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).
Thomas Meredith 22045368 Personally if find this question to be extremely simplistic. To imply that the American Civil war was caused by the actions of a few incompetent politicians is ignoring the much larger social divides and underlying economic factors that eventually pitted the North against the South. Perhaps as shown by today’s convention no amount of insightful thought or discussion could fully avoid a conflict between two vastly different societies. Perhaps their indeed were a few individuals who’s lives did accelerate the arrival of war in America, such as John Brown and Charles Sumner but regardless tensions were bound to escalate to some kind of breaking point in the form of violent conflict.
Jack Balson 23399694 To argue that is was "incredible blundering" that caused the civil war implies that the politicians were not fighting for what they believed in or that they were un phased by the thought of war. Indeed war was a serious matter for both sides and they both sought to avoid it, however the differing opinions of the north and south made the outbreak of war almost inevitable. Neither side was willing to compromise enough of their aims to avoid war and this is why i disagree with the views of these historians.
The American Civil War was too complex a situation to imply that mere politicians and their "incredible blunders" were the cataclysmic cause of the Civil War. There were numerous clashing interests and residing matters that motivated the start of war. The economic interests of the South for instance, or the residing matters of the North and their endeavors to the unsettling issues of slavery. Nevertheless J.G Randall and Avery Craven's statement does hold a degree of validation, after all the Civil War did occur, and for such turmoil to take place it can only be magnified and generated by politicians and the decisions they made. In the end the politicians held the power to their own convictions.
"Incredible blundering" seems to be a rather inaccurate - and very unhelpful - way to describe the efforts of politicians and civilians alike to prevent the Civil War from happening; after all, the fact that it did occur in 1861, more than thirty years after the great speech by that South Carolinian feminist [I forget her name], when the abolitionist movement seemed to be at its peak, seems, at least to me, some skillful politicking and numerous efforts at compromise to prevent such a catastrophe by the same politicians these two historians are criticizing [see Missouri Compromise, and many other attempts like it]. Hence, while it may be true that the Civil War eventuated due to numerous factors, it is not due to the 'blundering' of 'incompetent' politicians. As Thomas mentioned above, it is only because of powerful forces way beyond anyone's control, which no man, no matter how competent, will probably be able to stop.
The devastating outcomes of the American Civil War cannot be merely placed on the ‘incompetent’ political leaders. Whilst some of the leadership throughout the war by politicians such as Jefferson Davis was less than desirable, it is farcical to argue that it was solely their responsibility. This approach by J.G. Randall and Avery Craven neglects to acknowledge other elements, which were highly influential in the outcomes of the war. The failure to acknowledge the economic and social imbalances between the North and the South and the fight between Slave and Non-Slave states makes for a inadequate argument.
'Incompetent' leadership suggests that the Jefferson, Lincoln and several minority groups simply overlooked possible peaceful outcomes. Compromise with a political ideology may have been possible, however, this was much more than that, it was a way of life. To say that it was the politicians themselves who doomed the society to war ignores the complexities of religion, infrastructure, race, class and prior history of two proud cultures. No country, particularly one whose independence was so recent, would purposely forfeit the stability or "Blunder" a defining decision like avoiding civil war.
Craven and Randall’s hypothesis that suggested the descent into Civil War was an inevitable culmination of ‘incredible blundering’ by American politicians is insightful, yet inadequate. The inability of key groups and politicians to compromise on crucial issues crippled the two-party system which was essential to the continued existence of the Union. The breakdown in legitimate governance ran parallel to the increasing economic divergence and societal incompatibility between the North and South. Basically the major political actors, and their constituents, did no longer share core values. The political obstinacy of the discourse was thus characterised as ‘incredible blundering’ by politicians, however it is difficult to attribute the outbreak of War on political ineptitude alone as the two societies were increasingly asymmetrical, an atmosphere which is not conducive to compromise.
