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'm unsure if this assessment of the leadup to Civil War is entirely fair; it assumes that most, if not all of the events which led to the war were undertaken only by elites which were, by extension, allegedly unrepresentative of the constituents they represented in Congress or the Whitehouse. I would argue, however, that the United States at this time was one of the few nations on the planet whose populace actually had a large amount of control over policy; let us not forget that issues such as Southern Honor were widely accepted and promulgated by most southerners (and to an extent, still are), and that Abraham Lincoln was elected by popular vote, despite the stark division his election would cause. Thus, the populace of the United States affected, to a large degree, the eventual actions taken by said politicians.
Certainly such an assessment is not without some grounding in reality, the repeal of the Missouri compromise line and the Kansas-Nebraska Act played no small part in further exacerbating the tensions between North and South. To say that their ineptitude doomed the nation to civil war may however be something of an oversimplification which overlooks the divergent economic models as well as cultural differences and the mutual percieved hostility at the time.
To say that only politicians were entirely at fault for the Civil War is probably oversimplified. One also has to consider the economic factors and ideologies of the North and South which began to develop before or during the lifetime of some of the politicians who we have discussed in this unit already. For example, the South’s ethos of ‘Southern Honour’, their total dependence on slavery as its economic engine and their own interpretation of ‘liberty’ were ideals which one could argue were so ingrained into the popular mindset of the Southern public that no politician could have changed that without meeting intense opposition, unpopularity and resistance as Lincoln’s election demonstrated. Having said this, it is clear that some politicians – influenced by their respective sectional ideologies – made some bad decisions. For example, popularly considered a ‘doughface’, President Buchanan’s two-day-early appeal to the nation to support the Supreme Court’s decision on the Dred Scott case was clearly not a smart move although his intention seems to have been to end the debate surrounding the issue of slavery. This was naïve at best.
I think that to blame the 'blundering politicians' on the Civil War is perhaps oversimplifying the issue. Wars are not caused by one or a few men, but is a culmination of economic, social and political circumstances and events. Despite this, politicians - with their different and often opposing ideals and ideologies - certainly made, in hindsight, perhaps some unwise decisions. The Kansas-Nebraska Act for example, which repealed the Missouri Compromise Line only served to further feelings of hostility. Ultimately, I believe that blaming politicians overlooks the social and cultural differences between the antebellum North and South.
Although there were obviously plenty of other long-term factors and causes that led to the civil war, ranging from the distinct ideological and cultural differences between the North and South to the clash between Southern economic dependence on slavery and northern ambition to end that system, it is perhaps important to note the significance that immediate political decisions had in bringing about the civil war. For while war may indeed necessarily have been 'inevitable' due to fractured nature of the country at the time, the sometimes rash and blundering decisions of those such as the Supreme Court, President Buchanan and representatives of many of the key states either accelerated or exacerbated the path towards the conflict and its resulting bloodshed. One example of this was the supreme court's controversial Dred Scott decision, bringing the issue of slavery onto the doorstep of the north and giving a platform for the Republican party to establish themselves against the democrats, and eventually claim office in an act that ultimately pushed the south to secession. Similarly, Buchanan's eager support of the supreme court further angered the north, with this and other key political motions helping to cause further division between the north and south.
The war was not inevitable until "blundering politicians" could find no way to avoid the conflict.In my opinion it it the "blundering" that was in fact inevitable however. A clash of ideaologies, a clash of allegiances, a clash of christian interpretation, and a clash of state laws led politicians to a position where compromise and therefore peace would be impossible. Factionalism had solidified to a point where no quarter could be given.
(tech difficulties ;) ) cont... In my opinion what appeared to be blundering was perhaps not the case in totality. Of course there were hawk pro-war factions and dove pro-peace factions and in between the many moderate parties that exist in such political situations. Attempts were made by all parties to avoid the disastrous war, however, compromise could no longer be found.
