topic
stringclasses 20
values | article
stringlengths 228
20.8k
|
|---|---|
civil-war | On January 1st 1963 Lincoln made an important announcement, it was declared that all slaves of the states rebelling against the Union were to be freed. At this time it was also declared that Blacks were allowed to join the Union army. These announcements were crucial to the Union as they gained support from the Negro communities and politically helped preserve the Union. |
civil-war | The battle of Gettysburg took place between July 1st – 3rd 1963. In the May of 1963 Lee had been given the go ahead for a north invasion. Lee hoped that a victory in the north would help increase the peace movement which was gathering some support there. This, along with the weakening of the Union army, may initiate talks of surrender by the Federal Army. On June 30th come of the Confederate army marched into the town of Gettysburg but wee driven back by a Union cavalry which was already there. So, the next day the Confederates attacked with more force, with troops from the wast, north and east. This drove the Union army back and up onto Cemetery Hill. This however, resulted in giving the Union a good position for defence. On July 2nd Lee ordered more attacks and an attempt to storm Cemetery Hill. |
civil-war | This was unsuccessful, but resulted in 9,000 casualties. At 1.00pm on July 3rd Confederates opened fire on the Federal line and major duel continued for two hours. Then the infantry moved forward which is known as “Pickett’s Charge” . The Confederate army was driven back and the battle was considered a Union victory. The battle left the Confederates with around 28,000 casualties and the Union with about 23,000 and was the last time that the south tried to invade northern territory. Also in July 1863, although the war would continue for another year and a half, the battle in Vicksburg which took place was crucial to the outcome of the war. |
civil-war | Another event which was important to the ending of the war was Major General William Tecumseh Sherman’s “March to the Sea”. Sherman and his 62,000 men began their journey on 16th December 1964. They travelled at quiet a leisurely pace through Milledgeville towards Savannah. They were virtually unopposed and during the march tore up railroad tracks, released slaves, burned plantation houses and searched for supplies. Sherman reached Savannah on 20th December and presented the city to President Lincoln as a Christmas present. The troops then continued north to South Carolina and along the way destroyed more houses. They captured Charleston on 18th February and then Columbia, the state capital, on the 19th February. Joe Johnston’s Confederate army was highly outnumbered and withdrew from attacking. Then at Durham Station in North Carolina Sherman concluded an armistice with Johnston on 18th April 1965. |
civil-war | Robert E. Lee, of the Confederate, was too late in his retreat south from Petersburg and Richmond (the Confederate capital) in March 1865. General Ulysses S. Grant led huge Union armies to surround Lee and his men. At Appomattox Courthouse is the official site where this took place on April 9th 1865. This was the end of the Civil War, although some sparse fighting continued for a few months longer. |
civil-war | The civil war led to a vast number of American lives being lost. To begin with people hoped, and thought, that the war would only last a few months, not four years. There are a number of reasons that resulted in the war carrying on for so long. Both sides had different advantages over each other. The north had a much larger population, factories to produce war materials, a good transportation system, and a strong presence a sea. The South had fewer advantages but still some important ones. The South were fighting on home ground. This meant they knew the land and it gave them more immediate reason to defend their land and families. The South also had the leadership of great commanders and a military tradition. The battle of Bull Run showed the first of many bloody wins, in the east, for the Confederate. |
civil-war | However, these wins did not translate into any military advancement. The Confederate would win many battles, especially in the first year, but they would be no nearer to winning the war. The Union however, were better prepared at winning and advancing in the sea and in the west. As it was the north that were trying to conquer the south and force them back to the Union, it meant that it took more for them to be victorious. The Confederates did not attempt as many invasions as the south. This left them to mainly be defending their territory. Whereas the Union had to win the battle and keep control of their win. So, although the Union had the power in the sea as an advantage and were fairly efficient at advancing forward, it did take time for them to achieve its goals. |
civil-war | Jefferson did not present his candidacy for a third presidential period, but he helped elect the Democratic-Republican candidate from Virginia, James Madison, as president in 1808. Madison was the 4th president who also presided for two periods, from 1809 to 1817. During these years he had to confront serious problems. The worst of them was the continuous confrontations with Great Britain. Neither English nor French were in disposition to cede to American petitions. The United States wanted to have control over fur trade and other riches. |
civil-war | All of population did not support the war. Northeastern merchants and imports opposed the war, for they were afraid that commerce there could be destroyed. Also, Great Britain was in poor conditions. As a result of this, the war ended with no defeats or victories for any of the two countries. In 1814, Great Britain took over Washington D. |
civil-war | C. and burned it. Later, they attacked Baltimore but finally they were expelled. When it was clearly seen that none of the two countries were able to win the war, both decided to put an end to it. Finally, it was given and end to the War of 1812 with the signed Treaty of Gante. Although the treaty of Gante ended the confrontations, it did not resolve the problems provoked by the war. |
civil-war | The strongest opposition of was for the federalists took place in the reunion or Hartford convection in May of 1814. Here, Federalists attacked the war. Also, they proposed a series of amendments to the constitution, which limited the power of the congress and the president. To many citizens, this action was seen as disloyal. Once the war was over, they severely criticized the Federalists. As a result of this, the Federalists lost the election of 1816 by a great amount. This failure placed an end to the Federalist Party as the nation’s political power. After this they never presented a candidate to the presidency and soon the party had completely faded. |
civil-war | The following years after the war were marked by a feeling of nationalism, a feeling of pride and national unity. The strong loyalty that Americans had felt towards the other states was being replaced for a loyalty toward the whole nation. The fall of the Federalists contributed to this spirit of nationalism. National pride helped Americans to unite to the Democratic-Republican Party. This party had taken many ideas from the Federalists, taken and claimed as theirs. This party reconstructed the army and constructed plans for the creation of roads and canals. Also, high tariffs and establishment of a second National Bank. |
