Monday, May 11, 2009
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
42 comments:
The Civil War presented the only way for our nation to solve the issues it had evaded from its birth, because both the North and South were unwilling to compromise. 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. Our nation tried to solve its issues with compromises, but to no avail. The deaths of Henry Clay, Calhoun, and Daniel Webster left no leader successful at making compromises. When the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 and the consequent struggle over “bleeding” Kansas hit our nation, it was already too late: our nation could not be held together by tempoary glue anymore. Each compromise attempted in our nation was unsuccessful, which ultimately led to no other option but war.
Because of the deep-rooted issues in American history, the only way to solve the problems was through the Civil War. Since the birth of the United States, the Founding Fathers and those who followed them avoided the large topic of slavery because they knew that a large conflict will ensue if it was addressed. Even later in history, politicians created large compromises to adjust to the growing nation and the balance of free versus slave states. This balance did not work out and as new states were added to the nation, it became increasingly more difficult to control the sectional tensions that arose. The North and South were growing apart from one another as the North became more industrial and the South agricultural. The death of major people such as Clay, Calhoun, and Webster had a profound effect on the increase in tension and lack of control as they were the major factors in keeping the nation together. These growing issues could not have been avoided any longer as they just escalated the problem over time and the only feasible way to solve the problem was through the Civil War.
The Civil War was the result of dozens of differences and conflicts that added up until they erupted into a war. The North and the South were almost like two different countries from the nation’s start. Even during colonial times, the South had its own way of life and occupied a separate sphere than the North. While the North was far more industrial and fast paced, the South was agricultural and endorsed slavery. Although the South was mostly agricultural, their crops could not support the nation alone (cotton had to be shipped out, processed, etc. and could not be eaten). The North was not as agricultural but it was still practical in their choice of crops. The Midwest supplied the North with much of its food supply. The South was overall backward and unrealistic. While the North was pushing forward, the South was slipping backward. These two regions were just too different to exist the way they were going without conflict. Tensions finally built until the South finally seceded. At this point, there was little the North could do to keep the Union intact without starting a war. The war was tragic yet inevitable to the survival of the nation.
I agree with Alicja’s comments; the nation was teetering on edge since its birth. Politicians have been trying to compromise and cover up the issues since they first arose. They’ve been soothing the issues of slavery and sectional disagreements instead of directly addressing them. Maybe if our “Founding Fathers” had dealt with these differences right off we may not have had such conflicts or a Civil War.
In response to Rebecca's comment, I agree that the way that the South and North were developing was a major part in the growing tensions between the two sides. The South was not as industrially strong as the North which would prove detrimental during the war. Also, they depended on slavery for crop production and would not side with the North, causing greater tension between the two completely different sides.
The Civil War was the only realistic way that the US could have resolved the conflicts that had been present since the beginning of its creation. Slavery was a controversial topic between the South, which generally supported it, and the North, which wanted the abolishment of it, that was initially avoided. However, when the time came that it needed to be addressed, it became clear that neither side would willingly lose to the other and that compromises would not solve the problem permanently. Also, the North and the South had many differences in terms of lifestyle and business which gave each side different priorities. The North was focused on indutrialization and commercialism while the South was based on agrarianism and trade with the North and Europe for finished goods. Although politicians tried to delay the Civil War, it was inevitable as some Southern states separated from the Union while other states threatened to follow suit. This made it obvious that keeping the United States together and resolving the polarizing issue of slavery required the use of force and violence, resulting in the Civil War.
To accept war as an inevitable truth is to be blinded by baseless ignorance. It may seem reasonable to claim that the civil war ended slavery, but such a presumption is erroneous. Slavery as an issue would have been resolved with or without bloodshed. The civil war merely acted as a catalyst by exhausting the politicians on both sides to compromise. Without the war, it is reasonable to assume that politicians could have reached a compromise as long as they remained logical, cooperative and more interested in finding solutions than inciting conflict.
