An article from the February 1965 edition of Civil War Times Illustrated by Bruce Catton entitled: 'The Civil War Need Not Have Taken Place' gives his surprising conclusion (at least to me, anyway) that it could have been avoided. How? Let me provide the closing paragraphs of his argument that explain his position. After reading it-what are your thoughts?

One of the most tragic things about the coming of the Civil War is the fact that just before the curtain went up two men, without realizing it, showed how the business might have been settled.
Late in February 1861, William H. Seward of New York, Lincoln's Secretary of State, met at a Washington dinner party with Justice John A. Campbell of the Supreme Court. Campbell was a good Virginian, but this night he and Seward, in friendship, discussed the great problem and agreed that the Union ought not to be allowed to break up over the slavery issue. In their talk they said the things that someone ought to have been saying earlier, out in public.

Slavery, said the Virginian, Justice Campbell, was a transitory institution; it would inevitably be abandoned. Seward interrupted him to remark: "Say 50 years."

In the territories the battle was lost-New Mexico had been open to slave immigration for 10 years and only 24 slaves had been taken there. Was there any sense, asked Judge Campbell, in letting the Union be destroyed over the question of slavery in the territories in any case? Seward agreed that there was not.

This talk ended in friendly agreement between the Northerner and the Southerner. Can anyone doubt that if talk of that kind had been carried on openly, the tragic breakup of the Union might have been averted? That is what our democratic machinery is for. The nation's enduring tragedy is that in 1860 and 1861 that machinery was not used.

The Civil War need not have taken place. It settled nothing that reasonable men of good will could not have settled if they had been willing to make the effort.

Six hundred thousand young men lost their lives because the machinery of democracy simply was not used. I suggest that through all future time we remember what a terrible price the failure to use that machinery can exact.

Just an observation: I bet that William Henry Seward never went back to his abolitionist friends and told them he agreed with Justice Campbell...

I totally agree, Laurie! Nor would he have probably told Lincoln nor Frederick Douglass....

I bet you're right! I'm interested to hear what others on this Discussion Board think of Mr. Catton's conclusion. I have respected his works on the Civil War forever-but this one did surprise me. I understand what he is saying but how realistic is it? The issues were much more complex, in my opinion, than what a "talk among reasonable men" was likely to resolve. Oh well...

---

Betty: I thought the same thing-about telling Frederick Douglass!

(09-21-2012 07:14 PM)LincolnMan Wrote:  Bruce Catton wrote "The Civil War need not have taken place. It settled nothing that reasonable men of good will could not have settled if they had been willing to make the effort."

I have always enjoyed what I have read of Bruce Catton's. He seemed to do a good job of tying the military, political and social events of the war all together,

Unfortunately what is reasonable to me, might not be reasonable to you. Some people are unreasonable all of the time, and all people are unreasonable some of the time. (Where have I heard that before?)

Have you ever noticed how unreasonable the people who do not agree with you are?
(except for my wife)

Sounds reasonable to me