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).
To contend that “incredible blundering” brought about the Civil War is overly simplistic. It seems more likely that the unwavering beliefs of individual groups within American society, both North and South, and their unwillingness to compromise was more likely the cause, and exacerbated by the repealing of the Missouri Compromise with the Kansas Nebraska Act. Given that earlier attempts at compromise between North and South had been largely ineffectual, the years directly prior to the war were largely full of tension and increasingly violence filled, as demonstrated by the caning of Charles Sumner in Congress and the deeds of John Brown. Thus in this environment, it seems highly likely that even for the most competent of politicians it would have been difficult to avoid the outbreak of war.
Randall and Craven’s claims appear to be an extreme assertion of the cause of the Civil War, however it does have a degree of validity. The politicians’ inability to demonstrate any degree of compromise on (initially) the issue of slavery resulted in significant splits in the legislature that further entrenched the animosity and divisions between the North and South. The dual legislature in 1855 and the split of the Democrats in the 1860 elections exemplified the inability of the politicians to negotiate, demonstrated in their failure to accept the 1860 Crittenden Compromise, which could have substantially alleviated tensions between the North and the South. The increasingly radical and militant nature of politicians such as Preston Brooks, aside from being a breach of responsible government and political professionalism, greatly fed into the tensions that led the country into war.
Randall and Avery Craven’s claim that “incredible blundering” American politicians brought American to Civil war is rather inaccurate. Politicians might be one of the push factor that lead American to civil war. But the key reasons are the division between the Industrialize North and Agricultural South, conflict between free labor and slaves, and various political groups exist in North and South unwilling to compromise what each stood for. Therefore the argument only blames politicians for the cause of the civil war is rather simplified.
It was a combination of the long and short-term political decisions and cultural imperatives, which made the onset of the Civil War an inevitable consequence. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 allowed citizens of these two territories the right to introduce slavery through a popular vote. This act nullified the previous Missouri Compromise, and led to the introduction of slavery to the North. This was a key factor in escalating tensions between the North and South, which had been previously alleviated by the Fugitive Slave Act, 1850. These short-term factors have been termed by historian as ‘incredible blunderings’ by the politicians of that time. Yet it is not so simple to say that these actions and decisions were careless. The polarized viewpoints of both the North and the South dictated their actions, with politicians and key figures believing that their cause was the right one. It was ultimately their inability to come to a compromise that increased tensions, as demonstrated through the caning of Senator Charles Sumner and the actions of John Brown. This, when combined with the long-term factors, led to the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861.
To say that America was doomed to Civil War due to a generation of “blundering” politicians is to place far too much emphasis on the individual’s role in the progress of history, and to ignore the many and wide-reaching cultural, social and economic, as well as political factors which separated Northern and Southern societies for many generations; factors which over time pushed them towards what many would now see as an inevitable conflict. At the heart of these factors was the issue of slavery and its expansion, and considering the sheer volume of factions involved and their conflicting objectives, it is simplistic to say that the decisions of a few, or even a generation, of politicians were to blame for the outbreak of civil war.
To attribute the Civil War to a ‘blundering’ of incompetent politicians is to over simplify and to ignore other crucial factors in antebellum America. This contention places too heavy a weight on the policy makers of the time and to ignore the social and economic factors that contributed. The inevitability of the Civil War by the 1850s was caused by the large divide between North and South that while was present in politics was a national issue that begins amongst the general public. This was a national issue rooted in social and economic problems, as well as political and cannot be completely attributed to politicians.
While there is a certain validity to the contention that a generation of incompetent American politicians and their policies contributed to the outbreak of the civil war this opinion over simplifies the issues of the time. Whilst the American politicians of the 19th Century certainly contributed to the tense climate that preceded the outbreak of war, to allocate responsibility to the politicians is to ignore a wealth of other factors. The issue of slavery and the differences between the industry of the North and the rural agriculture of the South as well as the unshakable beliefs of certain groups all contribute to the outbreak of the war. The deep seated belief in the difference of the two societies was a hurdle which the politicians of the time would have found difficult to overcome whether they be competent or not.
Craven and Randal's claims that the Civil War was the result of "incredible blundering" is an extreme criticism of the factors that contributed to the Civil War. Placing the focus on the politicians of antebellum America places too great an emphasis on the individual events of history, while ignoring the issues that lead them to that point; factors prior to the beginning of the American Civil War, such as division over the use of slave labour, traditions and values of the parties involved, as well as social and economic factors lead antebellum America to a tipping point that was unlikely to be resolved by any politician. The issues central to the onset of the American Civil War were not political competency, but rather the expansion or abolition of slavery, as well as economic and social factors.
