Historians such as J.G. Randall and Avery Craven once argued
that “incredible blundering” by a generation of incompetent American
politicians doomed the nation to Civil War. Is there any validity to this
assessment? (80-100 words).
I definitely concede that there was political blundering and that it may have contributed to the civil war. However, the political blunderings were merely some of the outcomes of the already unstable social climate created by slavery. Whether one points to the Fugitive Slave Act, Kansas-Nebraska Act, Dred Scott decision, or the Compromise of 1850, the inability of the politicians to deal with these issues and provide outcomes that would satisfy the north and the south, was not because of political ineptness, but because the politicians were already polarized. The political blunderings were an example of the disunity and irreconcilable differences that slavery was already causing within the nation as a whole.
Though there were some decisions made that, in retrospect, could have been handled differently in regards to the American Civil War, it may not be a valid assessment that a generation of ‘incompetent American politicians doomed the nation to Civil War’ due to their incompetency. The issues, such as slavery, that drove the nation to war within itself were considered to be too big and too complicated to resolve through peaceful means. Though a number of political compromises might have been achieved, there appears to have been no way to appease both the North and the South to such an extent whereby they were both willing to live peacefully with the results. I feel as though a war would have broken out eventually, regardless of any decisions made by the American politicians at the time.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, indeed it is easy to look back and accuse individual actors of bungling and incompetence, and perhaps this is true to some extend, but the fact remains that pre-war America was very much a "house divided against itself". The compromises of the past (most notably the Missouri Compromise of 1820) soon proved inadequate as America entered a new era, industrializing and expanding into new acquired territories as both North and South entered a competition into what sort of country America "would become".
Seemingly straightforward notions of popular sovereignty to decide the question of free labour or slavery merely exasperated the situation, as seen in Bleeding Kansas. Furthermore, it is easy to see the South as a defensive aggressor of sorts, attempting to force the North's hand in the legislation of the Kansas Nebraska Act, the Fugitive Slave Act, and the Dread Scott Decision, and ironic to see the North playing the "state's rights" card.
Finally, the conflict seems inevitable in that the North fundamentally disagreed with slavery, and whilst willing to compromise to some degree (refusing to let slavery expand northward in the belief that this would cause slavery to die out naturally), ultimately did not see a future for slavery in America in the long term. This was an unacceptable conclusion for the South, and the South were thus willing to fight to preserve their cultural and economic existence.
No. To place blame on incompetent politicians of the era is to suggest that some compromise could have been found that would resolved the complicated issue of slavery between the North and South. The Civil War was prompted by the South’s secession, and the South seceded because they wanted preserve slavery (and thus prosperity) as well as their honour. Even if Northern politicians had agreed to let slavery exist in the South, the South still wanted to expand slavery, which the North opposed, and the Fugitive Slave Act still, in the North’s perception, interfered with their states’ rights. Tensions would have continued. Furthermore, there is little politicians could have done to prevent attacks on the South like John Brown’s raid, which (both the act itself and the Northern response to it) contributed to the Southern states’ decision to secede. While slavery existed in the South, there was going to be a Civil War no matter what politicians did.
The Civil War cannot be attributed solely to the “blundering by….incompetent American politicians.” Rather, the fundamental differences in social structure, economic power and political views resulting from the South’s slave society increasingly polarised both North and South and made political unity impossible. The South’s belief in a Northern conspiracy designed to limit their economic potential through the abolition of slavery meant that Lincoln was not recognised as a valid American leader. The South decided to secede rather than endanger the future of slavery. Similarly, the North feared the Southern powers behind the Fugitive Slave Act and Kansas-Nebraska Act. Whilst the “blundering” of politicians indubitably increased tensions, their mistakes were the product of this mutual distrust and irreconcilable difference rather than the cause.
Politicians certainly played an important role in the Civil War, though it is unfair to say that it was their incompetence that was the sole cause of the war. The disunity and unrest stemming from issues of Slavery and States Rights had been building for some time, and by 1861 it had become nearly impossible for politicians to achieve a solution that pleased both the North and South, as can be seen in the reactions to decisions such as the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Though it could be argued that the politicians acted ineptly, it was unlikely they could have reached a peaceful solution given the tension between the North and South.
It is wrong to place all the blame on the politicians for the Civil War, however, they did play their part. The vast differences between the South and North in terms of the structure of the economies, societies and the political ideals, made it practically impossible for a peaceful resolution to be found. The issue of slavery and the dramatically differing views the North had from the South made it nigh on impossible for any substantial compromise to be made. So, even if the politicians hadn't been so incompetent, the tensions between the North and South wouldn't have allowed for a peaceful outcome.
Through the introduction of contentious legislation (such as the Fugitive Slave Act or the Kansas-Nebraska Act), American politicians certainly contributed to the raising tensions between the North and South. However, to place the blame solely on “…blundering” politicians overlooks the plethora of social and economic factors stemming from the regions staunch views on the legality of slavery, which ultimately led to the South’s secession and subsequently the Civil War. Therefore, Randall and Cravens assessment neglects other important factors, that contributed to the civil war.
