Interpreting The Consequences And Causations Of The American Civil War

The American Civil War has caused many debates amongst a wide range of historians resulting in many different views being formed on all aspects of the War. The argument whether slavery has been overemphasised is one of great debate. Some historians like Michael F. Holt concur that the slavery issue was nearly the only reason and cause of the American civil war. Others disagree, Joel H. Silbey agrees that this is a reason but not the only one other ideas to need to be looked at to the cause of the outbreak of war in America. I will look at this issue and others which caused the beginning of the civil war.

In this paper we would analyze the causes of the Civil War and advocate the thesis that slavery was the cause of the Civil War.

The American Civil War occurred between 1861 and 1865 and is largely considered the most destructive conflict in U.S. history, resulting in approximately one million military casualties and an inestimable number of civil victims. Much controversy still surrounds the nature of this conflict, as its determining causes are complex. Contemporary international perception may have placed a progressive, anti-slavery label on the whole affair, yet the basic fact remains that nineteenth century America was an increasingly inhomogeneous country and prone to blatant discrepancy.

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

In William Barney’s article, “The Quest for Room,” he analyzes the differing opinions between the North and South regarding the expansion of slavery into the newly acquired Western territories. The author argues that the West would have been important to slaveholders as a place to expand slavery if the territories had not been free-soil. The reason for this article was to show us how prominent the sectional differences were in the nineteenth century because of the argument over slavery. This, in turn, led to the secession of the Southern states from the Union as they formed the Confederacy; this dug the nation into a deep-pitted civil war.

During the 19th century, slavery expanded geographically and demographically in the South and Southwest of America, generating a wave of abolitionist movements. These events provoked a different response in the country’s society, since not everyone shared the same definition of slavery and freedom. These concepts started to get involved in almost every part of American sociopolitical life, creating differing points of view that would later conform the two sides in the Civil War of America: The Union in the north, and Confederacy in the south.

There had been many wonderful misunderstanding between North and South in the years that led up to the Civil War, but the most tragic misunderstanding of all was that neither side realized, until it was too late, that the other side was desperate. Not until the war had actually begun would men see that their rivals really meant to fight? By that time it was too late to do anything but go on fighting. Southerners had been talking secession for many years, and most people in the North had come to look on such talk as a counter in the game of politics.

Slavery did play an important role in the Civil War, but it was not what the war was originally based on. James M. McPherson explains in his book, “What They Fought For” the reasons why the Union and Confederacy started the Civil War. This book review will analyze the author’s purpose, his main argument, the evidence used, whether the book succeeded in its goals, and whether I would recommend this book or not.

The 1850s were believed to be a period of compromise to prevent Southern secession from the Union. Instead, it brought more divisions along sectional lines, Northern Democrats and Northern Whigs (free-states) against the Southern Democrats and Southern Whigs (slave states). David M. Potter’s book Impending Crisis provides evidence of sectionalism between free and slave states. Potter contends that during the expansionist period of the 1840s the country was experiencing a growth of American nationalism, but “the emergence of the sectionalism which almost destroyed the nation was symbolized by an amendment to an appropriation bill which was never enacted.” For the next fifteen years the Wilmot Proviso (1846) and the issue of slavery would become “a catalyst of all sectional antagonisms, political, economic, and cultural…opened the floodgates of sectionalism, for now all the pent-up moral indignation which had been walled in by the constitutional inhibition could be vented into the territorial question.”