civil-war | Democratic-Republicans with James Monroe as president controlled the Federal Government from 1817 to 1825. There was no other political party that opposed them. Since this political party remained free from arguments, this period was called the “Era of good feelings”. The United States’ economy started to grow rapidly after the War of 1812. Industry and agriculture extended. Commerce prospered. A new swell of people went to the west where they were offered more land. This economic expansion contributed to the growth of the nationalism feeling. |
civil-war | However, this new economic growth also created conflicts. The northeast, the south and the west prospered, but each for different reasons. In the North, economy was based on manufacture. In the West states, between the Appalachian and the Mississippi, economy was based on agriculture. The south was also based on agriculture, but the following years of after the war, there was a rapid growth in the importance of one of the products: cotton. Underneath this surface of the “Era of good feelings” there was a serious problem: regionalism or also known as sectionalism. The habitants of these three great regions started to place their interests over the nation’s interests. This fight between this different economic systems and way of life continued for 40 more years. In the end it brought the Civil War to the United States. |
civil-war | Historians have traditionally labeled the period after the War of 1812 the “Era of good feelings”. Although Nationalism did exist between regions of the United States, this was just a facade. Underneath this so-called nationalism there was a great deal of regionalism also known as sectionalism. Due to this great amount of sectionalism, the different way of living, the beliefs of tariffs and slavery brought the country to divide. |
civil-war | There existed nationalism during “The Era of Good Feelings”. During the 4th of July everybody celebrated as a nation the Independence of the United States (Document C). Artists like John Krimmel painted art work showing how happy the United States celebrated the Independence. He showed salves and salve owners all together celebrating this important feast. This way he showed how the United States were all together celebrating the Nation’s victory as a whole. |
civil-war | Although the United states did expressed Nationalism in some ways, all this was forgotten when the country stated to divided it self into different sections with different believes. One of the great differences between these sections was tariffs. Hohn Randolph of congress said in 1816, “With my goodwill, sir, no one interest agriculturists bear the whole brunt of the was and taxation, and remain poor, while the others run in the ring of pleasure, and fatten upon them” (Document A). What he tried to say is that the high tariffs were unfair to many people. Other only wanted the best for them with out thinking of the rest of the population. |
civil-war | Also, John C. Calhoun, also from the congress expressed himself in 1817 saying, “Let it not be forgotten, let it be forever kept in mind, that the extent of the republic exposes us to the greatest of calamities – disunion” (Document B). By saying this, he means that the Republic exposes them to the greatest calamity, which is disunion. To this people disunion is one of the worst thing that could happen to the US since during this time it was supposed to be a time were everybody though about the whole nation as one. This time was supposed to be a time were the US government and people thought about doing the right thing thinking only for the benefit of the country, but Calhoun demonstrates that this is only a lie that the US though of to cover this “great calamity”. |
civil-war | The US was divided in three parts, the South, the West and the Northeast. More of the population living in the United States lived in the North (Document E). This was because people could find a better opportunity without high tariffs and with less problems of slavery. Slavery was a big issue during this time. Jefferson wrote to John Randolph in April 22 of 1820: “A geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held upon to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper” (Document F). In other words, Jefferson admits that the country is separated and being divided by a “geographical line”. This was due to slavery believes, moral and political issues. |
civil-war | As I mention before, slavery was one of the principle facts that led the Nation to divide. Probably, it was the biggest issues that cause the effect of sectionalism between the nation. This not only affected the slaves and slave owners but also the rest of the population. Anna Hayes in South Carolina wrote to her cousin in North Carolina. “I suppose that by this time you are anxious to hear more about the unhappy business” (Document G). She refers to this slavery as “the unhappy business” because it has cause controversy between all. Also, as I mention before due to these great differences the nation became separated. The government had much responsibility of this (Document I). |
civil-war | All in all, even though there did existed nationalism between the Nation, it diminished though out the time and soon it was only a statement used to cover up division. At the end not even nationalism could save the country from sectionalism. As a result the Civil War broke out. This proved that the “Era of Good Feelings” was only a statement used by the United States to cover all the sectionalism that exited in the US. |
civil-war | The United States before the civil war was basically split into two regions, the North and the South. These two regions had very different cultures, economics, and climates which led to different life styles and perspectives. Problems caused by the differences between the North and the South eventually led the nation into a great civil war- the bloodiest war in American history. |
civil-war | Fast moving rivers and waterfalls were common in the North because of the many mountains. As a result, Northerners started to use waterpower to run factories. Meanwhile, in the South, the weather was usually hot and sunny, with lots of rainfall, making the growing seasons longer. The South’s lands were flatter than the North’s, making it a more ideal place for farming. |
civil-war | The Northern population between the years 1800 and 1860 increased massively. Because of the large amounts of immigrates from Europe, the North’s population increased from five million to thirty-one million. The South’s population, on the other hand, was made up mostly of enslaved Africans. By 1860, one third, out of twelve million people in the South, was slaves. |
