Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
my dog
Official Sponsor
An interactive way of understanding our nation's history
my dog
Blog Archive
Who's this Mr. O?
Official Sponsor
40 comments:
Because the politicians of the time did not have the knowledge that there WILL BE a civil war, they did not prepare to prevent it. The civil war was NOT obvious. However, their lack of foresight did contribute to the civil war as much as sectional issues in the United States.
The sectional differences beteween the North and South were really the backbone behind the tensions.
Some events are: The end of the Mexican War,Fugitive Slave Act, Bleeding Kansas shocking the Northerners, the release of Uncle Tom's Cabin, and other events such as the election of Abrahamn Lincoln were all events that kept tearing the already dividing North and South.
While the Civil War was devastating for the United States in terms of human loss of life, it was also the event that caused the American states to finally become united.
In all honesty, I cannot blame to politicians of the 1800s for inhibiting the cause civil war. They did what they believed would best protect the country from the issue of slavery. There is no way that they would be able to clearly forsee what the civil war would become.
Eventually, the country would be unable to continue adding new states in pairs so the balance in Congress remained. However, the real reason why slavery broke the country apart is because the people hated it. The people in north, in part due to the success of Uncle Tom's Cabin, saw slavery for the true evil that it was. Once the big 3 passed away, the new government leaders couldn't compromise as previously done. Once these ended, the people couldn't handle the issue anymore and wanted a solution to the problem. Sadly though, war is the most definitive way to answer the question.
Both their lack of foresight and the sectional issues tore the union apart. There was early evidence that succession would occur if problems were uncontrollable. For example, Calhoun realized that the Nullification Crisis caused a larger rift than thought possible. What we learned from this is that greater and more important issues could possibly break the union in two. And they did. Slavery, sectional tensions, literature, and increasing agitation between both sides would lead to the Civil War. Therefore, it was a combination of events that created the whole catastrophe, and not just the work of a few politicians.
Like Alan said, both the politicians' lack of foresight and sectional tensions led to the civil war. Although the politicians were simply trying to keep the Union calm, they were setting the Civil War up to burst out. For example, although compromises (such as the Missouri compromise) seemed to relieve tensions at the time, but were really allowing the Civil War to erupt more drastically. They could only last so long before trouble arrived, which is why the politicians were partly at blame for not thinking in the long term.
In addition, sectional tensions, such as those between the North and the South as Amy mentioned, were also to blame. Each region wanted their own things which certainly broke the nation apart.
STEFANIE SEQUEIRA----
Though it is always easier to blame politicians for problems, the circumstances before the Civil War prove that it was not their fault the war erupted. The big 3 did the best they could to compromise and put the Union before their own interests.
In this case, real sectional tensions actually broke the nation apart. Abolitionism was a strong movement sweeping the north, evoked especially by Uncle Tom's Cabin. The end of the Mexican War and what to do with New Mexico and California also caused sectional tensions as well as the Fugitive Slave Act that the North despised.
The South became up in arms when Taylor attempted to make CA and NM free states after the Mexican War because the balance would be thrown off. Clay's Compromise also fueled sectional tensions because the Fugitive Slave Act would still be intact, angering the north; and CA was free and slave trade ended in DC, angering the South.
Clearly, sectional tensions could not have been avoided by the politicians and ended up breaking the nation apart in Civil War.
Let my clarify, I do not believe the politicians were the reason of the civil war, i believe that with their contributions, the civil war happened the way it did.
Like what we discussed today, I do believe that when the three more powerful politicians started to decline, the rest of the united states could not avoid the civil war. (due to the sectional conflicts)
STEFANIE SEQUEIRA---
I agree with you Amy. Although the politicians did not know the Civil War was going to come and did not cause it, it was unavoidable. Since the Big 3- Clay, Calhoun, and Webster-were all around the same age, there was no one to take their places when they all left office. After this, there were no longer politicians working together that represented all the sections in the country. When they were in power, their sections trusted them and they could keep peace within the country. However, after they were gone, sectional issues resurfaced with no one to keep the peace, eventually erupting into Civil War.
