Replies

"The overwhelming issues which divided the north from the south in the years preceding the Civil War were about expansion of slavery into the new territories. Without slavery there would have been no civil war."

It might be just as accurate to say that without violent anti-slavery, there would have been no war.
The inclusion of violent anti-slavery means had changed the debate over the latter 1850's. Anthony Burns (et al.), Bleeding Kansas, Harper's Ferry, the public mourning of John Brown and the suspicious fires in Texas in the summer of 1860 all combined to import ominous meaning to the election of a Republican to the White House in 1860.
The election of 1860 was seen by a significant number of Southerners as a referendum on the violent means adopted by the more radical wing of the Republican party. Indeed, John A. Andrew, Republican candidate for governor and John Brown's volunteer defense attorney declared, on the night of Brown's execution, "This (Harper's Ferry) is the eternal and heaven sustained nature of the irrepressible conflict." Andrew was elected in the same election that took Abraham Lincoln to the White House. Here was a Republican, trying to establish a link between Harper's Ferry and Republican policy. And he was elected to the Governor's office after making that statement.

If not for these violent means, I would wager that the election of Abraham Lincoln would have been viewed by most Southerners as undesirable, but not the end of the world (or the Union). I don't believe there was a credible threat to secede if Fremont had won in 1856 (although, I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong).

It might be just as accurate to say that without violent anti-slavery, there would have been no war.

Well, of course, had the north not cared one whit about slavery there wouldn't have been a war. But, I don't agree that it was the violence against anti-slavery that drove the South to secede. A bitter cold war had been brewing for years over the expansion of slavery into the new territories and states. My view is that given the long history of the sectionalism, war was virtually inevitable. The depth of the animosity, and the level of hatred and mistrust meant that war, and a bloody one, was probably the only way this issue was going to be resolved and remove the sectionalism that would not let the nation grow. I think you can look back and find a million things that could have been done differently that might have prevented the war, and the top of my list was not electing Buchanan. On the other hand, I think war would have broken out eventually.