civil-war | Because of the climates and geography in these two regions, they developed different economies. Economy in the North was based on many different industries such as shipping, textile, and mining. Because of coal and waterpower, manufacturing in the North developed quickly. Unlike the North’s, the South’s economy was based on agriculture. Crops such as cotton and tobacco made huge profits. Southern farmers had to use large amounts of slave labor for their plantations, so slavery was necessary to the prosperity of the Southern economy. |
civil-war | Northerners and Southerners developed individual cultures. Cities had an important role in determining the North’s culture. New businesses brought new ideas to the North. The Northern emphasis on public education led to many schools and churches. The life in the South was really different than the North’s. The South’s agricultural system was controlled by wealthy planters who lived like the country gentlemen of England. The South had few schools or churches. Rich planters would usually hire private tutors to teach their children until they were sent to private schools. |
civil-war | One of the few similarities of the North and South are that they both have thousands of roads, steamships, and canals. In 1850, thirty thousand miles of tracks connected far-away parts of the United States. By 1860, there were over eighty-eight thousand miles of surface roads in the North and South combined. |
civil-war | The biggest difference between the North and the South is that the South had slavery, while the North did not. Eventually, the issue of slavery and the other differences of these two regions led to the American Civil War, which lasted for four years. However, after the civil war, the North and South, like a family, unite together and became one of the most powerful nations in the world. |
civil-war | Wendell Phillips’s speech delivered in 1861 near the beginning of the Civil War claims that African Americans ought to be given the right to serve in the military, for different contemporary generals were not of a European background yet brought America prominent success that significantly affected the course of American history. Although African Americans in the past were subjugated by the Americans on a regular basis, a couple of excellent triumphes by African descendant generals clearly proved that African Americans need to be, in truth, enabled to serve in the military as the rightful soldiers of America. |
civil-war | Wendell Phillips represents a few commendable figures of Europe that have been proclaimed as the best minds of the time through making use of hyperbole. In the beginning of the passage, he describes Napoleon as a guy whom the French discovered “no language abundant enough to paint the fantastic captain of the nineteenth century. |
civil-war | ” Although Phillips is applauding the eminence of Napoleon, he is also making a caustic remark on how the Frenchmen would do whatever it takes to shine the glory of Napoleon’s success. Like the embellishment utilized in the representation of Napoleon, another phrase likewise highlights the success of Washington, whom the Americans consider “no marble white enough on which to sculpt the name of the Father of his Nation.” |
civil-war | Because of Phillips’s usage of hyperbole to overemphasize the credibility of each nationwide hero, the audience expects to hear the exact same type of appraisal for the African American hero, basic Toussaint Louverture; however, in following part of the passage, Phillips explains him as a male who was degraded by the scanty traces of composed pieces that plainly represented Briton and French belittlement and abhorrence– a noticeably contrasting illustration. |
civil-war | By presenting two distinct ways of depicting the national heroes, Phillips reprimands the American views towards African American success; whereas the French and American heroes earned the prestigious titles through their work, Louverture was rather degraded as a negro and a slave who was fortunate in the battles. Phillips’s use of hyperbole appeals to the audience’s logos, because the readers are compelled to believe that American’s disapproval of African American military enlistment is unreasonable, since even men like Louverture was barred from the honor he should have received simply because of his status as a negro and a slave. |
civil-war | The English Civil War took place in 1642 when Charles I raised his royal standard in Nottingham. The split between Charles and Parliament was such that neither side was willing to back down over the principles that they held and war was inevitable as a way in which all problems could be solved. The country split into those who supported the king and those who supported Parliament. Some historians say that Charles is totally to blame for this war, while some say that parliament is totally to blame for it. |
civil-war | This made him very unpopular. Another reason for why the king was to blame was the way he had handled with religion. As he was the king, he had thought that he had the power to make the Scots use English prayer books. The scots were so furious that they decided to fight Charles I instead. This also made him unpopular to the scots as well as the people of England. When the scots had defeated him Charles had to pay lots of tax money which he couldn’t afford. So, Charles had to recall parliament, as only tax voted by parliament got rid of the scots. |
civil-war | Charles believed in divine rights that God had chosen him to be king so he and Archbishop Laud started to decorate the church which he said that if the church is decorated, you will be closer to God. He also married a catholic princess from France which was very unpopular. Oliver Cromwell and Parliament still wanted more power and no return to the Catholic religion. To make things worse for Charles the Catholics in Ireland killed 100,000 Protestants. Also another reason why parliament is to blame is because the king and parliament always used to argue about who controls the army and parliament made the king angry by taking over them without his permission. |
civil-war | Constructivism is a normative global relations theory that looks for to understand the value of society’s actions and theorize its meaning (Adler, 1997, pp. 319-320). According to constructivism, any actor can have xan company in international relations such as states, institutions and individuals and is different to realism and liberalism where instead of the presumption that states are self-centered and logical, it accepts that these actor’s interests and rationality are socially built and are constitutive of and by its identity (Bozdaglioglu, 2007, pp. |
civil-war | Constructivism is the finest theory for comprehending the occasions in Syria because it reveals how social identities and an actors’ interests and preferences are socially constructed and can prompt conflict. Due to the numerous groups motivated in this conflict numerous social identities exist which are incompatible. Ultimately, the Syrian Civil War is an identity dispute with each identity including their own beliefs that each discover special. As identities and interests are constitutive, the interests of a group function as a propellant for social action (Bozdaglioglu, 2007, pp. 131-132). For that reason these constructed interests motivate the social identities of the groups and require to be redefined in order for trust to be developed. A social identity can be defined as a socially built set of meanings that one credits to oneself (Bozdaglioglu, 2007, p. 132). It is developed predominately through the political options and the actor’s interactions, assumptions, analysis and cumulative meanings and serves a core function in the Syrian dispute (Adler, 1997, p. 324). |