As strange as this may seem, I'm going to have to agree with Kinney on this one. The Civil War was an inevitable part of American history. Even the Founding Fathers saw that eventually the issue of, not only slavery, but also regional differences would be decided through war. To blame politicians for a war which was unavoidable is more then a tad bit unfair.
Instead one must look to the major economic differences of the two sections. The North was run by industry and trade while the South was agrarian. Many Southerners believed that the loss of Slavery would lead to a catastrophic collapse of the southern economy. This being said many southerners did look down upon slavery as an evil, however they felt it should be phased out gradually and at another time in order for the South to benefit. In fact the most famous Confederate General, Robert E Lee once said of slavery, "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil." In conclusion the Civil War was neither a direct result of moral opinions on slavery or lack of foresight be politicians.
I agree with Will here, and Kinney as well. Pointing fingers at the politicians is unfair, and they deserve better credit than that. Although they did not add too many positives to the conflict, they were trying to keep the union together. Keeping the union mind, they held off many issues that would have sooner or later torn the union apart. Sectional issues were more to blame, as nobody was able to replace the three. Thus, we should keep in mind that the big 3's intentions were to help and not harm the union.
As a response to Dharik's point that the compromises between the North and South actually created a bigger problem I would like to say this. I agree that it is likely that the delay forced by the compromises could have caused the war to explode into a much larger problem. However I would also like to point out that the timing of the war was about as perfect as it could get. The country had already existed for some time so that many felt loyalty to it and a president was in office who strongly believed that preserving the Union was the most important thing to do. Without these two things falling into place the secession of the Confederate states may not have been such a big deal and perhaps very little would have been done about it.
I think that the politicians are not to blame for the Civil War - however, that doesn't mean that they didn't see the war coming. It was obvious that the North and South were becoming 'inconsistent' with one another. The North was developing industrially whereas the South remained agrarian. Any politician could see that a nation diverging down two separate paths was bound to cause disagreements, disputes, and even war.
The debatable topic of abolishing slavery was clearly a major factor here. The publication of Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin opened the eyes and platform for the argument against slavery. The disputes over California after the Mexican War further divided the North and South. The evidence shows that war was coming, however, it may have gotten to a point where the politicians could not prevent war from happening... and in the long run, the war unified the nation because the Reconstruction era helped bond the differences among the two regions.
Ultimately, people have different opinions based on their background - Northern politicians clearly had differentiating views from Southern politicians and when the many conflicts came onto the table, they only worsened the disagreements which triggered the path to the inevitable Civil War.
Politicians did not lead the nation into a civil war and rather it was the sectional tensions that ended up splitting the United States. Clay, Calhoun, and Webster could not have prevented the many aspects that had caused the war. Strong differences between areas of the country were heightened through the addition of new states as well as the spread of literature which caused many to strengthen their opinion about slavery. Adding states in twos was difficult and would not have been able to work for much longer and a solution needed to be found. In addition, the “Big Three” died at almost the same time, leaving the country unprepared to deal with these problems of free versus slave state peacefully and therefore the nation resorted to war.
I really like what Dharik said about the interests of the North and South. Each region had their own, rather selfish interests, which seemed to make them neglect the interests for America as a whole. The North could be at blame here (or should I say Northern politicians) for only keeping in mind the industrialization of the North and allowing the South to have growth stagnation. If America would have collaborated the interests of every region, rather than sectionalizing and disagreeing constantly on issues, the war could have been preventable. However, the circumstances of the time clearly proved that America was prematurely making decisions based off of selfish, regional interests.
The Civil War was an irrepressible war that was bound to happen due the dramatic sectional issues between the North and the South. It was not a lacking on the politicians’ part. I don’t believe politicians in the 1800s could have prevented the war, even if they predicted it was coming. This is because the issues that led to the war were a accumulation of problems, not a single issue. In the days of the American Revolution and of the adoption of the Constitution, differences between North and South were belittled by their common interest in establishing a new nation. But sectionalism steadily grew stronger as the nation progressed. By the 1800s the South remained almost completely agricultural, with an economy and a social order largely founded on slavery and the plantation system, while the North industrialized. Hostility between the two regions grew greatly after 1820, the year of the Missouri Compromise, which was intended as a permanent solution. However the question of the extension or prohibition of slavery in the federal territories of the West, could not be avoided. The Compromise of 1850 marked the end of the era of compromise. The deaths of Henry Clay, Calhoun, and Daniel Webster left no leader. With the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 and the consequent struggle over “bleeding” Kansas, the problems were already beginning to show themselves. Thus the war occurred as a result of the sectional differences, not the fault of politicians.
