The underlying conflicts between North and South were finally fully exposed as a result of failure of compromise in the political arena. The failure of American leadership in 1846-1861was epitomised by key events such as; Douglas’s Kansas Nebraska act of 1854 and the dread Scott case pronouncement of 1857. Both of these events overturned the previous Missouri compromise and thus once again brought the two opposing nations head to head. The Wilmot proviso bill which proposed to eliminate slavery in the territories was a clear signal to the South that the North was plotting against her way of life. Thus the southern mind set became increasingly locked in a persecution complex which they justified by evidence of a ‘Northern conspiracy’ to destroy their economic institution, the Wilmot proviso was one such piece of evidence even though it was not passed. The election of Lincoln was the final straw with which the south believed the northern conspirators would gain the upper hand and bring about the destruction of the Southern institutions. “Most irresponsible, wanton, and disastrous of all was the decision of those southern leaders who in 1858-1860 turned to the provocative demand for Congressional protection of slavery in all the territories of the Republic.” Allan Nevins. Nevins in the previous quote demonstrates the reckless extent to which compromise was completely ignored politically by the two opposing sections. Had compromise been utilised more frequently the war may have been postponed but not all together avoided. Moreover the South’s right to bring their slave property into new territories was guaranteed by the constitution in amendment 5. Hence the United States constitution its self can be held responsible for disuniting the states it sought to bind together. The opposing Nations of north and south had an uneasy balance of power in the House of Representatives due originally too Andrew Jackson’s Indian removal policy. Tensions from then until the onset of war, arose over whether the new territories would become free or slave. However the uneasy balance had been preserved by compromise, thus as Charles and marry Beard put it “the balance of power might have been maintained indefinitely by repeating the compensatory tactics of 1787, 1820, and 1850; keeping in this manner the inherent antagonisms within the bounds of diplomacy.” However as these historians take into consideration the “inherent antagonisms” with in the system and therefore one side would inevitably have to declare its side victorious one way or another.
Ideological differences were a key factor in making the civil war an inevitable event. However it was not the ideological split over the belief of slavery being right or wrong which precipitated an armed conflict this is a wholly inaccurate interpretation. It is true to say that abolitionist agitation provoked a negative southern reaction to their Northern counterpart. However abolitionists were seen as extremists not the majority opinion of the North. Within this respect the north differed very little from the south in their attitude towards white supremacy. It was however divergent economic ideology which perpetuated the fundamental difference between north and south which in tern necessitated the resort to arms. However ideological extremists on both sides widened the gulf between the North and South. Abolitionists in the north provoked the South in to a defensive position the result was a redefinition of slavery in the southern ideology it was transformed from “a necessary evil” in to “an ultimate good” this transformation created the magnolia myth which laid out a Southern ideology that was incompatible and defined against their Northern neighbours. Thus the two geographical localities developed distinctly different ideological values which were opposed to each other. The actions of abolitionist John Brown did the most too provoke southern paranoia about Northern intentions toward the Southern way of life. The Harpers Ferry incident had the effect of reinforcing the siege mentality of the south. As North and South moved further apart ideologically they inevitably came closer to war. Northern extremists such as John Brown were evidence to the South that the North wished their destruction and thus they felt the need to defend them selves from attack.
Charles and Mary Beard in 1927 saw the American civil war in terms of class conflict from their finings they renamed the war the “second American revolution” For the Beards “the resort to arms in 1861 precipitated by succession was merely a façade for a more deeply rooted conflict…” The civil war “was a social war, ending in the unquestioned establishment of a new power in the government, making vast changes in the arrangement of classes, in the accumulation and distribution of wealth,” This interpretation holds a great deal of accuracy when put in to context with the opposing forces in the civil war on one side was democracy and on the other landed aristocracy with this in mind it is easy to see to an extent the correlation between European revolutions such as the French revolution and much later the Russian revolution. However not all countries had a revolution in nineteenth century Europe and thus it by no means makes an “American social revolution” inevitable. However the unique political landscape of America did however make unavoidable a confrontation between old aristocratic values and new liberal values. The way the country had been divided over the issue of slavery allowed the conservative ‘Slaveocracy’ to distinctly separate its self from the modernising north and yet the two still had the constant opportunity for conflict because they were bound together by one government.
