This article supposes the difference in US history had Henry Clay defeated James K. Polk for the presidency in 1844. The overall focus is the impact of the Mexican-American War, or the lack thereof, on the United States’ path towards Civil War. Kornblith also argues, using a comparison with Brazil’s abolition path, that in order for American slavery to end when it did, there needed to be a war. Without one, slavery would have likely lasted into the 20th century. (Sarah M)

The most obvious factor in Clay's defeat in 1844 was the Democrats' nomination of James K. Polk at their national convention in Baltimore in late May. Often described as the first dark horse candidate to win a major party nomination for president, Polk triumphed on the ninth ballot after support for Martin Van Buren, the former president who had been at the country's helm when the economy crashed in the late 1830s, dissolved and Van Buren's fellow New Yorker Silas Wright declined to be considered. (Guy)

This article provides a parallel between the causes of the American Revolution and the causes of the Civil War. Both occurred roughly twelve years after the conclusion of a war for North American empire. The territory acquisition resulting from these wars raised questions about the authority structure and powers of the central government, which in turn led to a constitutional crisis. Resistance arose in both cases from provinces declaring themselves independent, and the central government sent a military force to combat the rebels. (Ezra C)

In the years leading up to the Civil War, abolitionists increasingly agreed on the morality of direct action by slaves for their freedom. Pacifism was supported by white abolitionists who didn't want slave revolts. However, by the mid-1840s, most abolitionists agreed that slaves could pursue freedom by all feasible means. Many endorsed running away as a legitimate way for slaves to pursue their liberty in the face of unreasonable conditions. (Ezra C)

Much of the parallel between the Civil War and Revolution come from both cases where the conflict arose from the acquisition of land and dispute over how to govern it. The Revolutions conflict came following the British acquisition of North American land following the French and Indian War. The conflict of the Civil War was largely triggered by the debate over land out west and whether new states should be admitted with or without slavery. (Declan)

I think it's interesting that the author takes the position he does in terms of discussing how the Civil War could not have happened. Based on his analysis, if Clay had become president, then the continuation of slavery would have lasted well into the 20th century. Typically, I don't love analyzing history based on what-ifs, but considering the race for President was so close in this scenario, the thought process isn't far off. (Caty)

Antislavery activists were confronted with “powerful countervailing historical tendencies.” Kornblith explains that these tendencies include a tradition of constitutional unionism and compromise, the importance of slavery and cotton to the economy, and longstanding loyalties to political parties. (Tiblin)

Fundamentalists: Believe that the struggle between the North and South was bound to happen due to the social differences found in both. The South was primarily focused on slavery, while the North was more focused on free labor. (Lauren V.)

Revisionists: Believe that the South and North had social differences, however, they believe that the North and South could have eventually gotten rid of slavery without the need for a war. Kornblith explained that they believe that “poor political leadership, the fanaticism of irresponsible agitators, or extrinsic factors the upsurge of nativism…” led to armed conflict amongst the two. (Lauren V.)

The American Revolution and Civil War have many connections that make them similar. An obvious connection between both pieces comes in how they both follow a different smaller war. The French and Inidian War, and the Mexican-American War both prescede the other two wars and certainly had an effect on why these wars started. (Tanner Gillikin)

When examining the causes leading to the Civil War, historians split into two distinct groups. There are those who point to the diverging social systems of the North and South and there are those who point to poor political leadership and Nativism. This split naturally puts people in two groups, Fundamentalists and Revisionists. Fundamentalists believe the diverging social systems, free labor in the North and slavery in the South, was the ultimate cause of the Civil War. Revisionists believe the poor political leadership in the U.S. prior to the Civil War and Nativist ideas is what brought on the Civil War. (Hank L)

The initial revolution in 1776 sparked so much inspiration in the European countries in the years that followed. Many found this new idea of revolution and standing up to oppressors an intriguing idea that led many to take up arms and fight for a new form of society. Reading how that effect trickled into what became the Civil War was very interesting. (Lexi)

The revolutions of 1848 led many to flock to America after their revolution's failure in their countries. What shocked me at first was how they were treated almost like heroes and celebrities when they arrived. Many individuals who had a large part in the revolutions, like Kossuth, were given parades and banquets to show how appreciated their presence in America was. All these people coming to America for a country where revolution succeeded seemed to only boost American's egos in a sense. (Lexi)

The forty-eighters jumped on the conflict surrounding slavery quickly. A large majority viewed slavery as the thing that held America back from its potential. It was interesting to read the different views that these people who fought their own revolutions had on slavery. While some saw it as the very idea they fought against in their own country with the oppressor and the oppressed. Some viewed it as an exercise of the power America had because of their revolution in 1776. (Lexi)