The Civil War - Book Report/Review Example

Book Review: Race and Politics: Bleeding Kansas and the Coming of the Civil War James Rawley’s “Race and Politics: Bleeding Kansas and the Coming of the Civil War” (1980) provides a detailed analysis of the controversies surrounding the repeal of the Missouri compromise and implementation of the Kansas/Nebraska Act 1854. Rawley raises the question as to whether the unsettled Kansas Territory, which was divided between pro-slavery proponents and abolitionists, resulted in irreconcilable factions which in turn creating conditions that only civil war could resolve. In considering the Bleeding Kansas backdrop, Rawley argues that the majority of literature focuses on the slavery debate and institution of slavery, without a detailed consideration of race and racial prejudice. In utilising the race debate, Rawley seeks to highlight what he posits as the overriding motivation for the Civil War being the white man’s supremacy struggle as opposed to a fight for emancipation and civil liberties for African Americans. As such, Rawley posits that the central issue in Bleeding Kansas was not the institution of slavery itself but rather race and whether the country could tolerate the expansion of the African American, whether slave or fee. The focus of this paper is to review and highlight the central arguments of Rawley. If we firstly consider the historical backdrop, Rawley provides an overview of the implementation of the Kansas /Nebraska Act 1854 and highlights the fact that the 1854 legislation organised the territories of Kansas and Nebraska according to the doctrine of popular sovereignty in an attempt to prevent sectional division over slavery. However, Rawley highlights how the Act provided controversial for parties on either side of the debate and was criticised by anti-slavery groups as an unbalanced compromise in favour of proslavery advocates. From a logistical perspective, Rawley highlights how groups on both sides rushed to settle Kansas leading to the Bleeding Kansas period. In referring to the practical ramifications of the Act, Rawley discusses how the 1854 Act organised the northern plains into the territories of Kansas and Nebraska, thereby repealing the Missouri Compromise of 1920, which had prohibited slavery expansion beyond the border between states of Arkansas and Missouri (Rawley 1980, 59; 79). The Act gave autonomy to the states as to whether they would enter the Union as free or slave soil states. Rawley asserts how the implementation of the Act reopened the divisive issue of slavery and that the underlying controversy behind the slavery debate was ultimately rooted in racial prejudice (Rawley 1980, 10) Rawley highlights the fact that the Compromise of 1850 settled the slavery issue in New Mexico and Utah and as such, many Americans hoped that further controversy over slavery would be avoided in other states (Rawley, 1980, 19). However, the slavery debate re-emerged and came to the fore due to the settlement of western territories depended upon the construction of a transcontinental railroad, the location of which became of central importance (33). As such, this culminated in a sectional debate between the North and the South regarding the path, which impeded the construction. However, Rawley points to the ambitions of Senator Douglas of Illinois in fuelling the legislative reforms leading up to the Bleeding Kansas period (27). Rawley highlights the point that Douglas supported expansion and felt that the resulting economic and political benefits of a railroad to Illinois were vital and that a prosperous Midwest would mediate sectional conflicts between the North and the South and promote sectional harmony and national unity (41). Rawley’s discussion of these background triggers to the implementation of the 1854 legislation is used to highlight the involvement of race in political moves. Whilst Douglas wanted a unified Midwest to open up construction on the railroad, this was inherently dependent on c-operation and raised the issue of slavery again. Rawley posits that the reason for contention in the debates leading up to the implementation of the legislation stems from race as opposed to support for the institution of slavery itself. Rawley further argues that the issue of race has been ignored in previous works on Civil war and Bleeding Kansas. Rawling argues that race was the central premise shaping politics at the time and that the “ordeal of the Union was among other matters a racial ordeal” (263). As such, he argues that slavery was the centre of the American struggle and “what distinguished the institution of slavery in America was the enslavement of Negroes” (p.xi). Indeed, Rawley refers to the founding father Madison’s assertion that if he could work a miracle “he would make all the blacks white and then he could away with slavery within twenty four hours” (p.xi). As such, Rawley highlights the point that the underlying justification for slavery was founded on race and that the Bleeding Kansas period was rooted in the fear of changing the political framework via African American emancipation. Rawley further refers to Madison’s assertions that “the repugnance of the whites to their Negroes continuance among them is founded on prejudices themselves founded on physical distinctions, which are not likely soon if ever to be eradicated” (p.xi). As such, Rawley uses Madison’s arguments to justify the argument that Colour was the bar to emancipation and slavery. Indeed, Rawley points to the fact that Senator Douglas’ plans would only be possible after a settlement of lands into territories of Kansas and Nebraska (52). To this end, Senator Douglas found a comrade in Missouri’s influential senator, who was seeking re-election in 1854. Atchison supported slavery, whereas his re-election move left him pitted Atchison against Benton, a vehement opponent of slavery expansion. However, Atchison saw the bill as an opportunity to expand slavery. However, n order to reach a compromise, Douglas introduced the Kansas/Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri compromise. However, Rawley highlights the point that the political ramifications of the enactment of the Kansas Nebraska bill fractured the political party system as Southern members supported it and Northern democrats were split. Moreover, he argues that the Whig Party was destroyed in the South and Kansas became a “political hotbed” of new settlers both pro-slavery and abolitionist. In the introduction to the book Rawley refers to the counter arguments of other commentators that the Civil War was rooted in a moral war between the polarised views for slavery on the one hand and freedom on the other. Moreover, Rawley highlights what he views as a flawed assumption that it was a conflict over liberty that shaped the character of Kansas (6). However, the essence of Rawley’s argument in “Race and Politics” challenges this view by arguing that the focus on a struggle for liberty, ignores the “dark streak of race” underlying American politics in this period (Rawley1980, xii). Indeed, Rawley reiterates throughout his book the point that the Bleeding Kansas