It happens to be the only island in the Caribbean to have not been a slave island--and for the same reason. Delaware refused to consider it. It forced the most ardent dissenters into exile, and silenced the rest. At the point that the Union decided to bring the Southern states back into the Union, and re-forge the American identity, the Civil War was inevitable. Take care of your Nullifiers; you have them among you; let them meet with the indignant frowns of every man who loves his Country. Either it had to be allowed or it had to be ended.
It was fairly generous, though some believed the amount given per slave was only about half the real market value. The war was from 1642-51 where the royalists and parlimentarians went to war. Most Northerners were opposed to the slavery that was being established in the South. Proud and brave Iraqis are dying every day while trying to serve their country. This of course went along with and was a natural result of Manifest Destiny, a controversial term today if there ever was one.
Yes Was the Civil War inevitable? The blame for this tragedy is not due to the conflict alone, but due to the standards of medicine during the mid 1800s. Seven-eighths of all immigrants remained in the North. There is much more to be said about pre-Civil War politics but it would take a book - of which thousands have already been written. Though the act had its dissenters and critics, it was successful in achieving its purpose without a single shot being fired. Charles asked the Parliament for money to fight the Scots. As has been amply demonstrated on this thread, there were some things that neither side would back down on. As he looked over the crowd, the many social classes he saw resembled that fact that the rumors of his denial of their acceptance are false.
The sticking points for citizens this time were just too far opposed to be able to stretch the seams, and I agree, the the founders knew it, the wusses. Although sectional differences and hostilities grew day by day, for most of the country it was business as usual among the sections. At the start, most rejected abolitionism, and during the course of the war most came to embrace it only reluctantly and as a war measure. But as things developed, they didn't. But this group of idiots have wasted enough time, money, and lives. The talk in Charleston and New Orleans was of using slave labor in mining in the West.
The civil war was caused because Charles the I was a greedy man and wasn't the best English ruler. Meeting of Elected officials Instead of resorting to violence, they could have had a meeting of elected officials in which they could have devised a plan for reunification. Things went a different way in the South. No single issue could have ever caused a war of this magnitude. As long as significant portion of the country was willing to go to war to prevent it from being ended, then there would always be a rebellion. In total, the domestic incursion cost more than half a million lives. The Tariff, it is now known, was a mere pretext - its burden was on your coarse woolens.
After the Civil War, the king, King Charles I was beheaded. France had the most brutal slave system of all resulting in a violent and successful slave revolt in Haiti. From a Southern standpoint, it was the 1828 and 1832 Tariffs happening all over again: blatant favor given to Northern states over the Southern. The other approach sees some differences as superficial and others as more basic or essential or lying at the root of the others. Look at the capital, it was virtually defenseless. Western civilization is a skeleton. Eleven seceding states in the south waged battle with the Federal government, represented by the North.
The self-sorting creates definable geographic boundaries that are necessary for a war. In short, they shall live on terms of perfect social equality. He can't pull out or democrats will say I told you so, and he can't pull out because it would be the same as admitting that he spent 6 years in the whitehouse for no reason. The reasons for war were much more compelling to the slave state leaders than those of the free states. The long-term cause was the different ideas on the slavery system between the North and the South. A few unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels have become superior to the wills of the French, German, British, Italian, Dutch, Spanish, Greek, and Portuguese peoples. The benefit is in studying what was really a horrible mistake and taking steps to avoid such disasters in the future.
However, it set the precedent for possible Southern secession from the Union. In 1914, European leaders thought they could use war to expand their borders until it all got away from them. I did a search and didnt find anything, maybe I'm an idiot or maybe I missed it but let me ask this. There were usually more slaves as a % of population there, and the rise of cotton after the invention of the Cotton Gin created huge demand for slaves in the deep South especially. What else can we expect from a government devoid of morality? The first, the Tariff of 1828, protected goods produced by Northern factories by taxing imports from Britain. Without these events the Civil War and the secession of the South could have been avoided and a solution to tensions created. But even then, I find it highly interesting to note the ways in which people attempted to carry on during the war as if it wasn't happening, from outright trading across the lines, to keeping up correspondence, right down to pickets exchanging newspapers, tobacco, and coffee.
For all 15 slave states, about 25% of families owned slaves in the 1860 Census according to the director. There are numerous examples that show us that, prominent and important historical events do not occur due to one reason or due to some easily identifiable reasons. The various proposals for dealing with the ex-slaves only muddied the waters and probably blocked any real efforts towards peaceful emancipation. The dividing of a newly birthed nation upon itself - the turmoil created threatened to collapse a unified yearning for independence. Congress that at one point an abolitionist Senator, Charles Sumner, was beaten almost to death by a Southern House member wielding a cane. If Republicans again win the next election in 2008, fine.