Civil War – Page 2 – U.S. to 1877

December 3, 2013

A Necessary Evil

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

The Civil War is often seen as a terrible tragedy in American History, but Davis raises valuable points about the importance of the Civil War. It was a revolution of such great magnitude that it had never been seen before in America. The country was so divided on the issue of slavery and the states rights when it came to slavery that the only way they would reach a quick and decisive decision was through a war or crisis such as this. “Given the economic growth and vitality of Southern slavery in 1860, it is difficult to imagine any other historical scenario that would have led to full and universal slave emancipation in the nineteenth or even early twentieth century.” (Davis 299) In his post WIROBERTSON said that “The North seemed much more open to compromise” but I think in reality neither side was willing to compromise. The North was eventually just going to keep pushing and pushing for more and more. The South was scared to give anything because they didn’t want their rights infringed on. They knew that the North wasn’t going to just stop with limiting slavery. They heard the talk all around the country and saw that it was growing more and more radical with every passing decade. The sides were just too far apart to reach a solution, so it took the destruction of one side for a decision to be made. The South was strong and its economy, which was reliant on slaves, was an essential part of the American economy as a whole.

The aftermath led to controversy even though the issue of slavery had been decided once and for all. Some blamed the blacks for what had happened. (Davis 299) Others marginalized the issues and focused more on the specifics of the war. They didn’t want to focus on the overarching questions that had divided the country.

December 3, 2013

The Teapot Boils: The Inevitable Breakdown

In the final chapter, Wilentz details the final motions as the tensions that had long been building break out in civil war. As AJBEANE says, there had been many attempts to reduce the tension and prevent a civil war, but the fundamental problem was never addressed, and so, looking back, it is clear that the war was inevitable. Lincoln’s election proved to be the straw that broke the camel’s back, as, despite his vowed intention to not touch slavery where it already was the law, Southern Slave owners were terrified that Lincoln intended to deprive them of their “property.” With the election of Lincoln, and the secession of South Carolina, it would prove only a matter of time before most of the Southern slave-holding states would follow suit. For a time it was thought that, perhaps, the states which had seceded could be cajoled back into the union, but with the fundamental issue still looming, such attempts would prove doomed to failure, and civil war became a certainty.

Fort Sumter is where it became apparent that there would be, must be, war. Initially Wilentz points out that some believed that Fort Sumter could be given up to cool secessionists tempers, and perhaps aid in bringing the secessionists back into the union and preventing more states from seceding. But the political climate insured that such thoughts proved only wishful thinking as it seemed that to give up Fort Sumter without a fight would be a sign of weakness. With the union being unwilling to surrender Fort Sumter, the newly formed confederacy could not stand allowing a hostile fort to remain in such a strategic location, and thus attacked it and set off the final spark to set the civil war fully ablaze.

