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 nice if a Civil War could be blamed on the politicians of the time, however whilst the situation may have been better managed at the time. It is fair to suggest that the division of the people in both the north and the south had such extreme and opposing views making any kind of middle ground almost impossible. The incident with Sumner is not just an example of how disjointed the political system was at the time but also a representation of the greater problem between north and south.
Yes, the politicians at the time did play a large part in how the civil war played out. However, the time had come for those to look closely at how America was shaping up and the growing separation of the North and South. Also, you can't help but look at the radical groups of the time (The Abolitionists, free blacks, women abolitionists). Didn't they too play a large role? You can look at Fort Sumner as radicalisation at its worst- this was not a political debate for a couple of politicians. It was a beginning of a war for any American to take part in. Tara Crivari
While negotiations between politicians from the North and the South could have gone more smoothly, their difficulties coming to an agreement can by no means be deemed as the catalyst for the civil war. The differing objectives that the North and South had for the future were too substantially conflicting to be resolved in any other way, making a civil war inevitable. Furthermore any compromises that could have been agreed upon by the Nations politicians would have simply delayed the onset of the war.
There is always much debate about politicians who are constantly being blamed because of their incorrect actions and “incredible blundering”, but at the end don’t judge and you won’t be judged. Each situation is specific and there is never going to be a right and favourable decision for every party. Definitely, compromise seems to be a correct decision for both North and South to achieve, but such a decision is only a temporary state, so in five or fifty years, the question will arise again. Compromise reminds a patient dying in agony and a doctor trying to alleviate his pain through some medication. What’s the point of finding a compromise if at the end the patient will still die? It is better to wage the war now and have a clear vision what’s going to be in the future, then wait and try to save those five days or years and live in agony. Two completely different systems can’t coexist together (e.g., slavery and free soil) and by letting the South secede, North would face a threat of a new power, probably economic downturn, and mostly, United States would be seen as nation within a nation, and relying on what Lincoln claimed that was not acceptable: «My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery”. Basically, I consider the war to be a right decision, of course, no nation deserves the war, but only through destruction, sacrifices and pain, there is going to be the light at the end of the tunnel. “What if” sounds slightly utopian, particularly, when there are different economies and societies trying to figure out a compromise. There is one that seems more or less favourable in the long-run and it is a complete separation of the United States into two different countries, for instance, what happened to Czechoslovakia and its separation into Czech Republic and Slovakia.
It is only a valid perspective if the decisions and policies put forth by American politicians were irrational or unrealistic for the time. It may be the case that what historians such as Randall and Craven view as unreasonable or inflammatory actions and comments from these ‘incompetents’ were in fact quite reasonable for the period in which they were produced. In the eyes of Southern politicians of the time, the reasoning behind secession was sound; staying with the union ran the risk of having their interests curtailed in favour of Northern values and objectives.
This is also ignoring the compromises made by this same generation of politicians that were reached between North and South: Missouri Compromise, Dred Scott decision, Fugitive Slave Act etc.
A statement such as this could possibly have become one major turning point of which lead to the American Civil War. However this out break of such an event can not be blamed merely on the Politian’s at the time. Whether this generation of American politics was incompetent or not with their decisions, moreover the people of the North and south, where they preserved unsteady contradictions and eventually doomed the Union of the America by breaking away from the Union, joining the Confederacy. In my opinion it was both factors that lead to this catastrophe of the war, never the less, if the politicians had been more competent during this period it may have proved a more or less different path for the country’s future and ultimately holding and controlling a stronger and steadier Union.
The politicians and their parties did play an important role in facilitating the civil war, but the increasing tensions and dissimilarities between the north and south is what lead the nation to battle. The most prominent disagreement that led the north and south to war was their conflicting views on slavery, which was shared by the populations in each state and not just representatives in congress. Other important catalysts to the civil war were the abolitionists (esp. John Browne and the Harpers Ferry incident), the sectional crisis in the 1850s and the secession, were slavery was a key factor.
To describe the actions of the politicians of the time as incompetent and incredible blunders is an unfair reflection on the course of events and the mainframe of those involved. Continual compromises from both the South and North prior to the Civil War display the willingness of these politicians to avoid war. The unavoidable nature of the Civil War spawns from two different groups each having distinctly different visions for the future of the nation and distinctly different understandings of what is right and wrong. It would seem that pride more than incompetence doomed the nation to war
In the end, the American Civil War could not have been prevented. Even though the American politicians at the time may have contributed to the lead up to Civil war, there was still a number of underlying factors that, with the two conflicting sides, could not have been resolved without resulting in a war. There were too many strong views about slave states, free states, losing say in their own governance (in the South). Even if they did not go to war when they did, the underlying factors would resurface again meaning the American Civil War would only have been delayed.