To place the blame wholly on the ‘incompetent American politicians,’ I believe is unfair. Yes, they contributed to towards the process of getting to war, but many other factors also contributed to the war. As discussed before, the divide of the country highlighted too many differences. The South was agriculturally oriented, there was a different social structure where it was hierarchical and it was a slave depending society. Additionally, the stubborn “Southern Honor” would have contributed towards resulting in war. The North was the opposite: it was industrialised, both the whites and the blacks worked together in the system of ‘free labour.’ It is seen that not only was there differences in politics, but also social and economical differences also made the war seem inevitable. Thus politicians played a part but it was not because of them that ‘doomed the nation.’
No. The blundering of politicians was due to the ideological differences of the North and South. The split of the Democrats in the 1850s ending in the North and South representatives in the 1860 election demonstrated that a party could no longer represent the interests of both areas. The social split meant that it would be difficult to create a compromise between the North’s industry and the South’s agriculture and slavery without inciting anger. The war was due to societal differences becoming increasingly severe, rather than the due to the failure of politicians to negotiate a compromise.
This assessment acquires some validity, however the nation was doomed to Civil War not by politicians alone.
Many of the actions and decisions of politicians in the era caused more harm than they did good. The passing of the Kansas Nebraska Act in 1854, repudiated the dividing line as agreed upon in the Missouri Compromise. This political act certainly aggravated social tensions across the nation. Furthermore, actions such as the caning of Senator Charles Summer on the floor of the US senate, due to his opposition to the ideas of fellow Southern senators, symbolised the divided and irrational political point reached prior to the Civil War in parts of the nation.
The wider economic and social factors contributing to the Civil War, however, cannot be ignored. The inability of the various American constituencies to compromise on their economic and social desires too, led the county to a state of Civil War.
It is not fair to say that the Civil War was caused by the actions of incompetent politicians. While the actions of politicians certainly exacerbated the situation, such as through the passing of the Kansas-Nebraska Act which laid aside the Missouri Compromise line, by the time of the Civil War, the social, economic and ideological differences between the North and the South were too great and the two, were unable to achieve a compromise which would enable them to avoid war, while at the same time satisfying both parties.
The statement does warrant some validity to the extent that the failure of politicians, and more broadly the various constituencies, to effectively compromise, was directly correlated with the outbreak of Civil War. However it would be a misnomer to assign the politicians individual responsibility. They were elected 'representatives' who were suppose to pursue local interests, which surely came in direct conflict with national grievances. Rather it was the severe division between the North and the South on social, ideological and economic issues, exacerbated by the actions of politicians, and the government, that inevitably led to the Civil War.
This statement is valid to a degree. While, in my opinion, the war may have been avoided for a period of time, the Civil War was in fact inevitable. The ideological, cultural and economic differences between the North and South had segregated the two sides through distrust and resentment that the 'blundering' of politics could not have been avoided for long. The Civil War would have eventuated at some point by the mid 1800s.
Whilst the political sphere in the period leading to the American Civil War may be partially to blame for the conflict, it is a single factor in a complex issue, and to pin the beginnings of the war singularly on the incompetence of the bureaucracy would be an oversimplification that ignores other equally important factors, such as the entrenched ideological, cultural, and social issues that were present between the North and the South. Whilst the politicians may have caused the Civil War to occur at a particular point, such social differences heralded the conflict inevitable.
There is some validity in this assessment. As the nation's leaders politicians must shoulder the blame for drawing the country into conflict. However politicians and the constituencies they represent reflected the deep societal and cultural divides between the North and the South. Any blundering was the result of politicians attempting to reconcile Northern and Southern differences with the wants of their respective constituencies. The core problem was that two systems existed in one country. The stoic beliefs of people convinced of the "rightness" or correctness of their society exacerbated tensions to a point of no return.