December 2, 2013

The Election of 1860 and a Nation in Disarray

In this section of The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz discusses the events leading up to the election of 1860, the election itself, and the consequences of the crucial election.
One theme of this week’s readings that interested me was the South or Slaveholder’s increased confidence in secession or the threat of secession as the solution to nearly all political problems. For example, a movement in the late 1850s to reopen the slave trade attracted support from many prominent southern politicians. The politicians claimed that such an action would make slavery a much more efficient and profitable industry. However, Northern politicians and abolitionists rejected the idea of reopening the slave trade in America or satisfying the demand for a “federal slave code” in the United States. Unhappy Southern leaders like Barnwell Rhett and William Yancey began to declare that the South would secede from the Union if their desired legislation failed to be approved. In addition to issues like slave trade or the federal slave code, Southern politicians like Stephen A. Douglas were able to spread the belief that the South would secede if Abraham Lincoln won the Presidential election of 1860. Although the South did not end up leaving the Union until Lincoln was elected, the constant threat of dissolving the nation posed by the South struck fear and uneasiness in Northern politicians and citizens for years.
Another aspect of the reading that grabbed my attention was the way Wilentz portrays Lincoln’s rise to political prominence and the events of the election of 1860. At first, Wilentz depicts Lincoln as a name merely thrown into the conversation for the Republican nomination in order to defeat the “tainted” Seward and his “loyal wire-puller” Weed (Wilentz, 431). However, he builds up Lincoln’s political savvy and ability as a public speaker and ultimately portrays him as a pristine presidential candidate. Wilentz also illustrated how Lincoln’s “brilliant” political strategy to win the Republican nomination had worked almost flawlessly. Also, Wilentz introduced Lincoln to the audience as a talented underdog with an outside shot of winning the nomination, but as the election heats up Wilentz frames Lincoln into an unstoppable political force destined for the White House.
Lastly, I would like to comment on the debate of whether or not the election of Abraham Lincoln as the 16th President of the United States directly contributed to the immediate succession of the South. Although my classmate WIROBERTSON would disagree, I believe that the actions of Southern politicians (like Stephen A. Douglas) spread the fear of a Lincoln dominated White House among pro-slavery Americans and was a main cause of Southern secession. Once it became inevitable to slaveholders that Lincoln would become president, Lincoln’s political opponents worked to foster a “plot to stage a coup d’etat in November or December”, which eventually resulted in the secession of South Carolina in 1860 (Wilentz, 433).

December 2, 2013

The Negotiation cat is in the bag, and the bag’s in the river

In the final chapters of Willentz , he discusses several of the volatile figures at the end of the Era of Secession which contributed to pushing the country towards civil war. The first is Chief Justice Taney, who was a staunch southerner, who held a strong affinity for southern culture and didnt not believe that black people, free or slaves, had any part in it or in being an american citizen. He also made the controversal ruling on the Dredd Scott case. This and other rulings within government, including the admission on Kansas as a slave state, worked to strengthen sectionalism in government. By this time, factionalism in government and the disdain each faction had for one another began spilling out past the point of negotiation, and even into violence on the house floor, as was the case during the Kansas state vote. As Malandini pointed out, Tensions rose eve further as civilian radicals such as John Brown began to surface during a time of already high tension and a government which could not handle domestic affairs effectively. The use of the sword from John Brown would push american media into a frenzy and send America down a path to war which was nigh impossible to diverge from.

December 2, 2013

A Farewell to Wilentz

In the final chapters of The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz discusses the final developments in the national powder keg, which inevitably exploded, thereby prompting the Civil War. While most other posts have thoroughly discussed the finer points leading up to this conflict, I found Wilentz’s analysis of the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision to be particularly notable.

Rather than solely focusing on the political tension between the North and South, Wilentz rightfully acknowledges the Supreme Court’s role in spurring conflict. Dred Scott v. Sandford focused on Scott’s attempt to buy himself (and his family) from slavery after living in Wisconsin, which was a free territory. Despite Scott’s previous condition of servitude, such a change presumably gave him standing in the fight for his freedom. Ultimately, the Court ruled that slaves were not citizens and thus they had no claim to citizenship. As such, Scott had no standing in the case. This meant that because he was not a citizen, he could not bring his plea to a courtroom. This distinct use of judicial review clearly reaffirms the Supreme Court’s role regarding the separation of political powers in the federal government. The Court’s ruling undid the Missouri Compromise, which had previously offset tensions concerning slavery. Furthermore, the Court also stripped power from Congress, as it dictated that Congress had no right to regulate slavery.

As we can see, the Court’s ruling meant that the issue of slavery could no longer be resolved politically. Unintentionally or not, their ruling had serious consequences.

Although many have already written eloquently about it, particularly Alia and Andrew, John Brown also played a role in contributing to the advent of the Civil War through non-political means. His use of direct force, although brief and futile, brought him to the forefront of tension over slavery. Ultimately, as others have stated, he encouraged military action to resolve slavery. However, more than that, he became a martyr in the North – giving a name and face to the cause.

