Comparing the Views of Plato and Abraham Lincoln on the Civil War

In document A , Lincoln's speech to Congress, he states, " I recommend the adoption of a joint resolution by your honorable bodies...", Lincoln one of the union and the South to become one, but by abolishing slavery, it created many states to be angry, so it wasn't really bringing people together at all. " resolved, that the United States are to cooperate with any state which may adopt gradual abolishment of slavery..." Lincoln realize that it would cause tension between states, that he needed them to cooperate. " the federal government would find its highest interest in such a measure as one of the most efficient means of self-preservation." Lincoln gave evidence from the federal government stating that this is the easiest, and best way to preserve the Union.

The Civil War was a war between the South and the North. In the South they wanted slavery, and if they were in the North they did not. The conflict arose when the North wanted to abolish slavery, and the South wanted to continue. The Civil War was a 4 year battle, in the United States. The Union and the Confederate soldiers fought from 1861 to 1865 in the Civil War.

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 was a war that was fought over the civil and humane treatment of every person, regardless of their outward appearances. It left a scathing scar on the nation After the atrocities that were suffered in the Civil war, the nation need a way to heal it’s wounds and unite again. Lincoln had a battle of his own to fight within the congress for the Reconstruction of the nation, While Lincoln believed that the south had suffered enough and had a long road to recovery, the radical republicans wanted to punish the south. They believed that the act of secession by the southern states was treason and the penalties should be strict.

President Abraham Lincoln took the phrases “to form a more perfect union” and “to promote the general welfare “ from the preamble to heart. This is why when the South seceded from the union Lincoln went to war. The south seceding meant that the United State of America was becoming a weaker and a worse union and Lincoln could not allow this to happen. Lincoln also realized that the length and intensity of the war was destroying the people of the union and knew that when this war was over he needed to ensure that it would never happen again, and thus issued the emancipation proclamation. In issuing this proclamation Lincoln ensured that the issue of slavery would no longer be able to divide the country and also took the first step toward promoting the welfare of all the people, regardless of race. Along with the thirteenth amendment the fourteenth

The bloodiest war in American history, led by Abraham Lincoln for the north, and Jefferson Davis for the south, both presidents, but two different sides. Both garner for peace, yet one is willing to start a war, while the other is willing to accept it. This essay will compare and contrast the political, economical, and social outlooks on Lincoln’s and Davis’ Inaugural addresses throughout the civil war between the North and South. Slavery, laws, and state rights drove the South to start a war, and Lincoln received the war with open arms. Both sides wanted peace, but their means of achieving it and their leaders’ choices and beliefs differed greatly while still holding similarities.

During the American Civil War, leadership within the Union’s army was constantly an issue. Within the Union, various generals were found at times to be at odds with the political leaders in Washington. This was especially evident in the relationship between General George McClellan and President Lincoln. This tension was the result of McClellan’s approach to waging war. By examining the differing approaches to waging war of U.S. Grant and George B. McClellan one can gain a better appreciation for the decision making that was necessary by leaders like Lincoln, in selecting military

When debating the Constitution, the Founding Fathers were concerned with factions and their impact on society. Many feared that the government would not effectively mitigate the effects of factions. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and other Federalists argued in support of a confederate republic because direct democracies would not be able to protect society from factions. Madison states, “in the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a Republican remedy for the diseases most incident to Republican Government” (173-174). Their argument is void in that their definition of a faction is one-sided and the examples they use to support their argument on factions are superficial. However, the Federalists effectively communicate that confederate republics mitigate the harmful effects of factions better than pure democracies.

