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).
More than political incompetence, it is perhaps the politicians' unwillingness to waver from their own individual agendas that doomed the nation to civil war. The staunch nature of politicians from both sides made compromise difficult. The fracturing of the democrats, the only united party, foreshadowed a political crisis where little common ground was found. The issue of slavery consumed politicians on all sides of the spectrum, and the heated beliefs they all held blinded the ability to see reason. The violence that elapsed in congress with the Charles Sumner fiasco highlights political blundering where a refusal to acknowledge merit in other arguments or find a middle ground ultimately resulted in a blood bath.
While the assessment of political incompetence leading to the Civil War can be given a portion of validity, some more accurate reasons for the South's demise as a slave society are the absolute need for change as events compounded till there was little room for negotiation and the political leaders absolute unwillingness to compromise their positions. Events in the country have historians beleving that some in the country had taken the position that violence was indeed the answer; with Charles Summer's beating and John Brown's massacre. This extreme violence had hardly another answer aside from more violence and death, and while their incompetency can be seen it is maybe the loyalty they held to their beliefs that brought about the War. There needed to be a change and a war was the most immediate, as any other would require more discussion, more debate and perhaps, as the polticians in the country didn't want, more attempts to morph their strongly held attitudes and loyalties into something that they didn't want, into a future that they didn't agree with.
Politicians during the American Civil War can been seen as an influence that escalated tensions and extended aggravation, rather than ‘doom[ing] the nation’ to conflict. The stubbornness of some politicians led to the inability of the nation to find a viable compromise, but it can be argued that these views were reflecting those of the American population. This is exemplified by men such as Jefferson Davis, who was rarely willing to alter his stance on slavery, making it almost impossible for conflict to be avoided. In a nation that comprised large masses with such differing views, it was not the incompetent politicians that caused the Civil War, but rather the contrasting views of the communities they represented.
To apportion sole responsibility of the outbreak of war on politicians is an oversight of the deep divisions that consumed and vibrated throughout the entire American community. While politicians remained steadfast to their own beliefs and ultimately refused to compromise and negotiate terms which may have prevented the outbreak of war, they were only reflecting the stance of their respective constituents and acting in accordance with their wishes. I do not believe there is evidence to suggest that the majority of ordinary citizens wanted the leaders they elected to represent them to compromise with parties with contrary opinions and agendas. It does not appear as though there was any recognition of the merit in opposing views within civil society. Thus, one could argue that it was the general incompetence and stubbornness of the entire American nation which lead to the outbreak of war. It can be seen clearly through the fracturing of the Democrats, the Charles Sumner attack in Congress and the escapades of John Brown that dissension over slavery was significant and ultimately, so highly divisive that the population did not see any way to live together in a state of harmony.
I feel the expression “incredible blundering” is a slightly inaccurate and oversimplified one. One cannot simply blame a handful of men for the outbreak of the civil war. It seems that the Civil war was caused by an amalgamation of different factors. One cannot overlook the fact that the North and South before the outbreak of the war were two totally different societies Also, it seems the outbreak of the war was fuelled not by the incompetence of the politicians and more likely that of the stubbornness of politicians. Representatives from the different states were unwilling to come to a compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act for example, which repealed the Missouri Line and was considered unconstitutional by the North only intensified feelings of hostility between the North and South.
I feel that one cannot simply blame the 'incompetence' of Civil War politicians for the blunder that was the American Civil War. Firstly, the stubbornness of the politicians from both North and South must be looked at. These were men who were not going to compromise on their ideals and standpoints regarding the North and South. Jefferson Davis is a clear example of such a man, a man unwavering on his ideas on slavery from a southern point of view. Secondly, the violence that came before the war through men such as John Brown. The massacres led by John Brown not surprisingly contributed to a culture of violence within the civil war period and it led to violence on a large scale. Finally the fact that the North and South were such different societies makes it unsurprising that due to a lack of compromise, on either side, as well as violent happenings, that war broke out between the two civilisations. These factors prove that one cannot simply blame the arguable 'incompetence' of political leaders for the 'blunder' that was the Civil War.
The civil war was the result of a variety of different factors which are not limited to politicians of the time. The North and South already had growing tensions/events that in one form or another would likely lead them down the same path. The actions of politicians or lack thereof increased these tensions, but it does not mean that they were solely responsible and incompetent enough to lead the country to a civil war. War is almost always caused by a peak of various events and tensions, and it is near impossible to completely blame one particular group, such as these so called ‘’incompetent American politicians.’’ When looking at the statement one could agree that perhaps the politician’s inability to come to compromise, or stop the escalation of tensions etc that resulted in a war, would equate them with the name ‘incompetent’. The lack of ability for politicians of the time to resolve their differences certainly did not help with regards to the outbreak of war, but had they been able to come to any agreements one must remember that the masses to had their role. The civil war was not merely a result of ineffectual politicians, but rather their role was part of a culmination of events and growing tensions that led to the civil war.