For historians such as J.G Randall and Avery Craven to suggest that the American Civil war was brought about due to the "incredible blundering" of American politicians, they are failing to recognise the root of the conflict and the catalyst that led the country to war. The social and economic situation of the South in 1861 was the antithesis of that of the North. While the South relied on slavery to maintain the social structure and economic production, the North was fighting to abolish that which was holding the South together. This coupled with the South’s determination to secede and the North’s determination to uphold the Union, meant that conflict was inevitable in some form, at some time. There was nothing that American politicians could do to negotiate peace when neither side were prepared to compromise any of their values.
Georgia Cleeland 233865987 From the experience of the Convention this week it is clear that this "Blame" cannot be solely set upon the "incredible Blundering" of politicians. What Craven and Randall seem to be neglecting is the multitude of social, economic and even religious factors that went into the genesis of the war. The extreme nature of the differing social and economic values, of honour, class values and even work ethics, all come into the reasons why the war began, and to me, this conflict seemed inevitable - especially after the results of the convention. Some form of conflict needed to happen at this time in American history.
"Incompetent blundering" of the politicians of the day is a simplification of the complex disputes surroundings the catalysts for the Civil War. Ideological disputes regarding states rights, the place of slavery and the right to secede in addition to socioeconomic, cultural and religious disparities between the North and South caused inevitable tension that would have required a sort of miracle to resolve. Movements from all sides with differing agendas from the domestic terrorist/extreme abolitionist John Brown's revolts to the issues arising from the Fugitive Slave Act suggest a country divided, one that would fall into some kind of national conflict one way or another.
This statement is not an accurate reflection of the problems faced by the politians of the time. The North and South could not co-exist, they were not as one, and they where two seperate societies working against each other. The only way for America to function as a country was to be a free country, or a slave country. The two sides fought to determine its fate. The North and South disputed heavily over state rights. American blood paid for the freedom of the slaves, something that could not have been accomplished without civil war, as southern elites would never relinquish their property and power.
Thomas Meredith 22045368
ReplyDeletePersonally if find this question to be extremely simplistic. To imply that the American Civil war was caused by the actions of a few incompetent politicians is ignoring the much larger social divides and underlying economic factors that eventually pitted the North against the South. Perhaps as shown by today’s convention no amount of insightful thought or discussion could fully avoid a conflict between two vastly different societies. Perhaps their indeed were a few individuals who’s lives did accelerate the arrival of war in America, such as John Brown and Charles Sumner but regardless tensions were bound to escalate to some kind of breaking point in the form of violent conflict.
Jack Balson 23399694
ReplyDeleteTo argue that is was "incredible blundering" that caused the civil war implies that the politicians were not fighting for what they believed in or that they were un phased by the thought of war. Indeed war was a serious matter for both sides and they both sought to avoid it, however the differing opinions of the north and south made the outbreak of war almost inevitable. Neither side was willing to compromise enough of their aims to avoid war and this is why i disagree with the views of these historians.
The American Civil War was too complex a situation to imply that mere politicians and their "incredible blunders" were the cataclysmic cause of the Civil War. There were numerous clashing interests and residing matters that motivated the start of war. The economic interests of the South for instance, or the residing matters of the North and their endeavors to the unsettling issues of slavery. Nevertheless J.G Randall and Avery Craven's statement does hold a degree of validation, after all the Civil War did occur, and for such turmoil to take place it can only be magnified and generated by politicians and the decisions they made. In the end the politicians held the power to their own convictions.
ReplyDelete"Incredible blundering" seems to be a rather inaccurate - and very unhelpful - way to describe the efforts of politicians and civilians alike to prevent the Civil War from happening; after all, the fact that it did occur in 1861, more than thirty years after the great speech by that South Carolinian feminist [I forget her name], when the abolitionist movement seemed to be at its peak, seems, at least to me, some skillful politicking and numerous efforts at compromise to prevent such a catastrophe by the same politicians these two historians are criticizing [see Missouri Compromise, and many other attempts like it]. Hence, while it may be true that the Civil War eventuated due to numerous factors, it is not due to the 'blundering' of 'incompetent' politicians. As Thomas mentioned above, it is only because of powerful forces way beyond anyone's control, which no man, no matter how competent, will probably be able to stop.
