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)
It would be fair to say that the American politicians ‘blundering’ would have done plenty to aggravate the situation. You need not look any further than Charles Sumner to see a man intent on enhancing the resentment between the north and south, and he was by no means the only one contributing. Nevertheless, it would both be quite a large oversimplification of the issue to suggest that politicians were the only ones to ‘doom the nation to civil war’, while also placing an exceeding amount of emphasis on the larger players whilst underplaying the input of the ‘little people.’ Politicians represent or at least attempt to represent, the people, and rising tensions in parliament could only be reflecting the rising tensions amongst the general population.
Many historians blame the Civil War on irrationality. Historian Frank Lawrence Owsley argues that irrationality took the form of ‘ego-centric sectionalism’, while others such as James Garfield Randall, it was political dementia that caused a systematic failure in the American political system and ‘incredible blundering’ by a generation of incompetent politicians. Similarly, Avery Craven believed that ‘sane policy’ had been abandoned in the heat of unreason and that ‘un-called for moves’ and ‘irresponsible leadership’ had doomed the nation to Civil War. It can be said that, to a certain extent, that these arguments contain validity, as it is true that a lack of compromise and negotiation was a contributing factor to the causes of the American Civil War.
A number of instances of American politicians dealing with the divisive issues of the time enhanced the agitation of the period and contributed to the likelihood of civil war, setting poor examples for its citizens to follow in healing their disputes. The Democrats, for example, split their party over the issue of slavery and popular sovereignty in the 1854 Kansas Nebraska Act. This absence of a unified national party provides little foundation for a nation to strive for unity amidst a time of controversial secession. Individual acts by political figures such as Preston Brooks in caning Charles Sumner on the floor of the US senate in 1856 also functioned as an example of heroic violence to those who supported him, and inspired those outraged by him to turn to violence, such as John Brown.
The shortcomings of many American politicians did contribute to the outbreak of Civil War, but they did not ‘doom’ the nation. The nation was already fraught with divisions and ideological rivalry. The North and South were resentful of each-others way of life and politicians represented that tension. Yet the ineptitude of American politicians at this time cannot go unnoticed, as Abraham Lincoln famously stated in 1858, ‘a house divided against itself cannot stand’. This statement is somewhat prophetic of the events to come; however, it did not ‘doom’ the nation, the nation was already in a state of Cold War.
It is accurate to say that the incompetence of American politicians played a role in the outbreak of war - events such as the splitting of the Democrats over the passing of the Kanasas-Nebraska Act, and the general unwillingness of either side to take a reasoned and rationale approach to the situation certainly contributed to the outbreak of war; however, to suggest that it ultimately doomed the nation fails to take into account other causes for the war, such as the deeply entrenched ideological differences between the North and the South, as well as their different perspectives on society. This perhaps, ironically, goes some way to explaining the incompetence of the politicians - although they could not agree on a solution, North-South divides made it impossible for them to do so.
There is definitely some validity in Randall and Craven’s assessment of the political ‘blundering’ as a cause for the Civil War. Major differences and disagreements are well known today and certain aggravating acts such as the Kansas-Nebraska Act could not have been met with anything other than anger by the North as it went against the measures brought in by the Missouri Line. To say that the incompetence of the politicians alone doomed the nation would be problematic as the deeply ingrained opinions of different states so strongly opposed that of others meant that it would have been difficult for competent politicians to reach an understanding.
The actions of prominent American politicians exacerbated the ideological battle waged between the North and South in the build-up to the Civil War. The signing of the Fugitive Slave Act by President Fillmore in 1850 (which resulted in the controversial Dred Scott decision in 1857), the introduction of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 and the half-hearted manner in which President Buchannan tried to appease the Southerners, only served to isolate the regions from each other. Such political manoeuvres also inflamed the righteous anger of both the abolitionist movement and the pro-slavery southerners as both rallied against the “injustices” enacted by the federal govt. This political atmosphere of crises and conflict was the backdrop for such drastic acts as John Brown’s raid of Harper’s Ferry, and the caning of Charles Sumner. However it would be wrong to completely separate the politicians from the people they represented. The fact was both sides held deeply-entrenched and conflicting views on the institution of slavery. Neither side was willing to budge, partly because of the socio-economic ramifications concession would entail. The inflammatory actions of the politicians was only reflective of the increasingly intense commitment of both regions to their respective cause, as exemplified in the way Southerners celebrated Brooks after he violently caned Sumner.
the incompetence of a large proportion of American politicians led the nation into an ideological split - culminating in the American Civil War. Bad political decisions on the behalf of both the North and South led to tensions. Further erroneous calls then exacerbated these existing tensions and led to a situation of armed conflict. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was one such endeavor that caused harm. Another incident which really sparked animosity was the controversial Dred Scott decision in 1857. Political 'blunders' by prominent politicians on both sides of the coin led to the Civil War
It is difficult to understand the entirety of the reasons behind the outbreak of the American Civil War within a limited political sphere. Differences of opinion and radical politicians are often a feature of democratic government, but for America, northern and southern politicians both idealised the U.S’s democratic institutions and legacy and thus a political breakdown that would lead to civil war would be hard to materialise without other, more cultural pressures. While some of the compromises being proposed by politicians were proving time and again to be not in the interests of either party, the cultural attitudes between North and South made accepting these compromises more difficult, particularly in regards to “southern honour”. Early violence along the border-states, as seen during the “Bleeding Kansas” period, was also the result of a build up of cultural and political tensions, and is perhaps the best example we have of how the Civil War began within a smaller context.