civil-war | The presence of multiple different social identities with numerous beliefs in the Syrian conflict is incompatible and result in societal ‘friction’. Al-Assad’s regime does not represent the general public, in the sense that it favours the Shia minority and suppresses all other identities (Vallely, 2014). This is a conflict of cultural identity where all groups hold different interests in which each find exclusive. Constructivism is the only theory in which acknowledges this identity crisis between the parties involved in the Syrian civil war. Trust and peace need to be fortified and in order to do so a common identity needs to be worked towards and founded by all reasonable parties. As President Barack Obama states in relation to Syria: “Peace can be achieved by allowing opposing parties to freely express and discuss their respective opinions which would ideally result in peaceful resolutions based on views held in common by these parties” (Obama, 2013) To do so, the structure of norms in which develops behaviour and interests must be deconstructed and changed (Checkel, 1998, p. 328). |
civil-war | An actor’s behaviour is complex to understand as identities are not fixed and known, and therefore it cannot be deduced from the character that is assumed a state represents (Palan, 2004, p. 14). Looking through a constructivist lens, norms are collective understandings that motivate actors and therefore effect the identity and interest (Checkel, 1998, pp. 327-328). A dominant conflict in which sparked and fuels the Syrian civil war is that of the sectarian tension between the Sunni and Shia branches of Islam (Hinnebusch, 2008, pp. 263-265). Deeply embedded in the Syrian civil war is that of a religious uproar between sects (Vallely, 2014). The uprising in Syria consists of sectarian religious overtones in which resulted in a domestic clash between Shia and Sunni sects. With a government predominately Shia and 75% of the population Sunni (United States Central Intelligence Agency, 2014) a domestic clash between Shia government and Sunni population must be resolved in order for a common identity of the state to be formed and trust established. |
civil-war | The al-Assad regime’s Shia representation clashes with the general Sunni public and in order for this struggle to be resolved, an impartial and independent government identity must be formed. Constructivism is the only theory in which recognises these relations and its authoritative role in the civil war. It shows how the Sunni-Shia relations are an important sector of the social structure of Syria in which the actions of actors with certain identities and interests are possible (Wendt, 1995). Constructivism distinguishes two core assumptions of realism and liberalism in which allow for a more advanced understanding of the social structure of Syria. Firstly, that institutions and structures only inhibit behaviour of states with fixed interests and secondly, that the identity of a state is perceived only through physical capabilities (Checkel, 1998). Relaxing these assumptions allows social structures to become important and allows the formation of identities and interests to be defined by more than just behavioural constraints (Checkel, 1998). |
civil-war | This is exemplified by the role religious institutions have in the Syria. As the Shia minority came into power, the protests become stronger and the demonstrations from the Sunni population are seen by the al-Assad regime as terroristic. This lead to a redefining of the parties’ identities, conclusively leading to each side identifying the other as terrorists or criminal gangs. The identity and interests of the state are therefore constitutive of and by the other parties and not only through physical capabilities. Social structures such as norms and culture, have a profound effect on agents, being characteristic of each parties’ identities and therefore interests (Checkel, 1998). |
civil-war | In conclusion, constructivism is the best theory to explain what is happening in Syria. By analysing the central determinants of state behaviour, identity and interests, the current dissatisfaction of the status quo can be deconstructed and changed to form one common identity. Only social interaction and meaningful dialogue can guide the agents in identifying interests that is shared by the general public. Only when one common identity is defined, will trust and peace, as well as domestic, social and legal norms be established. |
civil-war | Adler, E. (1997). Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics. European Journal of Internation Relations, 3(3), 319 – 363. Bozdaglioglu, Y. (2007). Constructivism and Identity Formation: An Interactive Approach. Uluslararasi Hukuk ve Politika, 3(11), 121-144. Checkel, J. T. (1998). The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory. World Politics, 50, 324-348. Hinnebusch, R. (2008). Modern Syria Politics. History Compass, 6(1), 263-285. Obama, B. (2013). U.N General Assembly Speech. United Nations. New York: United Nations General Assembly. Palan, R. (2004). Constructivism and Globalisation: From Units to Encounters in International Affairs. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 17(1), 11-23. Risse-Kappen, T. (1995). Democratic Peace – Warlike Democracies? A |
civil-war | In 1861, when the Civil War broke out, the Confederacy and the Union both had numerous advantages and disadvantages and there were multiple women and slaves that contributed to the war. To begin with, the Confederacy had its significant advantages that helped it push through the war, one of which was its strong leaders. Many believed “Stonewall” Jackson and Robert E. Lee were some of the best officers even before the war. Also, they had the advantage of fighting on their own soil. |
civil-war | They knew the terrain better that of their counterparts. A psychological aspect could be that fighting for their land, for their families, could have been the driving force or motivation. Moreover, they have longer coast lines which increased the travel time and decreased the chances of blockade or capturing of ports and major cities. |
civil-war | The Confederacy also had minimal factory production and industry. At the beginning of the war, the Confederacy had only one-ninth the industrial capacity of the Union. But that statistic was misleading. In 1860, the North manufactured 97 percent of the country’s firearms, 96 percent of its railroad locomotives, 94 percent of its cloth, 93 percent of its pig iron, and over 90 percent of its boots and shoes. There was not even one rifleworks in the entire South. |
