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 is obvious, especially after doing the convention, that all the major political leaders of America before and at the time of the outbreak of the Civil War had starkly different ideas about the way they wanted America to be. I don't know if I think that it was incompetence (although Lincoln did change his stance on slavery throughout the Civil War in ways that contradicted each other) rather a major clash of characteristics and ideas. There was always going to be "blundering" when politicians from the North and politicians from the South are trying to secure what they and their people want, but what they want is so completely different, i.e radical abolitions vs fire eaters vs Lincoln trying to keep the North happy but at the same time trying to stop the South from succession.
It is an accurate assessment that a "incredible blundering" by American politicians influenced the progression toward civil war.
When the Kansas Nebraska Act was passed in 1854, it repealed the Missouri Compromise and allowed the areas to institute popular sovereignty to decide whether or not the area would be a slave state. It also opened Kansas to migration. This was a spectacular blunder by the politicians as it allowed those who were not residents of Kansas to flock to the area to try to influence the election. This lead to the violence of Bleeding Kansas, the death of 250 people, and a heightening of the conflict overall.
Despite this and other incidents (for example the caning of Senator Charles Sumner), it was still the irreconcilable ideologies of the conflicting factions that lead the nation to civil war. The blundering politicians just made the avoidance of war more difficult.
There is no validity to Randall and Craven’s argument because it is based on the assumption that there was only one main cause for the outbreak of Civil War in America and that assumption being it was because of poor decisions and actions made by American politicians. However, there is not just one reason or cause behind the Civil War or any major historical event. The Civil War occurred due to a culmination of social, economical and political factors that all contributed and provided specific circumstances and chance events that allowed the environment for civil war to break out.
The statement made by J.G. Randall and Avery Craven is true to an extent as the politician’s failure to reach a resolution in regards to state rights and slavery was in part the cause of the civil war. But it can be argued, that the driving forces behind the civil war (i.e. slavery, state rights, difference in economic structures etc.) could not be easily resolved.
It will be easy to blame the politicians, but there are enough underlying forces to suggest to us that those issues could not be resolved in the given time frame and the civil war was a necessity for a change to occur in United States one way or another. The differences between the North and the South were far too great for any government to be able to resolve without favouring either the South or the North.
Randall and Craven's assessment that it was the American politicians which doomed the nation to Civil War is not completely valid. While a major factor for the Civil War occurring was the American politicians, it was not their incompetence that lead to the Civil War. As it could be seen during the convention, it was the unwillingness for the different parties to compromise that ultimately lead to the Civil War. For example, the Radical Abolitionists and Radical Secessionists would never have been able to make a compromise on the issue of slavery, with the abolitionists completely against slavery, while the secessionists were completely pro-slavery.
To state and conclude that it was “incredible blundering” by a generation of incompetent American politicians that doomed the nation to Civil War is an assessment which holds only a certain amount of truth and does nothing but ‘skim the surface’ of America’s problems at the time of the War. Yes, the failure of the nation to come to a reasonable and peaceful agreement on the issue of slavery (as well as other economic, religious and political problems emerging) did pave the way for the Civil War to begin, however, most would argue that both the South and North were already too cemented in their pro-slavery/anti-slavery views to settle things diplomatically. The beliefs and opinions of the sides were so strong and opposing that it was nearly inevitable for a war to occur.
There were many political blunders during the lead up to the civil war. The Kansas-Nebraska act, the fugitive slave act and even the schism of the democrats were all examples of political blunders that failed to avert war. However they didn't 'doom' the nation to civil war as Randall and Craven would suggest, but merely point out the widening political divide between Northern and Southern America.
