Battle Cry of Freedom

The American Civil War has become a point of controversy and argument when discussing key events in shaping America. The arguments that arise when discussing the war tend to focus on whether the Confederate was constitutionally justified in seceding, or whether the North had the right to prevent the secession. However, when discussing the America Civil War and the idea of separation, it is important to be mindful that separation did not simply end at the state level. Letters written by Jesse Rolston, Jr. and Jedediah Hotchkiss portray two significantly different attitudes toward the war, despite the fact that the writers both fought for the Confederate States and give accounts of the same battle, one of which ended in the Confederate’s favor. When examining the documents, both writers express different viewpoints on life on and off the battlefield. This significant difference represents a division amongst the Confederate army.

McPherson begins the Battle Cry of Freedom by describing a violently divided society of the republic at midcentury. As chaotic as it may have been, no one would have believed it was so terrible that a civil

James McPherson was born on October 11th 1936, he is an American Civil War historian. He received the 1989 Pulitzer Prize for Battle Cry of Freedom, his most famous book. McPherson was the president of the American Historical Association in 2003, and is a member of the editorial board of Encyclopedia Britannica. In his early career McPherson wanted to leave a legacy as being known for the historian who focusses on more than one point. Through skillful narrative in a broad-ranging oeuvre of essays and books, McPherson has succeeded in telling both stories, combining social, political, and military history to reach a broad scholarly and popular audience, emphasizing all the while that the Civil War constituted a “second American Revolution.” Examining thousands of letters and diaries written by soldiers to gather a better insight and understanding, McPherson argued that deep political and ideological convictions about liberty, slavery, religion, and nation were the fundamental reasons that men on both sides enlisted and fought. McPherson’s views on the Civil War are broad in comparison to many other writers, he believes there are multiple causes to the war but that the underlying cause was slavery and that Southern states used the saying “States’ Rights” to justify their actions of slavery and secession. It became a psychological necessity for the South to deny that the war was about slavery that they were fighting for the preservation, defense and

the north denying constitutional rights such as a fair and speedy trial. The song could have

In his conclusion, McPherson answer what may lead one to ask if the American Civil War was indeed an extraordinary revolution, one whose likes the world had ever seen. The answer lies in the exact opposite of revolution. Counterrevolution occurred at first chance which in so many ways blanketed the revolutionary characteristics to the best of its applicability. From 1865 to 1866, immediately after the war, black codes began to surface. The purpose of these codes were to keep black labor in a state of dependence and subjection as close to slavery as possible. These codes appeared in the forms of vagrancy laws, contract labor laws the subjected freedmen to peonage and sharecropping, and violence. This code also makes for the final piece of evidence toward support of McPherson’s goal in categorizing the American Civil War as a revolution. Southern redeemers, after the withdrawal of northern Republican interest, went through great lengths to counter evolve them. Why would that be? In order to

The era of Reconstruction was a fourteen-year period following the Civil War filled with political and constitutional strife, extreme suffering, grand political ambitions and huge turns in race relations and human rights (Blight 32). During this period, many Americans realized that remembering the war “became, with time, easier than struggling over the enduring ideas for which those battles had been fought” (Blight 31). To people such as Frederick Douglass, a reborn United States could not

The American Civil war is considered to be one of the most defining moments in American history. It is the war that shaped the social, political and economic structure with a broader prospect of unifying the states and hence leading to this ideal nation of unified states as it is today. In the book “Confederates in the Attic”, the author Tony Horwitz gives an account of his year long exploration through the places where the U.S. Civil War was fought. He took his childhood interest in the Civil War to a new level by traveling around the South in search of Civil War relics, battle fields, and most importantly stories. The title “Confederates in the Attic”: Dispatches from the Unfinished Civil War carries two meanings in Tony Horwitz’s

Yankee invaders between 1877-1850 subjugated the Southern way of life. The degeneration of liberty begun with the North’s ideology of abolishment of slavery, the election of Abraham Lincoln, the disapproval of sovereign succession, the invasion of the Confederate States of America, and the torment of military districts. Laws unjustly created to suppress the white Southerners. These condemnations lasted for over twenty years. This essay will highlight all of these atrocities, and finally will demonstrate that through all this pain and suffering Southern patriotic dignity remained intact.