civil-war | Due to the large amounts of manufacturing businesses and the railroad system to move the products, the Union, unlike the Confederacy, could produce and ship weapons, clothing, and food at a much more efficient rate than their counterparts. Also, because they were a newly founded “sovereign state”, the Confederacy did not have a professional, organized standing army and navy. The army and navy of the Federal United States were already organized and ready for war. Since, The Union had a naval advantage and the confederacy had Long Coastlines that were hard to defend,the union could block the Confederate’s ports for supplies. Furthermore, the economy of the Confederacy was destroyed by the Union. |
civil-war | Second, the Union also had its many advantages as well as some disadvantages. One of the North’s significant advantages in fighting the war was that the industrial, urbanized Northern states held a significant edge in the population and manpower. The North had over twenty-two million people whereas the South had just over nine million (three and a half million of whom were blacks). Additionally, the Union had already an more experienced government since it was around for some years, when on the contrary, the Confederate government was fresh and new. Also, as mentioned before the Union was far more industrialized with its vast networks of factories, railroads, and ships which exceed any amount of industrialization in the south. |
civil-war | This aspect gave the Union of being able to transport supplies and equipment faster and finance the war much better than the Confederacy. Finally, as it was also mentioned previously, the Union did have a large navy that allowed them to block major southern ports. During the horrible four years of the Civil War, women who did not own property, did not have the right to vote, or did not have many civil liberties came together in support of the war efforts. Women were so eager to help that they hid their identity by dressing as men, taking up masculine names, and took up arms of their own. They cared for sick and dying soldiers, risked their lives to gather information as spies, cooked, cleaned and care for children. The tenacity and love with which these women served their country was astounding, and yet often overlooked. |
civil-war | About 3,000 women served as Union army nurses. Dorthea Dix was one women who was acknowledged for being the Nation’s first superintendent of women nurses. Clara Barton was recognized for being the first women to work in the U.S. Patent Office and was given the name “Angel of the Battlefield.” Sally Tompkins was a Confederate army nurse commissioned as captain because she performed her hospital duties so heroically. Finally, Belle Boyd was honored for being a brave Confederate nurse and spy. |
civil-war | After President Lincoln presented the Emancipation proclamation, which held a section for the enlistment of African Americans into the Union Army, African American men rushed to enlist. This time they were accepted into all-black units. The first of these was the Fifty-fourth Massachusetts Colored Regiment, led by white officer Robert Gould Shaw. Their heroism in combat put to rest worries over the willingness of black soldiers to fight. |
civil-war | Soon other regiments were being formed, and in May 1863 the War Department established the Bureau of Colored Troops. Black recruiters, many of them abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass, Henry Highland Garnet, and Mary Ann Shadd Cary, brought in troops from throughout the North. Douglass proclaimed, “I urge you to fly to arms and smite with death the power that would bury the government and your liberty in the same hopeless grave.” |
civil-war | Others, such as Harriet Tubman, recruited in the South. On March 6, 1863, the Secretary of War was informed that “seven hundred and fifty blacks who were waiting for an opportunity to join the Union Army had been rescued from slavery under the leadership of Harriet Ross Tubman….” By the end of the war more than 186,000 black soldiers had joined the Union army; 93,000 from the Confederate states, 40,000 from the border slave states, and 53,000 from the free states. |
civil-war | They participated in about 500 Civil War battles and skirmishes. Although they were treated unequally they continued to volunteer. For example, white privates in the Union army were paid $13 monthly with and extra $3.50 clothes allowance, while black privates in the Union were only paid $10 monthly WITHOUT an extra clothes allowance. It wasn’t until 1864 that Congress equalized the pay for the black and white soldiers. Also, the mortality rate of blacks were higher than that of whites due to the fact that they were assigned to labor duty in the germ-ridden garrisons where they were likely to ctach typhoid, pneumonia, malaria, or other diseases. |
civil-war | The Civil War happened due to the many differences between the North and the South. For example economic, social, cultural and political differences. These all helped lead America to a Civil War. But to an extent, the most important cause was the fact there were many disagreements with states’ rights versus federal rights. |
civil-war | Whereas the state governments only has power to deal with policing, education and health care. And issues like slavery created tension between the two because the federal government wanted to abolish slavery but the southern states disagreed with this as this was their way of life and it should be their decision to abolish it or not. “Southerners believed that state laws carried more weight than Federal laws, and they should abide by the state regulations first. |
civil-war | Therefore the federal government has no right to abolish slavery in every state against their will. But then again the federal government has to maintain the authority so they can overrule the state laws, so they can make sure that everyone is treated equally. As the historians Sean Wilentz and John Ashworth describe, the North’s commitment to capitalism and modernisation it was the context for abolitionism and for the free labour ideology of Abrahams Lincoln’s Republican Party. And the South’s commitment to essential production of goods and slave labour was reflected in the region0s distinctive cult of honour, and its defence of social inequality. |
civil-war | There was a lot of tension between the North and South and this emphasised the separation of the nation’s political parties. The two major parties within the nation, the Whigs and Democrats started to disagree with each other and slowly started to divide. The northerners favoured the Whigs, who became the Republicans. The Republicans were anti-slavery, and they really wanted to focus on education and industrialising the nation. However, the southerners disliked the Republican Party and saw it as a “divisive element and one that could lead to conflict.” |