ReplyDeleteThe devastating outcomes of the American Civil War cannot be merely placed on the ‘incompetent’ political leaders. Whilst some of the leadership throughout the war by politicians such as Jefferson Davis was less than desirable, it is farcical to argue that it was solely their responsibility. This approach by J.G. Randall and Avery Craven neglects to acknowledge other elements, which were highly influential in the outcomes of the war. The failure to acknowledge the economic and social imbalances between the North and the South and the fight between Slave and Non-Slave states makes for a inadequate argument.
ReplyDelete'Incompetent' leadership suggests that the Jefferson, Lincoln and several minority groups simply overlooked possible peaceful outcomes. Compromise with a political ideology may have been possible, however, this was much more than that, it was a way of life. To say that it was the politicians themselves who doomed the society to war ignores the complexities of religion, infrastructure, race, class and prior history of two proud cultures. No country, particularly one whose independence was so recent, would purposely forfeit the stability or "Blunder" a defining decision like avoiding civil war.
ReplyDeleteCraven and Randall’s hypothesis that suggested the descent into Civil War was an inevitable culmination of ‘incredible blundering’ by American politicians is insightful, yet inadequate. The inability of key groups and politicians to compromise on crucial issues crippled the two-party system which was essential to the continued existence of the Union. The breakdown in legitimate governance ran parallel to the increasing economic divergence and societal incompatibility between the North and South. Basically the major political actors, and their constituents, did no longer share core values. The political obstinacy of the discourse was thus characterised as ‘incredible blundering’ by politicians, however it is difficult to attribute the outbreak of War on political ineptitude alone as the two societies were increasingly asymmetrical, an atmosphere which is not conducive to compromise.
ReplyDeleteFor historians such as J.G Randall and Avery Craven to suggest that the American Civil war was brought about due to the "incredible blundering" of American politicians, they are failing to recognise the root of the conflict and the catalyst that led the country to war. The social and economic situation of the South in 1861 was the antithesis of that of the North. While the South relied on slavery to maintain the social structure and economic production, the North was fighting to abolish that which was holding the South together. This coupled with the South’s determination to secede and the North’s determination to uphold the Union, meant that conflict was inevitable in some form, at some time. There was nothing that American politicians could do to negotiate peace when neither side were prepared to compromise any of their values.
ReplyDeleteGeorgia Cleeland 233865987
ReplyDeleteFrom the experience of the Convention this week it is clear that this "Blame" cannot be solely set upon the "incredible Blundering" of politicians. What Craven and Randall seem to be neglecting is the multitude of social, economic and even religious factors that went into the genesis of the war. The extreme nature of the differing social and economic values, of honour, class values and even work ethics, all come into the reasons why the war began, and to me, this conflict seemed inevitable - especially after the results of the convention. Some form of conflict needed to happen at this time in American history.
"Incompetent blundering" of the politicians of the day is a simplification of the complex disputes surroundings the catalysts for the Civil War. Ideological disputes regarding states rights, the place of slavery and the right to secede in addition to socioeconomic, cultural and religious disparities between the North and South caused inevitable tension that would have required a sort of miracle to resolve. Movements from all sides with differing agendas from the domestic terrorist/extreme abolitionist John Brown's revolts to the issues arising from the Fugitive Slave Act suggest a country divided, one that would fall into some kind of national conflict one way or another.
ReplyDeleteThis statement is not an accurate reflection of the problems faced by the politians of the time. The North and South could not co-exist, they were not as one, and they where two seperate societies working against each other. The only way for America to function as a country was to be a free country, or a slave country. The two sides fought to determine its fate. The North and South disputed heavily over state rights. American blood paid for the freedom of the slaves, something that could not have been accomplished without civil war, as southern elites would never relinquish their property and power.
ReplyDelete