While it is true that the Kansas-Nebraska and fugitive slave acts offended members of all sides, it is important to remember that they were attempts to solve preexisting tensions in the country. These political events may have sped up the war, by solidifying in peoples minds a clear divide, or maybe they delayed the war by satisfying some groups and least temporarily, either way, while they obviously did not avert war, it would be naive to think they were the core issue
I agree with Maddie and Kiera. The outbreak of the Civil War was a culmination of several factors that fused together to create irreconcilable differences between the North and South. Political differences, polar driving economic forces and diverse cultures manifested and triggered the situation which cause the Civil War. It would be naive to blame the politicians of the day for the 'blundering doom' the Civil War brought to America. As seen I'm week 6's Convention each group had different conventions and prerogatives. Some groups shared the same views and could align. However, under no circumstance could a decision be decided upon to avoid the the Civil War. In main part due to the deep ingrained cultural beliefs in the North and South.
To state that the Civil War was caused by incompetent politicians as Randall and Craven do is valid to a certain degree, with blunders such as the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Fugitive Slave Act which contributed to the inevitability of the Civil War. However it was not their incompetence alone that doomed the nation to conflict.
As we saw in the convention, the inability of the opposing parties to come to an agreement which would prevent conflict also doomed the nation to war, as each party acted primarily to benefit itself and were unwilling to make compromises that could have prevented the conflict. Furthermore, the social, cultural, religious, and political beliefs of the North and South were too deeply ingrained in their communities for them to reconcile, which enhanced the tensions between the free and slave states, and increased the inevitability of the Civil War.
It is a valid claim that American politicians in the lead up to the Civil War made several key mistakes however there were other more fundamental reasons which led to the outbreak of war in 1861.
The establishment of the Fugitive Slave Act (1850) intensified North/South divisions over State Sovereignty rights and the Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) heightened tensions concerning the expansion of slavery. These two pieces of legislature, in hindsight can be seen as “incredible blundering” by U.S politicians and certainly contributed to the onset of the War. However, it was first and foremost, ideological clashes between North and South which stirred civil unrest. Political mistakes were a contributing factor but ultimately, were not the key cause which “doomed the nation.”
The convention demonstrated that it wasn't the American politicians 'blundering' that caused the civil war it was merely one of the factors that led to it. There were several other significant factors such as whether slavery should be abolished or not and the great economic divide between the South and North. The different fractions within the North and South were unwilling to compromise or negotiate making the war all that more inevitable.
There is certainly validity in Randall and Cravens argument. To state that “incredible blundering” by American politicians essentially caused the Civil War is slightly one-dimensional and is easily said retrospectively but certain political decisions unquestionably helped spark the onset of War.
Key political decisions such as the Fugitive slave and Kansas Nebraska acts drove the rift between the North and South further. As Alex points out, the Kansas Nebraska act more or less counter-acted the Missouri compromise, which led to violence.
However, deep seated issues such as the pre existing demands of state sovereignty and of course the key matter of slavery made the war some what inevitable as compromises obviously could not prevent it.
After the way the convention played out it was easy to say that the conflicting groups were too far divided in policy and their necessary goals for any effective plan of preventative war to take place. With radical political groups (fire eater, abolitionists, etc) wanting opposite outcomes within the same country compromise and peace was never an option even among the more moderate groups. With clearly defined objectives of pro- slavery and an agricultural land owning economic life in the south and universal freedom of African Americans being pursued by the north a clash of culture and forces was inevitable and not the complete fault of the political elite. Both the North and the South were pushed forward by claiming conflicting rights that spilled outside of their own distinct boundaries such as the Fugitive Slave Act and the raid of John Brown and bleeding Kansas with culminated in civil war.
The validity of the argument, of Historians J.G. Randall and Avery Craven, that the blundering of politicians can be directly related to the cause of the civil could be well seen in the conclusion of the convention, and as alluded to previous conventions. The polar ideologies of the different political groups showed that it would have almost been impossible for any compromise to be met and the war avoided. However to say that this was the only involving factor would ignore the social, cultural and economical strain which engulfed the country at the time.