To assert that the “incredible blundering” by a generation of incompetent American politicians doomed the nation to Civil War seems to oversimplify and ignore the multitude of reasons why the South and the North were unable to live cohesively. There is something to be said about the stubbornness, rather than the incompetence of the politicians, who were steadfast in their own beliefs, as well as upholding, I assume, the beliefs of their constituents. It is unrealistic to believe that taking into account all the different agendas at play of all parties and groups, that anyone would have been able to strike a compromise and stop the Civil War from happening.
While factors of political incompetence contributed to the outbreak of the Civil War, the underlying reasons stemmed from inherent differences between the two sides. The reliance of the South upon slave labour along with the values of freedom and democracy of the North represented a challenge to the others way of life. Furthermore, the stubbornness of both sides which were stuck in their ways led to a fractured relationship which, despite the unified state, caused problems for each state, exemplified by the predicaments of the border states during the conflict. The familiarity with violence by the nation, shown by the War of Independence and the insistence upon the 2nd Amendment led, ultimately, to the widespread conflict.
The vehement social and economic desires of the North and the South, in congruence with established pro and anti-slavery predispositions, ultimately dictated the tense, provocative political atmosphere of the Civil War era. As opposed to a wave of governmental hopelessness and instability, the sequence of events leading to the commencement of the War can be considered a product of steadfast, fervent and, to an extent, radical beliefs of varying slavery advocates and opponents. This volatile environment allowed for a potpourri of inflammatory occurrences; not least the assault on Charles Sumner on the Senate floor, the militancy of John Brown, and the consequential assault on Harper’s Ferry. It is a period that can be viewed through the lens of the inevitability of conflict, with each incident adding mere certainty to the eventuation of the War.
The incompetence of politicians was not the sole determining factor in the onset of the war. Rather, a more important issue was the dichotomy between the North and South, with intrinsic values contained within their societies. The North's far more democratic stance, being generally opposed to slavery was a vast contrast to the Southern's reliance on their slave-driven economy. These differences were clearly evident in politician's beliefs and heavily influenced their stances, creating a stalemate regarding certain issues. However, it would be a bit too rich to postulate that the blundering of American politicians "doomed" the nation to Civil War.
It is unfair to blame the Civil War on politicians, as it was not only public representatives, but the people they represented, that failed to divert disaster. Politicians could have promoted any belief or supported any compromise they may have personally wished, but they would have lost the support of the people, and so all their power. If the plantation owners of the South had given up slavery of their own accord, the Civil War may not have occurred; if the North had allowed the South to secceed, the Civil War may not have occurred. Some events with particularly controversial responses, such as the actions of John Brown (the Pottawatoime massacre and the raid of Harpers Ferry) or abolition rallies organised by religious and women's groups, were not connected to politicians. It is the people, in their ideological and political groups, that remained steadfast and stubborn throughout negotiation and compromise, that made the war inevitable.
American politicians in the 1860’s had further fuelled the existing momentum of tension in the direction of war. This mentality led to the eventual onset of conflict. The political strong mindedness of particular parties left no room for resolution or compromise although, one may argue the political stubbornness was simply reflecting the existing standpoint of the greater American population. The intense tensions and strong mindedness further highlights the gravity in which the issue of slavery had on the American population.
While the actions of politicians in the decade leading up to the war contributed to the hostility between the sections, "incredible blundering" assumes they could have acted substantially differently. The practice of slavery in the South - unsustainable land use and the focus of capital into slaves - necessitated the push for its expansion into the territories and beyond the Missouri Compromise line. To stay territorially stagnant would have led to an inevitable economic marginalisation of the South as crop yields decreased. Additionally, the electorate largely supported the political parties that were taking harder stances on the issue of slavery, as shown by state results of the presidential election of 1860.
The American politicians in this period of American history cannot be solely blamed for the eruption of civil war on 1861. The term 'incredible blundering'in my view is not the right phrase to be using when describing the actions of those key political figures involved in the civil war. There are various factors that led to the outbreak of war, not only the words and actions of politicians eg(William Lloyd Garrison and others), but laws created by judges such as the fugitive slave act and the Dred Scott decision.More importantly the market/industrial revolutions in the North put pressure on the south to reform and give up their current way of life to become a more modern society not solely dependent on slavery for its economic stability and prosperity.Other elements of tension such as religion for the basis of North South views on slavery also contributed to the civil war and its bloody conflict.
