Gary Kornblith’s article examines what might have occurred if the Mexican-American War had not taken place because Henry Clay defeated James K. Polk in the 1844 Presidential Election. In doing this, he tries to find causation for the Civil War and determine whether it was inevitable because of ingrained cultural and political differences between the North and South (the fundamentalist view) or due to poor political decisions and actions by leaders and politicians (the neo-revisionist view).
First, Kornblith justifies his hypothetical Clay victory by explaining the factors involved in the Election of 1844. He contends that Clay’s loss did not have to do with his reluctance to annex Texas or go to war with Mexico. Rather, Clay lost because of an extremely close vote in New York where Polk and the Democratic Party had strong immigrant support. The result was so close that Kornblith argues it only went to Polk because of chance and could easily have gone the other way.
Next, Kornblith outlines how a Clay Presidency likely would’ve gone using evidence of Clay’s policy views as support. He posits that Texas annexation would not have occurred under Clay and that the Republic of Texas would’ve existed harmoniously, but separately from the United States. He also believes that Mexico would’ve eventually recognized the Republic of Texas. The future of California under the hypothetical Clay Presidency is not as certain, but Kornblith believes that an independent California might have occurred. Kornblith’s main conclusion, however, is that America’s westward expansion would’ve been halted under Clay. Instead, Kornblith argues that economic issues like a National Bank would have dominated Clay’s presidency and that those debates would have sparked partisan conflict rather than sectional conflict. Also, the absence of westward expansion would mean no Wilmot Proviso to bring the slavery issue up again for debate. Kornblith concludes that Clay would’ve attempted to keep slavery out of national politics and that he would not have supported emancipation or expansion of slavery.
Following a hypothetical Clay Presidency, Kornblith discusses the possible course the country would’ve taken. He addresses whether or not the Whig Party would’ve collapsed without the issue of slavery driving the development of the Republican Party. Without the lands gained from the Mexican-American War, there would’ve been no contentious Kansas-Nebraska Act and Kornblith concludes that the Whigs probably would’ve survived until 1857 when the economic crisis would’ve reignited partisan conflict and strengthened them even more. Under this scenario, slavery would continue to exist in the South and no Civil War would’ve broken out. Kornblith also believes that abolition of slavery was not inevitable and that without the war, it might have persisted into the 20th Century.
Kornblith’s ultimate conclusions are that the Mexican-American War was necessary for the Civil War to occur and that the Civil War was necessary for the abolition of slavery. Southerners forced the issue of slavery by objecting to the Wilmot Proviso out of principle when they might have just let it go since slavery in the existing Southern states wasn’t being challenged. The decision to force the issue, a political miscalculation, caused the Civil War in Kornblith’s opinion. This conclusion is more in line with neo-revisionist view that the Civil War was not inevitable, but the result of decisions by politicians. However, unlike some neo-revisionists who think abolition would’ve occurred peaceably without the Civil War, Kornblith does not view the emancipation of slaves as inevitable.
I find Kornblith’s arguments to be quite persuasive. His counter-factual scenario seems logical even though no one can say with any certainty how events would’ve happened if Clay had been elected. Mainly though, I find his arguments persuasive because of what I’ve learned about the rise and fall of American political parties in several of my political science classes. We discussed the theory and history of party realignments in the United States. Party realignments (like the rise of the Republican Party) occur when mass numbers of people change their voting habits because of a particular crisis. Kornblith’s argument that slavery might never have become a full-blown crisis if not for the Mexican-American War is compelling and without that crisis, the realignment towards the Republican Party would’ve been unlikely to occur.
Fundamentalists argue that the differences between the North and South were so ingrained that slavery could not be reconciled without war and I can buy that. However, I don’t buy that reconciliation of these differences was inevitable. Without a crisis, support for the Republican Party might never have crystallized and the fundamental differences between the North and South might’ve continued to exist for generations longer. However, even without the issue of slavery in new federal territories, it’s possible that some other crisis related to slavery might have eventually occurred. Fundamentalists would probably argue that some sort of slavery-related crisis was inevitable. I’m unconvinced that either the fundamentalists or the neo-revisionists provide a completely adequate argument. Kornblith’s article is very convincing, however, that events easily could’ve occurred differently than they did and that the Civil War might have been delayed for a generation or two, at the very least.