War Breaking Out On American Soil

Over fifty thousand books on the Civil War have been published, and the task for a writer who attempts a narrative of the period would seem to be overwhelming, but James M. McPherson managed to create one of the best ever. In 1988, he published his Pulitzer-winning book, Battle Cry of Freedom, and ten years later received the Lincoln Prize for another book, For Cause and Comrades. He has published around 23 scholarly books and unlike many historians, has a reputation of trying to make history accessible to the public. McPherson became the president of the American Historical Association in 2003, and is now a member of the editorial board of Encyclopedia Britannica. McPherson has helped millions of Americans better understand the meaning and legacy of the American Civil War. He does so by establishing the highest standards for scholarship and public education about the Civil War and helps to protect the nation’s battlefields. (nytimes.com)

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 Vietnam war exposed a generation of Americans to the fallacy of American exceptionalism by exposing the magnitude of grievances the Government was willing to commit at the expense of Human lives. “For nine years victory wavered [in the Trojan War]” (Hamilton 261), for nearly twenty years media claims of American victory in Vietnam remained unfounded .”[Trojan] Men sickened and died so [often] that funeral pyres were burning continuously (Hamilton 261) as did their modern American counterparts.Both wars ended in part to the deviation of its constituents, anti-war movements eventually influenced Government as did the secretive actions of the few (the Trojan Horse) constrain further conflict. As, the current President continues to augment the U.S., seemingly in preparation for conflict, it is imperative that we remember from experience that swift revolutionary civil disobedience rather than reactionary civil obedience after grievances have been committed will ensure that the lives of Millions do not become

In this historical text, Reluctant Witnesses: Children’s Voices from the Civil War, Emmy Werner retells the events of the Civil War through the eyes of children who are male, female, black, and white. Werner worked to sift through the reactions and experiences of the young men and women who were involved in the Civil War. Each chapter articulates a different portion of the battle and the events during the Civil War. Chapter two, five, six, eight, and nine capture the eye-witness accounts from young soldiers and young women who lived through the Battle of Shiloh, the Battle of Gettysburg, the siege of Vicksburg, the burning of Atlanta, and Sherman’s march to the sea. Chapter three, four, seven, and ten depict the responses the young children had at Andersonville, during the bread riots, the triumph at Washington D.C., and the voices of the former slaves of the south. Werner thrived to increase the knowledge on the involvement of children within the Civil War. Werner’s historical picture was to present the realities children faced on and off the field of battle. Werner’s argument focused on children’s perspective of the Civil War. She supports her claim by providing diary, letter, and journal excerpts from one hundred and twenty children ages four to sixteen, by being focused on their subjective experiences of the hardships they endured and how they managed to cope with them drawing, where appropriate, parallels to the experiences of children in contemporary civil strife.

In order to look into the lives of the U.S. citizens during the Civil War I decided to look into the first week from April 12, 1861 to April 18, 1861 of the New York Times. I looked into this week of articles to see how the New York Times covered the outbreak of the war and the people’s response to it. Some of the main war events covered were: call for Union to relinquish command of Fort Sumter and first shots of the war, reaction to the surrender of Fort Sumter, Lincoln’s Proclamation to add seventy-five thousand volunteers to the war efforts, possible attacks on Fort Pickens, and the Confederate reaction to Lincoln’s Proclamation. During this week, the north was obviously nervous and scared yet felt they would win as well as confused as to why the war was happening at all.

One thing is certain- there is no trust when it comes to the bona fide truth. This distrust is evident as Horwitz discovers just how much people have used the war to suit their own needs. It seems that each individual has developed his or her own take on the Civil War. The question is, have people taken the creation of a fantasy world to an extreme?

The American Civil War was a military conflict between the United States of America (the Union), and 11 secessionist Southern states, organized as the Confederate States of America (the Confederacy). It was the culmination of four decades of intense sectional conflict and it reflected deep-seated economic, social, and political differences between the North and the South. Many books have been written on this “first modern war” describing how over 620,000 men were killed. Jeff Shaara goes deeper and explores the personal conflicts of four historical figures, two from the South and two from North: General Lee, General Jackson, Colonel Chamberlain, and Hancock.

