Could the US Civil War have been avoided or was it inevitable? What could have been done to prevent it?

And maybe if aliens landed 500 years ago and uplifted us we wouldnt have Veeky Forums

On one hand the North could've recognized the succession and went on their ways

but that would cause a bunch of warring failed states that would've probably been absorbed by the Euros eventually. I say the Civil war was necessary for America's dominance in the later years.

>Obviously, it would have been impossible for the founding fathers to include that as a clause in their time.

South American countries which were founded a couple decades down the line abolished slavery right away, why couldn't the US?

The South would have never given up slavery willingly. It was too profitable to not pay your workers. The world wouldn't magically be fine with slavery persisting indefinitely either. The Civil War was therefore inevitable.

They were less egalitarian and thus had very little problem paying their white workers next to nothing? IDK.

>abolished slavery right away
Thats not true for all of them at all.

The only way the British colonies were going to survive a war against the UK was if they were united against the crown. The southern states would never have agreed to freeing the slaves as a clause for the Constitution, their economies were already dependent on slave owning.

The south american countries all got independence directly or indirectly because of the events involving napoleon. Their mother countries were too distracted and weakened to mount effective resistance to the colonial independence movements.

It's really hard to see how the slavery issue could have been resolved without a war. Even if the American colonies had stayed part of the British Empire, there still might have been a war in response to the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833.

State's rights is a noble thing to fight for, but slavery is the wrong reason

States rights is a fucking stupid thing to fight for. You want to bleed the country dry because a president who is slightly anti-slavery gets elected? Fuck yourself

it was inevitable because the United States had Multiculturalism.

>hypothetically
and that's where your case collapses in on itself
the one thing that human beings know how to do is fight. It's how human beings managed to spread across the face of the planet, and it is how every major civilization in history came to be.
It is impossible for any and all humans to stop fighting entirely for eternity.

The world wouldn't have given a shit if it meant cheap goods. You'd have SJWs ranting about it on the sidelines but nothing would be done about it, much like we do with Saudi Arabia.

Nothing in my case "collapses". Why do you think I wrote that word there? Because, like all "what ifs" the situation is purely hypothetical, we can only speculate what could have been. Of course in the end it all boils down to human decisions that were these and not other, because they could not have been different. Everything except quantum processes is determined by the initial parameters, and human thoughts too.

As cruel as it sounds, slavery probably would've broken down eventually.

What if either Buchanan or Lincoln officially allowed the South to secede? Would it eventually rejoin?

>the last country to "officially" ban slavery did so in 1987 only after incredibly intense international effort
>there are ~30 million people in slave labor right now
>slavery would eventually collapse
>you

He clearly meant in the southern states.

And my refutation of that was if slavery would have broken down eventually why are there still slaves in 2017, even if economic forces clearly show that automation is better for production output

Because that's not fucking legal slavery in first world countries.

You'd have a North Korea like situation, where the South misses out on industrialization due to the grip of the planter/slaveowners. Without industrilization, they would end up like Argentina at best and Haiti at worst. Integrating them back into the North would be extremely costly and abolition of slavery would be a pre-req.

>The south american countries all got independence directly or indirectly because of the events involving napoleon. Their mother countries were too distracted and weakened to mount effective resistance to the colonial independence movements.

but the French involvement in the US revolution was that much greater than what they contributed to the South American libertarian movement. They fought actual battles in the continent.

The main contribution of the napoleonic wars was the replacing of the spanish king, that undermined the spanish authority over the continent, this gave the french masons the oportunnity to declare indendence claiming that they didn't recognized the napoleonic authority.

No, because the eternal Yankee never sleeps

the problem was the large land and slave owning elites.

industrialization and immigration took away their disproportionate economic and political clout.

Pierce would have had to have federal law enforcement agents all over the slave states. to find, arrest, and prove they were plotting treason.

>Could the US Civil War have been avoided or was it inevitable?

inevitable for sure. it was a war that needed to happen. if it had not happened then the country would've been split in 2 and foreign influence would've made both basically non-countries.

It was inevitable after the Missouri Compromise