When did the American Revolution become inevitable?

I concur with posts #4 and 5 because they are historically accurate. There is no doubt that the Continential Congress made every attempt to reconcile with the British Parliament despite the Massachusetts delegation's passionate and honest argument regarding independence at all costs.  However, I think the meeting held at the Billopp House (Conference House) in Staten Island, New York on September 11,1776 must be included. Although fighting had already begun on that day Adams, Franklin, Rutledge among others tried to work out a peaceful agreement which would end the hostilities with British General Howe and several of his party.  This was the last ditch effort to reach a common ground, unfortunately their diplomatic attempt at the Conference House failed and the American Revolution had reached the point of no return.

I would say that the American Revolution became inevitable with the publication of the pamphlet Common Sense by Thomas Paine.  The Revolution never would have happened without at least some popular support from the colonists living in America. In his pamphlet Thomas Paine argued for indepedence. Over 120,000 copies of Common Sense were printed which helped convince thousands of colonists that seeking independence from Britain was the correct course of action to take.

I disagree with the above post; in that there were numerous opportunities to avert full revolution, even after the Battle of Lexington and Concord. There was a failure on both sides to seek consensus or even to cooperate; otherwise the Revolution might have been averted.

The First Continental Congress, held AFTER the impostition of the Coercive Acts, attempted to resolve the crisis: The Congress approved a Declaration of American Rights:

• Stated that Parliament had the right to regulate commerce and only strictly imperial matters; Parliament’s right to regulate internal matters in the colonies was denied.
• Stated that Americans were English Citizens and entitled to all the rights thereof.
• Stated that each colony had the right to determine if British troops were needed within its borders.

This is hardly the act of a people too far down the road to revolution to turn back.

Even after the Battle of Lexington and Concord, the Second Continental Congress, on July 5 and 6, 1775 issued the Olive Branch Petition by which the colonies rejected independence if only George III would respect their rights as English citizens, and begged him to cease hostilities pending talks towards reconciliation:

The apprehension of being degraded into a state of servitude from the preeminent rank of English freemen, while our minds retain the strongest love of liberty, and clearly foresee the miseries preparing for us and our posterity, excites emotions in our breasts which, though we can not describe, we should not wish to conceal. Feeling as men, and thinking as subjects, in the manner we do, silence would be disloyalty. By giving this faithful information, we do all in our power to promote the great objects of your royal cares, the tranquility of your government and the welfare of your people.

 We ask but for peace, liberty, and safety. We wish not a diminution of the prerogative, nor do we solicit the grant of any new right in our favor. Your royal authority over us, and our connection with Great Britain, we shall always carefully and zealously endeavor to support and maintain.

These are hardly the words of a people who have crossed the proverbial Rubicon. It was in fact the intransigence of George III, who refused to even read the Petition that made the ensuing conflict inevitable.

If forced to pick a point, I would argue that the Revolution became inevitable in 1766 when the British Parliament enacted the Declaratory Act.

Parliament passed this act as part of its repeal of the Stamp Act.  The Stamp Act, of course, had provoked intense anger among the American colonists.  When Parliament repealed it, compromise might have been reached and the rebellion averted.  However, Parliament followed up the repeal with the Declaratory Act, which basically told the colonists that none of their arguments against the Stamp Act were valid.

When Parliament did this, it missed its best chance to head off the Revolution.  It could have compromised at that point and given the colonies some autonomy and maybe a parliament of their own.  Instead, it dismissed their arguments.  This set the stage for an escalating cycle of anger that led to the Revolution.

Was the Civil War inevitable?

Interesting question! History has shown that there are always two opposing sides to an argument, so the answer is a difficult one. Your response will center on your own conclusions about the inevitability of the Civil War. In my answer, I will present arguments for and against the inevitability of the Civil War.

If this is an essay question, my best advice is to begin by briefly outlining the causes of the war. Then, I would discuss questions about the inevitability of the war.

Yes, the war was inevitable:

1.) Many historians maintain that the Civil War (1861–1865) was about slavery. They argue that war was the only way to settle the discrepancy between two opposing social/labor systems. During the nineteenth century, the North was becoming more industrialized. In fact, the textile mills in New England formed the heart of the American industrial revolution.

Soon, Northern ingenuity and technology buoyed the rise of the oil, steel, and electricity industries. In contrast, the South held on to its agrarian economy and provided the raw materials that facilitated industrialization in the North. The South's economy was powered by slavery. Slaves were the backbone of the Southern economic machine.

The conflict that gave rise to the Civil War centered on the discrepancy between Northern and Southern conceptions of progress. The North equated industrial progress with capitalism. Meanwhile, the South considered its slave-based agrarian economy a form of capitalism as well. War, therefore, was inevitable, as these two conceptions of capitalism were diametrically opposed to each other. Neither the South nor the North saw any possibility of compromise.

