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).
Political decisions such as the Fugitive Slave Act (FSA) and Kansas-Nebraska Act could both be argued to have contributed to the ignition of Civil War. The FSA was strongly biased towards the rights of slave states, causing many infuriated Northern states to enact State Personal Liberty Laws in order to nullify the new federal law. These aggravated Southern states, who claimed such interference was unconstitutional, leading to heightened tension between North and South. Similarly, the Kansas-Nebraska Act virtually reversed the Missouri Compromise of 1820, allowing slavery into the two new territories, which were both above the Missouri Compromise line. Again, this angered the North, while the South believed it a fair ruling. However, the Civil War can not solely be blamed on “blundering politicians”. With two societies based on such opposing ideologies rubbing so close together, Civil War was virtually inevitable, since very few, if any, decisions would be able to keep both societies happy. Vanessa Orlowski (22098828)
Whilst there may be grounds to argue that the incompetence of the ‘blundering’ politicians made the American Civil War inevitable, after experiencing the Convention, I believe that the task faced by the politicians was much more difficult than we give them credit for. From our own attempts to prevent the Civil War, I am now more aware of how difficult it would have been for political parties, or groups, with starkly contrasting ideas to come to an agreement. Everyone had different interests and values that they sought to protect. With this in mind, it was difficult even for us (who have the advantage of hindsight) to conjure realistic compromises and alternatives. Therefore, we cannot solely blame the incompetence of contemporary politicians for the unfortunate outcome.
Prior to the Civil War, United States politicians were presented with a difficult political situation to govern in due to the inherent differences between Southern and Northern views. President Buchanan's support of the Dred Scott Decision angered both abolitionists and Northerners wary of slave labour damaging their economy. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was a political result that showed further division due to it being seen as a repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The Fugitive Slave Act and the accompanying state personal liberty laws showed a tension between federal politicians acting against the will of those who supported states rights. This indecisive political action that increased the chance of civil war is a reflection of the difficult state of politics at the time, rather than the incompetence of contemporary politicians.
Certain political acts, such as the Fugitive slave act, which favored the rights of slave states and consequently led to the North creating a state law to counteract the federal law definitely fuelled the tension between the North and the South. The Kansas-Nebraska act also did this, by reversing the Missouri Compromise of 1820 by allowing slavery in the two new territories. Whilst these political acts definitely contributed to the onset of the Civil War, it would be unfair to say that the politicians behind these decisions were the sole reason for the Civil War.
Political concessions that were made such as the Missouri Compromise and Kansas Nebraska act, rather than alleviating the tensions arising between the newly industrialised North and the agrarian South only became temporary solutions. It can be argued that these measures delayed the beginning of the Civil War and increased the culture of North versus South. However, it was not simply the decisions made by politicians that created a situation in which the Civil War was inevitable and there were certainly other factors at play.
In the years leading up to the Civil War, various political decisions were made that exacerbated the pre-existing tension and animosity between North and South, by fanning the flames of the fear each side held of the other. The Supreme Court’s Dred Scott Decision of 1857 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 terrified Northerners by solidifying the idea that slavery was not permanently confined to the South. Likewise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the resulting failure of popular sovereignty violated the previous limits of slavery under the Missouri Compromise and created fear in both Northerners and Southerners that new states may be lost to their cause. Though these political acts contributed to the start of the Civil War, it would be excessive to declare that it was incredible political “blundering” alone that “doomed” the nation to Civil War.
The political tensions and policies that plagued America in the years leading up to the Civil War undoubtedly were a factor that led America to war. Pieces of legislation what were supposed to be compromises between the Southern Slave Owners and the Northern industrialists, such as the controversial Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska act only added fuel to the fire. The Fugitive Slave Act introduced the apprehension of runaway slaves from Northern states, heightening northern fears of the intentions of the South. The Kansas-Nebraska act was effectively a repeal of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, it allowed popular sovereignty to decide the slave status of Kansas and Nebraska, which opened up slavery in the north causing frustration. These key pieces of legislation by American politicians only increased to polarize the opposing values and lifestyles of the north and south. The inability of politicians to ease the tension between the States and produce policies both sides would accept, led them to believe that political agreements between them were hopeless, furthering their idea that war was the only way to settle their disagreement
There is some validity to Randall and Craven’s assessment, however it must be remembered that these historians were writing from the perspective of their own time and with their own moral judgements. For example, Randall’s rather narrow view of the war could be explained by the fact that he had just lived through and seen the destruction of WWI and could have been imposing his own judgements of the “blundering” of politicians of his own time, on to the politicians during the Civil War. It is easy to term the actions of politicians before the Civil War foolish as modern historians have the benefit of hindsight. To attribute the war to the actions of politicians simplifies the situation. It ignores the fact there were other economic and social factors that contributed to the outbreak of war. These factors were particular to the time and thus it is often easy for modern historians to overlook them. Thus, while the opinions of Randall and Craven are valid, they seem to narrow and skewed by modern perceptions to have great value.
