Sign In
Register Now
NEWS
Subscribe
LOCAL
Mobile
POLITICS
Multimedia
OPINIONS
Today's Paper
SPORTS
Business
Going Out Guide
Jobs
Arts & Living
Cars
Real Estate
Rentals
Classifieds
Search The Washington Post
washingtonpost.com > Metro > A House Divided
Ongoing Civil War coverage | Our Civil War panel of experts
ABOUT THIS BLOG
“A House Divided” is a
blog dedicated to news
and issues of importance
to Civil War enthusiasts
across the country and
around the world. Blogger
Linda Wheeler and a panel
of respected Civil War
experts will debate and
dissect historical issues
and explore new concepts.
Wheeler will also report on
conferences and seminars,
find little-known battlefields
and sites to explore, keep
track of local, national and
international stories of
interest to readers and
provide advice on
upcoming events.
About the Blogger
SEARCH THIS BLOG
Go
RECENT POSTS
John Marszalek: Could
the war have been
prevented?
Gary Gallagher: Could
the war have been
prevented?
Kate Masur: Could the
war have been
prevented?
Brent Glass: Could the
war have been
prevented?
David Blight: Could the
war have been
prevented?
Entries By Category
150th anniversary
Battlefields
Events
Exhibits
News
Views
Full Category Archive
David Blight: Could the war have been prevented?
By David Blight
Professor of American History and Director of the Gilder Lehrman Center
for the Study of Slavery and Abolition at Yale University
Whether the Civil War could have been avoided is of
course a matter of when in the chronology of the road to
disunion we choose to ask this question. From a broad
point of view, the marker at which I would make at least a
qualified case for the inevitability of intractable conflict, if
not war, is the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court in the spring of
1857. That decision, theoretically opening the entire West to the possible
expansion of slavery and declaring that African Americans were not and
never could be citizens of the United States, in effect, ruined the last
vestiges of moderation. Genuine, reasonable compromises on the pivotal
question of slavery expansion -- whether America would indeed pursue a
future based on slave labor or free labor -- were now all but impossible.
In the midst of the secession crisis of the winter of 1860-61, many
compromise proposals emerged in Congress and the press. As early as
December, 1860, after South Carolina had seceded, all manner of ideas
were floated publicly to save the Union: replacing the presidency with an
executive council representing regions of the country; a new national
police to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act; and a new kind of "gag rule"
barring any form of legislation about slavery whatsoever. The "Crittenden
Compromise" plan in Washington, named for Kentuckian, John J.
Crittenden, offered various ideas for Constitutional amendments that
would prevent the federal government from ever abolishing slavery in
any government jurisdiction, prevent any interference in the domestic
slave trade, or extend the Missouri Compromise Line to the Pacific
Ocean. Ideas also floated in the air for removal and colonization of free
blacks outside America's borders. Stephen Douglass even proposed a
new "Sedition" bill to criminalize speeches and publications against
slavery.
None of these proposals gained any real traction against the rising
Lincoln administration's (and Lincoln's own) steadfastness to draw the
line about any future expansion of slavery. The only measure that did
emerge from Congress was an original Thirteenth Amendment, that
would have explicitly barred Congress from ever ending slavery in the
existing slave states. This idea even gained Lincoln's guarded support,
although it never made it to the states for ratification, nor did it stop the
wave of secession in the Deep South.
The only way war on some scale might have been avoided in the spring
of 1861 is for Lincoln and the Republicans to give up the very cause for
which their party and their coalition across the North had rallied -- to
Sponsored Links
New Look. Powerful Tools.
Get UNLIMITED credit score access at the new TransUnion®
site
transunion.com
the first zip is on us
Join Zipcar now for $75 free driving. Gas & insurance included.
zipcar.com
Buy a link here
Network News
Friends' Activity
MY PROFILE
X
Entries By Date
Full Weekly Archive
SUBSCRIBE
Select ...
LINDA’S FAVORITE SITES
Civil War Interactive
Newswire
Cenantua’s Blog
Civil War Memory
Civil War History
Rantings of a Civil War
Historian
Civil Warriors
TOCWOC
American Civil War
Stories
CONTACT US
E-mail Us
cordon off and restrict the future of slavery in defense of free labor
ideology and a more egalitarian society - and for Southern secessionists
to give up their conviction that their slave society and their racial order
were under desperate threat from that new Republican persuasion and
simply wait for another four-year cycle of elections. Some antisecessionists in some Southern states argued for just such an approach.
But neither side's dominant leaders in 1861 were willing to do this. It
must be remembered, however, that virtually none of the leaders of
either side had any clear idea of the kind of revolutionary scale the
impending war would take on. Many people in 1860-61 were trying to
avoid war; that much is clear. But tragically and for some gleefully, they
were overwhelmed by the power of their own convictions, and driven by
forces they only partly controlled which had put an expanding slave
society and a burgeoning free labor society on a terrible collision course
for at least two generations.
In the early to mid-20th century a generation or two of American
historians argued that the Civil War was avoidable, indeed a "needless
war" wrought by mere "politics" and the "unctuous fury" of power-hungry
politicians. But that was before, in the wake of World War II, that a new
generation of scholars came to see just how fundamental slavery and
race were in the story of the 1850s and in the decisions that led to the
firing on Fort Sumter in April, 1861. In the abstract we might never stop
wondering about how the war could have been avoided, as we also must
explain why it was not.
Our panel responds to the question: "Could the war have been prevented and if so,
how?
about 2 months ago
Charlotte Perman recommends Obama’s full
speech at the 2013 White House correspondents’
dinner.
about 2 months ago
US hospitals send hundreds of immigrant
patients back to home countries to curb cost of
care
671 people recommend this.
Rolling Thunder rumbles into Washington
607 people recommend this.
Ian Desmond has been the Nationals’ best
player
One person recommends this.
The Washington Post Sponsors AFI DOCS Film
Festival
34 people recommend this.
Facebook social plugin
View More Activity
PANEL OF EXPERTS
Click on the faces for bios
John Marszalek: Could the war have been prevented...
Gary Gallagher: Could the war have been prevented...
Dana Shoaf: Could the war have been prevented...
Kate Masur: Could the war have been prevented...
Harold Holzer: Could the war have been prevented...
Brent Glass: Could the war have been prevented...
By David Blight | November 8, 2010; 11:35 AM ET
Categories: Views | Tags: David Blight
Recommend
Joe Foley recommends High stakes, no prep:
These tests are designed to fail.
7 people recommend this. Be the first of your friends.
Save & Share:
Previous: Harold Holzer: Could the war have been prevented?
Next: Brent Glass: Could the war have been prevented?
Sponsored Links
New Look. Powerful Tools.
Get UNLIMITED credit score access at the new TransUnion® site
transunion.com
the first zip is on us
Join Zipcar now for $75 free driving. Gas & insurance included.
zipcar.com
The End of the "Made-In-China" Era
The impossible (but real) technology that could make you impossibly...
http://www.fool.com
Buy a link here
No comments have been posted to this entry.
Post a Comment
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge
washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other
inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally,
entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual
author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of
our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies
governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and
discussions.
You must be signed in to washingtonpost.com to comment. Please sign in.