I agree with Alicja that the issues dividing the North and South just increased over time and needed to be solved quickly. I think the war was inevitable and that even if Lincoln did not choosed to go to war when he did, the problems would have simply continued escalating, perhaps with more states joining the confederates or the confederacy gaining foreign recognition as a country. This would have resulted in an even larger conflict necessary to solve the preexisting ones.
In response the Ritu's comment, the loss of Clay, Calhoun, and Webster indeed resulted in a lack of politicians able in compromise. However, a simply lack of particular politicians does in no way justify the death of a nation. New politicians determined and focused could have debated to create inventive and stable solutions. In fact, by the end of the war that is exactly what happened. Politicians were left with no choice but to restructure and begin creating solutions. Had these same politicians done so at the beginning of the war, the destruction and bloodshed of the civil war could have been entirely averted.
The Civil War was ultimately the only way to solve ideological inconsistencies present, since its formation, mainly due to the flaws of human nature. People are unsympathetic to those who they cannot relate. In America’s case, the north and south were driven apart by their economic differences, making slavery an explosive issue. The south, from the country’s beginnings, was more heavily dependent on agrarian measures of wealth. With the industrial revolution, the two regions drifted further away from each other. Adding westward expansion into the mix, the two lost respect for each other’s wishes. Since what the north wanted directly contradicted what the south wanted, the two possibilities could not exist in one united country. When citizens became very passionate about slavery, the issue would clearly not be pushed on to the back burner. Both sides ardently believed their points of view and were extremely adamant in their stances. Each successive generation became more and more impassioned about its region’s opinion. Once compromising started, the issue was brought on the table and a Civil War became inevitable.
How do you decide an conflit like slavery, once and for all, without compromise and without Civil War? The answer would have been to state a clear yes or no when the country was young. However, this would have been impractical. Stability could not have been risked in such a fragile time period. So basically, the inability of one side to yield to the other, due to human nature, made a Civil War necessary.
In response to Alex’s comment (not because I like to disagree with you all the time; it’s just your comments are always so controversial), a lack of politicians does justify the death of a nation because it is so inevitable. You are going to run out of politicians to compromise eventually because the regions were drifting apart so quickly. Furthermore, every generation is more passionate and radical about the current issues, which means that as time progresses sympathy, a key ingredient to compromise, will be lost. It is only a matter of time that the politicians themselves would become too wrapped up in their own region’s desires that they would fail to perform their basic peacemaking functions. In other words, it was only a matter of time that personal interests would come before national interests.
I believe the Civil War did present the only way to solve the internal conflicts that had existed from the United States' onset. The regional tensions that existed were the true cause behind the war. The primary reason for these tensions between the North and South were their completely different ways of life. The strongly industrialized North could not understand the views of the South. Likewise the slave-based agricultural economy of South could not see from the North's side which did not require slavery. Obviously, having two fundamentally different areas in the same country could not end well. Additionally, the government and Founding Fathers had merely attempted to ignore a major issue of slavery rather than search for a permanent solution. While many in the North thought there would be a diplomatic way to reunite the nation, it was clear that the Southerners felt threatened by the prospect that there lives would be required to change. From this perspective it is clear that force and the Civil War were the only methods that would keep the United States in tact.
In response to Ritu's comment, she brings up an interesting point that Clay, Calhoun and Webster were the last defense against a Civil War. Again, the Civil War was inevitable because major regional problems received little real attention in the sense an ultimate solution that would provide answers for the North and South's differences, without opposition, was never conceived. First, the Constitution completely ignored the issue of slavery, and from that point on keeping slavery on a back burner was made a priority. Eventually, as Ritu pointed out, there could be no more temporary solutions that did not fully address the problem.
I believe that the Civil War was the only true way to actually solve our internal conflicts occurring between the North and the South. Since the drafting of the Constitution, the two regions differed on many topics, one which stood out like a sore thumb: slavery. The Founding Fathers decided to 'evade' the issue and compromise that slave trade must officially stop in 1808. This is evidence that they were just ignoring the topic and putting it off - they knew it would cause tension.