civil-war | As soon as Abraham Lincoln became president, South Carolina seceded. This showed that the state didn’t feel part of the Union because it believed that the president was going to want to abolish slavery and South Carolina was reliant on slavery. So, because they seceded more states after them, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee. Already before the war it was clear that the United States were dividing into the North and South. Historian Arthur Cole wrote, ” Lincoln was pictured in many quarters not only as a black Republican but as an Abolitionist, a fanatic of the John Brown type.” Fundamentally, this means that the South saw Lincoln as a “black Republican” who is definitely going to break up the Union, and so this is what it led to, the secession of 11 states. The southerners believed that Lincoln was an Abolitionist because of the John Brown raid, who was from the North. He was against slavery, and was extremely violent compared to the other Abolitionists. Him and 18 other men attempted to raid the government armoury at Harper’s Ferry. He was captured and hung. This just shows the hatred that there was towards the northerners, and that because of this, it helped build up the tension between the North and South and then lead to the secession of the southern states. As the historian Walter Edgar says, that when Lincoln did come to power, it was a shock for the southerners, and that they because of this the nation began dividing and causing war. |
civil-war | Although some people do believe that it was the main cause of the civil war. However, it had not been, because before the civil war broke out, some events occurred that led to the civil war. All the events that happened before built tension with the nation which made it extremely hard for everyone to work together and sort the problems out. When Fort Sumter was attacked, there were strikes within the South so that the commander that was stationed at Sumter would surrender. And so troops were sent down to sort things out and causing the civil war to begin. In order for the civil war to break out all the North and South needed was that last straw to be pulled. Some historians suggest that the North and South deprecated war, and that either the South or the North would cause the war or accept it. Additionally, because the states seceded, they created their own Union, which intensified the situation because Abraham Lincoln wanted to maintain the Union and keep all the states in one whole nation so they could work together and have a strong economy. |
civil-war | Overall, most historians suggest that slavery was a cause for the civil war, but it is clear that it was not the main cause, even though it all fell back on slavery, for example the economic differences, the South relied heavily on slavery. Also the issue of slavery was important, because the South feared that Abraham Lincoln was going to abolish slavery, so that is why they seceded as he did not appeal to the southerners. In addition, the state governments believed that they had the right to decide whether to abolish slavery or not within their state. This was because they depended on slavery and it was their way of life, and it was clear that it was not up to the federal government to abolish it. It was also due to the fact that the Tenth Amendment stated that the states have the power to make new laws in the Constitution as they wish. According to Dubois, the civil war was not only a war of the economic systems of the North and South but also a war of ideas and ideologies. |
civil-war | The amazing thing about literature is that it can be interrupted differently by each person who reads it. Which means that while one piece of writing is amazing, creative, and witty to one person to another person it could be the most boring, uninteresting, and redundant piece of literature they have ever read. In this semester of Literature 221, I was given the opportunity to read works from many different genres, time periods, and styles of writing. Some of which, like Emily Dickinson’s Life I and Life XLIII, Joyce Carol Oates’ Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?, and Sherman Alexie’s What You Pawn I Will Redeem I thoroughly enjoyed and learned from. |
civil-war | This is why I really enjoyed the two selections of her work we had to read this semester. In her first poem Life I, the very first two lines make you stop and think, “I’M nobody! Who are you? Are you nobody, too?” (Dickinson 2) Bam! I was hit in the face with self-reflection. Am I somebody? Or am I a nobody? Emily Dickinson continues by saying “how dreary to be somebody!” (Dickinson2 ) as if to be somebody is a bad thing. |
civil-war | Instead of being able to live for yourself and for your own happiness you are forced to live by the way society sees you. It made me see that maybe it truly is better to be a happy, content nobody. In her poem Life XLIII, Dickinson again made me pause and self-reflect but this time on the beauty of the human mind and it’s capabilities. In this poem she states that the brain is “wider than the sky”, “deeper than the sea”, and “is just the weight of God” (Dickinson 3). The sky, the sea, and God. Three powerful, endless, and even omnipotent to the human eye and yet the brain is more than that because it has the capability to imagine all of it. You can hold images of God, the sea, and God all in your mind. Dickson wrote these poems with such beautiful imagery that really does make a reader stop and think. This is why her works are among my favorite reads from this semester. |
civil-war | Joyce Carol Oates brought a real life serial killer to life in her tale Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been? Based off the actual murders of Charles Howard Schmid Jr., Oates tells the story of Arnold Friend and a young girl named Connie and the events that would eventually lead up to Connie’s murder. I loved this tale because Oates gave a real voice to the real life victims of Schmid. While an article by the Daily News stated that, “Despite his creepiness, ladies loved Smitty” (citation here news article) in Oates’ tale it was made evident that Connie wanted nothing to do with Friend and instead she tried to call the cops and even told him to “Get the hell out of here!” (Oates 340) When I read a tragic news article I will feel sorrow for the victim and their families for a moment and then go on with my life and forget about them. |
civil-war | Yet when I read a piece of work that captures my soul and really moves me to feel emotionally about a character as if they were a real person, I can recall them for years afterwards. Oates’ made me feel for Connie because she gave her a background of a beautiful girl with a mother who disapproved of all she did and constantly compared her to her more homely sister, June. “Why don’t you keep your room clean like your sister? How’ve you got your hair ?xed—what the hell stinks? Hair spray? You don’t see your sister using that junk.” (Oates 333) A girl that may have been desperate for love and attention. Suddenly, in my mind, Oates’ has not only weaved a haunting tale of young, naive girl who made mistakes and talked to the wrong stranger on the wrong day but she also made me feel for the real life victims of Schmid. Suddenly they became more than just names on a page and their names, Alleen Rowe, Gretchen and Wendy Fritz, will forever be in my mind and probably countless others who have read her work and know who it was based on. While Oates’ is a talented writer and her words were beautifully written the reason her piece stands out as one of my favorites of this semester were for the deeper meaning and the legacy she left for the victims of a cruel, sick, twisted man. |