I'm unsure if this assessment of the leadup to Civil War is entirely fair; it assumes that most, if not all of the events which led to the war were undertaken only by elites which were, by extension, allegedly unrepresentative of the constituents they represented in Congress or the Whitehouse. I would argue, however, that the United States at this time was one of the few nations on the planet whose populace actually had a large amount of control over policy; let us not forget that issues such as Southern Honor were widely accepted and promulgated by most southerners (and to an extent, still are), and that Abraham Lincoln was elected by popular vote, despite the stark division his election would cause. Thus, the populace of the United States affected, to a large degree, the eventual actions taken by said politicians.
ReplyDeleteCertainly such an assessment is not without some grounding in reality, the repeal of the Missouri compromise line and the Kansas-Nebraska Act played no small part in further exacerbating the tensions between North and South. To say that their ineptitude doomed the nation to civil war may however be something of an oversimplification which overlooks the divergent economic models as well as cultural differences and the mutual percieved hostility at the time.
ReplyDeleteTo say that only politicians were entirely at fault for the Civil War is probably oversimplified. One also has to consider the economic factors and ideologies of the North and South which began to develop before or during the lifetime of some of the politicians who we have discussed in this unit already. For example, the South’s ethos of ‘Southern Honour’, their total dependence on slavery as its economic engine and their own interpretation of ‘liberty’ were ideals which one could argue were so ingrained into the popular mindset of the Southern public that no politician could have changed that without meeting intense opposition, unpopularity and resistance as Lincoln’s election demonstrated. Having said this, it is clear that some politicians – influenced by their respective sectional ideologies – made some bad decisions. For example, popularly considered a ‘doughface’, President Buchanan’s two-day-early appeal to the nation to support the Supreme Court’s decision on the Dred Scott case was clearly not a smart move although his intention seems to have been to end the debate surrounding the issue of slavery. This was naïve at best.
ReplyDeleteI think that to blame the 'blundering politicians' on the Civil War is perhaps oversimplifying the issue. Wars are not caused by one or a few men, but is a culmination of economic, social and political circumstances and events. Despite this, politicians - with their different and often opposing ideals and ideologies - certainly made, in hindsight, perhaps some unwise decisions. The Kansas-Nebraska Act for example, which repealed the Missouri Compromise Line only served to further feelings of hostility. Ultimately, I believe that blaming politicians overlooks the social and cultural differences between the antebellum North and South.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there were obviously plenty of other long-term factors and causes that led to the civil war, ranging from the distinct ideological and cultural differences between the North and South to the clash between Southern economic dependence on slavery and northern ambition to end that system, it is perhaps important to note the significance that immediate political decisions had in bringing about the civil war. For while war may indeed necessarily have been 'inevitable' due to fractured nature of the country at the time, the sometimes rash and blundering decisions of those such as the Supreme Court, President Buchanan and representatives of many of the key states either accelerated or exacerbated the path towards the conflict and its resulting bloodshed. One example of this was the supreme court's controversial Dred Scott decision, bringing the issue of slavery onto the doorstep of the north and giving a platform for the Republican party to establish themselves against the democrats, and eventually claim office in an act that ultimately pushed the south to secession. Similarly, Buchanan's eager support of the supreme court further angered the north, with this and other key political motions helping to cause further division between the north and south.
ReplyDeleteThe war was not inevitable until "blundering politicians" could find no way to avoid the conflict.In my opinion it it the "blundering" that was in fact inevitable however. A clash of ideaologies, a clash of allegiances, a clash of christian interpretation, and a clash of state laws led politicians to a position where compromise and therefore peace would be impossible. Factionalism had solidified to a point where no quarter could be given.
ReplyDelete(tech difficulties ;) )
ReplyDeletecont...
In my opinion what appeared to be blundering was perhaps not the case in totality. Of course there were hawk pro-war factions and dove pro-peace factions and in between the many moderate parties that exist in such political situations. Attempts were made by all parties to avoid the disastrous war, however, compromise could no longer be found.