To assume that the nation was doomed to civil war because of mistakes made by a few leaders would be incorrect, for it would require the erasing of history of American civil society. Nonetheless it does bear some truth in the sense that the tensions between leaders only heightened the tense relations between North and South. Perhaps Lincoln's coming to power and his unrelenting convictions was a mistake, perhaps leaders taking sides in the judicial decision regarding dred scott was a mistake. But it was more likely the diverae and equally strong views maintained by political parties that led to war, rather than the mistakes of one or two leaders.
The behaviour of politicians in America in the lead up to the Civil War certainly contributed to the eventual conflict, however in most cases this was not a case of mere blundering or incompetence, but rather a stubborn unwillingness to compromise. The issues that led up to the war, particularly slavery, also proved to be so polarising that genuine compromises were difficult to reach and maintain, and violence often resulted. Even before the first shots of the Civil War were fired this could be seen by the beating of Charles Sumner or the John Brown massacre.
The notion that the American Civil War's initiation may simply have been the result of political ignorance is both misleading and a severe understatement of the social balance of the times. While it is true that several politicians and independently powerful men enacted political justice through the means of violence, often supporting a personal agenda, it cannot be said that it was simply the action of these men that began the war. This ignores the social and economic issues that were large factors for both North and South attitudes towards each other; political attitudes regarding labour, territory and race merely reflected that of the people in each State, and not the other way around.
The American Civil War was caused by tensions between the two sides boiling over on the issue of slavery, leading the Seccessionists to believe that their relationship with the North was untenable. The politicians “incredible blundering” certainly helped this along as they alternatively stood firm on their beliefs or conceded compromises that made neither party happy but only served to further separate the views of the opposing sides about what they could rightfully expect. The failure of the politicians to reach any meaningful agreement or satisfaction for either side caused people to resort to violence to try and resolve the issues, whether that be by the common man (e.g. John Brown) or politicians (the beating of Charles Sumner). With a wide fracture opening between the two societies, discontent at the lack of resolution (with none in sight) on both sides and the spread of violence, the country was doomed to Civil War.
More than political incompetence, it is perhaps the politicians' unwillingness to waver from their own individual agendas that doomed the nation to civil war. The staunch nature of politicians from both sides made compromise difficult. The fracturing of the democrats, the only united party, foreshadowed a political crisis where little common ground was found. The issue of slavery consumed politicians on all sides of the spectrum, and the heated beliefs they all held blinded the ability to see reason. The violence that elapsed in congress with the Charles Sumner fiasco highlights political blundering where a refusal to acknowledge merit in other arguments or find a middle ground ultimately resulted in a blood bath.
ReplyDeleteWhile the assessment of political incompetence leading to the Civil War can be given a portion of validity, some more accurate reasons for the South's demise as a slave society are the absolute need for change as events compounded till there was little room for negotiation and the political leaders absolute unwillingness to compromise their positions. Events in the country have historians beleving that some in the country had taken the position that violence was indeed the answer; with Charles Summer's beating and John Brown's massacre. This extreme violence had hardly another answer aside from more violence and death, and while their incompetency can be seen it is maybe the loyalty they held to their beliefs that brought about the War. There needed to be a change and a war was the most immediate, as any other would require more discussion, more debate and perhaps, as the polticians in the country didn't want, more attempts to morph their strongly held attitudes and loyalties into something that they didn't want, into a future that they didn't agree with.
ReplyDeletePoliticians during the American Civil War can been seen as an influence that escalated tensions and extended aggravation, rather than ‘doom[ing] the nation’ to conflict. The stubbornness of some politicians led to the inability of the nation to find a viable compromise, but it can be argued that these views were reflecting those of the American population. This is exemplified by men such as Jefferson Davis, who was rarely willing to alter his stance on slavery, making it almost impossible for conflict to be avoided. In a nation that comprised large masses with such differing views, it was not the incompetent politicians that caused the Civil War, but rather the contrasting views of the communities they represented.
ReplyDeleteTo apportion sole responsibility of the outbreak of war on politicians is an oversight of the deep divisions that consumed and vibrated throughout the entire American community. While politicians remained steadfast to their own beliefs and ultimately refused to compromise and negotiate terms which may have prevented the outbreak of war, they were only reflecting the stance of their respective constituents and acting in accordance with their wishes. I do not believe there is evidence to suggest that the majority of ordinary citizens wanted the leaders they elected to represent them to compromise with parties with contrary opinions and agendas. It does not appear as though there was any recognition of the merit in opposing views within civil society. Thus, one could argue that it was the general incompetence and stubbornness of the entire American nation which lead to the outbreak of war. It can be seen clearly through the fracturing of the Democrats, the Charles Sumner attack in Congress and the escapades of John Brown that dissension over slavery was significant and ultimately, so highly divisive that the population did not see any way to live together in a state of harmony.
