iscussion Topic
The North and South clashed repeatedly over political differences during the 1850s. The failure to resolve these differences eventually led to the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861. Was the war the inevitable result of irreconcilable viewpoints? Or could more skillful political leaders have worked out sectional differences and avoided war?
Focus on one of the following decisions in your discussion:
- Buchanan's decision not to intervene in Kansas
- Lincoln's rejection of the Crittenden Compromise
- The Dred Scott decision
- The Compromise of 1850
In your first posting, answer at least one of these questions about the focus you've chosen:
- Do you think the sectional conflict resulting from this event was inevitable?
- Do you think more skillful political leaders could have made better decisions? If so, what decisions would have been better? Why?
- Did the leaders of the 1850s take actions that inflated the importance of events?
For your second posting, read the answers that your classmates wrote. After doing so, answer one or more of these questions:
- Do you agree or disagree with another student's response? Why?
- Could more skillful political leaders have avoided the major conflicts that led to war?
- Did the sectional conflicts of the 1850s result from poor political judgments? Or did they result from deep social, economic, and ideological differences between the North and South?
Required Reading
Before you enter the discussion, be sure to read the related pages in your textbook.
If you're using Tindall and Shi, see:
| 8th Edition | 7th Edition | 6th Edition | 5th Edition |
| Chapter 14, pages 702-739 | Chapter 14, pages 489-523 | Chapter 14, pages 530-567 | Chapter 14, pages 581-621 |
Scoring
This discussion is worth a maximum of 15 points. You'll get 10 points for your first post. Your instructor will give you another 5 points if you post a follow-up comment or question that furthers the discussion.
Original:
ReplyDeleteThe focus I chose was Dred Scott decision, which stated that Scott was not a citizen and would remain a slave despite the death of his master. I think the sectional conflict resulting from this event was inevitable because it cause a clear separation between the ideals of the south and the north. I do think a more skillful political leader could have made a better decision of stating that although Scott's owner was deceased he would be considered free; but with that ruling it may have caused more sectionalism to occur. I don't think the actions of the leaders inflated the importance of the event, the leaders tried to avoid the direct problem of choosing between slavery or anti-slavery and with either action chosen major controversy would occur.
Original:
ReplyDeleteThe Compromise of 1850, first proposed by Henry Clay, was created in order to preserve the union. The compromise consisted of a stronger fugitive slave law, established California as a free state, and delayed the decision of New Mexico and Utah as slave states or free states. The conflict settled by the Compromise of 1850 was inevitable. Eventually war would break out between those who supported slavery and those who opposed it. Even if the United States was split across the middle, with slave states on bottom and free states on top, slave-owners and abolitionist would find another slave related conflict to fight over.
To Naomi:
ReplyDeleteI agree that the conflict settled by the Dred Scott Case was inevitable. The ideas of both the free states and the slave states were in conflict with each other. I also do not think that a more skillful political leader could have avoided the major conflicts. Eventually the question of African American rights would beg an answer. I think the sectional conflicts of the 1850s resulted from deep social, economic, and ideological differences between the North and the South. The North and the South believed in a variety of issues, however, both fell on completely different sides of the spectrum. The South favored slavery, the North opposed it, the South was mainly agriculture and the North was mainly factories.
To Shevana:
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement, the civil war would eventually happen with the tensions that were building up. It was bound to happen, with so much controversy.
Original:
ReplyDeleteI believe that the war was an inevitable conclusion to the rising tensions and differing viewpoints in the nation. The final efforts at compromise came from Senator John J. Crittenden of Kentucky who proposed a series of amendments and resolutions that allowed for slavery in the territories south of 36°30´ and guaranteed to maintain slavery where it already existed. Republicans, including Lincoln, were willing to allow slavery to remain where it already existed in order to preserve the Union but were unwilling to agree to slavery in new territories, which they felt was going against their stand on slavery. The fact that Republicans were not willing to agree to that compromise probably encouraged South Carolina and other states to secede from the Union since their wants were not being granted by the federal government.
