Could the American Civil War have been avoided?

Op-ed views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author.

Former President, Donald Trump thinks so.

“It could have been negotiated.” The 45^th President quipped this past week.

In truth, there were numerous efforts by all sides to avert the bloody war that claimed more American lives than all other wars combined.

Outgoing President, James Buchannon rode point on the effort. When the Kansas-Nebraska Act came into play, he immediately proposed allowing both states to enter the Union as “free states.” Then, to placate the South, he proposed buying Cuba from Spain, while allowing Texas to split into two states. When that effort stalled, he turned to Ohio Congressman, Thomas Corwin for what would become “The Corwin Amendment.” Key provisions were as follows:

The Corwin Amendment was a proposed amendment to the Constitution passed by Congress and sent to the states for ratification in 1861.
The amendment was conceived by outgoing President James Buchanan to prevent the Civil War.
Had it been ratified; the Corwin Amendment would have prohibited the federal government from abolishing enslavement in the states where it existed at the time.
While not technically endorsing the Corwin Amendment, President Abraham Lincoln did not oppose it.

Too Much Water Under the Bridge

Border state residents applauded the effort. It simply stated that the federal government could not intervene in the institution. Had The Corwin Amendment been ratified, it would have ultimately become the 13^th amendment to the Constitution. The question becomes, “why” was it not ratified?

As history maps, by March 1861 seven states had already seceded. After initial optimism, it became clear that the South simply didn’t trust the North to abide by the agreement.

There was also reluctance from key members of Lincoln’s own party. Most notable was Secretary of State, William Seward. Seward, the former Governor of New York, saw little advantage in holding the seven departing states. His eye was clearly on expansionism. Perhaps his greatest fruit was Alaska. In Seward’s eyes, those seven, “deep south” states were the lands of “heat and mosquitos.” They would likely be obstructionists moving forward.

A Divided Democratic Party

There were two classifications of Democrats in 1861. There were “War Democrats” who wanted to preserve the Union although most, including General George B. McClellan, did not consider slavery part of the discussion.

There were also “Peace Democrats,” also known as “Copperheads.” These Americans residing mostly in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Iowa, refused to take up arms against the South. In some cases, such as with General John Fremont’s brutal raids in Southern Illinois, residents paid a fearful price.

Kentucky led the way in attempting to find a middle ground. When former Governor, Beriah McGoffin insisted that there was a path toward that coveted, “bridge for the moderates,” Frankfort lawyer, turned Confederate political General, Humphrey Marshall, angrily proclaimed, “Governor, with all due respects, you cannot become half pregnant!”

A Century’s Old Feud

The American sectional rift can be traced back to the 11^th century. Following William of Normandy’s victory at the Battle of Hastings, great changes followed in England. Starting with the language. For centuries the conqueror’s version of French replaced what was later referred to as “Old English,” essentially a German derivative. In time, the two languages meshed to become “Middle English.” Today’s English has been called, “German, with French spread on top of it.”

The original occupants, commonly referred to as Anglo-Saxons assumed their role as the conquered, losing lands, wealth and political clout.

They later played a major role in England’s religious transformation, ultimately becoming “Unitarians.”

Meanwhile, the victorious Normans ruled the Kingdom and were leaders in what became the “Church of England.” With discovery and subsequent settlement of the North America, the feud crossed the Atlantic.

New World. Same Argument

The Unitarians settled in what is now known as “New England.” The Normans settled further south. Maine based author; Colin Woodward outlined the distinctions in his book, “American Nations.”

The civic and community minded Unitarians placed great emphasis on organized religion, education, thriftiness and prudence. They were generally hardworking and self-sufficient. They were also entrepreneurial. Calling this region of America, “Yankeedom,” Woodward identified their somewhat annoying penchant for attempting to impose their standard on others.

The descendants of the Normans were of a different standard. Their watchword, “liberty” didn’t necessarily include liberty for all peoples. Establishing a society that was largely agrarian, they maintained closer ties with Europe, seeing them as both customers and providers. Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin coupled with Europe’s lust for cotton cemented slavery as a central part of their economy.

New England wanted to industrialize. Their American neighbors to the south had no problem with this aspiration, if it did not come at their expense. When the New England states sought to use legislation to tilt the playing field in their favor, through use of protective tariffs, they first sought Nullification in 1832. After an uneasy compromise, 29 years later the end finally came.

Lincoln Could Have Prevented the War

Historians today see Lincoln as a good man but a man who owed his election to Northeastern Industrial and Railroad interests. He was a “plurality” president, failing to gain 50% of the votes in 1861. Ten states did not place him on the ballot.

Noting the division within the North and his own party, Lincoln knew that the only way to keep the country as one would be to provoke the South into violent action. His chance came in April 1861 when he chose to resupply Major Robert Anderson at Fort Sumter, rather than evacuate the fort. The South took the bait, pounding the fort into submission. That action prompted those Northerners on the fence, to seek retaliation. The rest is history.

Contemporary Parallels

163 years later, the obvious question remains unanswered. Would not it have been less painful for Northern industrialists to make their factories more efficient, while cutting their profit margins? The answer is a resounding “yes!” In 1861, things were slightly different. It came down to wealth.

The richest state in the Union was Mississippi. The poorest southern state was Arkansas. Yet Arkansas was richer than the richest Northern state, Connecticut. Southern wealth was largely linked to land ownership.

Southerners, and Midwesterners for that matter, thought then as they often do today: That New England was, and is overrepresented in the United States Senate. Today this region controls twelve Senate seats, even though their total population is less than Florida’s. As a result, many measures severely objectionable by the majority are often forced through by the minority.

Finding a solution to this age-old dilemma may be the answer to not repeating the disaster of 1861.

DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW

Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!