Second, as the nation grew, the regions grew apart. The North began industrializing, leaving the South hanging... the South continued to regulate based on agrarianism. But the problem is that both regions weren't thinking as a unified nation - rather, they thought as two entities creating a problem. The North would think in the interest of themselves, and the South would do likewise. As leaders that represented the nation began dying, there seemed to be a lack of someone who wanted to unite the stagnating South and the booming North.
Ultimately, slavery blew what was a regional conflict into a Civil War. But, no one thinks immediately that there could be a greater reason. The South could have argued that the North was not supporting them, thus, a secession would occur in order for the South to create their own regulating currency and agricultural-based economy. The ultimate issue is that since the drafting of America, the North and South have been divided over topics and once they realized the immensity of their differences, a civil war was simply inevitable.
I agree with most of the students here. The Civil War was basically inevitable because both the North and the South were so dogmatic about their opinions and were unwilling to compromise. Even with a compromise, the can of worms reopened (over and over again)
McClellan is a very good example: he tried to wait for the issue to resolve itself, because he did not want to have a bloody win if it was not necessary. He was proven wrong because he waited so long for it to fix itself, he gave a lot of time to the Confederates to plan etc.
The Civil War was necessary to solve the issue, any compromise would just reopen the can of worms.
I liked Rebecca's comments about the differences of the North and the South and how they relied on each other. Because of this dependency, it is hard to imagine a permanent separation between the two sections of the nation. However, the issue of slavery surely disected the nation into two radical poles. It was due to the issue of slavery, but also their regional differences as well. Many factors contributed to the succession and the Civil War sought to paste the country up again.
Unfortunatly in that situation, war was the only way to solve all of the problems in the country. Maybe if the issue of slavery had been solved instead of evaded for so many years by both the whigs and the democrtats through the presidencies of Taylor and Pearce, the nation would have been in a better situation, but the issue had gotten too far out of hand. The conflict in Kansas demonstrated how crazy things were getting, how high tensions were between everyone. Even the whig party had disintergrated into just the opinion of the south. The most brutal action had to happen to set the country straight once and for all. A compromise wasn't going to work anymore, especially after losing the Big Three compromisers that kept the nation together for so long. The quick decisions of Taylor about California and New Mexico made the reversal of not having war impossible. If anything that presidency is the reason we had to go to war to solve all of our issues. It was the only immediate way or chance the union would stay together, fo fight for it instead of evading the subject and letting it fall apart.
Alex i couldnt agree with you more. And its a terrible thing that violence and bloodshed was the only way to keep the union together. This was a nation for all people, you would think that after fighting together during the revolutionary war for independence people would have known and understanded they had differences and worked something out, but they couldnt there were too many issues. But, what would have happened if the south had won? the union would have lost everything, and America would not be the home of the free.. now thats a scary thought.
In response the Alex’s comment, it was not simply the lack of “particular politicians” that lead to the “death of our nation.” I agree that the deaths of Clay, Calhoun, and Webster should not lead to a Civil War in our nation- and they didn’t. Their deaths were merely another factor that instigated the war. Our nation was already divided by the time Clay, Calhoun, and Webster even began to have political influence. Their time in office only prolonged an inevitable war. It was the divisions withen our nation that caused the war, not the deaths of prominent politicians.
In response to Chelsea's comment about fixing the issue of slavery sooner, it wouldn't have been possible - the founding fathers most likely lessened the magnitude of the situation at the time of establishment. It is kind of like having a hard time accepting the truth. Compromises were failures, as Alex mentioned - for example, The Missouri Compromise. Due to the fact that the South relied on slavery so much to keep their economy stable and effective, it proves that one region should never be too dependent on an object - in this case people; slaves. It also shows that the North could have paid more attention to the industrialization of the South, keeping a constant, overall modernization process rather than isolating the South.
