Was the American Civil War inevitible?

[garbon]

The Civil War was inevitable because the South (personified here because they were a huge bag of dicks) based their social and economic system on fallacies and lies.  When the reckoning became apparent, instead of being able to modify the abhorrent system they propped up the South was reduced to public suicide and eventual hope that they could gain something in martyrdom.

They failed, and are still the retarded portion of the country.

Yup.

[derspiess]

The Civil War was inevitable because the South (personified here because they were a huge bag of dicks)

That's a bit harsh.  Their politicians were generally horrible people, but the southern population by & large were not.

[Martim Silva]

Slavery, Schlavery.

Fact is, before the ACW, the Americans saw themselves first and foremost as citizens of their own states; the US came second.

Stop right there.  *Some* did, particularly in the south.  But by no means was that the majority view.

Really?

To quote the late historian Shelby Foote:

"Before the war, it was said "the United States are." Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war, it was always "the United States is," as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an "is."

[frunk]

Lettow raises a good point.  The price the south paid for the lifting of slavery was far too cheap.  It would have been better if all of the slaveowners were eliminated as well.  That would have raised the ratio to a more acceptable level.

[derspiess]

Slavery, Schlavery.

Fact is, before the ACW, the Americans saw themselves first and foremost as citizens of their own states; the US came second.

Stop right there.  *Some* did, particularly in the south.  But by no means was that the majority view.

Really?

To quote the late historian Shelby Foote:

"Before the war, it was said "the United States are." Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war, it was always "the United States is," as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an "is."

He's right.  But he's saying we were more unified as a result of the war, not that we were generally more loyal to our states than our country.  Obviously many in the south did, but if that were the general feeling across the US then we probably wouldn't have had the Civil War.

[The Minsky Moment]

To quote the late historian Shelby Foote:

"Before the war, it was said "the United States are." Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war, it was always "the United States is," as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an "is."

Unfortunately, Shelby was wrong.

A study of Supreme Court case opinions does show that the use of "is" increased during the Civil War to around 50% of the time, but then dropped off again after the war.  The real shift is usage to "is" occurs around 1900 and it is far more dramatic than the Civil War era shift.

[Eddie Teach]

I don't think that necessarily makes him wrong. People growing up during the civil war era were unlikely to write many SC opinions before 1900 or so.

[Razgovory]

Every book I've read on the US has the civil war occurring, so yeah, I think so.

So you're a determinist?

Do you believe in free will?

Well, I'm seeing an astounding rate of 100% US civil war every time 1861 comes around.

[The Minsky Moment]

As late as the 1890s, the "are" form was used far more commonly in opinions, about 2/3 of the time.  Burt after 1900 the "are" form simply vanishes.  About 5 of the justice have substantial overlap in this period so in some cases it is the same people involved.  The phenomenon was noticed at the time; there is a Note in a 1900 issue of the Yale Journal commenting that the "are" form "is gradually passing" out of use.

[Razgovory]

Even past 1850, you could always just let the slave states go in peace.

This is probably true, but it was not Union's choice to make.  The rebel states chose to initiate hostilities, not the federal government.  Had the Confederate states chosen to work out an agreement in which they left the Union, I think they would have had a real chance of doing so without war.  Fortunately they chose not to do so.

[derspiess]

To quote the late historian Shelby Foote:

"Before the war, it was said "the United States are." Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war, it was always "the United States is," as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an "is."

Unfortunately, Shelby was wrong.

A study of Supreme Court case opinions does show that the use of "is" increased during the Civil War to around 50% of the time, but then dropped off again after the war.  The real shift is usage to "is" occurs around 1900 and it is far more dramatic than the Civil War era shift.

Speaking of which, I wonder which Taney himself preferred to use.  I'm guessing him to have been an "are" man.

[Razgovory]

To quote the late historian Shelby Foote:

"Before the war, it was said "the United States are." Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war, it was always "the United States is," as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an "is."

Unfortunately, Shelby was wrong.

A study of Supreme Court case opinions does show that the use of "is" increased during the Civil War to around 50% of the time, but then dropped off again after the war.  The real shift is usage to "is" occurs around 1900 and it is far more dramatic than the Civil War era shift.

Figures, I was related to him.  Naturally he has to be wrong.

[Eddie Teach]

You're still related to him.

[viper37]

Assuming no changes earlier than 1815, was the American Civil War inevitable?

I say no. Gradual manumission in Virgina was plausible, and if that legislation had passed in the 1830s then Delaware, Maryland and Kentucky would have followed. Without Virginia and Kentucky beholden to the Deep South on the slavery issue they have no hope in congress or on the battlefield.

The Civil War was not inevitable, the Secession was.

As Lettow said, it would have required the North to let go of the Southern States, and agree to have an expansionist slave state next to their border.

The South had the people, the North had the economy.  It would have been an interesting race to the West, with the indians playing one faction against the other.

[The Minsky Moment]

Speaking of which, I wonder which Taney himself preferred to use.  I'm guessing him to have been an "are" man.

Taney was an "are" man, the Great Dissenter Harlan OTOH used "is" more often.
But usage does not correlate with geographic origin.  Some of the judges used both forms, and one justice actually used both forms in the same sentence!