Popular Destiny: Causes and Views Leading to the Civil War

Manifest destiny and popular sovereignty are not common phrases evoked in modern culture. What exactly are these two theories, popularized so long ago? What roles did they play in changes to the culture and society of the day? Were they really as divisive as is frequently asserted? These questions and more will be explored in the contents of this paper, examining the root causes of the United States' Civil War.

First up, "manifest destiny". Manifest Destiny is the theory propagated by the religious fervor in the late 1700's, primarily from New England's Puritans. The victories of the War of 1812 fueled this religious nationalism, as did the Louisiana Purchase, and Lewis & Clark's exploration of the territory. However, it wasn't until newspaper columnist and editor John O'Sullivan's article regarding the annexation of Texas published in The United States Magazine and Democratic Review was the term 'Manifest Destiny' actually coined. (ushistory.org, 2008) As vast droves of people moved west, first with the promise of free land, and then with the Californian gold rush, they brought the economics of their home states along with them, leading to Southerners looking for land to produce cotton, tobacco and other crops to clash with the industrialized Northerners looking for factory lands and resources to tap into. These issues were temporarily resolved with some measures like the Mason-Dixon Line, but Manifest Destiny raised questions about this fledgling nation's views on religion, regional economics – and their relation to each other on a federal level, race and the value of man, national patriotism, and even morality, to an extent. 

Popular sovereignty, on the other hand, was the name given the theory that the people living in a given area should decide their own nature of government. The first man to really propagate the theory was Senator Lewis Cass of Michigan, however, it didn't gain national prominence until Stephen A. Douglas coined the term in 1854. There were two main factions of the popular sovereignty movement: one that asserted that the territory's settlers should vote on their status early in territorial development. The other stance said a territory's status should be determined by a vote, taken when the territory was ready for statehood. ("United states history," 2009) This theory was the basis for the Compromise of 1850, and then the Kansas-Nebraska Act four years later. However, due to the "Bleeding Kansas' tragedy, the gaping holes in this ideology became sharply evident. After these events, it was mocking called "squatter sovereignty" by John C. Calhoun, and consequently picked up by the theories critics, primarily Southerners and pro-slavery Northerners. It was hoped that the application of popular sovereignty to incoming states and would preserve the Union. Unfortunately, it was not to be, as it would only work if there were enough voters in the territory persuaded to lean pro-slavery, and apart from an ACORN-level of voter fraud, was nigh impossible to achieve. The death knell for popular sovereignty came in the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas senatorial debates, when Stephen A. Douglas admitted that he believed that local laws could nullify the current federal fugitive-slave laws. That is when most historians see the theory as losing most of its Southern backing, and talks of secession began in earnest. (Weatherby, 2011)

These two views both had their own respective heydays. Manifest destiny inspired a nation to grow to its maximum physical potential, and even made a resurgence with the admission of Alaska and Hawaii. It united a people and gave them a purpose: to be fruitful and multiply across the land, and spread American influence from sea to shining sea. On the other hand, popular sovereignty, a theory born, raised and propagated from the south, tried to appease both sides of the slavery debate. However, all it truly succeeded in doing was driving the two sides further apart, even to the point of bloodshed. Effective for a time, it was at most a temporary measure, not really resolving anything for our nation. By the time it was given up, our newly-expanded country was not only divided ideologically, but was on the brink of war, needing only the slightest catalyst to push it over the edge into a bloody oblivion.

References

ushistory.org. (2008, April 12). U.S. history online textbook. Retrieved from http://www.ushistory.org/us/29.asp

United states history. (2009, May 14). Retrieved from http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h228.html

Weatherby, E. (2011, December 19). [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://pipenslippers.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/civil-war-sectionalism/

A House Divided

The Civil War was not as cut-and-dry as many people would assume. The complexities of the political and social climate surrounding it are copious, and this writer will do his best to give you a brief glimpse of them in this paper, as well as a breakdown of the Battle of Gettysburg and its long-term effects.