To Shevana:
ReplyDeleteI agree with the fact that skilled politicians would have been able to make a difference because the fact of the matter is that abolutionist did not condone slavery in any area of the country while the South wanted to maintain the slavery in its parts. The tension between these two counterparts would have came to a head sooner or later and war was inevitable because politicians had already tried to come with compromises to satisfy both but they just could not.
The Dred Scott decision was one of the Supreme Courts most influential and most unconstitutional rulings to date. Not only was the case unconstitutional, but it was one of the sparks that ignited the Civil War. The decision that slaves were not men, and that Congress could not prohibit slavery roused many abolitionists and Northerners. If the Supreme Court hadmade the right decision, slavery would have stopped much sooner, and possibly many American lives could have been saved.
ReplyDeleteTo Naomi: I agree that the Dredd Scot decision was wrong, the constitution clearly states that all men are created eual, and slaves should be considered men. But the war was inevitable, I dont think they should have pushed it of so long. if they had been more forethright maybe the war would have been less costly and over ooner.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the sectional conflict resulting from the Dred Scott decision was inevitable, but the ruling itself did contribute massively to the growing distrust between north and south. If the decision had never been ruled on, there might have been less tension between the two factions for a time.
ReplyDeleteTo Xander:
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Dred Scott case ruling was wrong, but I don't think it would have stopped anything. If anything, the South may have seceded faster from the Union because the government was ruling their way of life and their work force null and void.
I believe the Dred Scott Decision laid the foundation for the sectional conflicts between the North and South which was basically inevitable. This decision which stated that slaves were not citizens and that Congress could not prohibit slavery set in motion a great tension that would lead to the Civil War in 1861. I also believe a more skillful politician could have made better decisions by not only focusing on the case at hand but focus on how the ruling would affect future tensions between the North and South.
ReplyDeleteShevana
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with that fact that the conflict was inevitable based on deep social, economic and ideological differences. These differences based on pro-slavery and anti-slavery were so great that it was only a matter of time before the tension amounted to something physical in this case the Civil War. Although the conflict was inevitable, i feel as though certain things could have been handled differently that would have decreased the extremity of the war.
At the point of the Dred Scott decision conflict was unavoidable. There weren't any words that could be said by any level of a skillful politician. The conflict was deep rooted, and a huge one. Slavery was probably one of the most controversial and intense debates in American history. The tensions between the North and South were not going to be settled by simple words spoken by a charismatic person.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tara that the conflict was absolutely inevitable, the differences between the two opinions were deeply rooted. It was only a matter of time before these tensions progressed into what is now known as the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Dred Scott decision was huge in the sectional conflict. The decision said that The Congress could not prohibit slavery and that slaves were not citizens of the United States and had no rights. This decision would lead to conflict for the North and abolitionists were upset feeling this was a way to nationalize slavery.
ReplyDeleteI have to say that I don't believe that more skilled political leaders could have avoided the conflict. I believe that the people also had their opinions on all the stuff going on. Abolitionists were calling for the end of slavery, the North didn't use it as much and the South needed it for their economy. Since political leaders in the south would care about their economy and people's opinions, they would never accept the North's demands to end slavery and conflict would ensue
ReplyDeleteI would argue that the decision was a reflection of sectional tension, as opposed to its cause. As it was a Supreme Court decision, it wasn't the result of a "deal" between different political factions, it was a ruling, handed down by an independent judiciary with no political consequence to their offices.
ReplyDeleteAs far as if Buchanan or Lincoln could have handled the secession crisis better, I would say yes on Buchanan and no on Lincoln. Buchanan could have taken any action at all, yet he sat on his hands as the country fell apart. By the time of Lincoln's inauguration, there was little he could do to rescue the situation.
To: Naomi
ReplyDeleteThe Dred Scott decision does reflect a clear separation between the ideals of the south and the north. I agree with your opinion that a more skillful political leader could have made a better decision of stating that although Scott's owner was deceased he would be considered free. I think that people with slaves at that point in time could not practice slavery in areas that prohibited it.