In the period prior the American Civil War, the politicians were extremely divided on issues that were vitally important to both the South and the North. Though their inability to compromise, may be labelled as a 'blunder' in modern society, it would not be a blunder to people of that era.
Values and morals were extremely important to the people in the late 19th century, and they would not give up these values, especially if they saw it as a tyrannical neighbour forcing them to do something. Americans (dating back to the Mayflower Compact) were very sensitive to the value of liberty and against anyone they perceived as challenging these liberties. Thus in the late 18th century, they fought the British Empire for their independence. War was a preferred choice to compromise to what they saw as tyranny.
The North upheld what they believed were the values of the founding fathers, that is; to give liberty to every man. However the South did not regard the African Americans as humans worthy of liberty. Furthermore the South viewed the North’s attempts at freeing their slaves, as a violation on their liberty to own property. It is not surprising that the states would go to war again, in order to protect their liberty. Thus calling the politicians act a blunder, since both sides acted according to their will.
The onset of the Civil war marked the physical confrontation of two differing ideologies. Though the Fort Sumter attack which formally initiated conflict, the cause of the Civil war can be directly attributed to heated political discourse over the course of a generation, further polarising a divided country.
A notable example of this notion is exemplified in the infamous Dredd Scott Vs. Sanford Supreme Court ruling in 1857. This ruling found, brought to court by Dredd Scott a former slave suing for freedom, that slaves are not protected by the Constitution and are not U.S. citizens.
The ruling killed the long standing bipartisan Missouri compromise, further entrenched opposition to slavery in the North, and due to the financial repercussions of the ruling as seen in the 1857 panic further cemented the notion of King Cotton in the south.
While the actions of many American politicians contributed toward the establishment and maintenance of American instability during the period, to suggest that these were the only causes of the Civil War would not take into account issues that were relevant beyond the the American political system.
Underlying social and economic issues, as well as the ideological divide between the North and South were more prominent in contributing toward the occurrence of the Civil War. Therefore, it may be considered a construct of Northern and Southern rivalry, as well contrasting perceptions relating to slavery and industry which proved to perhaps be more important factors in the occurrence of the War.
Inherent in the idea that the blame for the civil war can be placed at the feet of politicians of the time is the idea that a compromise could have been reached. The reality however was that neither side was willing to compromise on key issues, such as slavery and the expansion of it into the new territories. Thrown into that already volatile mix was a suspicion from both sides of the other and a small amount of paranoia that each side was actively undermining the others way of life. These outside factors meant that although the politic sphere of this time was dominated by mistakes and blunderings there were much deeper issues and more important issues that divided the two sides.
I definitely concede that there was political blundering and that it may have contributed to the civil war. However, the political blunderings were merely some of the outcomes of the already unstable social climate created by slavery. Whether one points to the Fugitive Slave Act, Kansas-Nebraska Act, Dred Scott decision, or the Compromise of 1850, the inability of the politicians to deal with these issues and provide outcomes that would satisfy the north and the south, was not because of political ineptness, but because the politicians were already polarized. The political blunderings were an example of the disunity and irreconcilable differences that slavery was already causing within the nation as a whole.
ReplyDeleteThough there were some decisions made that, in retrospect, could have been handled differently in regards to the American Civil War, it may not be a valid assessment that a generation of ‘incompetent American politicians doomed the nation to Civil War’ due to their incompetency. The issues, such as slavery, that drove the nation to war within itself were considered to be too big and too complicated to resolve through peaceful means. Though a number of political compromises might have been achieved, there appears to have been no way to appease both the North and the South to such an extent whereby they were both willing to live peacefully with the results. I feel as though a war would have broken out eventually, regardless of any decisions made by the American politicians at the time.
ReplyDeleteHindsight is a wonderful thing, indeed it is easy to look back and accuse individual actors of bungling and incompetence, and perhaps this is true to some extend, but the fact remains that pre-war America was very much a "house divided against itself". The compromises of the past (most notably the Missouri Compromise of 1820) soon proved inadequate as America entered a new era, industrializing and expanding into new acquired territories as both North and South entered a competition into what sort of country America "would become".
ReplyDeleteSeemingly straightforward notions of popular sovereignty to decide the question of free labour or slavery merely exasperated the situation, as seen in Bleeding Kansas. Furthermore, it is easy to see the South as a defensive aggressor of sorts, attempting to force the North's hand in the legislation of the Kansas Nebraska Act, the Fugitive Slave Act, and the Dread Scott Decision, and ironic to see the North playing the "state's rights" card.
Finally, the conflict seems inevitable in that the North fundamentally disagreed with slavery, and whilst willing to compromise to some degree (refusing to let slavery expand northward in the belief that this would cause slavery to die out naturally), ultimately did not see a future for slavery in America in the long term. This was an unacceptable conclusion for the South, and the South were thus willing to fight to preserve their cultural and economic existence.