civil-war | A reader cannot help but root for a character who has redeemable qualities despite whatever odd, crude, or socially unacceptable behavior they may exhibit. Such is the case in my final favorite piece of writing from this semester, Sherman Alexie’s What You Pawn I Will Redeem. In this tale of a homeless, alcoholic, money floundering Spokane, Washington Native American Indian named Jackson Jackson, a reader cannot help but fall in love with his spirit of never-ending generosity and unbreakable ties with tradition and family. Alexie’s particular style of writing gave light to Jackson’s seemingly uncaring, lazy, and unapologetically unmotivated he attitude in a way that a reader cannot help but find just a little bit comical. It is written in first person from the rambling mind of Jackson and lines such as “Piece by piece, I disappeared. And I’ve been disappearing ever since. But I’m not going to tell you any more about my brain or my soul” (citation here page 401) made me laugh out lou01d at the standoffish behavior of this character. Jackson was unable to maintain a job, any of his marriages, or his relationships with his children. In fact, the only thing he did seem capable of maintaining was a constant drunken stupor throughout the entire tale. |
civil-war | Yet when he came upon his Grandmother’s stolen regalia at a local pawn shop he was determined to find a way to raise the $999 needed to rebuy this long lost family heirloom and return it to its rightful place. Each time he managed to earn or was gifted money for his mission he could not help but immediately spend it. However he was never selfish with his spending. He made sure that whatever he was given he shared with his fellow Indian. Never even coming close to making the necessary money to buy it make but still I found myself cheering him on. Because of his generosity, I was rooting for him to find a way to purchase back that precious connection to his family. And in the end, despite never actually managing to acquire the necessary cash, the pawn owner returned the regalia to Jackson, and I inwardly rejoicing in his success. And Alexie captured the moral for me in this thought, “Do you know how many good men live in this world? Too many to count!” (Alexie 415) Alexie challenged the stereotypes of a good person because he showed that even a drunken person who is unsuccessful in every societal standard can be a good person because he is a kind, generous soul. This is the reason why this is another of my favorites from this semester’s readings. |
civil-war | When thinking of a literary legend a name like Ernest Hemingway often comes to mind, yet in this semester’s reading of Big Two-Hearted River, Mr. Hemingway missed the mark for me. While I appreciate the concept of a post-war soldier suffering from PTSD, I had a hard time really getting into this piece. Hemingway’s commonly used iceberg principle style of writing was apparent in this piece with its overall lack of a substantial plot and its seemingly never-ending descriptions of just about everything. It is just not a style that appealed to me as a reader. I found it boring and extremely long. The symbolism was often obscured by the unnecessary descriptions of the surrounding scenery. “On the left, where the meadow ended and the woods began, a great elm tree was uprooted. Gone over in a storm, it lay back into the woods, its roots clotted with dirt, grass growing in them, rising a solid bank beside the stream. The river cut to the edge of the uprooted tree.” (Hemingway 262) It just seemed excessive and unneeded to me. |
civil-war | While this is definitely one of my least favorite of this semester’s readings, I have to say that Hemingway was a beautiful wordsmith who could make you feel as though you were part of the story. In this sentence, “He sat on the logs, smoking, drying in the sun, the sun warm on his back, the river shallow ahead entering the woods, curving into the woods, shallows, light glittering, big water-smooth rocks, cedars along the bank and white birches, the logs warm in the sun, smooth to sit on, without bark, gray to the touch; slowly the feeling of disappointment left him” (Hemingway 262) you can practically feel the heat of the sun on your back and the relief that Nick feels as if a burden was lifted from your own chest. This story had some beautiful imagery overall though it was just not a tale I enjoyed reading. |
civil-war | Mark Twain is an inspirational writer with amazing talent and has written some remarkable classics. However, the excerpt from Roughing It When the Buffalo Climbed a Tree, will not be joining my list of his beloved masterpieces. Instead I found this fictional account tedious to read and found myself drifting off to sleep while at the same time trying to understand the particular vernacular used in this piece. The narrator of the majority of this tale was a character named Bemis whose style of speech was rambling and over-the-top. For example, “Well, I was first out on his neck – the horse’s, not the bull’s—and then underneath, and next on his rump, and sometimes head up, and sometimes heels—but I tell you it seemed solemn and awful to be ripping and tearing and carrying on so in the presence of death, as you might say.” (Twain 16) |
civil-war | I can just imagine Bemis being this rambling, fool telling this ridiculous story with no ending in sight. It was just exhausting and mindless drivel that did not succeed in making me think about anything substantial or self-reflect which are qualities I rather enjoy when reading. I understand that according to Mark Twain, “to string incongruities and absurdities together in a wandering and sometimes purposeless way, and seem innocently unaware that they absurdities, is the basis of American art…” (Twain 13) and he accomplished that task beautifully. Nevertheless, it is just not a style that appealed to me and I struggled to enjoy reading this story. |
civil-war | This semester was my first time reading any of Toni Morrison’s works. The excerpt from Sula was all of over the map for me. I had a hard time deciphering any real plot. It started off with two 12 years old girls walking through town and getting objectified by the men in the town. And if it wasn’t bad enough that two young girls were being gawked at by grown men, the girls actually seemed to enjoy it. “So, when he said “pig meat” as Nel and Sula passed, they guarded their eyes lest someone see their delight.” (Morrison 346) That line made my skin crawl with utter disgust. Then suddenly the girls are playing near a lake when a young boy named Chicken Little ends up drowning before their very eyes and their only reaction was “Nel spoke ?rst. ‘Somebody saw.’” (Morrison 351) I had a hard time reading a story about such loss of innocence at such a young age. Morrison’s writing was beautiful and captivating. The only reason this makes my least favorites list from this semester was I just genuinely felt sick the entire I was reading it. Completely horrified by these young girls lives and saddened by the fact that many girls’ lives of this time period were like this. |