It is obvious, especially after doing the convention, that all the major political leaders of America before and at the time of the outbreak of the Civil War had starkly different ideas about the way they wanted America to be. I don't know if I think that it was incompetence (although Lincoln did change his stance on slavery throughout the Civil War in ways that contradicted each other) rather a major clash of characteristics and ideas. There was always going to be "blundering" when politicians from the North and politicians from the South are trying to secure what they and their people want, but what they want is so completely different, i.e radical abolitions vs fire eaters vs Lincoln trying to keep the North happy but at the same time trying to stop the South from succession.
ReplyDeleteIt is an accurate assessment that a "incredible blundering" by American politicians influenced the progression toward civil war.
ReplyDeleteWhen the Kansas Nebraska Act was passed in 1854, it repealed the Missouri Compromise and allowed the areas to institute popular sovereignty to decide whether or not the area would be a slave state. It also opened Kansas to migration. This was a spectacular blunder by the politicians as it allowed those who were not residents of Kansas to flock to the area to try to influence the election. This lead to the violence of Bleeding Kansas, the death of 250 people, and a heightening of the conflict overall.
Despite this and other incidents (for example the caning of Senator Charles Sumner), it was still the irreconcilable ideologies of the conflicting factions that lead the nation to civil war. The blundering politicians just made the avoidance of war more difficult.
-Alex Callahan
There is no validity to Randall and Craven’s argument because it is based on the assumption that there was only one main cause for the outbreak of Civil War in America and that assumption being it was because of poor decisions and actions made by American politicians. However, there is not just one reason or cause behind the Civil War or any major historical event. The Civil War occurred due to a culmination of social, economical and political factors that all contributed and provided specific circumstances and chance events that allowed the environment for civil war to break out.
ReplyDelete-Maddi Ball
The statement made by J.G. Randall and Avery Craven is true to an extent as the politician’s failure to reach a resolution in regards to state rights and slavery was in part the cause of the civil war. But it can be argued, that the driving forces behind the civil war (i.e. slavery, state rights, difference in economic structures etc.) could not be easily resolved.
ReplyDeleteIt will be easy to blame the politicians, but there are enough underlying forces to suggest to us that those issues could not be resolved in the given time frame and the civil war was a necessity for a change to occur in United States one way or another. The differences between the North and the South were far too great for any government to be able to resolve without favouring either the South or the North.
-Meharish Bawa
Randall and Craven's assessment that it was the American politicians which doomed the nation to Civil War is not completely valid. While a major factor for the Civil War occurring was the American politicians, it was not their incompetence that lead to the Civil War. As it could be seen during the convention, it was the unwillingness for the different parties to compromise that ultimately lead to the Civil War. For example, the Radical Abolitionists and Radical Secessionists would never have been able to make a compromise on the issue of slavery, with the abolitionists completely against slavery, while the secessionists were completely pro-slavery.
ReplyDeleteTo state and conclude that it was “incredible blundering” by a generation of incompetent American politicians that doomed the nation to Civil War is an assessment which holds only a certain amount of truth and does nothing but ‘skim the surface’ of America’s problems at the time of the War. Yes, the failure of the nation to come to a reasonable and peaceful agreement on the issue of slavery (as well as other economic, religious and political problems emerging) did pave the way for the Civil War to begin, however, most would argue that both the South and North were already too cemented in their pro-slavery/anti-slavery views to settle things diplomatically. The beliefs and opinions of the sides were so strong and opposing that it was nearly inevitable for a war to occur.
ReplyDeleteThere were many political blunders during the lead up to the civil war. The Kansas-Nebraska act, the fugitive slave act and even the schism of the democrats were all examples of political blunders that failed to avert war. However they didn't 'doom' the nation to civil war as Randall and Craven would suggest, but merely point out the widening political divide between Northern and Southern America.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is true that the Kansas-Nebraska and fugitive slave acts offended members of all sides, it is important to remember that they were attempts to solve preexisting tensions in the country. These political events may have sped up the war, by solidifying in peoples minds a clear divide, or maybe they delayed the war by satisfying some groups and least temporarily, either way, while they obviously did not avert war, it would be naive to think they were the core issue
I agree with Maddie and Kiera. The outbreak of the Civil War was a culmination of several factors that fused together to create irreconcilable differences between the North and South. Political differences, polar driving economic forces and diverse cultures manifested and triggered the situation which cause the Civil War. It would be naive to blame the politicians of the day for the 'blundering doom' the Civil War brought to America. As seen I'm week 6's Convention each group had different conventions and prerogatives. Some groups shared the same views and could align. However, under no circumstance could a decision be decided upon to avoid the the Civil War. In main part due to the deep ingrained cultural beliefs in the North and South.