It is certainly true that an inability to find common ground amongst diverse groups of people squandered any chance of avoiding the American Civil War. While the Missouri Compromise is an example of a short-term solution, its ultimate failure with the Kansas-Nebraska act demonstrates that with so many strongly held, conflicting beliefs within the Union, cooperation was unlikely. The Civil War was the result of constituencies acting in their perceived economic, social and political self-interest. Words such as ‘blundering’ and ‘incompetent’ seem too strong when applied to fallible humans, in an environment where unwavering beliefs could bring violence to the United States Senate floor.
To suggest that it was due to the 'incredible blundering' of the generation of American politicians that led to the civil war, is not a valid explanation. It is over simplistic. It had more to do with the vast amount of groups with varying and unyielding opinions and beliefs. To suggest that it was due to the 'incredible blundering' of the generation of American politicians that led to the civil war, is not a valid explanation. It is over simplistic. It had more to do with the vast amount of groups with varying and unyielding opinions. It was impossible to come to a compromise that would satisfy all parties.
It is somewhat accurate to say that the "incredible blunders" of incompetent American politicians led to the outbreak of civil war, with their being many instances of the situation being aggravated. The Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854 exacerbated the situation, splitting the democrats and introducing slavery into the north. However, the "blunders" as labelled by Randall and Craven over-simplify the causes of the civil war, and do not take into consideration the different groups within the society at the time and their demands and unwillingness to compromise.
To an extent, there is validity behind this statement. Several political ‘blunders’ and disputes such as the beating of Charles Sumter on the floor of the Senate, and the repealing of the Missouri Compromise Line acted as ammunition for the outbreak of the Civil War. However, the immense force of conflicting beliefs surrounding slavery, and the inability to find common ground or compromise over the issue, were ultimately the driving forces in the outbreak of Civil War. These political disputes simply provoked and perhaps hastened such an outcome.
Blaming the politicians for the outbreak of the Civil War is simplifying matters a bit too much. There were many contributing factors that led to the Civil War and while the politicians must take their fair share of the blame they are hardly the only or even main reason it occurred. The much more considerable problem for avoiding the Civil War was the numerous different groups/factions from the North and South and their stubbornness to compromise on any of their beliefs/demands. The divisions between the North and the South and the divisions within the different factions in either side mostly centred around slavery, industrialisation and slave expansion. Failed attempts at compromise (eg. Kansas-Nebraska and Missouri Compromise) caused tensions to rise further and it was inevitable the Civil War would happen.
By concluding that the “incredible blundering” of American politicians during the Civil War period condemned the nation to war is only a somewhat valid assessment. The rigidity of politicians from both North and South and the inability to reach a compromise certainly fast-tracked the Civil War, but it would be too broad to say that it was the sole cause. Examples like the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which saw the introduction of slavery to the North in areas that had not been slave-holding before, was a decision made by popular vote – not a decision made by politicians. It is simplistic to view Civil War politicians as “blundering” as it was more an issue of the extreme polarization of North and South that motivated political decisions – decisions they believed at the time were right for their respective causes.
The view that “incredible Blundering” on the part of a Generation of incompetent American politicians led to the onset of civil war, completely over simplifies the build up of grievances across the nation in the years prior to the war. It fails to acknowledge many factors such as a general discontents held by both sides, and the vast differences in most facets of society, in the North and South, ranging from economic to social structures to interpretation of religion. Unsuccessful endeavours at compromise, such as the Kansas Nebraska act and the Missouri Compromise, combined with violence such as the bleeding Kansas incident to further exacerbate the situation. Leading to a point in 1861 where cooperation and unity between the Northern and Southern states were not options, and the schisms, slowly opening up over the past 40 years were unsaleable, and civil war was inevitable.
The conclusion that the Civil War was a consequence of “incredible blundering” of American politicians of the time fails to recognise the inherent complexities of the Civil War’s roots. Whilst indeed it does hold some validity and addresses the uncompromising nature of American politics, the Civil War was very much a peoples’ war in which the population’s vested interest in their own social and economic conditions defined the political climate. Most notably, the incredibly important Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 which introduced slavery to previously untouched Northern areas, was an act introduced by the peoples’ votes. The politicians represented the American people and to blame them individually is a much too simplistic approach.