Several events and decisions by politicians in the lead up to the civil war were questionable and undoubtedly incompetent. However, the more important question to ask is: are we judging and analysing these events and decisions through twenty-first century goggles? Are we so imbued with hindsight and the knowledge of the political barometers by which we judge politicians today, that in fact we cannot make such a strong judgment against American politicians of the mid-nineteenth century?
For instance, when we look at an event such as the canning of Charles Sumner by Preston Brooks in March 1856, we cannot fathom how such a violent, unrestrained incident could occur on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Firstly, we may hold idealistic notions of the houses of Congress (or Parliament) to be places of civilised, informed and rational debate. Secondly, the fact that we would never condone such barbaric behaviour by our politicians today may lead us to denounce this as a reflection of true incompetence. However, if we contextualise the event and attempt to comprehend the intense division between those who saw the Kansas-Nebraska Act as “a swindle by the South of the North,” and those who would die for ‘Southern Honour,’ we may just be able to accept (but not condone) this is an act of a desperate people, rather than an act of incompetent American politicians.
There is definitely scope to argue that the U.S. was doomed to civil war by the “incredible blundering” of a generation of politicians. Yet as historians, it remains unclear whether it is even possible for us to completely contextualise our analysis, or whether unwittingly we define this “incredible blundering” or “incompetence” by modern standards.
Perhaps in hindsight the escalation and outbreak of the American Civil War could be viewed to have been at the hands of “incredible blundering” politicians, however their contribution is not the sole factor that caused the Civil War. The increasing divergence of social, political and economic factors in both North and South society’s were fostering an antagonistic relationship between the North and South. North and South fears and concerns were indeed exasperated by political events such as the Kansas-Nebraska act, the Fugitive Slaves Act and the Dred Scott decision. However the addition of more extremist political forces including the fire-eaters and immediate abolitionists of which John Brown was a violent contributor, caused tensions to rise. While there is some validity in the assessment that the politicians of this era are to blame for the outbreak of Civil War, the complex nature of North and South tensions due to underlying value differences, the growing social unrest, and the political difficulties in negotiation relay the fact that outbreak of war is multifaceted and it isn’t accurate to blame one factor.
It is too simplistic an interpretation to blame the "incredible blundering" of American politicians. Political decisions such as the Fugitive Slave Act and the Kansas-Nebraska Act (which essentially repealed the Missouri compromise and the agreed upon limitations of slavery that came with it) certainly contributed to the Civil War. However, there were other tensions and actions that were instrumental in the lead up to the Civil War. With the advantage of hindsight it can be easy for historians to apportion blame to the politicians of the day and neglect to adequately heed the significant differences in what constituencies of America were willing to compromise on to ensure peace.
While historians such as Randall and Craven argue that pre-Civil War politicians were incompetent, it must be noted that there politicians were making decisions solely based on the social ideals, circumstances and beliefs of that period. There were many other social and economic factors that contributed to the Civil War, not just political decisions. From hindsight, we can see the mistakes in the decisions made by these politicians, however at the time, these decisions were probably entirely valid. Therefore, Randall and Craven’s argument is not entirely valid.
Various attempts at compromise were made by American politicians at the time to try and avoid the Civil War, but surrounding the conflict were a set of circumstances that were difficult to navigate. From the Declaration of Independence, the issue of slavery had slowly been causing a split within the United States. Various politicians had made compromises to keep the peace and heal this split – the Missouri Compromise in 1820 was the most notable of such compromises. In 1854, he Kansas–Nebraska Act was passed. Although it is largely attributed at repealing the Missouri Compromise, the proponents of the act believed it was still a compromise – slavery was not allowed in the new states but rather was going to be determined by ‘popular sovereignty’ – the people would vote to decide. Although a possibly good choice in theory, this proved troublesome in practice as thousands of Americans flocked to these states to ‘vote’ in the popular sovereignty election on slavery and caused what is now known as ‘Bleeding Kansas’. This is just one way that the poor management by politicians contributed to the eventually split of the American union. However, the suggestion that this conflict was entirely politicians’ fault is misleading; various events such as the Dred v Scott decision of 1857 and the overall cultural feelings between North and South by this point in the nineteenth century forced the hands of politicians and gave them few options to solve the split.
