Bond Of Iron By Charles Dew Summary

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.

America’s transformation into the country we live in today has been formed through numerous events during its short history but the event that will split the United States into North versus South is truly one of the most defining events in American history. Through numerous events leading up to the start of the Civil War, I will attempt to show how the United States was destined for conflict and that the Civil War was inevitable. The first way I will show how the war could not be avoided will deal with the issue of slavery. Slavery should be the first mentioned because many conflicts within the United States leading up to the Civil War and the division of the United States dealt with slavery. The Missouri Compromise should also be talked

Charles B Dew, PHD, a winner of Fletcher Pratt Prize from the Civil War Round table of New York for two of his books: Apostles of Disunion and Iron maker to the confederacy, is a native of St. Petersburg, Florida. A son of the south. His book Apostles of Disunion is a book in an attempt to analyze the question: why did the southern states went to secession? In his book, Dew explains why he is writing it and tries to answer (which I believe he does successfully) the question of was the secession due to state right or was the end motive the institution of slavery? The author clearly mentions that he is writing the book in

In “Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War,” Charles B. Dew analyzes the public letters and speeches of white, southern commissioners in order to prove that the Civil War was fought over slavery. By analyzing the public letters and speeches of the commissioners, Dew offers a compelling argument proving that slavery along with the ideology of white supremacy were primary causes of the Civil War. Dew is not only the Ephraim Williams Professor of American History at Williams College, but he is also a successful author who has received various awards including the Elloit Rudwick Prize and the Fletcher Pratt Award. In fact, two of Dew’s books, Tredegar Iron Works and Apostles of Disunion and Ironmaker to the Confederacy: Joseph R. Anderson, received the Fletcher Pratt Award for the best nonfiction book regarding the American Civil War. In his analysis, Dew argues that the fear of eliminating slavery along with the fear of racial equality were both crucial factors regarding the outbreak of the Civil War. By tracing the speeches and public letters of state-appointed commissioners, Dew effectively argues that the white, southern commissioners led the southern states into a Civil War in order to preserve the institution of slavery as well as the ideology of white supremacy.

Despite the differences in the primary reasons for Northerners in the war, Gallagher and Manning’s arguments align on certain aspects of slavery: both argue that in order for the Union to successfully win the war, slavery needed to be abolished. Gallagher argues that many northerners realized that in order to end the war and to rid nation of conflict and threat to the Union, slavery would need to be abolished. He argues, “Without slavery and the various issues related to its expansion, most white northerners could envision no serious internal threat to their beloved union.” Similarly, Manning also argues that there was a threat to the union because of slavery, whether Northerners liked it or not: “In 1861, a large and growing number of ordinary soldiers believed that a war endangering the Union had come about because of slavery. White Southerners’ willingness to destroy the Union over slavery made the war about slavery whether an individual Union soldier wanted it that way or not.” Therefore, Manning’s argument states that there is a need for the end of slavery in order to preserve the Union.

The central thesis of this book is that the secession commissioners that were sent Deep South to other slave states in the winter of 1860-1861 played a major role in defending as well as urging people to subscribe to their ideology and follow them out of the Union. This thesis helps in giving insights in the South’s real intention, which can be argued out that it was to defend its slave trade culture that the North was totally against hence the use of secession as a means of convincing people. Even though the historians mostly ignore these men that were involved in the secession, these men played a vital role in the creation of the beautiful country

Throughout history, people have gone to extreme lengths to secure their economic well being. The people in the Southern states were no different in this regard, and for this reason we affirm the resolution that the South was justified to secede from the Union. Before going any farther, we must define key terms in the resolution. The South refers to the 11 states who became the Confederate States of America. The Union was the United States in 1860. Lastly, justified means done for a legitimate reason, in this case in the context of the political and economic circumstances of the time. We support our affirmation with the following contention: that the South’s economic interests were in such danger that they took the only path available to them

The South vs. The South by William Freehling is a narrative that focuses on the civil war that affected a vast number of Southerners who opposed the Confederacy regardless of whether they were white or black. These “anti-Confederates,” as termed by Freehling comprised Slaves and Boarder state whites who together formed half the southern population and were significant to the Union victory. By weakening the Confederacy military, contributing manpower and resources to the Union and dividing the southern home front, the anti-Confederates made a critical contribution to the Union war efforts that hastened the end of the war leading to the Union’s victory. The U.S was not the only house that was divided; Divisions between pro-and anti-Confederates, white and black, and the loyalty of both upper and lower states to slavery contributed a lot to the downfall of the confederates. “Divisions within the South helped pave the path toward war. The same divisions behind army lines helped turn the war against the slaveholders.”(p.10). William Freehling argues that more than 450,000 Union troops from the South, especially southern blacks and border state whites, helped in the defeat of the confederates. Further, when the southern Border States rejected the Confederacy, more than a half of the South’s capacity swelled the North’s advantage.