To contend that “incredible blundering” brought about the Civil War is overly simplistic. It seems more likely that the unwavering beliefs of individual groups within American society, both North and South, and their unwillingness to compromise was more likely the cause, and exacerbated by the repealing of the Missouri Compromise with the Kansas Nebraska Act. Given that earlier attempts at compromise between North and South had been largely ineffectual, the years directly prior to the war were largely full of tension and increasingly violence filled, as demonstrated by the caning of Charles Sumner in Congress and the deeds of John Brown. Thus in this environment, it seems highly likely that even for the most competent of politicians it would have been difficult to avoid the outbreak of war.
ReplyDeleteRandall and Craven’s claims appear to be an extreme assertion of the cause of the Civil War, however it does have a degree of validity. The politicians’ inability to demonstrate any degree of compromise on (initially) the issue of slavery resulted in significant splits in the legislature that further entrenched the animosity and divisions between the North and South. The dual legislature in 1855 and the split of the Democrats in the 1860 elections exemplified the inability of the politicians to negotiate, demonstrated in their failure to accept the 1860 Crittenden Compromise, which could have substantially alleviated tensions between the North and the South. The increasingly radical and militant nature of politicians such as Preston Brooks, aside from being a breach of responsible government and political professionalism, greatly fed into the tensions that led the country into war.
ReplyDeleteRandall and Avery Craven’s claim that “incredible blundering” American politicians brought American to Civil war is rather inaccurate. Politicians might be one of the push factor that lead American to civil war. But the key reasons are the division between the Industrialize North and Agricultural South, conflict between free labor and slaves, and various political groups exist in North and South unwilling to compromise what each stood for. Therefore the argument only blames politicians for the cause of the civil war is rather simplified.
ReplyDeleteIt was a combination of the long and short-term political decisions and cultural imperatives, which made the onset of the Civil War an inevitable consequence. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 allowed citizens of these two territories the right to introduce slavery through a popular vote. This act nullified the previous Missouri Compromise, and led to the introduction of slavery to the North. This was a key factor in escalating tensions between the North and South, which had been previously alleviated by the Fugitive Slave Act, 1850. These short-term factors have been termed by historian as ‘incredible blunderings’ by the politicians of that time. Yet it is not so simple to say that these actions and decisions were careless. The polarized viewpoints of both the North and the South dictated their actions, with politicians and key figures believing that their cause was the right one. It was ultimately their inability to come to a compromise that increased tensions, as demonstrated through the caning of Senator Charles Sumner and the actions of John Brown. This, when combined with the long-term factors, led to the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861.
ReplyDeleteTo say that America was doomed to Civil War due to a generation of “blundering” politicians is to place far too much emphasis on the individual’s role in the progress of history, and to ignore the many and wide-reaching cultural, social and economic, as well as political factors which separated Northern and Southern societies for many generations; factors which over time pushed them towards what many would now see as an inevitable conflict. At the heart of these factors was the issue of slavery and its expansion, and considering the sheer volume of factions involved and their conflicting objectives, it is simplistic to say that the decisions of a few, or even a generation, of politicians were to blame for the outbreak of civil war.
ReplyDeleteTo attribute the Civil War to a ‘blundering’ of incompetent politicians is to over simplify and to ignore other crucial factors in antebellum America. This contention places too heavy a weight on the policy makers of the time and to ignore the social and economic factors that contributed. The inevitability of the Civil War by the 1850s was caused by the large divide between North and South that while was present in politics was a national issue that begins amongst the general public. This was a national issue rooted in social and economic problems, as well as political and cannot be completely attributed to politicians.
ReplyDeleteWhile there is a certain validity to the contention that a generation of incompetent American politicians and their policies contributed to the outbreak of the civil war this opinion over simplifies the issues of the time. Whilst the American politicians of the 19th Century certainly contributed to the tense climate that preceded the outbreak of war, to allocate responsibility to the politicians is to ignore a wealth of other factors. The issue of slavery and the differences between the industry of the North and the rural agriculture of the South as well as the unshakable beliefs of certain groups all contribute to the outbreak of the war. The deep seated belief in the difference of the two societies was a hurdle which the politicians of the time would have found difficult to overcome whether they be competent or not.
ReplyDeleteCraven and Randal's claims that the Civil War was the result of "incredible blundering" is an extreme criticism of the factors that contributed to the Civil War. Placing the focus on the politicians of antebellum America places too great an emphasis on the individual events of history, while ignoring the issues that lead them to that point; factors prior to the beginning of the American Civil War, such as division over the use of slave labour, traditions and values of the parties involved, as well as social and economic factors lead antebellum America to a tipping point that was unlikely to be resolved by any politician. The issues central to the onset of the American Civil War were not political competency, but rather the expansion or abolition of slavery, as well as economic and social factors.
