Historiography by Liam, 2016 - 2017
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
Anna Sexauer
12/14/2016 03:43:25 pm
I agree with Avery Craven's opinion stating the democratic process was ineffective leading up to the Civil War. The "sacred balance" was tilted towards the North because more free states were represented in Congress than slave states. Because of this, the South was overpowered on most issues debated in Congress, especially the issue of slavery. The South felt the North was attacking their way of life, and the North believed southerners to be morally compromised because their refusal to abolish slavery. Slavery was debated in Congress many decades before the Civil War, but compromises pushed the problem further from war. During the years leading up to the Civil War, abolition reformers fought for the freedom of slaves and spread their message in newspapers, magazines, and books. This caused many northerners to support their movement and angered many southerners. By the time South Carolina seceded, the issue was between two opposing sides that could find no compromise because both sides were so passionate on the issue due to a division of principles rather than division on how to solve an issue.
Reply
Liam Kelly
12/15/2016 10:34:41 pm
Thank you for your post Anna. The issue of slavery was certainly the factor that was the focus of these authors, and the points you addressed are crucial to understanding both the South's frustration, as well as how both sides ultimately found themselves divided. As you mentioned, I agree with many of the points proposed by Craven in regards to this issue becoming one of principle rather than a more common political discussion. The divisions created by this feud resulted in a people that were unwilling to compromise, and in effect, managed to spoil the democratic process and found their only solution to be through bloody conflict.
Reply
Olivia Kellam
12/15/2016 05:03:46 pm
I agree with Craven’s view of saying that the democratic process was a fail during the Civil War. The biggest example of how the democratic process was a fail was the issue of slavery. The North wanted slavery to be abolished, while the South needed slaves to help the plantations and farms stay afloat during this time. Because of different books and articles spread across the nation, like Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe, the North thought the South was treating slaves very badly. This made the North even more opposed to the idea of slavery. Because the North was industrialized, they didn't see how much slavery helped out on the plantations and helped Southerns with work. Southerners viewed slavery as a way to expand not only their own land, but a way to expand their country as a whole. Not all Southerners agreed that slavery was the moral thing to do, but they deemed it necessary for the expansion of a nation. The North didn't see this view of the issue and just thought that the South had poor intentions toward slavery. The North thought the South was just exploiting slaves and did not have a true purpose for them.
Reply
Liam Kelly
12/15/2016 10:48:57 pm
Thank you for your perspective Olivia. Slavery was an issue that divided the country and would ultimately contribute to a conflict that would pit families and neighbors against one another. As you pointed out, many in the North and South developed their own views on this issue, whether based off their political, economic, or moral stance, this issue was one of great controversy. As you pointed out, many would argue that this issue was simply too polarizing to be compromised.
Reply
Samantha
12/15/2016 08:25:16 pm
I agree with the opinion that the democratic process failed during the time period of the Civil War. Avery Craven was correct when he stated that the American people chose conflict over compromise. Craven correctly states that the citizens of this era did not think the Election of 1860 represented the majority, and this was one factor that led the South to secede from the Union. One example to support this theory is that the democrats could not even get along during the Democratic National Convention to the point that Southerners seceded from the convention. The Democratic process failed during this time because emotions over the single issue of slavery were so high even before the election, that the us vs. them mentality was already set.
Reply
Liam Kelly
12/16/2016 12:12:28 pm
Thank you Samantha. It was interesting to see how you tied in the divides amongst the democrats during this period, clearly this issue was so controversial and partial to individuals, that it transcended party lines. It can be argued that the two opposing sides developed the mentality you mentioned, and were unable to compromise effectively, leaving democracy in the gutter.
Reply
Katie Hart
12/15/2016 08:32:39 pm
I have to agree more with the first author mentioned, Avery Craven. The Civil War is an example of a time where the democratic process failed because Americans decided the election in 1860 wasn't representative of their voice which is what democracy is about. The moral, political and social views differed so much in the north vs in the south that it created a division so drastic that secession was attempted and war was started. The opposing views about slavery as well as other topics is what led to such tension. Lincoln acted in favor of the Union and the slaves and the South saw this as an attack on their economy and way of life.