In response to Ryan, I agree that not only was slavery a large issue that divided the nation but the issue reflected the growing rift in development of the two areas. The north was becoming more and more industrial while the south remained agrarian. Because of this the people shared different beliefs on slavery and its necessity for farming and maltreatment of humans. Politicians could not have stopped the large divide that was forming between North and South and should not be blamed for the war.
I agree with both Ryan and Alicja's point, that the growing rift between the North and the South could not be prevented. This rift was caused by the geography of the two regions. The SOuth was suited for agriculture, somehting that a nation undoubably needs. A need for agriculture creates a need for workers, so it would seem logical that farmers in their desire to profit, would purchase slaves- a source of free labor. Where could politicans have interfered? Politicans who wanted the best for the young America probably recognized the need for the products such as cotton and tobacco the SOuth was producing for our economy.
i feel that the politicians of the time did in fact have the forsight to augur the growing rift and the inevitable schism. Veterans of American politics such as Clay, Calhoun, and Webster knew the nation was in turmoil that could not be fixde by a "band-aid." Yes their solutions were temporary and for a good portion of them, ineffective; however, these "postponing" mechanisms did not bring the nation to conflict. The root of the problem lay, not in the timing, but the underlying and irreperable differences between the two polarized regions.
While it can be argued American politicians did not possess the foresight to see a Civil War approaching and taken measures to stop it, their efforts would have merely served to prolong the war rather than stop it entirely. The sectional tensions that existed were really the true cause behind the war, and some important events, like the release of Uncle Tom's Cabin, could not have been prevented by politicians anyway. In the end it was only a matter of time before the regional differences finally erupted into conflict, so there was not much politicians, no matter how influential, could do to prevent it completely.
i agree with Ryan's point- that the politicians are not to blame, however, they still saw the rift. Border disputes, economic differences, mexican-american war issues, etc. all pointed towards a split. The politicians struggled to compromise and delay an eruption that was fueked sectional differences, not the politicians themselves
fueled by*
I agree with Will's comment regarding the difference in economies between the North and South. The main reason for difference between the regions was their fundamentally different economies. The ways of life between people in the North versus South could not have been more different. The primarily industrial and modernized North could not relate to the concerns of the South while the agrarian South could not see from the perspective of the North. Having two drastically different regions in the same country could never end well, because the true direction of the country, whether it be industrial or agricultural, has to eventually be decided.
It does not seem fair to blame politicians of the 1800's for a complex event such as the civil war. The civil war resulted from a number of factors such as regional differences and opposing economic philosophies as much was it did from an inability for political leaders to make compromise. If fact, political leaders had already attempted to make several compromises such as over the Maine-Missouri issue.
As easy as it is to blame politicians for society's problems, doing so is not always correct. If I may relate one of my own experiences to this discussion.... During one Model UN conference I represented Peru on the IDB, a Latin American banking organization. After several intense days of debating we finally procured a comprehensive document designed to relieve poverty in the nations Haiti and Nicaragua. The document was rivaled by few others real or fictional in terms of quality and substance. However, by the end of the conference we were given the simulated result of our actions and found that the programs had failed miserably, often due to issues that had spun far out of our control.
This anecdote relates to the situation dealt with by United States politicians in the 1800's in the sense that although not one could have wished for the loss American lives resulting from the ensuing war, it was also not possible for the politicians to exert enough manipulation to the extent of averting a war based on fundamental economic and social differences.
It would have been much better had the issues of the war been settled by diplomatic means, and politicians should have taken an aggressive stance to avoid it. However, not all the issues, such as the different Northern and Southern basses of economy, were entirely in the politicians’ control and often their constituents were less than willing to see compromise and give up their traditional lifestyles.
