|
For example the American Civil War is often stated to have Started when Fort Sumter was fired upon, but Kansas had been bleeding for at least four years BEFORE Sumter. When did the US Civil War Really Start? I would say with the passage of the Compromise of 1850. Henry Clay could NOT even get Congress to pass the Compromise as one big package, it took Stephen Douglas to break it into four packages which Congress could pass (With different Congressmen voting yes on on four Package).
THe Compromise of 1850 was opposed by significant numbers of Northerns, especially the Fugitive Slave Act that permitted the taking of blacks as slaves even n the North (and made national the South's law as to blacks and slavery, i.e. if you were black you were presume to be a Slave unless you can prove otherwise, in the North, and Delaware, the opposite rule applied, if you were black you were presumed to be free and the slave owner had to prove you were a slave).
The Compromise of 1850 only held for four year when Stephen Douglas came out in 1854 for popular sovereignty on the issue of Slavery in any territory that wanted to become a State. Do to this act people from both the South and North started to move to Kansas to try to get the majority of Kansans to be pro or anti slavery (Under the earlier compromise of 1820 Kansas was to be a "Free State" but the South wanted it to be a Slave state). This movement for "popular Sovereignty" caused the Whigs to break up as a party (Through it would still be an active party in the election of 1856) with many Northern Whigs (And a lot of Democrats) forming the clearly anti-slavery Republican Party (Most Big Money stayed in the Whig Party till it won no states in the 1856 National Election and only then join the Republican Party).
The Democratic Party stayed together as it tried to solve the growing problem of Slavery without bloodshed OR destruction of the Country. The Republican Party was for NO Expansion of Slavery. The old party of the upper class (the Whigs) just dissolved over the issue with the Northern Upper Class joining the Republican party for they saw the Republican party capable of becoming the Majority party based on the issue of Slavery (Something the old Whig party was NEVER able to do).
The Democratic Party EXPANDED in the 1850s do to Southern Whigs joining it for the Republican Party did not permit them in unless their denounced Slavery (Which they could NOT do). Another factor was the Democratic Party had come out of the Democratic Clubs of the 1790s which was tied in with the Militia. With the Defeat of the Indians in 1813 at the battle of the Thames, the North no longer really needed its militia and from 1820 onward you saw a steady decline in the Militia in the north. In the South Militia duty was tied in with the Sheriff's Patrol to watch for runaway slaves. Thus in the South the Militia, given it being made of the same people as in the Patrols, was still effective in the 1850 South (and controlled by the Democratic Party as had most Militia units since the 1790s). Thus Southern Whigs joined the Democratic Party NOT only because the Republicans did not want them but to gain control over the Militia for the upcoming Civil war.
My point here is if you look at the situation in the US Civil War, the Actual road to the war started over ten years before the main fighting started. You had people shooting at each other Not only in Kansas but throughout the border regions (For example the famous case of the Black woman who crossed the Ohio River From Kentucky to Ohio with her baby, jumping form ice floe to ice floe at times throwing her baby before she herself made the jump. As her owner and two Kentucky Slave chasers followed her across the Ohio. When she reached the Ohio Side of the River she was meet by a Ohio Deputy Sheriff. HE did NOT help her climb out of the water (for that might be helping a Fugitive from Justice) but when the Slave Owner demanded he return her to him he asked for proof she was a slave. When the Owner said he had none but Kentucky law permitted him to take his property (as did the Federal Fugitive Slave Act). The Deputy said since they were in Ohio and he had never laid his hand on the Slave she was neither his prisoner nor has he help her, but that if the owner tried to take her back he would Shoot the owner for trying to Kidnap a free-woman for under Ohio Law the owner has to PROVE the slave was his. The owner then went back to Kentucky to get the paperwork and Sheriff Deputy told the slave to go to a black man in the nearby town who was part of the underground Railway (She subsequently escaped to Canada). Please note this happened After most black had left the southern parts of the Free States do to Southern Slave Chasers kidnapping them under the Federal Fugitive Slave Act and hauling them back to the South (where they were sold unless they could show they were freeman AND could pay the cost of their Arrest and cost to keep them in Jail). This is one of many tails of the increase violence in Political disputes throughout the 1850s (Including the infamous caning of a Anti-Slaver Congressman by a Southern Congressman in the halls of Congress).
Thus you can see a general trend to use Violence to resolve disputes between the North and the South all through the 1850s. Attempt were made to resolve the disputes but all failed do to the fact the problem had to be resolved one way or the other (As Lincoln said the Country could NOT survive half free and half slave). There was no way to compromise out of the problem and it slowly escalated to Civil War.
The English Civil war has a similarly history. The King (Charles I) wanted to rule as he saw fit but Parliament had another agenda. Charles dissolved Parliament and refused to call for a New Election till he basically ran out of money. During this time period the King use all the means available to get the money he wanted including force "loans" and other illegal acts but he had to call in Parliament, dissolved it, called another one which refused to be dissolved. This lead to the use of Force by Charles against the Parliament and when Parliament refused dissolved Charles ran off to Nottingham and Declared war against Parliament. Charles Action occurred over a rule of almost two decade BEFORE the country went to Civil War, but sporadic fighting occurred for YEARS before the actual start of the Civil War (and once Charles refused to call Parliament for 16 years (I might be off in the time between the Short and Long Parliaments) Civil War was on its way, the actual Fighting only started when everyone realized that the issue had to be resolved once and for all and there was NO way to Compromise on the issue.
The same thing in Iraq, Saddam keep the Shiites and Kurds down but sooner or later they would get the Upper hand. Once Saddam decided to suppress the Shiites and Kurds by Force, Civil war was on its way. The US just lifted the Control imposed by Saddam and thus like Lincoln's Election and King Charles calling of the Long Parliament, this was the start of the Civil War. You saw a steady increase in violence between both sides and no real effort to compromise as to the issue of who is to rule Iraq. The choice is Violence to resolve the issue, that choice is when the Civil War really Begin. In the US Civil War it was the attempt by the South to expand Slavery even into the North which lead to the formation of the Republican party and its refusal to compromise on the issue of Slavery (Remember BOTh sides must be organized to have a Civil War thus it requires actions on BOTH sides to have a Civil War), in the English Civil War it was the King Charles call for the Long Parliament and that Parliament's refusal to give Charles what he wanted that stared the English Civil war (NOT the King's subsequent trip to Nottingham which only indicated his decision to fight rather than resolve the issue through politics).
As to Iraq, the US keep a lid on the Civil War for a while BUT sooner or later it will blow up in our face with a full scale Civil War. The Actual War started when we "Liberated" Iraq from Saddam. At that point the Kurds had something to fight for (A Free Kurdistan with oil), the Shiites had something to fight for (The Majority of Iraqi Oil is in Shiites lands). And the Sunni had some thing to fight for (Baghdad is the "Natural" Capital of Iraq, some city in that general vicinity has ruled Iraq since the Babylonian Empire, Baghdad since the Arab Conquest) but while the Sunni Area had Baghdad (which also has a huge Shiite population) the Sunni area has little if any oil (The oil is in the Shiite South or the Kurdish North). Thus once the US invaded no one liked the facts on the grounds imposed by the US, thus Civil War was on.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