The Civil War indeed presented the only feasible way for our nation to solve whatever internal inconsistencies existed from its birth. The reason being that it was the first time the country had truly tried to settle an internal issue, even if it was with weapons and warring. The war allowed the North and the South to finally express all that had been bottled up from the start. They had differed economically and socially in various ways, slavery being one, agriculture versus commercialism being another, and now they were able to "duke it out" once and for all. All the tension that had been present from the beginning had built up until they cracked and as a result the war came about. The only reason I do not believe anything else could have resolved the problem is because both sides, the North and the South, were stubborn. To think that talking it out or any such thing was possible is like believing the Yankees are actually a good team: impossible. Furthermore, they DID try to resolve the issue through the Missouri Compromise and various other random bills and legalities congress passed. The result? It obviously didn't work. War was indeed the only solution.
Although Chelsea is right that the issue might not have needed to reach the extent of war if slavery had been resolved, I disagree with the idea that it could have been resolved any other way. Slavery was not "evaded" for years, it was indeed an issue that was brought up with Supreme Court cases and various attempts to keep slave and free states equal, like the Missouri Compromise. Obviously it had been a hot topic for quite some time. The reason why it must have been resolved with war is really because of the stubbornness of both the
North and the South. Neither was willing to give in and obviously the country was divided. Because the South had seceded from the Union, the only feasible way to solve the huge controversy had been through a war. After all, how else do we solve such controversies currently: many times, through a war.
The Civil War was a neccesary phase in America's history. Like any country, the United States had different reasons that had strong opinions, which conflicted with other region's views. Since the birth of the United States in 1776, the regional differences between the North and South were becoming larger issues. The Civil War was the result of these differences being bottled up for almost a century. While it was America's bloodiest war and could have resulted in the separation of the Southern United States, it was a necessary step in the formative stages of America. Peaceful strategies were attempted and I would assume that neither side desperately wanted to fight a war, but it was entirely necessary and inevitable. Similar to a couple going through divorce, the United States could have remained together or separate for the benefit of each region. Lastly, I am surprised a civil war did not occur before 1861, due to the extreme opposing view of the North and South. This probably has to do with the strong leadership of Clay, Calhoun, and Webster.
In response to Alex's comments, how can you say that this war could have been avoided?!?! Normally, diplomatic efforts have some effect while a conflict is occuring. Prior efforts normally have little effect. The culmination of sectional tensions, and the South's determination to hold onto their traditional lifestyle, made war inevitable. In regards to your comment that politicans should have compromised, they tried! The Great Compromise, the Missouri Compromise, and the Compromise of 1850 all tried to negotiate the issue of slavery, which was a major part in the tension. The fact is that the political and economic climate of the nation was changing too rapidly for these compromises to have strength. Lastly, I feel your comment about the "death of a nation" is false. The Civil War led to a rebirth of America that made it a stronger and more powerful nation, that the entire world recognized. Our technology drastically improved, and we became a global superpower. Without the civil war, the tension would have prolonged until a natural split occured.
Many people have said that Civil War was the only way that our country could solve its problems. Well I disagree. Yes the Civil War solved our problems but no it was not the only solution. Honestly, the North could have just let the South become its own country. Then there would be no blood shed and the North could have continued its trade and industrialization while the South could continue its cotton industry in peace. Problems from birth included states rights versus a national government and agrarianism vs. industry. If our country split into two, neither side would have to argue with each other. I'm sure that only with the hindsight we have today, would we say that the thousands of lives lost in the War was worth it. Back then, I am sure many people would just rather have our country split.
STEFANIE SEQUEIRA---
I wish I could say that the Civil War wasn't inevitable from the start of our nation. Our Founding Fathers knew slavery was an issue and didn't even say the word in the Constitution, though implying that it would not end until 1808. This obviously set up tension which continued for the next hundred years until it erupted into the Civil War. In the years following the Constitution, the differences between the North and South became increasingly visible. With the Industrial Revolution, the North became industrial and advanced. They turned to new technologies and factories to rapidly produce goods. However, the South remained traditionally agrarian. At first the North dealt with the Southern slavery because the cotton they were producing was helping their textile industries. Nonetheless, with western expansion and new states being added to the nation, the balance of power shifted and the issue of slavery resurfaced. Tension mounted greatly after the Missouri Compromise and bubbled into The Compromise of 1850. It erupted again in "bleeding Kansas." This all just proves that the issue of slavery kept resurfacing and adding unnecessary tension. However, both sides were too stubborn to compromise peacefully, and after the South succeeded, compromising was out of question and war presented the only feasible option to end our nation's inconsistencies.