In response to Alan's first comment, I understand that these politicians may not have done the best job preventing the war. However, it would be unrealistic to expect them to act in a way that would prevent a war they don't see coming. Yes nullification aided the south in seceding from the Union, but at the time Calhoun believed it had to be done. But I do agree with Alan that these politicians played a part in this war, albeit a small one. There were other underlying issues that contributed to the problem.
With an issue so fundamental to society’s smooth functioning, like slavery, it’s unwise to discuss it, thus opening up a can of worms. Right from the country’s beginnings, slavery had been critical to the southern economy. Abandoning the institution would certainly have divided the country, something that the weak, vulnerable government could not endure. The issue was not directly dealt with, only prolonging the conflict.
Expansion triggered the volatile slavery issue. Deciding not to expand would have been a bad decision because countries need growth, and new land would mean valuable resources. Countries shouldn’t be hesitant towards great opportunities that present themselves just because there might be conflict. Politicians were making the right decision. So it was natural and unavoidable when acquiring new territories opened up the question: Would the state be free or slave? Each new state gained two valuable Senate seats, seats that could tip the balance of pro and anti-slavery senators.
Clay, Webster, and Calhoun all worked together to promote compromise and keep the country unified. The Fugitive Slave Law was one example of the compromises they made. Even though they were from different regions, the mutual respect they had for each other led to the overall promotion of national interests over regional ones. Each additionally gained the trust of his region, keeping the people appeased. However, with new developments, such as the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Civil War became inevitable. It’s a politician’s responsibility to promote growth, which each politician did. They took as many precautions as they could, but in the end of the day, no one’s a fortune teller.
I am of the belief that it really was the sectional tensions that broke the nation apart. Putting nearly everything else aside, the slavery issue was inevitable, and had to come to a head at some point. Yes, the fugitive slave act did expedite the matter, as abolitionists were furious with such an act, but something eventually would have triggered the deepened tensions no matter what.
Also, many people have mentioned that when Clay, Calhoun, and Webster were no longer capable the new politicians only added fuel to the fire. Even if the big three remained alive and well, for how much longer could they appease both the north and south and just basically ignore the issue at hand?
John brings up an excellent point. Uncle Tom's Cabin was such an explosive text that had a huge effect on promoting divisive behavior. Had it not been published, who knows if the Civil War would have occurred when it did, if at all? Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel stirred such profound feelings in northerners, reducing the likelihood of letting slavery occur. There was absolutely no way for politicians to have prevented its publication or curb its effects.
Another point on the matter is the question that Mr. O brought up briefly during the discussion today. Do the people affect the politicians, or do the politicians affect the people? Obviously it can go both ways in certain cases. However at this time, I think it was really the people that held the power. Not only was popular sovereignty popping up all throughout the new midwestern territories, but also there were numerous new political poperties and factions coming about. The politicians wanted to appeal to all those people, and were thus ruled by the people. Therefore, the Civil War was really the cause of sectional tensions rather than anything the politicians could have forseen and/or prevented.
Politicians cannot be the only source of blame for causing the Civil War. Although they did lack foresight, like when Polk bought huge amounts of land just for the sake of expanding, politicians were not expected to see into the future. The Civil War would have occurred regardless of whether politicians would have stirred up the country. The public was the most important factor in the start of the Civil War. The people have the greatest influence over politics; this was evident during Bleeding Kansas. The people wanted to decide the fate of Kansas, so they flooded the state in an attempt to vote. Violence broke out as a result of the difference in opinion. This was almost like a preview of the Civil War. Violence would have occurred regardless of whether politicians stirred up the nation or not.
Ally brought up a good point... the issue of slavery was inevitable. For decades politicians had been trying to cover up the issue and delay its resolution. Clay, Calhoun, and Webster were also delaying the issue. Although the nation fell apart shortly after their death, the war would have resulted even if others were to have taken their place. If other politicians had replaced the three the secitonal disputes would have been further delayed and the violence that would have erupted eventually might have been even greater than the Civil War. The North and the South were truly pitted against one another and the conflict needed to be resolved.