ReplyDeleteI feel the expression “incredible blundering” is a slightly inaccurate and oversimplified one. One cannot simply blame a handful of men for the outbreak of the civil war. It seems that the Civil war was caused by an amalgamation of different factors. One cannot overlook the fact that the North and South before the outbreak of the war were two totally different societies Also, it seems the outbreak of the war was fuelled not by the incompetence of the politicians and more likely that of the stubbornness of politicians. Representatives from the different states were unwilling to come to a compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act for example, which repealed the Missouri Line and was considered unconstitutional by the North only intensified feelings of hostility between the North and South.
ReplyDeleteI feel that one cannot simply blame the 'incompetence' of Civil War politicians for the blunder that was the American Civil War. Firstly, the stubbornness of the politicians from both North and South must be looked at. These were men who were not going to compromise on their ideals and standpoints regarding the North and South. Jefferson Davis is a clear example of such a man, a man unwavering on his ideas on slavery from a southern point of view. Secondly, the violence that came before the war through men such as John Brown. The massacres led by John Brown not surprisingly contributed to a culture of violence within the civil war period and it led to violence on a large scale. Finally the fact that the North and South were such different societies makes it unsurprising that due to a lack of compromise, on either side, as well as violent happenings, that war broke out between the two civilisations. These factors prove that one cannot simply blame the arguable 'incompetence' of political leaders for the 'blunder' that was the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteThe civil war was the result of a variety of different factors which are not limited to politicians of the time. The North and South already had growing tensions/events that in one form or another would likely lead them down the same path. The actions of politicians or lack thereof increased these tensions, but it does not mean that they were solely responsible and incompetent enough to lead the country to a civil war.
ReplyDeleteWar is almost always caused by a peak of various events and tensions, and it is near impossible to completely blame one particular group, such as these so called ‘’incompetent American politicians.’’
When looking at the statement one could agree that perhaps the politician’s inability to come to compromise, or stop the escalation of tensions etc that resulted in a war, would equate them with the name ‘incompetent’. The lack of ability for politicians of the time to resolve their differences certainly did not help with regards to the outbreak of war, but had they been able to come to any agreements one must remember that the masses to had their role. The civil war was not merely a result of ineffectual politicians, but rather their role was part of a culmination of events and growing tensions that led to the civil war.
To assert that the “incredible blundering” by a generation of incompetent American politicians doomed the nation to Civil War seems to oversimplify and ignore the multitude of reasons why the South and the North were unable to live cohesively. There is something to be said about the stubbornness, rather than the incompetence of the politicians, who were steadfast in their own beliefs, as well as upholding, I assume, the beliefs of their constituents. It is unrealistic to believe that taking into account all the different agendas at play of all parties and groups, that anyone would have been able to strike a compromise and stop the Civil War from happening.
ReplyDeleteWhile factors of political incompetence contributed to the outbreak of the Civil War, the underlying reasons stemmed from inherent differences between the two sides. The reliance of the South upon slave labour along with the values of freedom and democracy of the North represented a challenge to the others way of life.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the stubbornness of both sides which were stuck in their ways led to a fractured relationship which, despite the unified state, caused problems for each state, exemplified by the predicaments of the border states during the conflict. The familiarity with violence by the nation, shown by the War of Independence and the insistence upon the 2nd Amendment led, ultimately, to the widespread conflict.
The vehement social and economic desires of the North and the South, in congruence with established pro and anti-slavery predispositions, ultimately dictated the tense, provocative political atmosphere of the Civil War era. As opposed to a wave of governmental hopelessness and instability, the sequence of events leading to the commencement of the War can be considered a product of steadfast, fervent and, to an extent, radical beliefs of varying slavery advocates and opponents. This volatile environment allowed for a potpourri of inflammatory occurrences; not least the assault on Charles Sumner on the Senate floor, the militancy of John Brown, and the consequential assault on Harper’s Ferry. It is a period that can be viewed through the lens of the inevitability of conflict, with each incident adding mere certainty to the eventuation of the War.
ReplyDeleteThe incompetence of politicians was not the sole determining factor in the onset of the war. Rather, a more important issue was the dichotomy between the North and South, with intrinsic values contained within their societies. The North's far more democratic stance, being generally opposed to slavery was a vast contrast to the Southern's reliance on their slave-driven economy. These differences were clearly evident in politician's beliefs and heavily influenced their stances, creating a stalemate regarding certain issues. However, it would be a bit too rich to postulate that the blundering of American politicians "doomed" the nation to Civil War.
