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 easy to use the benefit of hindsight to condemn the actions of those that have attempted to lead society in generations before our time. There is some validity in saying that “incredible blundering” caused the Civil War, however the statement is essentially flawed as it fails to take into account the subjective intentions of Antebellum politicians during their time. As demonstrated through the writings of historians such as Bruce Levine, the South was truly a slave society, and its politicians were merely doing what they thought was best in preserving their essential way of life. On the other hand, as William Seward implied in his “Irrepressible Conflict” speech, the actions of the North were based on preventing the growth of conflicting cultures in a single nation. As such, both Southern and Northern politicians were merely acting in the best interests of their respective citizens, not simply being “blunderers”.
American politicians of the time were working to the scenarios that were occurring at that time and were making decisions based on the circumstances of the time. The statement does not make allowances for the economic and social issues that were occurring at the time that lead to the Civil War. So although it may look like the presidents were incompetent and incredibly blundering to Randall and Craven there is no validity to their statement.
While some historians such as Randall and Craven view the actions of the pre-war politicians as incompetent, a broader analysis of the antebellum leaders shows their actions to be principled and resolute. The fact that Lincoln was elected upon the platform to contain slavery and Davis on secession illustrated the irreconcilable demands of the Northern and Southern states. The politicians who did advocate compromise such as Bell were unpopular in both the slave and the free states. Randall and Craven wrote at a time when Americans were confronted with the rise of fascism and the carnage of a far more preventable war WW1. In this context 'repressible war' theory is as understandable as the practical yet confrontational policies of the war-time leaders.
While i think you can say that "incredible blundering" by American politions was one of the causes that lead to the civil war, you can not say it was the only cause and therefore the reason for the war. The people of the North and the South obviously had very different and conflicting ideologies that were bound to lead to something as disastrous as a war. While the civil war could have been avoided at the time, the issues would have kept arising. Therefore, you cannot say the politicians "doomed" America to war.
On the one hand the politicians of the antebellum period can be seen as being incredibly incompetent or perhaps more accurately short-sighted. However, these opinions must be seen in the context of historians hindsight as to what the repercussions of the political obstinacy were once the war commenced. While this is important, historians also need to take into account the political motivations and core ideals that drove particular elements. In many cases these ideals were held to such a high standard that compromise was unthinkable. As such, while an element of political blundering is quite clearly evident, this view must be tempered by the sense of inevitability of conflict at the time.
Craven and Randall's argument fails to acknowledge the importance of divisions between the North and the South. The civil war was not simply the result of the ineptitude of antebellum politicians, but rather a consequence of several key group's failure to compromise. Political tensions were rife, but the undermining social and economic differences between the North and the South also contributed to the outbreak of war. These differences centred around the notion of slavery and the fact that neither side was willing to concede their views may be considered "blundering" but more accurately, was a resolute holding of their ideals. - Bec Torsello
There is some validity based on the refusal of politicians from all sides to negotiate in good faith. This failure indicates the lack of understanding of the possible consequences ie a lack of political vision. There were however, fundamental differences of ideology, beliefs and economic interests which were driving the conflict regardless of the actions of most individual politicians. High quality leadership was required to negotiate a settlement of these basic differences. It’s arguable that conflict of some order was inevitable to resolve these differences.
Craven and Randall's argument that ‘incredible blundering’ caused the Civil War holds some validity as it was clear that stubbornness and inflexibility restricted the two sides from trying to reconcile and compromise their astute differences. However, the passion and fervour of each side to defend their ideals needs to be taken into account when looking at the causes of the civil war. The south- as a slave society- was attempting at all costs to preserve their way of life, while the North was trying to save the union from conflicting values and ultimately, separation. In this sense, although compromise would have helped both sides, the strength with which they both believed in their fundamental ideologies would have nonetheless been a core factor in the outbreak of the Civil War.
While there is some legitimacy to this notion, historians have the benefit of hindsight and the ability to view the bigger picture. Politicians were guilty of ‘incredible blundering’ and were incompetent in negotiating or conceding. However, hostility between the North and South was mounting as all facets of their society gradually differed. Both their economic and political values were conflicting as was their interpretation of the Constitution. The outbreak of war can never be blamed on one factor, but a combination of issues, which can then propel some form of conflict.
Although Randall and Craven’s argument that ‘incredible blundering’ doomed the American nation to bloody civil war successfully reflects the stubbornness of opposing groups, it underestimates the deep divisions that existed between the North and the South by 1860. While it is true that politicians were often unwilling to compromise, this was as much due to the irreconcilable demands of both their opposing constituencies and their own principles as it was to incompetence. On the one hand was a North that had voted in President Lincoln on a platform of containing slavery, on the other a Southern society revolving completely around its preservation and expansion. As such, even if American politicians had managed to prevent war in the short time, it is unlikely that such fundamentally opposed societies would be willing to compromise forever.