STEFANIE SEQUEIRA---
In response to Joanna's comment, I completely disagree. Do you really think it was more important to save lives than to save a country? Can you imagine our nation today without the South? Lincoln wanted reunification which I think should have been his main goal. Yes it would've been easier to give in and let them go, but is that ethically or realistically sound? The South and the North were different but worked together to create a nation. They relied on each other for different resources, which is obvious when observing how each side struggled throughout the Civil War without the other. Morally, we came together under the Constitution as one nation, and it is our duty to stick together. I don't think that many people at the time wanted to just give up, I think that would have been such a weak move. Many people were very patriotic in joining the war even though they knew there was a good chance they would die. The North wanted to preserve the nation because it was the only choice. The South wasn't even on the attack trying hard to secede, they were on the defensive. I really don't think it is right to make the claim that we should've just let them go because that would've just been a loss for everyone. And absolutely no solution.
The fighting of the civil war was certainly a black mark on American history. However, had slavery continued the damage could have been much worse. Had the war not been fought, it's likely slavery would have continued to exist. For nearly 100 years politicians wanted to get rid of slavery, whether it was announced publicly or not. There is a reason it never got done. A war had to be fought because neither side (north or south) was going to back down from their stance. Our country needed a clear decision, or in this case outcome, to determine slavery's future.
In response to Alex's comment, it is not reasonable to expect the two sides to reach compromise. There was plenty of time to do so and at some point something had to give. Furthermore, I believe the war ending up reducing tension in the long run because it eliminated it's biggest source. With slavery out of the picture each side would merely have to reconcile about the war and move forward as a cohesive unit.
the issue of slavery was nothing that could have been solved by anything other than the civil war. Yes the civil war was bloody and i certainly don't support it, however, i don't think continuing compromising could really have done anything other than put off the inevitable. Not to reiterate, but the inconsistencies and "sectional tensions" between the North and South created, in essence, two separate countries. Not to advocate secession here, but the two regions were no longer the united States of America. They were the South and North. The preservation of the union was of utmost importance and it was imperative that it was preserved. War was the only feasible way, i feel, we could have reconstructed a Union
And to respond to Alex's comment (like everybody else- sorry alex, but its really easy to respond to you!), compromise or diplomatic efforts would not have avoided war! We HAD been making compromises from the start. your plan for one big compromise was something our predecessors thought of a long time ago. They tried it again, and again, and again. Missouri compromise, Compromise of 1850, Fugitive slave act. All of them presented ways to "diplomatically" avoid war. nothing worked. And nothing else would have worked
The only problem that the Civil War probably solved by the end was the issue of slavery (not looking at the whole racism/segregation issue that would inevitably spawn from this_. This was one of the major issues that existed during the birth of our country, as even the Founding Fathers were afraid of its potential to rip the country apart. Later, the Constitution even tried, and unfortunately failed, to include something on the topic of slavery. As this added to the growing rift between Northern and Southern ideals, Civil War was bound to occur. In a sense, the only way it was solved was when one side gave up. The whole war wasn't really what I'd say the only "feasible" way these issues could be solved. It is evident however, that soldiers on both sides begin to wonder what they are fighting for near the end of the Civil War.
When the fathers of American politics were writing the Constitution, they wouldn't discuss slavery. They avoided the issue, and actually planned to readdress the issue at a later date. By doing this, we were able to survive as a country in the beginning, but not in the longrun. We couldn't have been able to avoid the issue any longer, because it affected everything...the addition of new states, maintaining equal representation, etc.
For these reasons, it was absolutely necessary to go to war. No other method of resolution would have dug us out of the hole that was slavery. Communication, treatises, and the creation of new laws would not have been effective in keeping our country together.