I don't think we can blame the politicians for leading the nation into the Civil War. The main factors that caused the war were the sectional differences that existed between the North and the South. Although sometimes, when trying to pacify both sides of the arguments, politicians accidentally ended up widening the gap, the war started because of the opinional difference that already existed and would not be easily resolved, not because of the mistakes of some individuals. I guess its arguable if the politicians really helped to postpone the Civil War or actually spur its arrival but the bottom line is that they really can't be blamed for it.
I agree with Casey in that the politicians most likely did see the Civil War or some other type of bloodshed coming. They knew that their actions and policies could only temporarily patch up some issues but not settle the sectional differences. The cultural gap between the North and South was just too large and their debates would not be resolved so easily.
I think that we cannot blame the politicians AS MUCH as the individuals involved in creating the sectional differences. It is my opinion that politicians could not have predicted this as easily as it may be perceived. They knew there were regional complications and disagreements, but not to the extent of warring.
On the other hand, the reason the Civil War occurred is because, as Ryan said in class today, they were selfish and only concerned about their own economy, accommodation, and accessibility. Also, though it is possible to have "foresight", or thinking ahead, politicians were probably thinking of the present more than the future. The reason I say this is because America was not in a time of peace during the years leading to the Civil War, obviously. They had their hands tied with complications between North and South, that they could not expend energy having foresight.
As John states, the Civil War was INEVITABLE, so who caused it can be debatable. Whether or not the politicians thought about the future before they executed their plans and ideas would not wipe the Civil War from American History. If anything, it would postpone the war, but not remove it entirely. Slavery had to be discussed sooner or later because it was literally tearing the country in half because of the sectional differences.
Foresight is very difficult to have during a progressive era. During the early to mid- 1800s, the nation was changing and growing on a monthly or yearly basis. Because of this, it was near impossible to predict future events. For example, how could politicians know at the start of the Mexican War that by the end, our nation would grow by a third? The answer is NONE! This is because the politics were changing so quickly. Unless politicians consulted a psychic, there was no way they could have predicted the turbulent events that would follow. The answer to O's blog is real sectional tensions led to a civil war. The debate over slavery was a hugh factor, but also the regional interests of the country. The North wanted to remain the industrialized area and wanted this to spread to the Western territories. The South, however, saw the new territories like the Kansas and Nebraska territories as land for more agriculture. The culmination of this was "Bleeding Kansas." The very short presidential term of Taylor and the weak presidents that followed worsened the country. Politicians like Calhoun, Clay, and Webster tried their hardest to ensure that the Union would stay together. This example contradicts the question posed. Because of this, it was the real sectional tensions that broke the nation apart.
I agree with Marianne's second comment, in that slavery seemed to be put off for many years and the topic was bound to come up again. The publishing of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" by Stowe acted as a catalyst to get the public aware of slavery. Had this book not been published, I wonder how long the Civil War would have been delayed. Like a couple going through divorce, both the North and the South try to make ammends, through various compromises, however, a split was inevitable. Because of this, maybe it would have been better if the South and North remained separate???
Looking back on history, it is easy to blame people for "lack of foresight." But I think that the imminent danger of Civil War was not something politicians took seriously and subsequently was not a war they were in any way prepared to deal with. I don't know why the North blew off the Southerners' warnings that they would secede, the only reason they had was that the South would not be able to survive economically on their own. In times when a mass number of people and political figures are disgruntled, potential economic hardships are no handicap to revolution. If the Federacy had taken the Confederacy seriously the Civil War might have been avoided politically or at least delayed for a while, but I think chances are that it was inevitable because the sectionalism was so intensely opposed on either side. "Divided we fall," right? So while politicians COULD have predicted the war, the chances were slim that it would have been avoidable altogether.
I TYPED UP THIS WHOLE HUGE THING AND THEN THE WEBPAGE HAD A SHGLSDHKFGDF ERROR. AGGHHH.
This may be off-topic, but what Ryan said about Northern and Southen politicians having differing views reminded me of the "nature vs. nurture" debate. The Civil War was not a moral struggle between Right and Wrong, it was a culture clash between two differently oriented societies who were incongruous with each other. It's also a pretty good example of Social Darwinism.
Post a Comment