It is easy to use the benefit of hindsight to condemn the actions of those that have attempted to lead society in generations before our time. There is some validity in saying that “incredible blundering” caused the Civil War, however the statement is essentially flawed as it fails to take into account the subjective intentions of Antebellum politicians during their time. As demonstrated through the writings of historians such as Bruce Levine, the South was truly a slave society, and its politicians were merely doing what they thought was best in preserving their essential way of life. On the other hand, as William Seward implied in his “Irrepressible Conflict” speech, the actions of the North were based on preventing the growth of conflicting cultures in a single nation. As such, both Southern and Northern politicians were merely acting in the best interests of their respective citizens, not simply being “blunderers”.
ReplyDeleteAmerican politicians of the time were working to the scenarios that were occurring at that time and were making decisions based on the circumstances of the time. The statement does not make allowances for the economic and social issues that were occurring at the time that lead to the Civil War. So although it may look like the presidents were incompetent and incredibly blundering to Randall and Craven there is no validity to their statement.
ReplyDeleteWhile some historians such as Randall and Craven view the actions of the pre-war politicians as incompetent, a broader analysis of the antebellum leaders shows their actions to be principled and resolute. The fact that Lincoln was elected upon the platform to contain slavery and Davis on secession illustrated the irreconcilable demands of the Northern and Southern states. The politicians who did advocate compromise such as Bell were unpopular in both the slave and the free states. Randall and Craven wrote at a time when Americans were confronted with the rise of fascism and the carnage of a far more preventable war WW1. In this context 'repressible war' theory is as understandable as the practical yet confrontational policies of the war-time leaders.
ReplyDeleteWhile i think you can say that "incredible blundering" by American politions was one of the causes that lead to the civil war, you can not say it was the only cause and therefore the reason for the war. The people of the North and the South obviously had very different and conflicting ideologies that were bound to lead to something as disastrous as a war. While the civil war could have been avoided at the time, the issues would have kept arising. Therefore, you cannot say the politicians "doomed" America to war.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand the politicians of the antebellum period can be seen as being incredibly incompetent or perhaps more accurately short-sighted. However, these opinions must be seen in the context of historians hindsight as to what the repercussions of the political obstinacy were once the war commenced. While this is important, historians also need to take into account the political motivations and core ideals that drove particular elements. In many cases these ideals were held to such a high standard that compromise was unthinkable. As such, while an element of political blundering is quite clearly evident, this view must be tempered by the sense of inevitability of conflict at the time.
ReplyDeleteCraven and Randall's argument fails to acknowledge the importance of divisions between the North and the South. The civil war was not simply the result of the ineptitude of antebellum politicians, but rather a consequence of several key group's failure to compromise. Political tensions were rife, but the undermining social and economic differences between the North and the South also contributed to the outbreak of war. These differences centred around the notion of slavery and the fact that neither side was willing to concede their views may be considered "blundering" but more accurately, was a resolute holding of their ideals.
ReplyDelete- Bec Torsello
There is some validity based on the refusal of politicians from all sides to negotiate in good faith. This failure indicates the lack of understanding of the possible consequences ie a lack of political vision. There were however, fundamental differences of ideology, beliefs and economic interests which were driving the conflict regardless of the actions of most individual politicians. High quality leadership was required to negotiate a settlement of these basic differences. It’s arguable that conflict of some order was inevitable to resolve these differences.
ReplyDeleteCraven and Randall's argument that ‘incredible blundering’ caused the Civil War holds some validity as it was clear that stubbornness and inflexibility restricted the two sides from trying to reconcile and compromise their astute differences. However, the passion and fervour of each side to defend their ideals needs to be taken into account when looking at the causes of the civil war. The south- as a slave society- was attempting at all costs to preserve their way of life, while the North was trying to save the union from conflicting values and ultimately, separation. In this sense, although compromise would have helped both sides, the strength with which they both believed in their fundamental ideologies would have nonetheless been a core factor in the outbreak of the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteWhile there is some legitimacy to this notion, historians have the benefit of hindsight and the ability to view the bigger picture. Politicians were guilty of ‘incredible blundering’ and were incompetent in negotiating or conceding. However, hostility between the North and South was mounting as all facets of their society gradually differed. Both their economic and political values were conflicting as was their interpretation of the Constitution. The outbreak of war can never be blamed on one factor, but a combination of issues, which can then propel some form of conflict.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Randall and Craven’s argument that ‘incredible blundering’ doomed the American nation to bloody civil war successfully reflects the stubbornness of opposing groups, it underestimates the deep divisions that existed between the North and the South by 1860. While it is true that politicians were often unwilling to compromise, this was as much due to the irreconcilable demands of both their opposing constituencies and their own principles as it was to incompetence. On the one hand was a North that had voted in President Lincoln on a platform of containing slavery, on the other a Southern society revolving completely around its preservation and expansion. As such, even if American politicians had managed to prevent war in the short time, it is unlikely that such fundamentally opposed societies would be willing to compromise forever.
ReplyDelete