The first author I read was Avery Craven, author of “The 1840’s and the Democratic Process”. Craven argues that the American Civil War is keen example of situation in which the democratic process was ultimately ineffective. He claims that the war represented a complete breakdown of democratic discussion of issues, in which half of the American people pushed aside compromise for conflict. These Americans decided that the results of the election of 1860 were not representative of their voice, and took arms against the government by means of secession and ultimately war. Craven argues one of the key instigators of this kind of divide was the reduction of issues from two views that simply opposed one another, to the idea that one side was morally right while the other was in the wrong. This quickly lent itself to an us v.s. them mentality that caused great tension. According to Craven, although it is not necessarily the driving cause of the war, the most important issue to analyze is that of african slavery. Although Lincoln promised not to interfere with slavery where it already existed, the author points to one statement made by Lincoln that causes a stir: “You think slavery is right and ought to be extended, while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted.” Statements such as this reduces issues to conflicts of principles and morals as opposed to ideology and common politics. This issue in particular went beyond the scope of the democratic process. Issues with tariffs and other points of economic contention pitted the South against the North over their own issues of well-being. This clash of right and rights lent itself to become a force of extreme emotion, emotion immune to compromise, the kind of issue that tugs at a man’s beliefs and pushes him to fight and die to protect his side. Craven also puts forth the argument that many southern democrats may not have even necessarily supported the institution of slavery, however ever since the closure of the Mexican War they viewed the extension of slavery westward as the extension of their political power in Congress, something that Lincoln’s restrictions would pose a direct threat to. Attempts at restriction however were seen prior to Lincoln, with tensions rising with the introduction of the Wilmot Proviso. The North became motivated by a sense of a socially focused Manifest Destiny that would stand for proper morals, a vision that excluded slavery, while the South saw a Northern rival attempting to unfairly take advantage of them and the spoils of war that both sides had contributed blood to. These issues were no longer both seeking the benefit of the entire Union by different means, but rather had almost completely become focused on the benefit of one’s respective side.
The second author I read was Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. who asserted that the democratic process did not fail during the Civil War and prior. This author also focuses greatly on the issue of slavery. Schlesinger insists that there were various policies that could have been utilized to resolve issues that Craven brought forth such as slavery, and averted a war. He argues that government projects could have been used to gradually emancipate slaves without hurting farmers. Schlesinger voices his opinion against the idea of natural internal reform, an argument by some suggesting that slavery was on the decline in the South and would have ultimately ended itself if it were not for the efforts of abolitionists bringing it to the forefront and making it an issue of contention. Instead he argues that true internal reform and compromise was needed. He argued that southerners failed to see the detrimental effects of slavery on their economy as their issue, however, and more than likely would have simply blamed their shortcomings on northern exploitation as they had historically. Schlesinger also brings forth the attempts by Lincoln of compensated emancipation. Lincoln repeatedly made attempted offers to the south, by which the federal government would pay plantation owners in government bonds in proportion to the number of slaves they freed with the goal of the U.S. being free of slavery by 1900, these offers were greatly rejected. This he argues are clear, reasonable attempts of compromise by the North that were blatantly rejected by the South. He also presents that fact that countries like Brazil (a state with far more slaves than the United States) were able to abolish slavery without internal conflict. The 19th century was an especially volatile time in U.S. history, particularly in regards to the issues discussed by these two authors. I would like to qualify the two views discussed above. Schlesinger was certainly correct in his assertion that compromises had been extended to avoid conflict and that other states had been successful in abolishing practices such as slavery successfully. So clearly, there are approaches, at least in hindsight, that could have prevented the war from unfolding. I will say however, that removing our bias and our moral bearings that push us from agreeing with a group that desired to enslave others, it is clear that some of the points raised by Craven in favor of the south are valid. The actions by the north after the Mexican War certainly appeared to be attempts to stack the decks in favor of their own political interests, and later actions certainly promoted their economic interests. Even slavery aside, the North was certainly pursuing its own interests first in regards to the West with little extension to the South. Southerners and Northerners soon became staunchly divided in a way that was surely blind and deaf to compromise, as pointed out by Craven it became an issue of morals and beliefs tied to personal emotions and principles. People rarely compromise their principles. I would ultimately say that yes, there were open avenues of democracy that could have been pursued, however in this situation I believe the American people were blinded by their own personal duties to protect what they individually thought was right to give into compromise.
18 Comments
|
AuthorWelcome to Liam's Blog. Liam is participating in an independent study of history this year part of which requires him to interpret historical arguments. Archives
April 2017
Categories |