Reply
Liam Kelly
12/16/2016 12:25:11 pm
The election of 1860 is an excellent topic to bring into this discussion. With four candidates in the race, the nation was divided and ultimately, more Americans would vote for other candidates (2,819,122 popular votes for the other three candidates) than would vote for Abraham Lincoln (1,865,908 popular votes), with Lincoln clinching the White House by attaining enough electoral votes whilst the other candidates spoiled each other's chances. Obviously this is something that we are familiar with in more recent history, but fortunately for today's America, we are not as blinded by our beliefs and are willing to compromise.
Reply
Robby Parker
12/15/2016 10:03:06 pm
I agree with the argument proposed by Avery Craven, in that both sides made this conflict centered around the idea of moral rights. This can be seen by both sides in that extremist both argued about their ideals. This idea of moral right and wrong primarily over slavery and the issues of state rights proved democracy to be a failure. During this time period the idea of togetherness was unable to provide for this conflict to be solved in a fast enough time. Neither side was willing to make a compromise, therefore democracy could not be achieved due to the Souths lack of power due to western expansion, which led to more free states joining the Union. Also, the Confederate states lost all the power they still had due to radical republicans terms of reapplication to the Union. Democracy would have been preserved if both sides were willing to compromise, however like Craven stated, the issue made it primarily over morals rather than politics.
Reply
Daniel Rohde
12/15/2016 10:27:01 pm
I agree with Schlesinger and the message that he tried to tell his readers. I agree with him when he says that there were policies that were in place, but needed to be extended or fixed, that could have resolved the issue on slavery and could have stopped the war. Laws such as the Fugitive Slave Act that were put in place just angered the Northerners and made them stand even more firm in their beliefs on slavery. If the government bought the slaves back from the plantation owners then that could have eased the tensions because the south would be happy that they still get money and the North would be happen that slaves are being freed. This didn't happened and ultimately led the heated tensions between the North and the South. Also I liked that Schlesinger writes about how other countries were able to abolish slavery and have more slaves than the U.S. and not have a civil war but the U.S. couldn't go without a war. The North was willing to compromise with the South but the compromises they tried were heavily favored to the North which might have been the reason the South turned down the offers and war broke out in the United States.
Reply
Jazmine Evans
12/15/2016 10:55:18 pm
I support Avery Craven’s view that the democratic process failed in prevention of the Civil War. The democratic system, while it does promote compromise, also allows groups to separate and vote as groups who may not represent the whole very well. Although many Southerners did not support to want to fight for slavery, they felt that if slavery were attacked, the Northerners could continue to take away their rights and gain economic and political superiority. This kind of separation contributed to the rise of the Civil War, because if more firmly defined the long held differences between the North and South. These separations had been growing since the birth of the colonies and can be seen through many legislative decisions. Overall, the democratic process failed because of the noncooperation of its’ participants, and while the misconceptions made by the North and South as to the benefits of slavery contributed, the process that did not allow more room and reinforcement for compromise, is more at fault.
Reply
Rose
12/15/2016 11:08:44 pm
I agree more with the first author, Avery Craven that there was a breakdown of the democratic process during and prior to the American Civil War. The fact that the South ignored any democratic avenues or compromises open to them to secede shows this. The South likely viewed the democratic system as flawed because of the events leading up to the Civil War, especially the Compromise of 1850 following the Mexican War in which the South gained one tangible thing, the stricter Fugitive Slave Act which the North promptly ignored. This is likely part of the reason the South did not seek or accept compromises prior to the Civil War. The North also manipulated the compromises to gain political power and to attempt to effectively restrict the westward expansion of the South as a culture while attempting to spread the Northern culture across the country. Craven also points out that the Southerners didn’t like the results of the presidential election of 1860 so they simply left the Union, which is not how democracy works. On the other hand, democracy and compromise cannot function when, as in the case of the Compromise of 1850, one side promises something only to not deliver on that promise.
