would have failed, as they did initially. Slavery had been debated over for quite a while now, and there would’ve eventually come a time where the South felt threatened enough to do what it did. A scared animal that sees no other alternatives will attack. In this case, the Confederacy felt that it had been backed into a corner, and attacked Fort Sumter. I believe that the occurrence of the Civil War was so inevitable that these events may not have occurred in this particular order, but they would’ve come to pass sooner or later. If the battle of Antietam had been lost by the North, the South may have won the Civil War. We discussed how this battle was such a key turning point for both sides in the war. The South may have stood a chance at victory against the numbers of the North. This victory for the South may have built Southern morale to the point where they became unstoppable.

9.   Emily Fitzgerald Says:
   May 13th, 2009 at 6:04 pm

   I do believe that the civil war was inevitable. I believe that the war had to take place because there was no other way to placate both the North and the South. Before the war, many actions were taken to prevent against such a war, though all of these peaceful negotiations and compromises failed, as each side felt that their issue was not adequately addressed. The South was so panicked by the thought of losing slavery, their main source of production and wealth, that they would try everything in their power to prevent this from happening. By contrast the North was split between those who were adamantly against slavery, and those who were terrified of a split in the country. Though I do believe that the war was inevitable, I also believe that such a conflict could have been postponed for several years. If a compromise had been proposed that placated both Northerners and Southerners, and perhaps if Lincoln had not appeared so radical and terrifying to Southerners, the country could have remained in such a state for several years. This artificial peace, however, would not have lasted forever and as Lincoln said in his speech, “A house divided will surely fall” and also that our country “cannot endure half free and half slave.” Something needed to happen to resolve the slavery issue and a war was perhaps the best and only way in order to solve the issue. Postponing the war might have dramatically changed the outcome of the war, and had Lincoln not been in office during the time several vital things may not have happened. It is best that the Union won in the way and the time that it did, ultimately saving the union and finally solving the problematic issue of slavery.

10.   Brooke Says:
    May 13th, 2009 at 7:45 pm

    How would the war have changed if McClellan had lost the battle of Antietam? If McClellan had lost the battle of Antietam, it would seem that the Union did not use all the advantages that they could of. It looked as though McClellan had a set plan and was ready to attack, the only problem was is that he kept messing things up. If McClellan did loose the battle, there would definitely not have been an Emancipation Proclamation, just like Megan said. How the South would seem to the Union was that the south thought themselves to be better than the they were, and that just didnt fly. It shouldnt matter who had what and who was better, it should of been the matter of right vs. wrong. Including that Lincoln did not have in mind to do something about them, but he did not want to try to help the army when it kept on loosing. Also if the south had won, the union couldnt of turned the tables on them to switch up which side was going to be the better half. What if the union did loose more men or had more soilders wounded, Lincoln would have fired McClellan if he knew he was putting peoples life at greater risk as well as not attacking when he was supposed to. Overall, if the union had lost the battle, history as well as our present, would be a different time and place.

11.   Maher A Says:
    May 14th, 2009 at 3:44 am

    I do think that the Southern states had to secede when Lincoln was elected. Things were going to change when Lincoln took office, and the both the North and South new that. If the South wanted to keep slavery, which was the true reason the Union and Confederacy fought, then they would have to take some sort of action. Seceding was only thing the South could do. And everything after that was in my opinion, fate. I agree with Myles in that if the South never seceded than a Civil War may have never happened, and there still might be tension. The secession of the southern states was the only way the two sides could have resolved (unfortunately but inevitably with war) the issue of slavery. The south wanted to be in control of everything, they wanted things their way, and if Lincoln was president, then they couldn’t have things their way. So the seceded, they wanted to do things themselves. And eventually the Union won the war, and slavery was abolished.

12.   Marie Sande Says:
    May 14th, 2009 at 6:22 am

    By the time 1860 came around, the North and the South were pretty much irreconcilable. Not only were they divided on the issue of slavery, but on just about everything else as well (lifestyle, economy, politics). Efforts to resolve the conflict with a compromise were doomed to fail becuase as time went by each side was willing to concede less and less. The Comrpomise of 1850 and the Kansas Nebraska act seemed to actually raise tensions rather then lower them. There was no common ground.
    I don’t think war was completely inevitable however. I can’t see a scenario in which the South wouldn’t secede–given their beliefs about state’s rights and the threatening Republican President–but I can imagine a scenarion in which the North and South simply became two seperate countries.
    If Lincoln had chosen to recognize the Confederacy, the war probably never would have happenned. Initially there may have been some uproar in the North about standing by as the South left the union, but if the people were fed enough propaganda about the right to secede and a “collection of states”, eventually the hype probably would have died down and people would have accepted the South as a seperate nation.
    So does this mean Lincoln was responsible for the Civil War? In some sense, yes. In the sense that he probably could have prevented it and didn’t.
    That’s not to say he made a bad decision necessarily. Maybe the war was needed. I really can’t judge that.

13.   geoffwickersham Says:
    May 14th, 2009 at 6:28 am

    I think many of you make compelling arguments, but the more I study and read about the CW, the more I think that the bombing of Fort Sumter was the point-of-no-return. Even though no one had died in the attack, peoples’ blood was up and boiling after the shelling. The North’s response was dramatically patriotic, according to Ordeal by Fire. Once that fire is stoked, it is hard to put out.

14.   Eric Pina Says:
    May 27th, 2009 at 3:03 am

    The answer to this question is fairly simple in that the civil war was inevitable, it just had to happen. The compromises would always fail no matter what the circumstances. It was all based on slavery, which in my eyes was mostly driven by money. Money often seems to be the driving force behind major disputes. Anyways, the war was inevitable because the issue of slavery was just something that could not be compromised. There is no in between slavery, either you have it or you don’t. Neither side would give in so the only way out was through war. The reason why the south seceded in the first place was because of slavery. I think that if ending slavery was a priority for Lincoln at the start of the war it would have been a much shorter war. If the slaves had been freed earlier on it would have been so much easier for the union to dismember the confederacy.

15.   geoffwickersham Says:
    May 28th, 2009 at 4:27 am

    Blog 9

    Lincoln’s thought of ending slavery as the primary focus of the war, instead of saving the Union would have had a detrimental outcome. Focusing on slavery instead of the saving the Union, would have caused the southern states to continue to succeed the Union. This would have also brought a ridge between the Northern’s .Lincoln was trying to mind the Whigs, Know-Nothing, Abolitionist, and Northern Democrats into the Unionist party. Lincoln’s success depended on the completion of this task. The majority of his support also came from the Northern states. If he lost his focus trying to combine the Union, to saving the slaves. Lincoln would have lost the majority of his voters in the South. Although Lincoln didn’t believe in slavery, he was moderate on the issue. Meaning he didn’t want a mixed society, however Lincoln didn’t like the idea of slavery.

    Imani R.

Leave a Reply

Name __('(required)')

Mail (will not be published) __('(required)')

Website

Anti-spam word: (Required)*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.