Question

Directions: In your response, be sure to address all parts of the question. Use complete sentences; an outline or bulleted list alone is not acceptable.
“If American sectionalism entered a new phase in 1846, it was neither because North and South clashed for the first time nor because the issue of slavery for the first time assumed importance. As early as the Confederation, North and South had been at odds.... Once the government under the Constitution went into effect, bitter sectional conflicts raged.... This sectional rivalry tended to become institutionalized in the opposing [political] organizations....No matter which region embraced nationalism and which particularism, sectional conflict remained a recurrent phenomenon.” David M. Potter, The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861, published in 1976

“The Civil War represented an utter and unique breakdown of the normal democratic political process. When one section of the country refused to accept the decision of a presidential election, secession and the ensuing war became the great exception to the American political tradition of compromise. The rending of the nation was the one time that conflict seemed too irrepressible, too fundamental, to be contained within common consensual boundaries. Because the war was such an anomaly, both participants and later historians have been fascinated with its causes since the shooting started.” Michael F. Holt, The Political Crisis of the 1850s, published in 1978

Using the excerpts above, answer (a), (b), and (c).

a) Briefly describe ONE major difference between Potter’s and Holt’s historical interpretations of the Civil War.

b) Briefly explain how ONE specific historical event or development during the period 1786-1861 that is not explicitly mentioned in the excerpts could be used to support Potter’s interpretation.

c) Briefly explain how ONE specific historical event or development during the period 1786-1861 that is not explicitly mentioned in the excerpts could be used to support Holt’s interpretation.

Answer 1

a. ONE major difference between Potter's and Holt's historical interpretations of the Civil War is that David M. Potter described the Civil War as an inevitable event given the institutionalized sectionalism between the North and the South.  On the other hand, Michael F. Holt held that the Civil War was an anomaly in American compromise-reaching political tradition.

b. ONE specific historical event or development during 1786-1861 that could support Potter's interpretation is the breakdown of the two-party system.  This development pitted far-right democratic republicanism, which promoted white supremacy, whereas center-right republicanism accepted black equality.

Another historical development to support Potter's interpretation is that the South welcomed the Jim Crow laws and sanctioned the separation principle. On the other hand, the North sought to overturn the law and practice of separatism.

c) According to Holt, the Civil War is ONE specific historical event that proved that America broke with its tradition of compromise.  During the Great Compromise of 1787, healthy rivalry ensued between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

Thus, David M. Potter held that the ingrained divisions between the North and the South caused the Civil War, while Michael F. Holt held that the breakdown of the two-party system occasioned the Civil War.

Learn more about the different historical interpretations of the Civil War here: brainly.com/question/11705791