The American Civil War was inevitable not because of any 'inredible' political 'blundering' but more so because the North's desire to become further economicaly and socially urbanised, was not compatible with the political idealogies of the South. Such social discordance could not be resolved without an aggressive political contest and thus ( as History will suggest is common in such occurences) violence. Should the politicians of this era have been more diplomatic the outbreak of civil war may never have erupted. Yet, democracy had not been fully established in many global communities and so we are not analysing the politically charged disagreements of Diplomats. More Appropriately, the American Civil War may have been a result of the rigid American political institution itself and the disunity that this institution fixed into American society.
To consider the idea that the incompetence of politicians alone was the cause which tipped the US into Civil War, would be to ignore a host of other underlying multifaceted factors which played an important role in seeing the country throw itself into chaos. To understand what fuelled the onset of the Civil War, it is important to note that the North and South had been divided for some time on a number of religious, moral, social and economic issues and it was these, coupled with enduring political sagas, which encouraged an entrenched separation through the core of the US.
Historians may have argued that it was the “ incredible blundering” of incompetent politicians who are to blame for the events of the Civil War however I believe that the politicians were doing there best to avoid war , unfortunately the war was inevitable due to the North and the South having such opposing views on multiple issues and politicians were unable to reach an agreement due to both sides unwillingness to compromise even if they did reach some kind of agreement , it would probably only had delayed the war.
Firstly, I'm not sure the accusation of the generation of politicians during that era being "incredibly blundering" and condemning the nation to Civil War is an entirely valid one. The period had politicians such as Lincoln, arguably the most popular President in history and someone who openly expressed his willingness NOT to go to war, as well as other important figures and great minds. In any case, while it would be remiss to rid the politicians of any responsibility for the conflict, I would argue that the differences in values and friction between the North and the South were much more significant factors than the incompetence of politicians, and the extent of the division between both parts of the country would make it very difficult for any generation of politicians to avoid war in the climate that existed in the United States in the 1860s.
To place the blame of the civil war squarely on "blundering" politicians seems unfair and ignorant of the larger issues at play during the immensely tense social and political atmosphere of the time. As we have discussed, it is intriguing to look at history retrospectively and imagine 'what if' situations. However the notion of presentism should alert us to the fact that current perspectives are not always compatible with the past. Perhaps we should not concern ourselves with such imaginary dwellings and focus on factors that were catalysts a war that did indeed happen, not one that could have perhaps been avoided. In the end, we'll never know the answer to that question.
It would be nice if a Civil War could be blamed on the politicians of the time, however whilst the situation may have been better managed at the time. It is fair to suggest that the division of the people in both the north and the south had such extreme and opposing views making any kind of middle ground almost impossible. The incident with Sumner is not just an example of how disjointed the political system was at the time but also a representation of the greater problem between north and south.
ReplyDeleteYes, the politicians at the time did play a large part in how the civil war played out. However, the time had come for those to look closely at how America was shaping up and the growing separation of the North and South. Also, you can't help but look at the radical groups of the time (The Abolitionists, free blacks, women abolitionists). Didn't they too play a large role? You can look at Fort Sumner as radicalisation at its worst- this was not a political debate for a couple of politicians. It was a beginning of a war for any American to take part in.
ReplyDeleteTara Crivari
While negotiations between politicians from the North and the South could have gone more smoothly, their difficulties coming to an agreement can by no means be deemed as the catalyst for the civil war. The differing objectives that the North and South had for the future were too substantially conflicting to be resolved in any other way, making a civil war inevitable. Furthermore any compromises that could have been agreed upon by the Nations politicians would have simply delayed the onset of the war.
ReplyDeleteLachy Cameron
There is always much debate about politicians who are constantly being blamed because of their incorrect actions and “incredible blundering”, but at the end don’t judge and you won’t be judged. Each situation is specific and there is never going to be a right and favourable decision for every party. Definitely, compromise seems to be a correct decision for both North and South to achieve, but such a decision is only a temporary state, so in five or fifty years, the question will arise again. Compromise reminds a patient dying in agony and a doctor trying to alleviate his pain through some medication. What’s the point of finding a compromise if at the end the patient will still die? It is better to wage the war now and have a clear vision what’s going to be in the future, then wait and try to save those five days or years and live in agony. Two completely different systems can’t coexist together (e.g., slavery and free soil) and by letting the South secede, North would face a threat of a new power, probably economic downturn, and mostly, United States would be seen as nation within a nation, and relying on what Lincoln claimed that was not acceptable: «My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery”. Basically, I consider the war to be a right decision, of course, no nation deserves the war, but only through destruction, sacrifices and pain, there is going to be the light at the end of the tunnel. “What if” sounds slightly utopian, particularly, when there are different economies and societies trying to figure out a compromise. There is one that seems more or less favourable in the long-run and it is a complete separation of the United States into two different countries, for instance, what happened to Czechoslovakia and its separation into Czech Republic and Slovakia.