I also agree with Chris's response to the comment concerning compromise. It would be unthinkable that either side would bend in order to avoid conflict. Besides, nobody envisioned that the war would last as long as it did. They were probably thinking: Why not go to war when it's sure to be a simple one to fight?
As sad as it may seem there are times when war presents the only possible solution to a problem, the civil war was one of these times. The war can be seen as a result of the rapid westward expansion the country was undergoing at the time. Due to this the proper balance of free to slave states was not kept and the South got angry. This, paired with the major major differences between the Southern way of life and the Northern style of living produced two sections which flat out didn't like each other. Given time this dislike turned into a hatred which, eventually, caused the confederates to secede. At this point there is no arguing that war was the only option.
Yeah I totally agree with Casey. Diplomacy goes only so far, and to be honest, I think it would be completely hypocritical of the South or North to somehow compromise their ideals for the other. Let's look at your example of "diplomacy" the other day. Obviously, the South benefited from the would-be agreement since it was less give than take. There are no fair ways to solve the issues between them, and we have seen politicians fail trying to do so. By "the destruction and bloodshed of the civil war could have been entirely averted," I believe that this is another way of saying avoiding the issue. They would undoubtedly resurface until the so-called "determined and focused" line of politicians ended. Don't forget that Clay, Calhoun, and Webster themselves were even struggling to keep the union apart. If they were still alive to witness the events preceding the Civil War, I doubt they could have stopped it. However, since they weren't, we cannot assume what they could or could not have done. But we can make an educated guess that they couldn't since other politicians began to ignore the Big Threes' advice.
In response to Alex's comment that the war could simply be solved by compromise I have to strongy disagree. Unfortunately not every problem can be solved by simply "talking it out." There are always going to be some people who, no matter what, just refuse to change their ways or views. The only way to deal with these kinds of people is through action and, in this case, that action was war.
War was an unfortunate inevitability and the only way to solve the issues thst were ingrained in our nation's fabric from the beginning. All other forms of resolution were tried and failed. Political rulings such as the Dred Scott decision and treaties such as the compromise of 1850 attempted to define and resolve the conditions of the issues between the North and South. War was sure to come because all other rational forms of solving the problem proved inadequate.
In response to Alex's comment, war did truthfully bring about a compromise and it was the only thing that could. The treaties you suggested have been tried by the regions at this point in history and war was the only way to knock some sense into the nation.
It seems to be agreed (with the exception of Alex) that the Civil War was the only feasible way for our nation to solve its problems and was therefore inevitable. There's not much more to add to this argument as many of the topics have already been hit; among the issues there is a differentiated interpretation of the constitution, the idea of federal vs. state power, possibility of internal improvements, tariffs, and of course slavery. This whole laundry list of inconsistencies caused the south to want to secede and it is therefore clear that this many issues could not be solved with mere "compromise," no matter how grand the idea or plan. Especially with the key compromisers dead, there was really no hope of any future resolution without the certainty that accompanies a war.
While there still existed a societal rift because of the hostility between the North and the South, the political issues that had plagued the United States since its establishment were rectified by the Civil War. Slavery and the threat of secession were no longer dangers to the security of the Union, and the Federacy's victory effectively subdued the South by essentially obliterating their male population and devastating their economy. As a side effect, the South resented (actually, they still resent us in some places) the "Yanks" and the social rift was widened.
In response to ALex's comment, you are completely right when you say that every issue can be resolved through diplomacy and without conflict. However, when one side is no longer willing to debate, violence is unavoidable. The only option is to fight back or be killed. I agree with you that war is unnecessary, childish, and unjustifiable, but only in regards to who is causing it. With the Civil War, I believe there is room for argument because no side was 100% right or 100% wrong. Cases can be made for both of them. The North needed the South in the Union, so the threat of secession called for immediate action. The South felt they were being treated unfairly and denied their rights, so they made the perfectly constitutional decision to leave the Union.
Post a Comment