Do you think that the sectional conflict was an irrepressible conflict or do you think it was the work of bungling politicians, fanatics, and agitators?

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

Although the question does not have any further references or attachments, we can say that the sectional conflict was a combination of an irrepressible conflict with the work of bungling politicians, fanatics, and agitators.

Before the Civil War, there were many incidents, events, and decisions that create more separation in the views of the northerners and southerners. In the North, the idea of abolitionism was supported by most states, while in the South, slavery was an important part of the economy. Indeed, southern states depended on slaves to produce the crops in large plantations. These crops had to be exported to Europe.

The Missouri Compromise or the Kansas-Nebraska Act was the product of different points of view from legislators trying to fix things until the problems too many that made seven states seceded from the Union, and later, the beginning of the Civil War.

answer: idk

explanation: because i just don't

to protest slavery i would think it would be a