period fuelled the primacy of race and racism as evidenced by the outbreak of race riots in the North contradicted the assumption of racial injustice being a Southern phenomenon. Moreover, Rawley’s references to the issue of race in the North and the split Democrats, further supports his attachment of importance to race in national politics during this period (10). Indeed, Rawley uses the issue of race in national politics as justification for his book. Interestingly, in the introduction to the book, Rawley is almost apologetic in questioning the need for another book on the Civil War (p.xii). However, Rawley posits that “I have two purpose sin writing this book. One is to demonstrate how the Kansas controversy provided the principal political theme in the United States for a crucial five years….. from 1854 through 1858 Kansas was the keynote of United States politics…. By 1856 “Bleeding Kansas” – prompted the players in the drama”. However, Rawley makes the point that whilst in 1858 the conflict culminated in abolition of slavery, “its effects persevered in a bitter epilogue until the outbreak of war in April 1861” (p.vi). Rawley’s second purpose in the book is to “place a fresh emphasis upon the coming of the Civil War” (vii). As such, Rawley’s book takes a fresh approach and rather than discussing the obvious points of state rights, the institution of slavery and similarly obvious discussion points, he focuses on the issue of race in politics in the 1850s in what he terms as the “dark streak of racial prejudice in America of the 1850s” (vii). Moreover, it is precisely the underlying issue of race, which triggered violence and political chaos during this period, which in turn led to the Civil War according to Rawley as proslavery and antislavery forces clashed for control of the territory. To this end one of the central arguments of Rawley’s book is that the issue of race and slavery was used politically for power and that the controversy over slavery was in fact “in the main a white man’s quarrel over white men’s conflicting rights” (7). As such, Rawley argues that slavery itself was political and the impact of abolition would clearly shift the political dynamic of the central power base. The risks posed by enfranchising the African Americans from slavery fuelled the issue of race and prejudice into the political framework according to Rawley’s postulations: “Racial prejudice- as well as economic, political and idealistic factors- was a foundation for thinking about slavery in territories. Proslavery men saw in anti-extension a threat to keeping the institution that preserve existing race relations”(Rawley 1980, 7). Moreover, the underlying theory posited by Rawley with regard to “Bleeding Kansas” is the idea that it was not slavery per se but rather African slavery and the shared commitment of southern democrats and northern republicans to white supremacy that limited political choices available and thereby generated irrepressible conflict at the time. As such, the slavery issue and race was not so much about liberation as opposed to a political tool for power. Indeed, Rawley argues that “Antislavery men saw in extension a threat to wider opportunity for white men. There is scant evidence of public men taking an anti-extension or even anti-slavery position to benefit Negroes.” (Rawley 1980, 27) In highlighting the fact that the Civil War and slavery issue was fundamentally about the power struggle between “white men over white men’s conflicting rights”, Rawley emphatically rejects what he views as a misconception of a fight for liberty and equality. He further supports this by describing the societal backdrop in this period: “Racial thinking in the mid-nineteenth century America was a compound of prejudice, ignorance, anthropology, fear and jealousy. It usually presupposed the biological inferiority of the Negro……racial inequalitarianism seemed ever implicit – a folk belied which most white Americans held” (Rawley 1980, 50). Against this socio-political backdrop, Rawlings Argues that “Bleeding Kansas” became a definitive microcosm of the clash of interests underlying the Civil War causation; namely the free-state forces, slavery extension threatened to pit black labour, both slave and free against free white labour, while proslavery campaigners felt that non-extension was a dangerous subversion of race control through emancipation (Rawley 1980, 274). As such, Rawley posits that whether proslavery or abolitionist, what he terms as the “Caucasian consensus” on African American inferiority was the significant factor that fuelled the violence of the civil war, which may have resulted in freedom for white men in Kansas, but not equality for African Americans, regardless of slave status (Rawley, 1980, 70). Rawley argues that the civil war failed to liberate white emigrants from their racial prejudice or potential black settlers from its effects. Moreover, Rawley goes further and argues that it is the concept of race and prejudice that has “defied the political genius of the American people. If there had been no color bar, the United States probably could have coped with the issue of slavery”(Rawley, 1980, ix). Rawley highlights the fact that slavery itself was not facing any attack prior to the Civil war with no significant moves towards improving Black rights. Rawley’s work focuses on archival research and provides a valuable insight into the inner machinations of the party political system, providing detailed archive accounts of debates. These shed a different light on the various arguments regarding the Civil war, highlighting the prevalence of racism in the split democrat party. Some commentators have criticised Rawley’s emphasis on race at the expense of considering the institution of slavery itself, which Rawley alludes to in the introduction (p. iv). Rawley acknowledges that whilst the institution of slavery itself covered a wide category of interrelated complex factors, he feels that the understanding of the issue of race is fundamental to the institution of slavery. Indeed, whilst Rawley arguably ignores the slavery institution argument, it is evident that previous literature has ignored the importance of race in the political framework at the time. Indeed, Rawley emphasises the fact that race has been ignored in previous works on the civil war and bleeding Kansas. As such, Rawley’s arguments regarding Bleeding Kansas are used as a basis from which to highlight the extent to which race has played a role in shaping American politics. Rawley’s book not only re-evaluates commonly accepted theory on Bleeding Kansas and the Civil War by highlighting the importance of race; it goes further than existing literature in this area by going beyond mere narration of events. Moreover, Rawley’s arguments regarding the interrelationship between race and politics during this period and works towards sequencing the events to find what the Bleeding Kansas period meant for the political transformation of a nation and socio-political ideology. BIBLIOGRAPHY Rawley, James. Race and Politics: Bleeding Kansas and the Coming of the Civil War. University of Nebraska Press, 1980. Read More