The Confederacy and the Union tried to take control in many ways. During Antietam, both sides tried to advance to the other side of a cornfield. More American generals were killed than all of World War 2. It took place at Antietam Creek near Sharpsburg, Maryland. Had the fighting not happened, we might not have won.

First, this part of the plan was a battle to forcefully occupy Richmond, Virginia, the political, military capital of the Confederacy. Second, a battle known as the Seven Days’ Battles took place in Richmond, Virginia from June 25, 1862, to July 1, 1862. Third The Union's army in this battle was led by George B. McClellan, while the South was led by Robert E. Lee. Robert E. Lee is regarded as a military genius and was recruited by both the Confederacy and The Union. Fourth, the United States wanted Richmond because it was the heart of the Confederacy. Without Richmond, the Confederacy might cease to exist. However, The Union failed to capture the Confederates capital. Despite the South suffering heavier casualties, McClellan's army was forced to

In Confederates in the Attic, the author, Tony Horwitz, gives an interesting, historical, and semi-humorous take on the Civil War, taking us on his journey through places and people that resonate the Civil War, a journey he called the hardcore campaign of his own. Throughout this adventure, Horwitz’s obsession with the Civil War is supplemented by reenactors who call themselves “hardcores,” historians, museums, Daughters of the Confederacy, teachers, and battlefields, along with everyday people who express their views and knowledge of the War. As Horwitz takes his readers through his journey, he brings to light the idea that the Civil War is “unfinished” for many Americans. This idea is explained and discussed through many of his encounters.

Following the Civil War came a period of regrowth and rebuilding known as Reconstruction. Reconstruction can be broken into different sections and types, one of which is Congressional, or Radical, Reconstruction. There are many scholarly debates about Congressional Reconstruction and its failures, successes, and its overall logistics. Another common debate concerning the Reconstruction period is its purpose and what the intentions of its instigators were. This paper will be discussing an article written by Frederick Douglass entitled Reconstruction. In this article Douglass discusses the Congressional session taking place in 1866. He calls upon the Congressmen to undo the "blunders" of the previous

James McPherson can be considered a highly respected man in the area of history. Uniquely, he earned a degree at John Hopkins University and since then has been teaching American History at Princeton University (Lifson, 2016). Surprisingly, more than six hundred thousand copies of his Pulitzer Prize novel Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era have been distributed across region. In the same manner, his book For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War was brought into the spotlight after winning the Lincoln Prize (Lifson, 2016). In regards to that, McPherson is credited with a host of many, deeply respected works about different sectors in our lands storyline. To illustrate, The Struggle for Equality: Abolitionists and the

We are introduced to Peyton Farquhar, a member of the Alabama plantation nobility. Mr.Farquhar was a man who, like many other well-to-do southerners, supported secession from the Union ever since the idea was first brought up. He believed ardently in the spirit of the South, and would have gladly given his life for the cause of the Confederacy. However, due to extenuating circumstances, he was unable to pursue the “opportunity for distinction” which he believed to be so ripe and proliferous in wartime. Until, that is, an exhausted soldier steered his mount up to the gate of Mr.Farquhar’s home. This dusty, trail-beaten soldier came to the massive estate of the Mr. & Mrs. Farquhar for a simple glass of water, which the lady of the house, being so humble as she was, gladly poured for him. While he was waiting on his much needed refreshment, the lord of the plantation and the worn out soldier began to talk, and Peyton Farquhar learned from this man of a railroad that the Union was planning to build so that it might assist them in an adroit capture of the South.

Shelby Foote, a southern novelist turned historian, uses the prologue in The Civil War, a three book, three thousand page epic on America’s most seminal moment, to introduce the war’s leading figures, Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis. Foote uses the words of poet John Keats, “A fact is not a truth until you love it.” to describe his view on history. Using this axiom, Foote attempts to change the reader’s mind on their understanding of Lincoln and Davis. Not only does he want to prove to us that using primary sources in his analysis of Lincoln and Davis will give us a better understanding of the two, but he wants us to appreciate his techniques as well. He juxtaposes the two presidents, providing an authentic glimpse into their character