2.) The riots and rebellions spearheaded by anti-abolitionists, such as John Brown, led to widespread panic and social destabilization. You can read all about John Brown's raids in Pottawatomie Creek and Harpers Ferry at the link below.

On October 16, 1859, Brown and his supporters raided the United States Army arsenal at Harpers Ferry. The group's plan was to begin a guerrilla war to push back against slavery. For his part, Brown hoped that his actions would inspire hundreds of thousands of slaves to rise up in defense of their cause.

Why did John Brown's actions strike such fear in America's leaders? The answer is that John Brown set an example for vigilante actions among the populace.

This discomfited both Northern and Southern legislators. For the Northerners, Brown's actions painted Northern capitalists and abolitionists as extremists. The Northerners feared that this could cost them future elections. Meanwhile, the Southerners feared that white abolitionists like Brown would inspire other whites to take up the anti-slavery mantle. They also feared that, if they gave their slaves freedom, these same slaves would turn on them. Here, you may decide to mention Nat Turner and his slave rebellions. So, both Northerners and Southerners feared the loss of their power.

For Brown, the cause was personal. The Southern legislators sidelined anyone who was an abolitionist. Abolitionists, in effect, had no voice in the South. So, the war could be seen as inevitable, because both Southern and Northern leaders were invested in quelling the actions of black and white abolitionists, such as John Brown and Nat Turner.

Of course, the above are only two arguments for the inevitability of the Civil War. Now, let's move on to arguments that the war was not inevitable.

No, the war was not inevitable:

1.) Other historians maintain that war was never inevitable and that much could have been done to prevent one. In fact, they present several reasons for their convictions. You can read about them from the link below.

For example, President Buchanan opted for a compromise. If his actions had been supported, war could have been averted. Although many saw President Buchanan's actions in calling for a convention as an act of political compromise, it must be mentioned that the president was no supporter of slavery. In fact, he was personally opposed to it. However, he supported above all else two fundamental principles: the preservation of the Union and state jurisdiction over domestic concerns.

In 1847, Buchanan argued for the extension of the Missouri Line (under the Missouri Compromise). He maintained that doing so would preserve both the Union and the right of individual states to decide the slavery question. Essentially, Buchanan opposed the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and he also opposed secession. Buchanan maintained that the Union could not sustain a civil war and prevail. If his voice had been heeded, there might have been no Civil War.

2.) Senator Stephen Douglas failed to become president of the United States. Because of John Brown's raids, Stephen Douglas (a Democrat) could not prevail against the Republican candidate, Abraham Lincoln. Had Douglas prevailed, a Democrat would have been in office, thus soothing the fears of Southern Democrats about the abolition of slavery. By extension, the Civil War could have been prevented. For more about this, please refer to the links below.

Was the US Civil War inevitable? Why or why not?

Was the Civil War (1861–1865) inevitable? While there may be no definitive answer to your question, it is hard to see how the two sides could have reconciled without war. Conflict erupted because of a number of factors; tension between the North and South had grown over the preceding decades.

One reason for war was the absence of truly national leaders. A couple of important US Senators, who had helped keep the country united, passed away during the 1850s. One of these men was Henry Clay of Kentucky. Known as The Great Compromiser, Clay was an important contributor to both the Missouri Compromise (1820), a compromise tariff in 1833, and the Compromise of 1850. The second national figure, Daniel Webster, helped secure the passage of the Compromise of 1850.

Another reason for the Civil War was weak presidential leadership during the 1850s. The presidents during this decade lacked the strength and determination of Andrew Jackson. They make feckless attempts to appease the South. President James Buchanan, Abraham Lincoln's predecessor, was especially inept.

When Lincoln won the presidential election of 1860, he did so as the sectional candidate of the North. His Republican party was created in the 1850s as an anti-slavery party. The South did not accept the outcome of the election and its states gradually left the union—leading to Civil War.

Was the American Revolution inevitable?

This is an interesting question and a complicated issue, but I think the answer is a resounding "Yes."

By the early 1770's, aside from the well-known grievances like the Stamp Act, England had imposed so many burdens on the colonies--trade restrictions, requirements to quarter troops, manufacturing restrictions--that many people, not just the governing class, began to see that an alliance with England was beginning to do serious harm to economic development in the colonies.

Even before this, during the French and Indian War, which was settled in 1763, the colonists began to believe that England had mis-managed that war and had exacerbated the already difficult relations with the Native Americans with their harsh policies.  Perhaps more significant, the Americans began to see that they could fight equally well alongside British regular soldiers, who were considered the best troops in Europe, and the American's confidence in their military capabilities grew, so they no longer assumed that the British would simply overwhelm them.s

The concept later known as "Manifest Destiny" also had a role in the inevitability of the Revolution.  Several colonial propagandists, Thomas Paine, for example, began to argue that it made no sense for a relatively small island (England) to control the affairs of a continent thousands of miles away with its own set of issues and problems that were unique to America.

