What steps should an American leader undertake to avoid Civil War of 1860 - Essay Example

? If I Were the United s President During the 1860’s, How Would I Prevent the Civil War? This paper explores what measures or action would have been done to prevent armed and violent civil conflict from occurring based on personal understanding and opinion. The backdrop or case in history that would be a noted example would be the American Civil War during the late nineteenth century. To start off, this paper would try to look into the causes of the American Civil War and see which among the factors was the most pressing or critical for the war to start with. From that point, this paper will then explain what would be the personal suggestions or actions that could have been taken to prevent any further escalation of hostilities between both opposing sides during the civil war. If I Were the United States President During the 1860’s, How Would I Prevent the Civil War? It is difficult to be the head of state when dealing with the likelihood of civil war. Such instances would mean either two things for a president. One option is to immediately choose a side among the belligerents, which could mean either the losing or winning side. The other option is to try to remain neutral while encouraging much political maneuver or diplomatic approach as the only way to engage the problem. The head of state usually makes these decisions based on political alignment, economic advantage, or the moral high ground. Perhaps an ideal scenario that would make a great example would be the American Civil War. The American Civil War was easily thought to have been caused by the African American slavery that divided the United States to the Northern Union and the Southern Confederacy. Hickman (2011) pointed that: The year prior to the Civil War almost all sectional conflicts revolved around the slave issue. This began with the debates over the three-fifths clause at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and continued with the Compromise of 1820, the Nullification Crisis, the anti-slavery Gag Rule, and the Compromise of 1850. Abolitionist movements, which were predominant in the northern half of the United States held that slavery must be abolished since it is a moral evil that has no place in American society. The southern half of the United States posits that the issue of slavery is due to what they would claim as practical concerns of their own. Defenders of slavery from the Southern Confederacy held that slaves are needed to run their economy since most of their economy runs on agricultural growth and development, especially with cotton crops. At the same time, slaves were views by southerners as property and were held as to have private protected ownership by right of the owner. In the case of the northern side, their economy is largely based on industrial progress and trading of equipment and materials. This gave the northern side the advantage over the south in terms of economy and, eventually, military power. The use of slaves for the north was not really needed for their economy to run. Although Leidner (2011) held the opinion that: Although slavery was the moral issue of the nineteenth century that divided the political leaders of the land, the average American had very little interest in slaves or slavery. Most Southerners were small farmers that could not afford slaves. Most Northerners were small farmers or tradesmen that had never even seen a slave. The problem then is not solely on the economic issues of slavery, but it is found on the politics that revolved around slavery. Handlin (1864) further observed that: The institution of slavery has, doubtless, been a true cause of secession and rebellion, although there have been many who disputed the proposition, and alleged that the tariff and other questions were more powerful agents in causing the South to throw off her allegiance and seek protection from the injustice of the North in a separate and independent government. (pp.41-42) It should also be noted that the seat of the Federal government and power is located at the northern side, and most of the political seats in the United States Congress majority comes from the Northern Union who generally have abolitionist inclinations. Simply put, the Federal government based from the Northern Union side showed political and cultural neglect towards the affairs of its Southern neighbors. The issue of slavery, and the economics around it, merely fanned the flames of intransigence and intolerance further, which all led to years of bloody fighting amongst countrymen. If I were the president of the United States during the 1860’s, I would promote and have industrial developments in the southern states to jumpstart their economy. Furthermore, to keep in pace with the northern states, I will allow southern cities to develop urbanization. This would negate the problems that occurred as to why the southern states would not cooperate as much as the northern states would expound abolitionism as their cause. Handlin (1864) found that, “the Confederacy itself was not averse to liberating the slaves, provided it could obtain the recognition and support of their governments” (p.42). Such an action would lessen what is seen as the southern states’ aggressive-defensive declaration as a conservative culture and society. Most southern states believed that the northern states’ modernity would endanger their way of life in which they could only live by. Since the northern states are usually rapidly developing in its industrial capacities and urban growth, the southern states felt that their needs were overlooked, and frowned upon the Federal government’s policies. That is why it would be a sound plan and a win-win strategy to gradually develop the industrial capabilities of the southern states and promote urban development. As time would pass, and with constant support and assistance from the Federal government, slavery as an institution would die away from American society, making the southern states progressive towards modernity, while appeasing the northern states’ cause for the end of slavery. The key to this strategy is not merely to make compromises, but to make an assertive effort to act on fairness and progress. Many compromises made between the northern and southern states, such as the Missouri Compromise, made only small gains with hardly any satisfying conclusions; thus, to the disadvantage of the southern states. I believe that in fairness, there is justice. Also, if all parties are given a fair deal in life, conflicts could be averted. References Handlin, W. W. (1864). American politics, a moral and political work. New Orleans: Isaac T. Hinton. Hickman, K. (2011). American civil war: Causes. Retrieved from < http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/civilwar/a/CivilWarCauses.htm>. Leidner, G. (2011). Causes of the civil war: A balanced answer. Retrieved from < http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/causes.htm>. Read More