ReplyDeleteMaria S.(22504079)
It is only a valid perspective if the decisions and policies put forth by American politicians were irrational or unrealistic for the time. It may be the case that what historians such as Randall and Craven view as unreasonable or inflammatory actions and comments from these ‘incompetents’ were in fact quite reasonable for the period in which they were produced. In the eyes of Southern politicians of the time, the reasoning behind secession was sound; staying with the union ran the risk of having their interests curtailed in favour of Northern values and objectives.
ReplyDeleteThis is also ignoring the compromises made by this same generation of politicians that were reached between North and South: Missouri Compromise, Dred Scott decision, Fugitive Slave Act etc.
A statement such as this could possibly have become one major turning point of which lead to the American Civil War. However this out break of such an event can not be blamed merely on the Politian’s at the time. Whether this generation of American politics was incompetent or not with their decisions, moreover the people of the North and south, where they preserved unsteady contradictions and eventually doomed the Union of the America by breaking away from the Union, joining the Confederacy. In my opinion it was both factors that lead to this catastrophe of the war, never the less, if the politicians had been more competent during this period it may have proved a more or less different path for the country’s future and ultimately holding and controlling a stronger and steadier Union.
ReplyDeleteThe politicians and their parties did play an important role in facilitating the civil war, but the increasing tensions and dissimilarities between the north and south is what lead the nation to battle. The most prominent disagreement that led the north and south to war was their conflicting views on slavery, which was shared by the populations in each state and not just representatives in congress. Other important catalysts to the civil war were the abolitionists (esp. John Browne and the Harpers Ferry incident), the sectional crisis in the 1850s and the secession, were slavery was a key factor.
ReplyDeleteTo describe the actions of the politicians of the time as incompetent and incredible blunders is an unfair reflection on the course of events and the mainframe of those involved. Continual compromises from both the South and North prior to the Civil War display the willingness of these politicians to avoid war. The unavoidable nature of the Civil War spawns from two different groups each having distinctly different visions for the future of the nation and distinctly different understandings of what is right and wrong. It would seem that pride more than incompetence doomed the nation to war
ReplyDeleteIn the end, the American Civil War could not have been prevented. Even though the American politicians at the time may have contributed to the lead up to Civil war, there was still a number of underlying factors that, with the two conflicting sides, could not have been resolved without resulting in a war. There were too many strong views about slave states, free states, losing say in their own governance (in the South). Even if they did not go to war when they did, the underlying factors would resurface again meaning the American Civil War would only have been delayed.
ReplyDeleteThe American Civil War was inevitable not because of any 'inredible' political 'blundering' but more so because the North's desire to become further economicaly and socially urbanised, was not compatible with the political idealogies of the South. Such social discordance could not be resolved without an aggressive political contest and thus ( as History will suggest is common in such occurences) violence. Should the politicians of this era have been more diplomatic the outbreak of civil war may never have erupted. Yet, democracy had not been fully established in many global communities and so we are not analysing the politically charged disagreements of Diplomats. More Appropriately, the American Civil War may have been a result of the rigid American political institution itself and the disunity that this institution fixed into American society.
ReplyDeleteKirsty Allen 22655254
To consider the idea that the incompetence of politicians alone was the cause which tipped the US into Civil War, would be to ignore a host of other underlying multifaceted factors which played an important role in seeing the country throw itself into chaos. To understand what fuelled the onset of the Civil War, it is important to note that the North and South had been divided for some time on a number of religious, moral, social and economic issues and it was these, coupled with enduring political sagas, which encouraged an entrenched separation through the core of the US.
ReplyDeleteEmma Nobel 23428597
Historians may have argued that it was the “ incredible blundering” of incompetent politicians who are to blame for the events of the Civil War however I believe that the politicians were doing there best to avoid war , unfortunately the war was inevitable due to the North and the South having such opposing views on multiple issues and politicians were unable to reach an agreement due to both sides unwillingness to compromise even if they did reach some kind of agreement , it would probably only had delayed the war.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I'm not sure the accusation of the generation of politicians during that era being "incredibly blundering" and condemning the nation to Civil War is an entirely valid one. The period had politicians such as Lincoln, arguably the most popular President in history and someone who openly expressed his willingness NOT to go to war, as well as other important figures and great minds. In any case, while it would be remiss to rid the politicians of any responsibility for the conflict, I would argue that the differences in values and friction between the North and the South were much more significant factors than the incompetence of politicians, and the extent of the division between both parts of the country would make it very difficult for any generation of politicians to avoid war in the climate that existed in the United States in the 1860s.
ReplyDeleteDominic Gallichio
22653392
To place the blame of the civil war squarely on "blundering" politicians seems unfair and ignorant of the larger issues at play during the immensely tense social and political atmosphere of the time. As we have discussed, it is intriguing to look at history retrospectively and imagine 'what if' situations. However the notion of presentism should alert us to the fact that current perspectives are not always compatible with the past. Perhaps we should not concern ourselves with such imaginary dwellings and focus on factors that were catalysts a war that did indeed happen, not one that could have perhaps been avoided. In the end, we'll never know the answer to that question.
ReplyDelete