ReplyDelete-Monique Szabo
To state that the Civil War was caused by incompetent politicians as Randall and Craven do is valid to a certain degree, with blunders such as the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Fugitive Slave Act which contributed to the inevitability of the Civil War. However it was not their incompetence alone that doomed the nation to conflict.
ReplyDeleteAs we saw in the convention, the inability of the opposing parties to come to an agreement which would prevent conflict also doomed the nation to war, as each party acted primarily to benefit itself and were unwilling to make compromises that could have prevented the conflict. Furthermore, the social, cultural, religious, and political beliefs of the North and South were too deeply ingrained in their communities for them to reconcile, which enhanced the tensions between the free and slave states, and increased the inevitability of the Civil War.
- Nicole Mileto
It is a valid claim that American politicians in the lead up to the Civil War made several key mistakes however there were other more fundamental reasons which led to the outbreak of war in 1861.
ReplyDeleteThe establishment of the Fugitive Slave Act (1850) intensified North/South divisions over State Sovereignty rights and the Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) heightened tensions concerning the expansion of slavery. These two pieces of legislature, in hindsight can be seen as “incredible blundering” by U.S politicians and certainly contributed to the onset of the War. However, it was first and foremost, ideological clashes between North and South which stirred civil unrest. Political mistakes were a contributing factor but ultimately, were not the key cause which “doomed the nation.”
Juliana Mare
The convention demonstrated that it wasn't the American politicians 'blundering' that caused the civil war it was merely one of the factors that led to it. There were several other significant factors such as whether slavery should be abolished or not and the great economic divide between the South and North. The different fractions within the North and South were unwilling to compromise or negotiate making the war all that more inevitable.
ReplyDeleteThere is certainly validity in Randall and Cravens argument. To state that “incredible blundering” by American politicians essentially caused the Civil War is slightly one-dimensional and is easily said retrospectively but certain political decisions unquestionably helped spark the onset of War.
ReplyDeleteKey political decisions such as the Fugitive slave and Kansas Nebraska acts drove the rift between the North and South further. As Alex points out, the Kansas Nebraska act more or less counter-acted the Missouri compromise, which led to violence.
However, deep seated issues such as the pre existing demands of state sovereignty and of course the key matter of slavery made the war some what inevitable as compromises obviously could not prevent it.
Sheldon Ewing
After the way the convention played out it was easy to say that the conflicting groups were too far divided in policy and their necessary goals for any effective plan of preventative war to take place. With radical political groups (fire eater, abolitionists, etc) wanting opposite outcomes within the same country compromise and peace was never an option even among the more moderate groups. With clearly defined objectives of pro- slavery and an agricultural land owning economic life in the south and universal freedom of African Americans being pursued by the north a clash of culture and forces was inevitable and not the complete fault of the political elite. Both the North and the South were pushed forward by claiming conflicting rights that spilled outside of their own distinct boundaries such as the Fugitive Slave Act and the raid of John Brown and bleeding Kansas with culminated in civil war.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Hunter
The validity of the argument, of Historians J.G. Randall and Avery Craven, that the blundering of politicians can be directly related to the cause of the civil could be well seen in the conclusion of the convention, and as alluded to previous conventions. The polar ideologies of the different political groups showed that it would have almost been impossible for any compromise to be met and the war avoided. However to say that this was the only involving factor would ignore the social, cultural and economical strain which engulfed the country at the time.
ReplyDelete