It would be fair to say that the American politicians ‘blundering’ would have done plenty to aggravate the situation. You need not look any further than Charles Sumner to see a man intent on enhancing the resentment between the north and south, and he was by no means the only one contributing. Nevertheless, it would both be quite a large oversimplification of the issue to suggest that politicians were the only ones to ‘doom the nation to civil war’, while also placing an exceeding amount of emphasis on the larger players whilst underplaying the input of the ‘little people.’ Politicians represent or at least attempt to represent, the people, and rising tensions in parliament could only be reflecting the rising tensions amongst the general population.
ReplyDeleteMany historians blame the Civil War on irrationality. Historian Frank Lawrence Owsley argues that irrationality took the form of ‘ego-centric sectionalism’, while others such as James Garfield Randall, it was political dementia that caused a systematic failure in the American political system and ‘incredible blundering’ by a generation of incompetent politicians. Similarly, Avery Craven believed that ‘sane policy’ had been abandoned in the heat of unreason and that ‘un-called for moves’ and ‘irresponsible leadership’ had doomed the nation to Civil War. It can be said that, to a certain extent, that these arguments contain validity, as it is true that a lack of compromise and negotiation was a contributing factor to the causes of the American Civil War.
ReplyDeleteA number of instances of American politicians dealing with the divisive issues of the time enhanced the agitation of the period and contributed to the likelihood of civil war, setting poor examples for its citizens to follow in healing their disputes. The Democrats, for example, split their party over the issue of slavery and popular sovereignty in the 1854 Kansas Nebraska Act. This absence of a unified national party provides little foundation for a nation to strive for unity amidst a time of controversial secession. Individual acts by political figures such as Preston Brooks in caning Charles Sumner on the floor of the US senate in 1856 also functioned as an example of heroic violence to those who supported him, and inspired those outraged by him to turn to violence, such as John Brown.
ReplyDeleteThe shortcomings of many American politicians did contribute to the outbreak of Civil War, but they did not ‘doom’ the nation. The nation was already fraught with divisions and ideological rivalry. The North and South were resentful of each-others way of life and politicians represented that tension. Yet the ineptitude of American politicians at this time cannot go unnoticed, as Abraham Lincoln famously stated in 1858, ‘a house divided against itself cannot stand’. This statement is somewhat prophetic of the events to come; however, it did not ‘doom’ the nation, the nation was already in a state of Cold War.
ReplyDeleteIt is accurate to say that the incompetence of American politicians played a role in the outbreak of war - events such as the splitting of the Democrats over the passing of the Kanasas-Nebraska Act, and the general unwillingness of either side to take a reasoned and rationale approach to the situation certainly contributed to the outbreak of war; however, to suggest that it ultimately doomed the nation fails to take into account other causes for the war, such as the deeply entrenched ideological differences between the North and the South, as well as their different perspectives on society. This perhaps, ironically, goes some way to explaining the incompetence of the politicians - although they could not agree on a solution, North-South divides made it impossible for them to do so.
ReplyDeleteThere is definitely some validity in Randall and Craven’s assessment of the political ‘blundering’ as a cause for the Civil War. Major differences and disagreements are well known today and certain aggravating acts such as the Kansas-Nebraska Act could not have been met with anything other than anger by the North as it went against the measures brought in by the Missouri Line. To say that the incompetence of the politicians alone doomed the nation would be problematic as the deeply ingrained opinions of different states so strongly opposed that of others meant that it would have been difficult for competent politicians to reach an understanding.
ReplyDeleteThe actions of prominent American politicians exacerbated the ideological battle waged between the North and South in the build-up to the Civil War. The signing of the Fugitive Slave Act by President Fillmore in 1850 (which resulted in the controversial Dred Scott decision in 1857), the introduction of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 and the half-hearted manner in which President Buchannan tried to appease the Southerners, only served to isolate the regions from each other. Such political manoeuvres also inflamed the righteous anger of both the abolitionist movement and the pro-slavery southerners as both rallied against the “injustices” enacted by the federal govt. This political atmosphere of crises and conflict was the backdrop for such drastic acts as John Brown’s raid of Harper’s Ferry, and the caning of Charles Sumner. However it would be wrong to completely separate the politicians from the people they represented. The fact was both sides held deeply-entrenched and conflicting views on the institution of slavery. Neither side was willing to budge, partly because of the socio-economic ramifications concession would entail. The inflammatory actions of the politicians was only reflective of the increasingly intense commitment of both regions to their respective cause, as exemplified in the way Southerners celebrated Brooks after he violently caned Sumner.
ReplyDeletethe incompetence of a large proportion of American politicians led the nation into an ideological split - culminating in the American Civil War.
ReplyDeleteBad political decisions on the behalf of both the North and South led to tensions. Further erroneous calls then exacerbated these existing tensions and led to a situation of armed conflict.
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was one such endeavor that caused harm. Another incident which really sparked animosity was the controversial Dred Scott decision in 1857.
Political 'blunders' by prominent politicians on both sides of the coin led to the Civil War
It is difficult to understand the entirety of the reasons behind the outbreak of the American Civil War within a limited political sphere. Differences of opinion and radical politicians are often a feature of democratic government, but for America, northern and southern politicians both idealised the U.S’s democratic institutions and legacy and thus a political breakdown that would lead to civil war would be hard to materialise without other, more cultural pressures. While some of the compromises being proposed by politicians were proving time and again to be not in the interests of either party, the cultural attitudes between North and South made accepting these compromises more difficult, particularly in regards to “southern honour”. Early violence along the border-states, as seen during the “Bleeding Kansas” period, was also the result of a build up of cultural and political tensions, and is perhaps the best example we have of how the Civil War began within a smaller context.
ReplyDelete