Political decisions such as the Fugitive Slave Act (FSA) and Kansas-Nebraska Act could both be argued to have contributed to the ignition of Civil War. The FSA was strongly biased towards the rights of slave states, causing many infuriated Northern states to enact State Personal Liberty Laws in order to nullify the new federal law. These aggravated Southern states, who claimed such interference was unconstitutional, leading to heightened tension between North and South. Similarly, the Kansas-Nebraska Act virtually reversed the Missouri Compromise of 1820, allowing slavery into the two new territories, which were both above the Missouri Compromise line. Again, this angered the North, while the South believed it a fair ruling. However, the Civil War can not solely be blamed on “blundering politicians”. With two societies based on such opposing ideologies rubbing so close together, Civil War was virtually inevitable, since very few, if any, decisions would be able to keep both societies happy.
ReplyDeleteVanessa Orlowski (22098828)
Whilst there may be grounds to argue that the incompetence of the ‘blundering’ politicians made the American Civil War inevitable, after experiencing the Convention, I believe that the task faced by the politicians was much more difficult than we give them credit for. From our own attempts to prevent the Civil War, I am now more aware of how difficult it would have been for political parties, or groups, with starkly contrasting ideas to come to an agreement. Everyone had different interests and values that they sought to protect. With this in mind, it was difficult even for us (who have the advantage of hindsight) to conjure realistic compromises and alternatives. Therefore, we cannot solely blame the incompetence of contemporary politicians for the unfortunate outcome.
ReplyDeletePrior to the Civil War, United States politicians were presented with a difficult political situation to govern in due to the inherent differences between Southern and Northern views. President Buchanan's support of the Dred Scott Decision angered both abolitionists and Northerners wary of slave labour damaging their economy. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was a political result that showed further division due to it being seen as a repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The Fugitive Slave Act and the accompanying state personal liberty laws showed a tension between federal politicians acting against the will of those who supported states rights. This indecisive political action that increased the chance of civil war is a reflection of the difficult state of politics at the time, rather than the incompetence of contemporary politicians.
ReplyDeleteW. Sommers
Certain political acts, such as the Fugitive slave act, which favored the rights of slave states and consequently led to the North creating a state law to counteract the federal law definitely fuelled the tension between the North and the South. The Kansas-Nebraska act also did this, by reversing the Missouri Compromise of 1820 by allowing slavery in the two new territories. Whilst these political acts definitely contributed to the onset of the Civil War, it would be unfair to say that the politicians behind these decisions were the sole reason for the Civil War.
ReplyDeletePolitical concessions that were made such as the Missouri Compromise and Kansas Nebraska act, rather than alleviating the tensions arising between the newly industrialised North and the agrarian South only became temporary solutions. It can be argued that these measures delayed the beginning of the Civil War and increased the culture of North versus South. However, it was not simply the decisions made by politicians that created a situation in which the Civil War was inevitable and there were certainly other factors at play.
ReplyDeleteIn the years leading up to the Civil War, various political decisions were made that exacerbated the pre-existing tension and animosity between North and South, by fanning the flames of the fear each side held of the other. The Supreme Court’s Dred Scott Decision of 1857 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 terrified Northerners by solidifying the idea that slavery was not permanently confined to the South. Likewise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the resulting failure of popular sovereignty violated the previous limits of slavery under the Missouri Compromise and created fear in both Northerners and Southerners that new states may be lost to their cause. Though these political acts contributed to the start of the Civil War, it would be excessive to declare that it was incredible political “blundering” alone that “doomed” the nation to Civil War.
ReplyDeleteThe political tensions and policies that plagued America in the years leading up to the Civil War undoubtedly were a factor that led America to war. Pieces of legislation what were supposed to be compromises between the Southern Slave Owners and the Northern industrialists, such as the controversial Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska act only added fuel to the fire. The Fugitive Slave Act introduced the apprehension of runaway slaves from Northern states, heightening northern fears of the intentions of the South. The Kansas-Nebraska act was effectively a repeal of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, it allowed popular sovereignty to decide the slave status of Kansas and Nebraska, which opened up slavery in the north causing frustration. These key pieces of legislation by American politicians only increased to polarize the opposing values and lifestyles of the north and south. The inability of politicians to ease the tension between the States and produce policies both sides would accept, led them to believe that political agreements between them were hopeless, furthering their idea that war was the only way to settle their disagreement
ReplyDeleteThere is some validity to Randall and Craven’s assessment, however it must be remembered that these historians were writing from the perspective of their own time and with their own moral judgements. For example, Randall’s rather narrow view of the war could be explained by the fact that he had just lived through and seen the destruction of WWI and could have been imposing his own judgements of the “blundering” of politicians of his own time, on to the politicians during the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteIt is easy to term the actions of politicians before the Civil War foolish as modern historians have the benefit of hindsight. To attribute the war to the actions of politicians simplifies the situation. It ignores the fact there were other economic and social factors that contributed to the outbreak of war. These factors were particular to the time and thus it is often easy for modern historians to overlook them. Thus, while the opinions of Randall and Craven are valid, they seem to narrow and skewed by modern perceptions to have great value.