Brownlee, Richard S. Gray Ghosts of the Confederacy: Guerrilla Warfare in the West 1861-1865. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1986.

Looking at wars in history one may question the ability to avoid such casualties and destruction that occurred. Such as the civil war where American’s fought American’s seizing to destroy each other even though both had worked hard to overcome Britain’s monarchy and develop the free nation. However the civil war became inevitable when President Lincoln was elected due to such different views between him and the south. These differences included economic, social, and political differences which divided the north and the south enough to spark the civil war.

“War at its basic level has always been about soldiers. Nations rose and fell on the strength of their armies and the men who filled the ranks.” This is a very powerful quote, especially for the yet young country of the United States, for it gives credit where credit is truly due: to the men who carried out the orders from their superiors, gave their blood, sweat and tears, and in millions of cases their lives while fighting for ideals that they believed their country or government was founded upon, and to ensure the continuation of these ideals. Up until the end of the 20th Century, they did so in the worst of conditions, and this includes not only the battle scene, but also every day life. In

James McPherson presents three short discourses on the crucial inquiry of why men in blue and ash diligently attempted to execute each other from 1861-1865. McPherson inspects, in an exceedingly casual manner why men enrolled and why they battled until death or the end of war constrained them to forsake the challenge. In a candid and unashamedly revisionist approach he declares that belief system played a much more imperative part than formerly accepted. The impression perseveres that Civil War warriors, in the same way as their more present day partners, had practically no clue about what they were battling for.

In the two hundred years since 1775, there has been thirty-five years of fighting in what we consider major conflicts or wars. This averages out to about one year of war to every almost 6 years of our existence as a nation and during that time, we have not been without formal military organizations. Over the course of history, the United States has engaged in many battles that were a crucial phase in developing who and what we have become. Throughout this assessment, we will analyze what were some of the true tipping points that shaped (1) America’s paradoxical love-hate relationship with war and, (2) How this relationship influences American warfare.

Talks between the U.S and the Soviet Union let by Vladimir Putin concerning a ban on nuclear testing started in the mid-1950s. Trusted officials from both sides came to believe that a nuclear arms race was going to reach a dangerous level. In addition, public protest against testing of nuclear weapons was gaining power. Nevertheless, talks between the two sides carried on for years, usually coming apart when the issues of verification were raised. Both the U.S and the British greatly wanted on-site inspections, something the Soviets strongly opposed. In 1960, the three sides seemed not far to an agreement, but the findings of a U.S spy over the Soviet Union in May of that same year brought discussions to a close.

I am aware of the fact that you want to avoid an outbreak of war at all costs. Europe has been struggling to survive due to so much damage being done from the First World War. You believe that by avoiding war, you can stitch up the missing pieces between Germany and the rest of Europe. However, I don’t believe Germany will ever be satisfied until they have complete control. Hitler’s actions in the past have proven that he only cares for his own self-interests. Ever since the beginning of his career, Adolf Hitler has had two objectives, gaining land and purifying the “natural race”. Both of these are in order to make Germany stronger, and this again proves that he only acts upon his own self-interests. Although

When I was younger, my mother told me a story about discipline. As a child, she and her sisters would watch T.V. on the big plush carpet in her father’s house. Her father would draw a line in the carpet, marking the closest they could be to the T.V. My mother and her sisters, both being at the age of rebellion, took this as a challenge. They would discreetly scoot forward, their toes touching the line, watching to see if their father noticed. When they realized they could get away with it, they drew a new line when he wasn’t looking, nearly identical to the first, and waited to see if he noticed that. After a few more times, their courage exploded and they were soon only a few feet from the television. My grandfather had enough and banned them from the T.V. for 2 weeks. This situation reminds me of North Korea, whom is once again behaving like a petulant child desperate for attention, and the United States is considering offering punishment. This summarizes many of the articles written recently about the alleged ‘nuclear’ bombs tested by North Korea earlier this year (Sang-Hun, “U.S. Weighs”). North Korea is planning another launch in the near future, and has assured everyone that the only things that will be sent up into the atmosphere are simple ‘satellites’, (Harlan, “North Korea”). Needless to say, the country seems rather interested in having the world’s eyes on it. It seems as though the aim of North Korea is to provoke other countries into