To place the blame wholly on the ‘incompetent American politicians,’ I believe is unfair. Yes, they contributed to towards the process of getting to war, but many other factors also contributed to the war. As discussed before, the divide of the country highlighted too many differences. The South was agriculturally oriented, there was a different social structure where it was hierarchical and it was a slave depending society. Additionally, the stubborn “Southern Honor” would have contributed towards resulting in war. The North was the opposite: it was industrialised, both the whites and the blacks worked together in the system of ‘free labour.’ It is seen that not only was there differences in politics, but also social and economical differences also made the war seem inevitable. Thus politicians played a part but it was not because of them that ‘doomed the nation.’
ReplyDeleteNo. The blundering of politicians was due to the ideological differences of the North and South. The split of the Democrats in the 1850s ending in the North and South representatives in the 1860 election demonstrated that a party could no longer represent the interests of both areas. The social split meant that it would be difficult to create a compromise between the North’s industry and the South’s agriculture and slavery without inciting anger. The war was due to societal differences becoming increasingly severe, rather than the due to the failure of politicians to negotiate a compromise.
ReplyDeleteThis assessment acquires some validity, however the nation was doomed to Civil War not by politicians alone.
ReplyDeleteMany of the actions and decisions of politicians in the era caused more harm than they did good. The passing of the Kansas Nebraska Act in 1854, repudiated the dividing line as agreed upon in the Missouri Compromise. This political act certainly aggravated social tensions across the nation. Furthermore, actions such as the caning of Senator Charles Summer on the floor of the US senate, due to his opposition to the ideas of fellow Southern senators, symbolised the divided and irrational political point reached prior to the Civil War in parts of the nation.
The wider economic and social factors contributing to the Civil War, however, cannot be ignored. The inability of the various American constituencies to compromise on their economic and social desires too, led the county to a state of Civil War.
It is not fair to say that the Civil War was caused by the actions of incompetent politicians. While the actions of politicians certainly exacerbated the situation, such as through the passing of the Kansas-Nebraska Act which laid aside the Missouri Compromise line, by the time of the Civil War, the social, economic and ideological differences between the North and the South were too great and the two, were unable to achieve a compromise which would enable them to avoid war, while at the same time satisfying both parties.
ReplyDeleteAhh, tech difficulties!
ReplyDeleteThe statement does warrant some validity to the extent that the failure of politicians, and more broadly the various constituencies, to effectively compromise, was directly correlated with the outbreak of Civil War. However it would be a misnomer to assign the politicians individual responsibility. They were elected 'representatives' who were suppose to pursue local interests, which surely came in direct conflict with national grievances.
Rather it was the severe division between the North and the South on social, ideological and economic issues, exacerbated by the actions of politicians, and the government, that inevitably led to the Civil War.
Sorry for the delay!
ReplyDeleteThis statement is valid to a degree. While, in my opinion, the war may have been avoided for a period of time, the Civil War was in fact inevitable. The ideological, cultural and economic differences between the North and South had segregated the two sides through distrust and resentment that the 'blundering' of politics could not have been avoided for long. The Civil War would have eventuated at some point by the mid 1800s.
Christopher Malone
ReplyDeleteWhilst the political sphere in the period leading to the American Civil War may be partially to blame for the conflict, it is a single factor in a complex issue, and to pin the beginnings of the war singularly on the incompetence of the bureaucracy would be an oversimplification that ignores other equally important factors, such as the entrenched ideological, cultural, and social issues that were present between the North and the South. Whilst the politicians may have caused the Civil War to occur at a particular point, such social differences heralded the conflict inevitable.
There is some validity in this assessment. As the nation's leaders politicians must shoulder the blame for drawing the country into conflict. However politicians and the constituencies they represent reflected the deep societal and cultural divides between the North and the South. Any blundering was the result of politicians attempting to reconcile Northern and Southern differences with the wants of their respective constituencies. The core problem was that two systems existed in one country. The stoic beliefs of people convinced of the "rightness" or correctness of their society exacerbated tensions to a point of no return.
ReplyDelete