Several events and decisions by politicians in the lead up to the civil war were questionable and undoubtedly incompetent. However, the more important question to ask is: are we judging and analysing these events and decisions through twenty-first century goggles? Are we so imbued with hindsight and the knowledge of the political barometers by which we judge politicians today, that in fact we cannot make such a strong judgment against American politicians of the mid-nineteenth century?
ReplyDeleteFor instance, when we look at an event such as the canning of Charles Sumner by Preston Brooks in March 1856, we cannot fathom how such a violent, unrestrained incident could occur on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Firstly, we may hold idealistic notions of the houses of Congress (or Parliament) to be places of civilised, informed and rational debate. Secondly, the fact that we would never condone such barbaric behaviour by our politicians today may lead us to denounce this as a reflection of true incompetence. However, if we contextualise the event and attempt to comprehend the intense division between those who saw the Kansas-Nebraska Act as “a swindle by the South of the North,” and those who would die for ‘Southern Honour,’ we may just be able to accept (but not condone) this is an act of a desperate people, rather than an act of incompetent American politicians.
There is definitely scope to argue that the U.S. was doomed to civil war by the “incredible blundering” of a generation of politicians. Yet as historians, it remains unclear whether it is even possible for us to completely contextualise our analysis, or whether unwittingly we define this “incredible blundering” or “incompetence” by modern standards.
Perhaps in hindsight the escalation and outbreak of the American Civil War could be viewed to have been at the hands of “incredible blundering” politicians, however their contribution is not the sole factor that caused the Civil War. The increasing divergence of social, political and economic factors in both North and South society’s were fostering an antagonistic relationship between the North and South. North and South fears and concerns were indeed exasperated by political events such as the Kansas-Nebraska act, the Fugitive Slaves Act and the Dred Scott decision. However the addition of more extremist political forces including the fire-eaters and immediate abolitionists of which John Brown was a violent contributor, caused tensions to rise. While there is some validity in the assessment that the politicians of this era are to blame for the outbreak of Civil War, the complex nature of North and South tensions due to underlying value differences, the growing social unrest, and the political difficulties in negotiation relay the fact that outbreak of war is multifaceted and it isn’t accurate to blame one factor.
ReplyDeleteIt is too simplistic an interpretation to blame the "incredible blundering" of American politicians. Political decisions such as the Fugitive Slave Act and the Kansas-Nebraska Act (which essentially repealed the Missouri compromise and the agreed upon limitations of slavery that came with it) certainly contributed to the Civil War. However, there were other tensions and actions that were instrumental in the lead up to the Civil War. With the advantage of hindsight it can be easy for historians to apportion blame to the politicians of the day and neglect to adequately heed the significant differences in what constituencies of America were willing to compromise on to ensure peace.
ReplyDeleteWhile historians such as Randall and Craven argue that pre-Civil War politicians were incompetent, it must be noted that there politicians were making decisions solely based on the social ideals, circumstances and beliefs of that period. There were many other social and economic factors that contributed to the Civil War, not just political decisions. From hindsight, we can see the mistakes in the decisions made by these politicians, however at the time, these decisions were probably entirely valid. Therefore, Randall and Craven’s argument is not entirely valid.
ReplyDeleteVarious attempts at compromise were made by American politicians at the time to try and avoid the Civil War, but surrounding the conflict were a set of circumstances that were difficult to navigate. From the Declaration of Independence, the issue of slavery had slowly been causing a split within the United States. Various politicians had made compromises to keep the peace and heal this split – the Missouri Compromise in 1820 was the most notable of such compromises. In 1854, he Kansas–Nebraska Act was passed. Although it is largely attributed at repealing the Missouri Compromise, the proponents of the act believed it was still a compromise – slavery was not allowed in the new states but rather was going to be determined by ‘popular sovereignty’ – the people would vote to decide. Although a possibly good choice in theory, this proved troublesome in practice as thousands of Americans flocked to these states to ‘vote’ in the popular sovereignty election on slavery and caused what is now known as ‘Bleeding Kansas’. This is just one way that the poor management by politicians contributed to the eventually split of the American union. However, the suggestion that this conflict was entirely politicians’ fault is misleading; various events such as the Dred v Scott decision of 1857 and the overall cultural feelings between North and South by this point in the nineteenth century forced the hands of politicians and gave them few options to solve the split.
ReplyDelete