Although James McPherson presents Lincoln as having numerous qualities that defined him as a brilliant leader, he wastes no time in revealing what he believes to be Lincoln’s greatest strength. In his Introduction, McPherson states regarding Lincoln’s political leadership: “In a civil war whose origins lay in a political conflict over the future of slavery and a political decision by certain states to secede, policy could never be separated from national strategy…. And neither policy nor national strategy could be separated from military strategy” (McPherson, p.6). Lincoln could not approach the war from a purely martial standpoint—instead, he needed to focus on the issues that caused it. For the catalyst of the war was also the tool for its solution; a war started by differing ideologies could only be resolved through the military application of ideology. This non-objective approach to the waging of the war almost resembles the inspired approach McPherson brings to his examination of Lincoln himself.

Abraham Lincoln won the election of 1860. As a president of the United States, Lincoln’s goal was to keep the Union together. The problem of slavery and the secession by the South are mainly the two issues that lead to the dissolve of the Union, in which Lincoln put all his efforts to deal with during his presidency. “He believes this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. He does not expect the Union to be dissolved; He does not expect the house to fall; but he does expect it will cease to be divided.” Lincoln claimed that it is

     The South’s dominating strategy in winning the civil war was attrition. They believed they could wear down the political will of the North if they held out long enough to make the Northerners tired and question value of the means to achieve the ends. Military stalemates, guerilla war tactics and inconclusive battles would help the South achieve this goal. “Confederate armies did not have to invade and conquer the North: they needed only to hold out long enough to force the North to the conclusion that the price of conquering the South and annihilating its armies was too high, as Britain had concluded in 1781 and as the United States concluded…” (Why Did the Confederacy Lose?, pg 117)The South really enjoyed McClellan’s performance in the Southern theatre with his tendency to retreat when he could have won. This was another helpful hand the South would need to cause attrition. In response, Lincoln knew he had to do two things to prevent attrition and win the war more quickly. He needed to fire McClellan, and shift the theme of the war in the view of the North so that it would not lose its thunder. He did this by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation and converting the war for unionism into the war for morality. The

Abraham Lincoln’s statement in his 1858 speech that “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” is an extremely true statement that is as relevant today as it was when he originally stated it in 1858. Lincoln made this statement when he was accepting his nomination by the Republican Party to become the United States senator for the state of Illinois. Lincoln was attempting to distinguish himself from his opponent for the seat in the Senate, Stephen Douglas, who was a major supporter of the doctrine of popular sovereignty. Lincoln disagreed with Douglas because he believed that the United States could not

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”1 These words, spoken by Abraham Lincoln, foreshadowed the war that became the bloodiest in all of the United State's history. The Civil War was a brutal conflict between the North and South; brother against brother. With slavery as the root cause, Southern states had seceded from the Union and were fighting for their independence. They became the Confederate States of America (CSA) and were a force to be reckoned with. The Union, however, put up a fierce struggle to preserve the country. If the Civil War was to be a war of attrition, the North had the upper hand because of its large population, industrialization, raw materials, railroad mileage, and navy. But if the war was short lived, the

The Civil War was the worst crisis in American history, pitting two sides of a split nation against one another in bloody battles that persisted for four exhausting years. It was a war that neither side claimed to want, and that neither side claimed to start. Although popular belief places the blame with the South because they fired the first shot, there is considerable evidence that Lincoln, realizing war was inevitable, coerced the South into firing that first fateful shot.

William Sherman seemed kind of obsessed with the idea of defeating the Confederacy. He seemed even more focused on the removal of the inhabitants of Atlanta, but then again, it was what the correspondences between him and General Hood and James Calhoun were about. Nevertheless, he was very focused on the removal of the population and he gives very adequate reasons for doing so. As a reader, it's never really certain whether Sherman had a "side" on the issue of slavery because as far as I could tell, you can only really tell his main concern is the preserving of the Union (much like Lincoln's). This is extremely evident because his intentions for the city of Atlanta were to utilize the city for fortification and to take advantage of it to help win the war. So I guess in a way his view of the war is similar to that of Lincoln's because of the fact that they both have no apparent decision on the existence of slavery. However, on the other hand, if you have to assume anything, it would be that Sherman was one of the people, that Lincoln referred to, who wanted to preserve the Union