Reply
Emma Booker
12/15/2016 11:45:31 pm
I agree with you that there is truth to be held in each of the authors' points. The beginnings of the war was much more complex than just an end to slavery. The North and the South were practically living two separate lifestyles in one country with the South being agriculture based and dependent on slaves and the North being industrial based with dependence on low paid workers. Debate on the use of tariffs was a main factor in the economic differences between the two regions as a high tariff protected Northern factories but greatly impacted Southern farmers. This led to years of conflict that eventually developed into secession. However, as Schlesinger said, steps could have been taken on both sides to protect the welfare of the Union and its citizens. The Southerners dealt with the issue of slavery with an unwillingness to compromise as they believed that the institution was a crucial part of their lifestyles. However, if they had taken Lincoln's compensation offer as mentioned by Schlesinger, they would get their investments back as well as have money to hire new help to replace the lost slave work.
Reply
kevin willis
12/16/2016 08:01:36 am
I agree with Avery Craven's opinion that the democratic process failed in that the power balance shifted to far in the favor of the North's ambitions. It was this failure that led to the civil war. During this conflict the democratic process was ignored by the south when they selfishly seceded, instead of working out their political differences and establishing a solid BOP. It failed in the north when they prodded the south into the war Fort Sumter debacle, instead of bringing the south back in through peaceful compromises. If the democratic ideals were enforced to the tee, the entirety of the issues that led up to the civil war would have been diffused.
Reply
Courtney Floyd
12/16/2016 08:11:07 am
I agree more with the first author, although great points were made in the second authors argument. I agree more with the first author, Avery Craven, because the democratic process and system was definitely more ineffective in the situation of the Civil War. The second author, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., made excellent points about how slavery and how it would have ultimately resolved itself.
Reply
Jackson Rose
12/16/2016 08:39:46 am
The democratic process did fail during the Civil War because the North and the South were pitted against each other, which turned into fighting for one's side instead of fighting for the good of the Union. I agree with the views of Avery Craven because he better expressed how slavery contributed to the failure of the democratic process. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. only points out that compromise efforts were made and that more could have been made but were not because both sides wanted to have their own way. The dividing issue that began to break down the democratic process was slavery, which both authors emphasized. The Civil War easily could have been averted, but the failure of the democratic process made the war unavoidable.
Reply
Liam Kelly
12/16/2016 12:41:23 pm
If there ever were a period that best exemplified some of democracy's shortcomings, it would be the events that led to the American Civil War. The most blatant example I looked at when siding more so with Craven was that, like you said, many of the major issues of the period became about bettering the North or the South as opposed to the Union as a whole. Today Democrats and Republicans have their issues and rarely see eye-to-eye, however in the end, despite the means of accomplishing it, both sides wish to better the United States. This was not the case during the later half of the 19th century.
Reply
Madison
12/16/2016 05:08:41 pm
I agree with Avery Craven that the Civil War is an example of how a crumbling democratic system led to conflict. While the differences in ideas, culture, and economics had been a source of conflict between the North and South for some time, in the years leading up to the Civil War, political changes helped bring about the failure of the democratic system. The election of 1852 signaled the end of political parties that were focused on the welfare of the nation as a whole and the birth of parties that were focused on the northern and southern sections as separate regions. Because the Whig Party had had support in both the North and the South, it had worked to sustain the Union. When the Whigs and Democrats became the Republicans and Democrats, party leaders and voters found that Northerners and Southerners could no longer work together within the same party because of differences in opinion on party platforms. More Northerners became Republicans who believed that slavery should not be permitted in new United States territories. Southern Democrats who supported slavery focused on States Rights, with a limit on Federal government control. As the competition between the North and South increased, their willingness to compromise decreased, ultimately leading to collapse of the democratic system and war.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
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 |