Was the American Civil War inevitible?

[Tonitrus]

Horrible butcher of his troops. 

Not unlike Grant, I think?

It wouldn't be unfair that the ACW in general was a horrible butcher of troops.

[CountDeMoney]

It wouldn't be unfair that the ACW in general was a horrible butcher of troops.

Yes, no need to single out Grant.  Lee, on the other hand, should be.

[Tonitrus]

It wouldn't be unfair that the ACW in general was a horrible butcher of troops.

Yes, no need to single out Grant.  Lee, on the other hand, should be.

Even the First Lady called Grant a butcher. 

[CountDeMoney]

Even the First Lady called Grant a butcher. 

I find it difficult to believe Lady Bird Johnson would go that far.

[dps]

It wouldn't be unfair that the ACW in general was a horrible butcher of troops.

Yes, no need to single out Grant.  Lee, on the other hand, should be.

The north had the burden of attacking, and the attacker (all else being equal) will suffer more losses.  Lee and other southern generals didn't have to attack--they just liked to (most of them).

[Viking]

Horrible butcher of his troops. 

Not unlike Grant, I think?

It wouldn't be unfair that the ACW in general was a horrible butcher of troops.

No, he was one of the few which wasn't a butcher. He spent lives achieving a purpose unlike McClellan who spent fewer lives achieving nothing. Grant save the US a war in every generation.

[jimmy olsen]

Not unlike Grant, I think?

I think Peedy is being ironic.

I believe Lee lost a slightly higher percentage of his troops, and given the strategic situation and disparity in resources he should have been more defensive.

[Tonitrus]

More defensive?  Wasn't he known to be referred to as the King of Spades.

Gettysburg was a glorious exception, sure.  But the thinking in taking a few risks to try and beat an overwhelming enemy is not too wrong-headed.  The more tactical decisions there obviously were, of course.

[CountDeMoney]

The north had the burden of attacking, and the attacker (all else being equal) will suffer more losses.  Lee and other southern generals didn't have to attack--they just liked to (most of them).

Lee is perhaps the man most responsible for the war lasting as long as it did.  If he had not chosen to be a traitor and instead became the commander of Federal forces, the war would've been over in the first year. 
In carrying the conflict out as long as it did, all that blood is on his hands, simply by the benefit of his superior generalship.  A lesser general would've resulted in a shorter war.

[Valmy]

Or these deep divisions could be allow to break on fault lines and create an amicable division.

Except the whole basis for the break was deep suspicion and rampant conspiracy theories.  The entire basis was conflict and hatred, how amicability could come from that I do not know.  You think good Northern Men were going to stand aside while the Slave Power Cabal destroyed the US to protect their un-American feudal privileges?

After John Brown it was coming.  Both sides were too entranched.  The notion that the South would have freed their slaves, gradually or otherwise, anytime soon was even more wishful thinking in 1860 than it had been in 1800. 

[Tonitrus]

I wonder...if the South decided to stay in, but use the threat of secession more as a bargaining chip than a real threat...how much in concessions to their way of life/state's rights could they have squeezed out?   They'd certainly have been better off and much stronger than under Reconstruction, and still a very powerful political bloc inside the U.S.

But nope, they had to go all honey badger on everybody.

[CountDeMoney]

After John Brown it was coming. 

Praise Him.

And after Harper's Ferry, with every Southern governor wondering when and where the next John Brown would hit--since the South feared nothing more than slave uprisings, murdering their massas and running around all white women rapey and whatnot--the open transfer and funneling of arms from federal arsenals ramped up exponentially, and there was no going back.

[Valmy]

I wonder...if the South decided to stay in, but use the threat of secession more as a bargaining chip than a real threat...how much in concessions to their way of life/state's rights could they have squeezed out?

They had pretty much already done that.  The things they were intractable with and would not compromise on were things the north were also intractable with and would not compromise on.

[Tonitrus]

Lincoln sounded pretty tractable until the south wen't "GOFUK".

[PDH]

Not unlike Grant, I think?

I think Peedy is being ironic.

No, Lee had a far higher casualty % than Grant.  He was overly offensive when he didn't need to be.  Iirc, he had about 1/3 more casualties in overall numbers than Grant - and that was with smaller armies that could ill afford it.  Lee was a butcher.