Aggressive Action Vs Nonviolence

Discuss the rationale and ramifications of turning to the slaves for both sides and the impact on the slaves as a result.

But war is not needed to improve and increase human rights in other nations. Even with out war there are still nations and people without human rights; it just needs to be noticed.

Then change in the 1730’s a religious group called the Quakers would inspire the Great Awakening which abolished slavery and demanded that slave holders across the colonies to do the same. That they would start to happen after the American Revolution by 1820’s and the north was on a path to end slavery for good and allowed blacks to live free in the north for the first time in American history, but that did not change for the south. The south offering liberties to white plantation owners have offered a few rights to blacks they would develop the ⅗ compromise that would determine how slaves would be counted as far as tax and legislative representation. While slavery started to get essentially worse in the southern states. It seems that the American Revolution did not do anything for the Africans for “freedom” besides what they did in the northern states by 1804. Every northern state either abolished slavery or passed a law to eliminate it

Secondly the peacemakers were faced with was giving freedom to the black slaves, which meant that would be the end of slavery all together.

The book Masters Without Slaves by James L. Roark is about what happens before, during, and after the civil war that pertains to slavery. It starts off with how slavery was in jeopardy with President Abraham Lincoln getting elected into office. When he got elected the rumor of secession was getting tossed around and would eventually come true. “The secession debate embroiled planters in the issues of sectionalism and nationalism, race and class, and slavery and freedom.”(1, 1) Many people were divided on if the south should secede from the rest of the United States and if it didn’t then there was a chance that slavery would end. There were Unionist planters that were calling for the separation of the south and United States. “Southern Unionist mounted the stump once more to put down the demands for independence.”(2, 2) “Secession not only threatened slavery, but endangered all property, and the prosperity of the 1850’s as well.” (3, 4) As it went on the south succeed and the civil war had started. The slaves had been freed but many stayed because they were able to stay and work with their old plantation owners. The slave owners were very opposed to losing their slaves and tyranny had broken out. The South had to reform and learn how to farm without their slaves. Many people had found it hard to live without their slaves but one woman argued with her husband saying, “That he must learn to live under the new order of things.” (4, 183) The book is based about how southern

Many people today believe that freedom for slaves was why the Civil War was started.

As Confederates used slave labor for military purposes and blacks began to escape to Union lines, this initial policy of ignoring slavery became untenable. By the end of 1861, Union commanders had begun treating escaped slaves as “contraband” of war—property of military value subject to confiscation. Southern blacks themselves took actions that propelled the Union toward ending slavery. Well before Lincoln’s Emancipation Act, slaves saw the war as an opportunity to gain their freedom. Thousands escaped to the safety of Union lines, crippling many plantations. In areas occupied by northern soldiers, slaves refused to work unless paid.

come to mind that the slaves were to willing to got o war over their own

On September 22, 1862, President Lincoln announced that after January first of the following year, 1863, any slaves in a state of rebellion would be freed. This did not stir the South much, and the complete abolish of slavery did not take place until the end of the war two years later!

War is Peace – If there was no war the citizens would not have peace, war is used as a way to control and regulate peace.

In the mid 1800s, abolitionism had begun to develop in the United States. The Abolitionists had had different ideas on how to free slaves and end slavery. Some abolitionists had thought that taking more aggressive action was a more effective way, while others thought that they should peacefully protest. This is asking which way would be a more effective way to free slaves in the United States. Although many people thought that aggressive action was a more effective way, many others had disagreed and said that they should protest peacefully. The abolitionists should take more aggressive action.

The Civil Rights Movement brought many accomplishments to African Americans such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. The key issues that African Americans fought for were voting rights, integration and racial equality. They were tired of the discrimination and humiliation they received as a result of the segregation laws imposed on them. “State laws mandated racial separation in schools, parks, playgrounds, restaurants, hotels, public transportation, theaters, restrooms and so on” (Blumberg 40). Lawsuits had been tried to gain rights such as the unsuccessful Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 and the successful Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Although, the Brown v. Board of Education of

Violence is an option that is heavily debated when taking action. It can often result in complete chaos and not accomplish the original purpose of the action. Nonviolent direct action is another option that is contemplated. It involves the use of direct action without violent force to get the point of the action known. Examples of nonviolent direct action would include strikes and protests. The use of such action is often best implemented in human experience that involve discrimination. Differences in race, gender, or religious affiliation can often cause discrimination. Individuals in minority groups are seen as unequal to the majority and can be easily be discriminated against. To promote change, minority groups often take actions. The action can either involve violence or exclude it. Violent force can degrade the appearance of the individuals and create more anger between the two opposing sides. The use of non-violent direct action shows more humility of those who are being discriminated against. Others being to understand the issue without creating chaos.

The South wanted to free the slaves, however, they understood the “negative” political impacts. The North wanted to free the slaves, but they were very divided within themselves. Once ex-slaves gained the right to vote as a full human being (Black Suffrage), the Republican party arose to shape our country. (Roark, 471) With ex-slaves gaining the highly deserved power, the Ku Klux Klan (K.K.K.) was developing to support the democrats and restore “White Supremacy”. (Roark, 471) The political division raised what I would call a second Civil-War within the American government.

Peaceful resistance to laws positively impacts a free society. Rather than having violent movements and harming citizens, it is better to peacefully resist. Once a violence is used, the resistance to the law becomes nulled. People tend to not follow a violence protester. Once a violent riot starts, chaos is everywhere. People forget what they are truly fighting for. They unconsciously run away with the fear of getting harmed and dare not to go back. A peaceful resistance on the other hand leads citizens to join and support. People are able to see what they are fighting for and their real intentions. They are able to stand and cause no problem to people passing by as they are showing their support through silent voices. Many famous activists and leaders are for nonviolence. Mahatma Gandhi, a primary leader of India’s independence