No. To place blame on incompetent politicians of the era is to suggest that some compromise could have been found that would resolved the complicated issue of slavery between the North and South. The Civil War was prompted by the South’s secession, and the South seceded because they wanted preserve slavery (and thus prosperity) as well as their honour. Even if Northern politicians had agreed to let slavery exist in the South, the South still wanted to expand slavery, which the North opposed, and the Fugitive Slave Act still, in the North’s perception, interfered with their states’ rights. Tensions would have continued. Furthermore, there is little politicians could have done to prevent attacks on the South like John Brown’s raid, which (both the act itself and the Northern response to it) contributed to the Southern states’ decision to secede. While slavery existed in the South, there was going to be a Civil War no matter what politicians did.
ReplyDeleteThe Civil War cannot be attributed solely to the “blundering by….incompetent American politicians.” Rather, the fundamental differences in social structure, economic power and political views resulting from the South’s slave society increasingly polarised both North and South and made political unity impossible. The South’s belief in a Northern conspiracy designed to limit their economic potential through the abolition of slavery meant that Lincoln was not recognised as a valid American leader. The South decided to secede rather than endanger the future of slavery. Similarly, the North feared the Southern powers behind the Fugitive Slave Act and Kansas-Nebraska Act. Whilst the “blundering” of politicians indubitably increased tensions, their mistakes were the product of this mutual distrust and irreconcilable difference rather than the cause.
ReplyDeletePoliticians certainly played an important role in the Civil War, though it is unfair to say that it was their incompetence that was the sole cause of the war. The disunity and unrest stemming from issues of Slavery and States Rights had been building for some time, and by 1861 it had become nearly impossible for politicians to achieve a solution that pleased both the North and South, as can be seen in the reactions to decisions such as the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Though it could be argued that the politicians acted ineptly, it was unlikely they could have reached a peaceful solution given the tension between the North and South.
ReplyDeleteIt is wrong to place all the blame on the politicians for the Civil War, however, they did play their part. The vast differences between the South and North in terms of the structure of the economies, societies and the political ideals, made it practically impossible for a peaceful resolution to be found. The issue of slavery and the dramatically differing views the North had from the South made it nigh on impossible for any substantial compromise to be made. So, even if the politicians hadn't been so incompetent, the tensions between the North and South wouldn't have allowed for a peaceful outcome.
ReplyDeleteThrough the introduction of contentious legislation (such as the Fugitive Slave Act or the Kansas-Nebraska Act), American politicians certainly contributed to the raising tensions between the North and South. However, to place the blame solely on “…blundering” politicians overlooks the plethora of social and economic factors stemming from the regions staunch views on the legality of slavery, which ultimately led to the South’s secession and subsequently the Civil War. Therefore, Randall and Cravens assessment neglects other important factors, that contributed to the civil war.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the period prior the American Civil War, the politicians were extremely divided on issues that were vitally important to both the South and the North. Though their inability to compromise, may be labelled as a 'blunder' in modern society, it would not be a blunder to people of that era.
ReplyDeleteValues and morals were extremely important to the people in the late 19th century, and they would not give up these values, especially if they saw it as a tyrannical neighbour forcing them to do something. Americans (dating back to the Mayflower Compact) were very sensitive to the value of liberty and against anyone they perceived as challenging these liberties. Thus in the late 18th century, they fought the British Empire for their independence. War was a preferred choice to compromise to what they saw as tyranny.
The North upheld what they believed were the values of the founding fathers, that is; to give liberty to every man. However the South did not regard the African Americans as humans worthy of liberty. Furthermore the South viewed the North’s attempts at freeing their slaves, as a violation on their liberty to own property. It is not surprising that the states would go to war again, in order to protect their liberty. Thus calling the politicians act a blunder, since both sides acted according to their will.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe onset of the Civil war marked the physical confrontation of two differing ideologies. Though the Fort Sumter attack which formally initiated conflict, the cause of the Civil war can be directly attributed to heated political discourse over the course of a generation, further polarising a divided country.
ReplyDeleteA notable example of this notion is exemplified in the infamous Dredd Scott Vs. Sanford Supreme Court ruling in 1857. This ruling found, brought to court by Dredd Scott a former slave suing for freedom, that slaves are not protected by the Constitution and are not U.S. citizens.
The ruling killed the long standing bipartisan Missouri compromise, further entrenched opposition to slavery in the North, and due to the financial repercussions of the ruling as seen in the 1857 panic further cemented the notion of King Cotton in the south.
While the actions of many American politicians contributed toward the establishment and maintenance of American instability during the period, to suggest that these were the only causes of the Civil War would not take into account issues that were relevant beyond the the American political system.
ReplyDeleteUnderlying social and economic issues, as well as the ideological divide between the North and South were more prominent in contributing toward the occurrence of the Civil War. Therefore, it may be considered a construct of Northern and Southern rivalry, as well contrasting perceptions relating to slavery and industry which proved to perhaps be more important factors in the occurrence of the War.
Inherent in the idea that the blame for the civil war can be placed at the feet of politicians of the time is the idea that a compromise could have been reached. The reality however was that neither side was willing to compromise on key issues, such as slavery and the expansion of it into the new territories. Thrown into that already volatile mix was a suspicion from both sides of the other and a small amount of paranoia that each side was actively undermining the others way of life. These outside factors meant that although the politic sphere of this time was dominated by mistakes and blunderings there were much deeper issues and more important issues that divided the two sides.
ReplyDelete