Every moment in history begins with a cause. When it comes to the topic of the American Civil War, the specific causation has been debated by historians. Whatever the cause, the Civil War could be defined as the most gruesome war the United States has faced. With over 620,000 casualties, the Civil War of 1861 left America crippled with pain. Some Americans will promptly agree that this bloodshed was caused by slavery whereas others favor the idea of sectionalism; a term defined as the tendency to be more concerned with the interests of one’s own region than with the dilemmas of the country as a whole. The Progressive Historians believe economic differences between the North and the South, which were rooted in sectionalism, caused the war. On

In the later half of nineteenth century America, the new nation’s original ability to resolve conflict through means of peaceful compromise had vanished. Various spans of conflict such as Westward Expansion, the Market Revolution, Sectionalism, Mexican American War, the succession of the southern states and ultimately the failure of the Compromise of 1850 that made compromise between the North and the South unattainable. It was the uncompromising differences amongst the free and slave states over the power of the national government that created a divide that would result in divisional violence. From the industrialized North, the agricultural South, Jackson’s Presidency to Lincoln’s and the rise in America 's involvement in politics that followed, slavery was merely one pawn on the board during America’s transforming years that would later reveal itself to have been the vehicle for the Civil War.

In the early years of the 19th century, slavery was more than ever turning into a sectional concern, such that the nation had essentially become divided along regional lines. Based on economic or moral reasoning, people of the Northern states were increasingly in support of opposition to slavery, all the while Southerners became united to defend the institution of slavery. Brought on by profound changes including regional differences in the pattern of slavery in the upper and lower South, as well as the movement of abolitionism in the North, slavery in America had transformed from an issue of politics into a moral campaign during the period of 1815-1860, ultimately polarizing the North and the South to the point in which threats of a Southern disunion would mark the beginning of the Civil War in 1861 (Goldfield et. al, The American Journey, p. 281).

In 1861, the American Civil War commenced after many years of tension building between the Northern and Southern states. The main reason of the tension was said to be the debate of slavery between the North and South, and although some documents support this claim, it is false. The war had been brewing since 1607, before slavery was even introduced to the colonies that would become the United States of America. The debate of slavery did play a major part in the civil war; however it did so in supporting the true cause of the civil war. The main cause of the American Civil War was not the debate of slavery, but rather Europe’s role in the American economy.

By all estimation, the American Civil War was considered to be the bloodiest and most gruesome war in American history. There are more US casualties involved in the American Civil War than US casualties in World War I & II, Korean, and Vietnam War combined. Historians have discussed possible causes that led to the greatest separation among the American people. It is important to recognize the true causes behind this separation so that history does not repeat itself. It is important to recognize the true cause behind this separation so that history of a civil war does not repeat itself. It is best to examine and understand one fundamental cause so that appropriate measures can be taken to prevent another repeat of the past. Current research as well as old documents demonstrate that the conflict over the legality of African American slaves is the main cause to such separation. However, many tend to overlook the economic reason that benefited both the northern and southern states. While it is clear that the Southern states benefited more from slavery due to the vastness of uninhabited land, both southern and northern states benefited in one way or another. Therefore, it makes one wonder: To what extent economic motive between the southern and northern states spurred the American civil war? Although causes like slavery, greed, and fear factor into the causes of the American Civil War, the economic motive between the southern and northern states spurred

The Roman Republic was a system of procedures formed by tradition; there was no written constitution or legally binding legislation. Precedent and consensus set procedure creating the parameters for acceptable behaviour. However, it was near the end of the 2nd century BC, where the system began to deteriorate and fall, ultimately causing the civil war in 49 BC. The boundaries of acceptable behaviour were stretched by politicians such as Caesar and Pompey and as a result new perilous precedents were set. Violence along with the use of an army became a political tool in the domestic, political sphere. The civil war laid on the foundations that constitutional methods proved ineffective in the face of an inadequate aristocratic government and therefore Caesar and the senate lead by Pompey used violence and rebellion against each other in an attempt to stabilise the administrative system of government and essentially control Rome. Caesar himself ignited the civil war as a result of the unstable Roman Republic, major events such as rebellion and revolts, senate and the political sphere and the breakdown of the triumvirate, which fuelled the motive for civil war. The corrupted Roman system alongside with personal issues and disagreements became the catalyst for the civil war of 49 BC and consequently set the parameters for the new dictatorial Roman world.