Could the Civil War Have Been Avoided?

By Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News

Oct. 15, 2002 — The Civil War could, and probably should, have been avoided, according to a new book authored by four Southern historians.

In the recently published "This Terrible War: the Civil War and its Aftermath," the authors weighed the war's brutality against its benefits. They came to the conclusion that the bloodshed was not "inevitable" and that slavery was not the key issue of the war.

In fact, the book says, slavery was in its waning days and was used as a propaganda tool by both North and South to stir up the public's emotions.

The American Civil War, also called the War of Secession, was fought from 1861 to 1865. Eleven seceding states in the south waged battle with the Federal government, represented by the North.

At issue were opposing socioeconomic and political interests. The North was mostly industrial, and individual families operated the majority of its farms. The agrarian South, by contrast, relied upon large plantations that used slave labor.

While the death toll of the war is presumed to be much greater, military casualties were reported at a minimum of 623,000 dead, and a minimum of 472,000 wounded. Civilian deaths from sickness, exposure or imprisonment are estimated in the tens of thousands.

"The war was caused by political miscalculation, exaggerated rhetoric, public paranoia, and distorted popular fears in both North and South of the intentions of the either section, what one historian long ago called 'hyperemotionalism,'" said Daniel Sutherland, professor of history at the University of Arkansas and one of the book's authors.

"Even after secession, many Americans — not just Lincoln — did not think war inevitable, and they were genuinely surprised — not to say shocked and dismayed — when hostilities did come."

Sutherland told Discovery News that the real issue of the war was not slavery, but rather "the expansion of political power and maintaining the political balance of Congress through the addition of new representatives and senators."

He explained that both the northern and southern states wished to extend control over territories in the newly opened West. Slavery became a tool for either side attempting to gain control, as territory then was marked as either "slave" or "free." Only abolitionists, who were in the minority both before and during the war, viewed the issue in terms of racial injustice.

"Could (the) territorial issue have been settled without resorting to war? Of course," said Sutherland. "Could compromise have led to the end of slavery? Probably not, but remember that this was not the issue. Southerners feared it might become the issue — part of the exaggerated fears and unreasonable assessment of the other side — but it was not part of the public political debate."

Sutherland and his colleagues claimed that even if the South had been allowed to extend slave labor into the unorganized territories to the West and Southwest, slavery would have failed because these regions could not support staple plantation crops, such as cotton. According to the book, with or without war, economics, land and weather considerations would have limited slavery.

If not for the inflammatory rhetoric from both sides surrounding the issue of slavery — still an emotional topic today — the original secession dispute could have been resolved in a political forum by, for example, dividing up the land evenly, redistributing congressional seats or other legal measures, according to the book.

Paul Anderson, assistant professor of history at Clemson University, agrees with many of the book's theories and commented, "This book's greatest strength is that it deals with the terrifying messiness of the war, and the war's failure to answer some of the most important questions that it raised. Many of the supposed certainties in the war's legacy were more hollow than we like to think. The book is a welcome if disturbing and sometimes bitter commentary on that."

Anderson believes that slavery may have reached its natural limits in this country, but not necessarily abroad.

"Plenty of slaveholders had their eyes on other places — Cuba, South America — where there was no doubt slavery would and could flourish," said Anderson. "If they maintained parity in the Union, they might (have) eventually (been) able to secure these places through future expansion."