Midterm Exam Draft ( Parts 1

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's Apostles of Disunion delves into the controversial topic of the causes of the Civil War and the secession of the states that eventually became the Confederate States of America. There are many accounts that point to defending states' rights as the primary cause of the Civil War. However, most people believe that slavery was the main and primary concern the deep South cited for seceding from the Union to form their own separate country focused on individual liberty and the progression of slavery in those states. Dew makes the point that searching for the cause for the Civil War is a search that continues to be debated

Although Lincoln was very tolerant of the institution of slavery in the Southern States even though he did not fully support it, he did not stand for a nation divided. As the southern states continued to remove themselves from the Union, Lincoln feared they were attempting to disrupt the order of things in the nation. The Union of States is considered to be perpetual. It is the fundamental law of all national governments; no government would allow provisions in its constitution that would allow for it to be terminated. He states that since the beginning of the Union there has been progression only towards strengthening the Union and the establishment of the Constitution was to “form a more perfect Union” (671). As States continue to secede the nation is becoming less perfect because the vital element of perpetuity is lost. States are legally bound to remain a part of the

Beginning in 1861, the civil war was fought over many political questions regarding slavery, yet was barely focused on the actual freedom of the slaves themselves. It is often taught that the Union fought for the freedom of slaves at the beginning of the war. However, it is more accurate to say that Abraham Lincoln’s primary goal at the beginning of the war was to reunite the Union after the majority of the slave-owning states seceded to protect their way of life: slavery. Yet, by the end of the war, the Union’s goal was to free the slaves. Though the laws securing slaves freedom and suffrage were contributed to by many, the primary driving forces behind them was the African Americans. Through their willingness to fight and support the Union cause, African Americans made the United States acknowledge their struggles and transformed the war into a fight for reconnection and freedom. Though hindered by racist people and policies, the African Americans’ participation during the war and Reconstruction greatly contributed to tremendous cultural change as well as the securing of legal rights to blacks.

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 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

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

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 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

“If slavery must not expand in your mind, it’s settled, we as a state secede from the governing of the Union and join a greater power, the Confederacy. We will no longer be hampered in your hatred towards our way of living. ”…“Then be on your way, I shall not dabble in your cruel pro-slavery reasoning. Just bear the knowledge in mind, we are stronger as a whole.” The Missouri Compromise kept inevitable split of the Nation at bay when it prohibited slavery north of the parallel 3630’ north line. This was later repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which implemented idea of popular sovereignty. This led to “Bleeding Kansas.” “Border Ruffians,” who were pro-slavery and the

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.

H.L.Mencker once said, “The American People, North and South, went into (Civil) war as citizens of their respective states, they came out as subjects… what they thus lost they have never got back.” April 12, 1861, was the day an unavoidable war was started, the Civil War (The Civil War Begins). The dispute over slavery was an ongoing issue between the North and South since as early as 1858. As the controversy between the North and South continued over slavery continued, the south had discussion about secession. When delegates from the slave states meant, the “Ordinance of Secession” declared that “ Union was now subsisting between South Carolina and other states, under the name of the United States of America, is hereby dissolved.”

After thoroughly assessing past readings and additional research on the Civil War between the North and South, it was quite apparent that the war was inevitable. Opposed views on this would have probably argued that slavery was the only reason for the Civil War. Therefore suggesting it could have been avoided if a resolution was reached on the issue of slavery. Although there is accuracy in stating slavery led to the war, it wasn’t the only factor. Along with slavery, political issues with territorial expansion, there were also economic and social differences between North and South. These differences, being more than just one or two, gradually led to a war that was bound to happened one way or another.

One of the most, if not the most, controversial and heated debates following the United States independence was regarding the institution of slavery. In the introduction to his book Half Slave and Half Free, Bruce Levine quotes Carl Schurzs’ observation as the “slave question not being a mere occasional quarrel between two sections of the country divided by a geographic line, but a great struggle between two antagonistic systems of social organization (p.15)”. The Nouthern states that allowed slavery benefited from the agricultural labor that those slaves provided. The Northern states that prohibited slavery did so for moral and pragmatic reasons; they felt it was morally wrong to deny another human any form of rights, and did not like the economic advantage it gave to the Southern states. With the use of slavery largely concentrated in the South, the movement against it came from the North and was led by abolitionists; those who were committed to bringing an end to the practice. In this course we have defined “Practice” as the conduct of policy, such as opinion, election, parties and law-making (Lecture). We define Policy as the goals of politics, those being sovereignty, defense, and a collective well-being (Lecture). The following analytical essay will examine antislavery sentiment and practices in the Northern states and the reaction of Southern states. Additionally how the pressures from both sides influenced the Policy of the United States following independence then