Ultimately, the combination of serious grievances Americans felt against England and the sense that America was destined to rule itself made the Revolution, or a peaceful break with England, inevitable.

Was the Civil War inevitable?

No war is inevitable, so no, the Civil War was not inevitable and not the only way the crisis over slavery could have been resolved. Proponents of slavery, for example, could have more readily acknowledged what most people understood: that labor-intensive agriculture was giving way to the industrial revolution. They could have been willing to work with the North and start taking proactive steps to begin dismantling slavery and switching to a machine economy in a way that would have been less shattering and painful than losing a war. Whether that would have been better or worse for the enslaved is an open question, but war was not the only answer.

Slavery has sometimes been compared to the so-called automobile culture that is changing the climate of the planet. Overwhelmingly, people who have studied the science have agreed that climate change is human-made and that we must move away from fuels that spew carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. However, in some parts of the world, people are dependent on cars, even while knowing the technology supporting them is unsustainable. In much the same way, wealthy white Southerners were dependent on slavery. In both cases, a backlash of denial set in. Climate change could lead to wars over dwindling resources, but like the Civil War, that is not inevitable.

Nothing in terms of human society and politics is inevitable.  The North could have simply allowed slavery to expand. The South could have accepted being hemmed in.  The North could have let the South secede.  There is nothing that is inevitable when it comes to wars or other human actions like this.

That said, the closer the country came to 1861, the more inevitable the war became.  It could still have been prevented, but it would have been much harder to do so and would have taken more moral courage on the part of political leaders.  The reason for this is that, as time went by, more and more issues arose between the two sections of the country.  These issues drove them further and further apart.

In 1820, for example (or even 1840), there were not yet many issues that had divided the North and South.  They had crafted the Missouri Compromise and seemed to have the issue in hand.  From then on, however, more and more issues arose.  The Mexican War split the two sections.  The Kansas-Nebraska Act did the same.  So did the Dred Scott case.  The point is that issues arose and grievances accumulated.  As this happened, it became harder and harder for the sections to feel as if they could continue to get along together as part of the same nation.  In that sense, we can say the war was inevitable.

Was the American Revolution always inevitable? If not, when did it become inevitable?

You are asking several ideas in your question. I will focus on the first question you asked about when the American Revolution became inevitable. It also is difficult to support the idea that independence was inevitable considering the time period of the revolution. There weren't too many models to follow that suggest independence was inevitable at that time.

There are two or three situations to examine to answer this question. For many colonists, the Boston Tea Party followed by the passage of the Intolerable Acts would be the point from which there was no return. When the colonists destroyed the tea, it was a big loss for the tea company. When the colonists refused to follow the Intolerable Acts, there was little room for negotiation. Both sides had dug in their heels.

Another possibility would be when the colonists began to form their own militias after the passage of the Intolerable Acts. This was a sign that they expected a war to occur. It shouldn’t be a surprise that unofficial fighting broke out at Lexington-Concord in April 1775. Once fighting occurred, it was pretty clear we were heading for independence and the war that would follow.

Some people might point to the Boston Massacre as a turning point. However, six years went by after the Boston Massacre occurred before independence was declared. Thus, there was still time to recover from this event.

When did the American Civil War become inevitable?

John Brown’s Raid on Harper Ferry could be considered the turning point in the American Civil War when arm conflict seemed all but inevitable for several reasons.

First, it represented the nightmares of the southern people come to life; a slave rebellion led by an abolitionist. There was already a large amount of distrust between the north and south, but after this attack the south saw themselves as under siege by their neighbors to the north. The way that Brown was idolized in the north also seemed to confirm the fears of southerners that the North was behind the attack at least morally.   

In response, the south began revamping its militia system to combat future threats. Weapon stores were resupplied, men were trained, and logistical plans began taking shape. This was the beginning of what would soon become the Confederate army.

When and why did the American Civil War become inevitable?

The Civil War (1861–1865) became unavoidable after the first state, South Carolina, seceded from the Union in late 1860. Six other states quickly followed South Carolina's example. There was no going back from secession. Ultimately, the secession had to be accepted by the North, or the seceding states had to be compelled to stay in the Union. The fact that South Carolina was the first to leave was not a surprise, because it had always been the most vociferous champion of states' rights.

The event that prompted South Carolina to secede was the election of Abraham Lincoln to the presidency in November 1860. Lincoln was the Republican candidate for the White House. In 1854, the Republican Party was created to block the expansion of slavery in the West. Only voters in the North supported the Republican Party, and Lincoln did not win any states outside the North in 1860.

There was a great deal of uncertainty after Lincoln's election and the secession of the seven states. He was not sworn in until March 1861. Lincoln's predecessor, the cautious and ineffective President James Buchanan, did not do much about the secession crisis. Upon becoming president, Lincoln refused to give up Union garrisons in the South, so South Carolina attacked one of these positions in April 1861—Fort Sumter. That attack led to full-scale civil war.