The case for the war being an avoidable conflict stresses that Americans had lived with the issues which eventually led to the outbreak of war, for generations. Thus historians who adhere to this theory claim that there was a strong possibility for a compromise to be found, using as a basis for the argument the evidence of the pre-war compromises which alleviated sectional tensions. Revisionist historians account for the breakout of the Civil War by asserting that the vital instrument of compromise was neglected by a “blundering generation” in the events leading up to the Civil War. The theory of a “blundering generation” holds validity to an extent. However this very theory in itself destroys the idea that the war was a “repressible” conflict, for, it only highlights the extent to which there was serious division in the country which could not be resolved irrespective of how many compromises either side conceded. The core issues such as that of free labour contradicting slave labour still remained persisting in the affirmation of two competing nations within America, one of which had to obliterate the ideals of the other in order to finally put to rest the dividing issues. Only then could the States be truly united. “Revisionist historians examined the causes of the Civil War at a time when war as a means of solving problems was not considered to be a sound solution.” Therefore it could be argued that revisionist historians writing in the 1930s and 1940s lacked a degree of historical empathy, for, they saw war as a great evil, whereas in the 19th century war was seen as a natural occurrence and a justifiable means of solving problems. Thus in the eyes of nineteenth century politicians, armed conflict, would have been seen as an inevitable step in order to advance their political ideology once an opportunity arose. In the case of the American civil war, Southern secession was the opportunity seized upon by the North. The lack of a strong anti-violence movement in the events leading up to the civil war strongly suggests the acceptable nature of war in order to resolve issues and illustrates the extent to which sectionalism had grown and divided the country into two “separate nations”. Hence the very nature of nineteenth century politics made the civil war and inevitable event. Avery Craven and James G. Randall were two of the most prominent revisionist historians who challenge the inevitable aspect of the Civil War. However their anti-war thesis was dismissed by Arthur M. Schlesinger who proposed one key question which they had not taken into account “: if the war could have been avoided, what course should American leaders have followed?” , Schlesinger provided three possible alternatives: “that the South might have abolished slavery by itself if left alone; that slavery would have died because it was economically unsound; or that the North might have offered some form of emancipated compensation” Schlesinger found all three alternatives to be completely unviable.
“A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently, half-slave and half-free.” Abraham Lincoln, 1858 speech to the party's state convention.
In conclusion the civil war was an inevitable occurrence; too many factors leading up to the civil war had the effect of exacerbating the fundamental differences between the North and the South. Lincoln as well as many other statesmen believed that the country could not continue to exist as two nations under one government, in some form the two incompatible ideologies had to settle their differences. However because the differences were so fundamentally important to each section, political compromise would have ultimately led only to one side’s economic and social ideology being wiped out and therefore both sides would not let their institutions be damaged by the other. “The cotton gin had prevented the peaceful abolition of slavery” James Ford Rhodes. It is also true to say that the civil war was a completely avoidable conflict only, however, before the invention of the cotton gin. Eli Whitney’s invention changed the stakes it revived a dieing institution and set it in place as king of the southern economy with out which the south felt it could not survive. “King Cotton” ruled the south and kept industrial innovation and capitalism separated from the south. Therefore north and south did not develop along similar lines. This created an inherent instability in America. Therefore at some stage the two opposing sections would inevitably come into military conflict once all compromises were exhausted or as the event unfolded, once tensions rose to boiling point over what both sections perceived as the attempts by one side to dominate the other via political manoeuvres and agitation brought on by extremists.
Bibliography
Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (1988)
By James M. McPherson
Ordeal by fire volume one the coming of war (1992)
By James M. McPherson
The Emergence of Lincoln, Vol.2 (1950)
By Allan Nevins
Conflict & Consensus in American History 9th edition vol.1 (1998)
By Allen F. Davis & Harold D. Woodman
The rise of American civilization, vol.2 (1927)
By Charles and Marry Beard
Interpretations of American history patterns and perspectives vol.1.To 1877 6th Ed. (1987)
By Gerald N. Grob and George Athan Billias
(1974)
By Barney, William L
1988oxford university press pg240 Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era by James M. McPherson
The Emergence of Lincoln, Vol.II by Allan Nevins 1950 pg392
Conflict & Consensus In American History 9th edition vol. 1 by Allen F. Davis & Harold D. Woodman(1998) pg384
The rise of American civilization, vol.II by Beard/Beard 1927 pg402
J.G. Randall, “The blundering Generation,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 27 (June 1940) pg16
Interpretations of American history patterns and perspectives vol.1.To 1877 6th Ed. By Gerald N. Grob and George Athan Billias Pg384 1987
Interpretations of American history patterns and perspectives vol.1.To 1877 6th Ed. By Gerald N. Grob and George Athan Billias Pg387 1987
Interpretations of American history patterns and perspectives vol.1.To 1877 6th Ed. By Gerald N. Grob and George Athan Billias Pg379 1987