December 1, 2013

A Torn America

Very few singular events have occurred in in America’s 200+ years of being a country that have a defined a generation, but the Civil War is one of them. Historians have gone as far back as the founding of the country to explain the events that triggered the war. Throughout their childhood children hear that slavery caused the war, or that it was a war for states rights, or even in very southern states that this was “A War of Northern Aggression” but no matter how you put it the true start to the war was the Secession of the south. Its the factors that lead up to this event which Willentz discusses in the reading.

Tension had been growing in the country especially regarding slave politics. Lincoln’s election marked the growth of the Republican party, especially in the north. But this didn’t sit so well in the South. Although the Southern Democrats were divided they stood together in opposition to Lincoln. They saw Lincoln’s election as “the North’s embrace of John Brown” (Willentz 434) who was a radical who had, in 1859, led a raid on an armory supported by a group of radical slaves. Although he failed he later went on to write from jail in a manner that gathered support for his cause and in turn for abolitionists. This angered the southerners to say the least and talk of secession began to circulate. “Angry Southerners now asked…whether the South could any longer “live under a government, a majority of whose subjects or citizens regard John Brown as a martyr and a Christian hero” (Willentz 425)

Although the South was angry they did not stand together all the time. As seen in this post many non-slaveholders opposed secession while others wanted to secede right away. But an important thing to note is that there was very little support for Lincoln in the South. He didn’t win any states in the election and although there were those who didn’t want secession right away most people in the south were opposed to the ideals on Lincoln and supported the states rights and slavery claims of the Secessionist states.

November 19, 2013

Hostility Turns to Violence

In chapters 21 and 22, Wilentz outlines many controversial events leading up to the Civil War. As new states continued to be annexed into the Union, the same recurring theme of slavery followed each one. It seems as though compromise after compromise were passed and none left both the north and south satisfied. In his blog post on 11/19, MIHAN seems to agree with this thought and characterizes the strategy for settling regional differences as “avoiding the question of slavery instead of trying to solve it.” These multiple compromises on slavery only widened the divide between north and south. At this point, it seemed as though the United States was far down the “road” leading to civil war.

I found the Craft affair of 1850 to be one of the most interesting events during this hostile time. After the Compromise of 1850 strengthened slaveowners’ rights to retrieve runaway slaves, a skirmish broke out in Christiana, Pennsylvania between a slaveholder and his posse and multiple slaves. The slaveholder was killed during the fight and his son was critically injured. A Pennsylvania newspaper headlined the story as “Civil War—The First Blow Struck” (351). First, it is quite surprising that a newspaper would categorize a skirmish with only 20 or 30 participants as a “civil war.” Countless larger slave revolts had occurred in previous years and I can guarantee very few people believed a war would ensue. I believe Wilentz presents this title to the reader in order to show that tensions between northern and southern sentiment were rising. A subtitle in chapter 22 reads “on the tip-toe of revolution” (389). At this time, people all around the country knew that the United States was coming to a brink. And with each “compromise” that passed, the United States was practically tip-toeing, slowly but surely, towards a real civil war.

After the slave leaders of the skirmish had been captured, President Fillmore sent a large force of soldiers to Christiana and captured most of the assumed “black resisters” (351). Fillmore’s administration then attempted to accuse the perpetrators of treason in order to stop other black abolitionist from defying the compromise of 1850. This plan did not hold up in court and the government eventually dropped its charges. When I think of Fillmore’s actions, I can’t help but think about George Washington and his powerful actions to putting down the Whiskey Rebellion. It seems as though Fillmore had a similar plan in maintaining the new laws of the United States through the power of the United States army and judicial system. Unfortunately for Fillmore, the plan did not find the same success as Washington’s. Instead it showed the ineffectiveness of the United States Government at quelling slavery and tensions. It also failed to change the sentiment or actions of abolitionists and anti-abolitionists in the years leading up to the Civil War.