civil-war | This semester of Literature 221 was full of amazing pieces of writing. Tales that completely delighted, inspired, and captured my heart like those from Emily Dickinson, Joyce Carol Oates, and Sherman Alexie. As well as others who, for me, just did none of those things such as those from Ernest Hemingway, Mark Twain, and Toni Morrison. Overall I really enjoyed this class. I felt as though most of the forums gave me the opportunity to share my thoughts on each piece as well as opened my eyes to different perspectives. If I could give any constructive criticism it would be that sometimes I felt as if I could not quite meet expectations in the essay requirements because I felt as though they were not clearly stated. Other than that, I thoroughly enjoyed this class and I feel as though I learned a lot. It definitely has made me look forward to taking other literature classes in the future. |
civil-war | Alexie, Sherman. “What You Pawn I Will Redeem” American Literature Since the Civil War. Create edition. McGraw-Hill, 2011. 401-415. e-Book. Works Cited Dickinson, Emily. “Life I & XLIII American Literature Since the Civil War. Create edition. McGraw-Hill, 2011. 2-3. e-Book. Hemingway, Ernest. “Big Two Hearted River.” American Literature Since the Civil War. Create edition. McGraw-Hill, 2011. 253-264. E-book. Morrison, Toni. “From Sula.” American Literature Since the Civil War. Create edition. McGraw-Hill, 2011. 346-354. e-Book. Oates, Joyce Carol. “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?” American Literature Since the Civil War. Create edition. McGraw-Hill, 2011. 333-344. e-Book. Twain, Mark. “From Roughing It. When The Buffalo Climbed a Tree.” American Literature Since the Civil War. Create edition. McGraw-Hill, 2011. 16-18. e-Book. Twain, Mark. “How To Tell a Story” American Literature Since the Civil War. Create edition. McGraw-Hill, 2011. 12-15. e-Book. |
civil-war | Among all the historical events that have taken place in the history of the United States, the civil is ranked as the most important. From the day when the first gun shot was fired at Fort Sumter in 1861, the civil war changed the history of the United States forever. A lot of books have been written on this important topic with different authors giving different opinions (Guelzo, 2012). Based on this, there has never been consensus among Americans on whether the civil war was inevitable or not. |
civil-war | Although there had been years of tension between the northern and southern states, the war erupted after a number of southern states made public their desire to break away from the union. The breakaway states formed what was known as the Confederacy while those that remained loyal in the union were known as the union. |
civil-war | For a long time, the main economic activity in the southern states was agriculture. The demand for increased cotton production came in1793 after when Eli Whitney discovered the first mechanical gin. Although there were slaves in the united even before the eruption of the civil war, the number of slaves in the country grew by large proportions after the gin was discovered. On their part, the northern states were not agricultural and very few of them had slaves. These states were opposed to slavery and were pushing for abolition (Wagner et al, 2002). |
civil-war | This ideological difference on the topic of slavery among the northern and southern states made the civil inevitable. The southern states were not ready to abolish slavery because that would have a huge impact on their economy. In addition, they felt that the northern states were infringing on their right to economic growth. None of the two states was ready to soften on their as far as the issue of slavery was concerned and this made the civil war inevitable. |
civil-war | As noted earlier, there were major ideological differences between the northern and southern states on a number of issues. Although sectionalism had existed in the country for a long time, it reached dangerous heights between 1800 and 1860. The northern states that were more industrialized than the southern ones became more economically powerful and built better cities. This made the southern states whose economy was agriculture based envious (Wagner et al, 2002). However, the fortunes of the southern states changed after the discovery of gin which created more demand for cotton. As abolition gained widespread attention, the southern states were living in constant fear of revolts by the slaves. In support of their stand, the southerners argued that they were preserving the culture passed down to them from the founding fathers of the country many of whom owned slaves. These differences caused a major rift in the largest denominations in the country namely Baptist, Presbyterian and Methodists. In addition, it resulted in a mass movement of whites from the south to the north making the south adopt a hard-line political position. |
civil-war | As noted earlier, there were huge economic differences between the northern and southern states. Whereas agriculture was the main economic activity in the southern states, the economy of the northern states was based on industries. Despite the increasing campaign against slavery in the northern states, the southern states were not ready to abolish. This was because the slaves offered cheap labor therefore eliminating any need to incur costs on mechanization. In addition, the southerners did not see any need for industrialization and were comfortable with buying manufactured products from other parts of the country instead of building industries (Guelzo, 2012). Although the economy of the northern states was doing well, their industries were faced increased completion from the full fledged European industries. More importantly, this made it hard for them to compete for cotton with Europeans who were offering very high prices for cotton from the south. Based on this, the northern states were in favor of trade tariffs and protectionism while the southerners were opposed to it. On their part, the southerners were in favor of free trade. These differences created negative competition between the two sides culminating in the civil war (Fuller, 2008). |
civil-war | Many of the new territories entered the union as slave states and the southerners wanted to acquire more slaves to work on these new lands. On their part, the northerners wanted to stop any further acquisition of slave territories (Stampp, 1990). This resulted in bitter disputes between the two sides making the civil war inevitable. |
civil-war | In conclusion, there were major ideological differences between the northern and southern states prior to the outbreak of the war. These differences were difficult to resolve amicably due to the hard-line stances adopted by both sides. The major central issue that caused the tensions between the northern and southern states was slavery. The northerners were opposed to slavery while the southerners believed it part of cultural inheritance. |