Most Americans today think that the Civil War was about slavery from the beginning. While slavery did have a role, it was not the main factor. It was simply another item on the list of grievances the southern states had against the federal government, which they believed held too much power over the states. From the outset of the south’s succession into the Confederate States of America, everything should have gone in the Union’s favor: 23 states boasted over 21 million people, to the South’s 11 states and 9 million people, of whom 3.5 million were slaves. (ushistory.org, 2011) It is interesting to note that in spite of the population difference, the Confederacy’s army was roughly the same size as the Union’s for the early years of the war. The Union also had had a stronger industrial base, complete control of the seas (and therefore, the import of gunpowder), was home to America’s top military academy, and had a stronger transportation network and central government. By all rights, the Union looked far better on paper.

However, the Confederacy had its advantages as well: as an agrarian society, it had no trouble producing the food it needed, although transporting it to the front lines proved to be a problem later on. It also had a plethora of fantastic military officers: Robert E. Lee, Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson and J.E.B. Stewart are just a few examples of the South’s exemplary military leaders. The Union may have had West Point, but the other 7 military academies were located within Confederate borders. But leaders are only as good as their followers, and the troops are only as good as their equipment, and that was something that they were sorely outclassed on. Nevertheless, the southerners’ ingenuity meant that they had built several gunpowder mills and melted down church and plantation bells in their foundries for much-needed iron.

All of this meant the war was more or less a stalemate, even tipping in the Confederacy’s favor at times, until the Battle of Gettysburg. What began as an unplanned skirmish between Union scouts and Confederates looking for shoes, the Battle of Gettysburg soon grew to an unprecedented bloodbath, with involving 160,000 Americans, and leaving over 51,000 killed, wounded, missing or captured in just 3 days. This slaughter was the turning point in the war, as Lee’s battered army had take unsustainable losses and never drove into the North again. This was in part due to the need to stretch their army on the northern and western fronts; in fact, Lee lost more men at Gettysburg than Confederate Generals Braxton and Bragg had in their entire Army of Tennessee. (Chambers, et al. 1999) Because Lee was unable to replenish his numbers, he was forced to play defense, and the Union generals simply tightened the noose around the Confederacy, until there was nowhere left to run from Appomattox.

The Civil War had many different affects on the United States. It is important to note that it merely preserved the Union of states, but not national unity in and of itself. Probably the most prevalent affect, at least in the modern mind, is the downfall of slavery in the U.S., which spawned the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th Amendments to the Constitution. However, that was one that didn’t even come into play until the last half of the war. It also made us as a nation choose between systems of free labor versus bonded labor, which was the economic side of the abolition of slavery. Militarily, it marked the advent of “total warfare”, a military doctrine that targeted not only one’s warfighters and war-making facilities, but the general populous. This wasn’t classified as a ‘doctrine’ until World War I, but General William T. Sherman used it very effectively, and unknowingly opened the door to what is known today as “psychological warfare”. It also proved that sheer firepower does not always determine the outcome of a battle. The previously so-called “dishonorable” tactics of entrenching and fortifying your position revolutionized warfare, with all its pomp and sheer insanity. It also debuted the conical bullet, rifled barrels, shell casings containing the gunpowder and bullet pre-assembled, and repeating rifles, which advanced war tactics, but sadly added to the slaughter of the time.

All in all, the Civil War is an ugly blot in our past. It could have been avoided, and should have been, but if the end justifies the means, I still don’t think it was worth it. With more Americans killed in one war than in all the rest combined, we learned a hard, bloody lesson, and one that, God willing, we will never have to be refreshed in.

References

Chambers, John Whiteclay II & G. Kurt Piehler. (1999). Major Problems in American Military History.  pg. 176.

ushistory.org (2011) A House Divided: Strengths and Weaknesses: North vs. South. U.S. History Online Textbook. Retrieved October 9, 2011, from http://www.ushistory.org/us/33b.asp