ReplyDeleteIt is certainly true that an inability to find common ground amongst diverse groups of people squandered any chance of avoiding the American Civil War. While the Missouri Compromise is an example of a short-term solution, its ultimate failure with the Kansas-Nebraska act demonstrates that with so many strongly held, conflicting beliefs within the Union, cooperation was unlikely. The Civil War was the result of constituencies acting in their perceived economic, social and political self-interest. Words such as ‘blundering’ and ‘incompetent’ seem too strong when applied to fallible humans, in an environment where unwavering beliefs could bring violence to the United States Senate floor.
ReplyDeleteTo suggest that it was due to the 'incredible blundering' of the generation of American politicians that led to the civil war, is not a valid explanation. It is over simplistic. It had more to do with the vast amount of groups with varying and unyielding opinions and beliefs. To suggest that it was due to the 'incredible blundering' of the generation of American politicians that led to the civil war, is not a valid explanation. It is over simplistic. It had more to do with the vast amount of groups with varying and unyielding opinions. It was impossible to come to a compromise that would satisfy all parties.
ReplyDeleteIt is somewhat accurate to say that the "incredible blunders" of incompetent American politicians led to the outbreak of civil war, with their being many instances of the situation being aggravated. The Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854 exacerbated the situation, splitting the democrats and introducing slavery into the north. However, the "blunders" as labelled by Randall and Craven over-simplify the causes of the civil war, and do not take into consideration the different groups within the society at the time and their demands and unwillingness to compromise.
ReplyDeleteTo an extent, there is validity behind this statement. Several political ‘blunders’ and disputes such as the beating of Charles Sumter on the floor of the Senate, and the repealing of the Missouri Compromise Line acted as ammunition for the outbreak of the Civil War. However, the immense force of conflicting beliefs surrounding slavery, and the inability to find common ground or compromise over the issue, were ultimately the driving forces in the outbreak of Civil War. These political disputes simply provoked and perhaps hastened such an outcome.
ReplyDeleteBlaming the politicians for the outbreak of the Civil War is simplifying matters a bit too much. There were many contributing factors that led to the Civil War and while the politicians must take their fair share of the blame they are hardly the only or even main reason it occurred. The much more considerable problem for avoiding the Civil War was the numerous different groups/factions from the North and South and their stubbornness to compromise on any of their beliefs/demands. The divisions between the North and the South and the divisions within the different factions in either side mostly centred around slavery, industrialisation and slave expansion. Failed attempts at compromise (eg. Kansas-Nebraska and Missouri Compromise) caused tensions to rise further and it was inevitable the Civil War would happen.
ReplyDeleteBy concluding that the “incredible blundering” of American politicians during the Civil War period condemned the nation to war is only a somewhat valid assessment. The rigidity of politicians from both North and South and the inability to reach a compromise certainly fast-tracked the Civil War, but it would be too broad to say that it was the sole cause. Examples like the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which saw the introduction of slavery to the North in areas that had not been slave-holding before, was a decision made by popular vote – not a decision made by politicians. It is simplistic to view Civil War politicians as “blundering” as it was more an issue of the extreme polarization of North and South that motivated political decisions – decisions they believed at the time were right for their respective causes.
ReplyDeleteTomHardham
ReplyDeleteThe view that “incredible Blundering” on the part of a Generation of incompetent American politicians led to the onset of civil war, completely over simplifies the build up of grievances across the nation in the years prior to the war. It fails to acknowledge many factors such as a general discontents held by both sides, and the vast differences in most facets of society, in the North and South, ranging from economic to social structures to interpretation of religion. Unsuccessful endeavours at compromise, such as the Kansas Nebraska act and the Missouri Compromise, combined with violence such as the bleeding Kansas incident to further exacerbate the situation. Leading to a point in 1861 where cooperation and unity between the Northern and Southern states were not options, and the schisms, slowly opening up over the past 40 years were unsaleable, and civil war was inevitable.
The conclusion that the Civil War was a consequence of “incredible blundering” of American politicians of the time fails to recognise the inherent complexities of the Civil War’s roots. Whilst indeed it does hold some validity and addresses the uncompromising nature of American politics, the Civil War was very much a peoples’ war in which the population’s vested interest in their own social and economic conditions defined the political climate. Most notably, the incredibly important Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 which introduced slavery to previously untouched Northern areas, was an act introduced by the peoples’ votes. The politicians represented the American people and to blame them individually is a much too simplistic approach.
ReplyDelete