William W. Freehling's 'The South vs. the South': An Analysis

The challenges that the Union and the Confederacy faced during the Civil War were very different. Critical weaknesses that seemed unfit for war, plagued the opposing American forces, and would serve to be a continuous obstacle that would need to be conquered by patriotism of the people, for their opposing views. To allow for both sides to be competitive, the efforts put forth had to mold to the varied needs of the armies by both the civilian population and their militaries. To the people in the south the similarity to the colonists in the Revolutionary War, was assimilated to their separatist cause in the Civil War and would be their drive to compete with the dominating Northern states. This mindset started the Confederacy in the Civil

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

Imagine a historian, author of an award-winning dissertation and several books. He is an experienced lecturer and respected scholar; he is at the forefront of his field. His research methodology sets the bar for other academicians. He is so highly esteemed, in fact, that an article he has prepared is to be presented to and discussed by the United States’ oldest and largest society of professional historians. These are precisely the circumstances in which Ulrich B. Phillips wrote his 1928 essay, “The Central Theme of Southern History.” In this treatise he set forth a thesis which on its face is not revolutionary: that the cause behind which the South stood unified was not slavery, as such, but white supremacy. Over the course of

After the Civil War, the South was in a state of political turmoil, social chaos, and economic decline. Contrary to popular belief, Northerners did not subject Southerners to unethical or inhumane punishment. The time post Civil War was filled with efforts toward reconstructing the South, yet there is the strong question if there even is a New South. Yes, there was somewhat of a New South economically. No, there was not a New South regarding race relations and social hierarchy. In the 1870’s, the South realized the world still looked at them as the ones who wanted slavery. There was a need to project a new image to the world and to stimulate

The Civil War that took place in the United States from 1861 to 1865 could have easily swung either way at several points during the conflict. There is however several reasons that the North would emerge victorious from this bloody war that pit brother against brother. Some of the main contributing factors are superior industrial capabilities, more efficient logistical support, greater naval power, and a largely lopsided population in favor of the Union. Also one of the advantages the Union had was that of an experienced government, an advantage that very well might have been one of the greatest contributing factors to their success. There are many reasons factors that lead to the North's victory, and each of these elements in and

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

In the beginning of the 20th century, most of the South, geographically, was inhabited by African Americans. African-Americans have been stuck in poverty in the past, and they did not have any job opportunities, due to racial prejudice. They have suffered ever since they were slaves picking up cotton and when the Ku Klux Klan was around. African Americans grew in fear in the South. Because of this, the North needed workers after World War I African-Americans jumped at the chance of moving to the North because the demand of employees had gone down. Blacks thought the only way to leave their oppression was to travel to the North. Many African-Americans moved to places like Chicago, Detroit, and especially Harlem

The first side that gets addressed is the Confederate side. While there are many different reasons that the soldiers fought in this civil war, the one of the main causes was for the use of slavery. Many soldiers had the mindset to fight for “a free white man’s government instead of living under a black republican government” (53). This will to uphold the racial inequality was seen in the way the South fought with passion and hatred against the change of their lives (19). Confederate soldiers were mostly bought into the war, due to the plantation owners sending someone else in their names. Soldiers

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

A frequently, and sometimes hotly, discussed subject; the outcome of the American Civil War has fascinated historians for generations. Some argue that the North's economic advantages proved too much for the South, others that Southern strategy was faulty, offensive when it should have been defensive, and vice-versa. Internal division in the South is often referred to, and complaints made against Davis' somewhat makeshift, inexperienced, government. Doubts are sometimes raised over the commitment of Southerners to a cause many of them were half-hearted about. Many historians have argued that the South lost the will to fight long before defeat was inevitable. However, many of these criticisms could easily be applied to the North, had the

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.

In the time just before the Civil War, the United States was one of the most successful nations in the world. The United States had become the world’s leading cotton producing country and had developed industry, which would in the future, surpass that of Great Britain. Also, the United States possessed an advanced railroad and transportation system. However, despite its successes, the United States was becoming increasingly divided. The North and the South had many distinct differences in terms of their social, cultural, and economic characteristics that brought about sectionalism and, eventually, the Civil War.

The experience for Northerners was a lot different from that of Southerners. Horwitz does his best to depict the view of the Civil War all throughout the south. He spends time with war reenactors who go for days and nights trying to experience what it was like for the Confederate soldiers. They all were so passionate about the war and that seems to be something more prevalent in the South, which may stem from the entire cause of the war. According to neo-Confederates, “The North and South went to war because they represented two distinct and irreconcilable cultures, right down to their bloodlines. White Southerners descended from freedom-loving Celts in Scotland, Ireland and Wales. Northerners- New England abolitionists in particular-came from mercantile and expansionist English stock”. Neo-Confederates believe that the South’s reasons for fighting were a lot more personal than the North because the South felt like they were fighting to protect their society and their freedom. It is believed that “[The Civil War] was a culture war in which Yankees imposed their imperialist and capitalistic will on the agrarian South” , which makes it seem like Southerners were the ones being attacked. When defending something a person is more likely to be passionate about it as opposed to the offensive side. Southerners can easily claim the North was forcing industrialisitc

Keene, Cornell, and O’Donnell (2013) report that the Civil War is “the most written-about event in American history” (p.374). While the issue of slavery was a contributory factor both in moral and economic terms to the civil war, the war was a result of many differences between the northern states and southern states. The Northern states economy was industry based, as opposed to the agriculture based economy of the South (making the Slavery even more important in the South), and the South’s increasing economic dependence on Northern industry was a cause for resentment. Another point of contention was a difference of philosophy regarding state and federal control, with the South favoring stronger state rule, and the North favoring stronger

The South has a history of deep-rooted traditions, some more sinister than others. The deteriorating antebellum era makes the perfect backdrop for gothic literature, which highlights grotesque characters and themes of death, terror, and social isolation. Carson McCullers, born in Georgia, felt personally connected to these themes. She was a young genius, and felt alone in her advanced ideas and mature understanding of social issues. In a world full of labels and boxes, McCullers fit in no category perfectly, and felt the pain of that isolation acutely. The one thing all people are united by is their inability to feel united, and McCullers’s novels strives to depict this dilemma of human existence. McCullers turned to writing to express her suffering and offer solace to people like her in a world that felt lonely and unfair. Carson McCullers uses her novels much like how some use a diary, and through her characters she expresses her deepest fears and mental anguish. Throughout each one of her novels is a prevailing theme of isolation from society, which manifests itself in different ways, but can always be tied back to the inescapable loneliness of the author.