One specific topic he focused on and that he believed was a major reason that the South seceded was the pro slavery attitude the South supported. Dew recognized that if slavery did not exist in the south then the civil war would have never occurred. In his writings he explained the pro slavery attitude that the Southerners held and used many different examples to support his claim. One of the best examples he used was the situation that pro slavery Southerners took before the civil war. He said the states that were seceding “talked much more openly about slavery than present-day-neo-Confederates seen willing to do.”

The first major reason of the civil war stems from Lincoln’s “House Divided” speech. Lincoln gives warning to the growing rift between the North and the South, the Anti-Slavery and the Pro-Slavery groups, as evidence in ‘I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.’ Although the antagonism and eagerness of protecting the Union is not shown as prominently as future speeches, we can find a hint of caution in his tone. He goes on to support his claims through the hodgepodge of legislation that is the ‘Nebraska Doctrine’ and the legal crisis of the Dred Scott court case. He politely refers to this as ‘squabble’ and speak of the controversy and moral implication that they have caused. For his part, it is easy to see the insinuation of the speech- he believed slavery was immoral and was wholly incompatible with the principles of the Declaration of Independence embodied in the phrase

The Civil War is something almost everyone has a general idea about. It is more than a huge part of America’s history and is the central event in America 's historical consciousness. This war, unlike the American Revolution which created the first American states, determined what kind of nation it would be. Though there are many reasons for the cause of the American Civil War, one of the main reasons is the different attitudes the North and the South had toward slavery. In January of 1863, The Emancipation Proclamation was

The romanticized version of the Civil War creates a picture of the North versus the South with the North imposing on the South. However, after reading “The Making of a Confederate” by William L. Barney, one can see that subdivisions existed before the war was declared. The documents analyzed by Barney primarily focus on the experiences of Walter Lenoir, a southern confederate and a member of the planter elite. His experiences tell a vivid story of a passionate and strongly opinioned participant of the Civil War as well as demonstrate a noticeably different view involving his reasoning when choosing a side. Between analyzing this fantastic piece of literature and other resourceful documents from “Voices of Freedom” by Eric Foner, one

The tensions of the Civil War are very much still alive in the Southern United States one hundred and fifty years after the Confederacy surrendered to Union forces to end the war. While the tensions may have mitigated away from full-fledged war between North and South, there still remain tensions along racial and cultural lines well beyond the war. In Tony Horwitz’s Confederates in the Attic these long standing tensions left over from the war are delved into by Horwitz as he makes his way across the south to see how the old Confederacy is viewed in the modern world of the United States. What Horwitz found was a dualistic society differing views on the Confederacy and the events of the Civil War. Dualities left from the war in aspects such as racial tensions, the meaning of the Confederate flag even between North and South entirely. Those living in the South can be seen holding a resonating connection to the Civil War. It becomes clear in Confederates in the Attic the Civil War not only became the catalyst of such dualities in Southern society, but still further shape and perpetuate these dualities long after the Civil Wars conclusion.

There has been much debate as to whether the Civil War could have been avoided or not. The Evansville Daily Journal argues that the Civil War was inevitable, but Alexander Stephens disagrees and proposes that the war could have been avoided. Stephen’s argument is superior to the Evansville Daily Journal one because it objectively talks about the recent changes in the United States, explains the different views between the North and South, and tries to convince people that a war is not necessary.

When the American Civil War began in the spring of 1861, those flocking to enlistment stations in states both north and south chiefly defined their cause as one of preservation. From Maine to Minnesota, young men joined up to preserve the Union. From Virginia to Texas, their future foes on the battlefield enlisted to preserve a social order, a social order at its core built on the institution of slavery and racial superiority . Secession had not been framed by prominent Southerners like Robert Toombs as a defensive measure to retain the fruits of the revolution against King George, a fight against those who sought to “intrique insurrection with all its nameless horrors.” (Toombs Speech) On January 1, 1863, when Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation went into effect the war became a revolution. The Union, the soldiers in blue fought to preserve could no longer exist. On every mile of soil, they would return to the Stars and Stripes from that moment on, the fabric of society would be irrevocably changed. In May of 1865, with the abolition of slavery engrained into the Constitution with the passage of the 13th Amendment, the Confederate armies of Lee and Johnston disbanded, and Lincoln dead of an assassin’s bullet; this change was the only certainty the torn fabric of the newly reunited states was left to be resown. Andrew Johnson and Southern Democrats believed the revolution of 1863 had gone far enough. Radical Republicans and African-Americans sought instead to bring it to