ReplyDeleteIt is unfair to blame the Civil War on politicians, as it was not only public representatives, but the people they represented, that failed to divert disaster. Politicians could have promoted any belief or supported any compromise they may have personally wished, but they would have lost the support of the people, and so all their power. If the plantation owners of the South had given up slavery of their own accord, the Civil War may not have occurred; if the North had allowed the South to secceed, the Civil War may not have occurred. Some events with particularly controversial responses, such as the actions of John Brown (the Pottawatoime massacre and the raid of Harpers Ferry) or abolition rallies organised by religious and women's groups, were not connected to politicians. It is the people, in their ideological and political groups, that remained steadfast and stubborn throughout negotiation and compromise, that made the war inevitable.
ReplyDeleteAmerican politicians in the 1860’s had further fuelled the existing momentum of tension in the direction of war. This mentality led to the eventual onset of conflict. The political strong mindedness of particular parties left no room for resolution or compromise although, one may argue the political stubbornness was simply reflecting the existing standpoint of the greater American population. The intense tensions and strong mindedness further highlights the gravity in which the issue of slavery had on the American population.
ReplyDeleteWhile the actions of politicians in the decade leading up to the war contributed to the hostility between the sections, "incredible blundering" assumes they could have acted substantially differently. The practice of slavery in the South - unsustainable land use and the focus of capital into slaves - necessitated the push for its expansion into the territories and beyond the Missouri Compromise line. To stay territorially stagnant would have led to an inevitable economic marginalisation of the South as crop yields decreased. Additionally, the electorate largely supported the political parties that were taking harder stances on the issue of slavery, as shown by state results of the presidential election of 1860.
ReplyDeleteThe American politicians in this period of American history cannot be solely blamed for the eruption of civil war on 1861. The term 'incredible blundering'in my view is not the right phrase to be using when describing the actions of those key political figures involved in the civil war. There are various factors that led to the outbreak of war, not only the words and actions of politicians eg(William Lloyd Garrison and others), but laws created by judges such as the fugitive slave act and the Dred Scott decision.More importantly the market/industrial revolutions in the North put pressure on the south to reform and give up their current way of life to become a more modern society not solely dependent on slavery for its economic stability and prosperity.Other elements of tension such as religion for the basis of North South views on slavery also contributed to the civil war and its bloody conflict.
ReplyDeleteTo assume that the nation was doomed to civil war because of mistakes made by a few leaders would be incorrect, for it would require the erasing of history of American civil society. Nonetheless it does bear some truth in the sense that the tensions between leaders only heightened the tense relations between North and South. Perhaps Lincoln's coming to power and his unrelenting convictions was a mistake, perhaps leaders taking sides in the judicial decision regarding dred scott was a mistake. But it was more likely the diverae and equally strong views maintained by political parties that led to war, rather than the mistakes of one or two leaders.
ReplyDeleteThe behaviour of politicians in America in the lead up to the Civil War certainly contributed to the eventual conflict, however in most cases this was not a case of mere blundering or incompetence, but rather a stubborn unwillingness to compromise. The issues that led up to the war, particularly slavery, also proved to be so polarising that genuine compromises were difficult to reach and maintain, and violence often resulted. Even before the first shots of the Civil War were fired this could be seen by the beating of Charles Sumner or the John Brown massacre.
ReplyDeleteThe notion that the American Civil War's initiation may simply have been the result of political ignorance is both misleading and a severe understatement of the social balance of the times. While it is true that several politicians and independently powerful men enacted political justice through the means of violence, often supporting a personal agenda, it cannot be said that it was simply the action of these men that began the war. This ignores the social and economic issues that were large factors for both North and South attitudes towards each other; political attitudes regarding labour, territory and race merely reflected that of the people in each State, and not the other way around.
ReplyDeleteThe American Civil War was caused by tensions between the two sides boiling over on the issue of slavery, leading the Seccessionists to believe that their relationship with the North was untenable. The politicians “incredible blundering” certainly helped this along as they alternatively stood firm on their beliefs or conceded compromises that made neither party happy but only served to further separate the views of the opposing sides about what they could rightfully expect. The failure of the politicians to reach any meaningful agreement or satisfaction for either side caused people to resort to violence to try and resolve the issues, whether that be by the common man (e.g. John Brown) or politicians (the beating of Charles Sumner). With a wide fracture opening between the two societies, discontent at the lack of resolution (with none in sight) on both sides and the spread of violence, the country was doomed to Civil War.
ReplyDelete