Civil War

The American Civil War drastically changed the society and culture of the United States. History books all tell the stories of the struggle by recently freed African American slaves. These books tell of the financial hardship, as well as the cultural endeavors these people had to endure to attempt to become equals to white Americans, as well as to acquire equal rights. Racial segregation is a big topic highly covered on this area. However, there are stories that are less often told about the close relationships between white and black, and also people of Indian decent. This is where literature books come in handy.

Post-war American literature is booming with stories of freedom, hope, and love. One topic that seemed to emerge at this time was interracial relations or marriages between blacks and whites. Kate Chopin and Charles W. Chesnutt both wrote of these types of relationships but in very different ways and outcomes. Due to being raised around the time of the civil war and living in the south, these authors wrote the truth of what they saw and experienced. By looking at Chopin’s works La Belle Zoraide and Desiree’s Baby, and Chesnutt’s The Wife of His Youth, three different sides of interracial relations can be seen.

These tales of the south post-war help people today to understand their heritage, as well as the great mixture of people that makes up the United States today. According to the biography of Kate Chopin in The Norton Anthology of American Literature, she was born in 1850, was raised mostly by her mother after the death of her father. She was taught in St. Louis and had graduated and married by the end of the civil war. This is when she moved to the south, where she was submerged into a new, thriving mixed racial culture in New Orleans.

She was influenced by some of the great French writers, including Maupassant, from which her style seems to mimic. Both authors’ writings were observational; Chopin wrote what she saw in the world around her. Her writings upset some people due to this fact. She did not hold back or sugar coat anything when she was writing. She was categorized as a “local colorist” due to her topics. With her French background knowledge, she had a tendency to have a dangerous style of writing compared to other American authors at this time.

Also, since New Orleans had so much southern culture, mixed with Creole origins, it is easy to see why this area was fascinating to Kate Chopin. She wrote heart-wrenching love stories with shocking twists between unsettling characters. It may seem normal today, but at this time, this type of writing was as revolutionary as the war. It is lucky for the newer generations that she was willing to write this way. La Belle Zoraide, a story with Creole backings, was based from the author’s views of her life in New Orleans. The story begins with a black caretaker telling a story to her lighter mistress that she took care of.

Just looking at the set up, the reader can tell the bond between the mistress and the negress as the latter was said to have washed and kissed her feet. Both women are older, but it is the black still serving or taking care of the white. The story also tells the reader that the Mistress is married, but is sleeping alone, making the reader assume that her husband has died and she is now alone with her maid. The black caretaker begins to tell a story of a beautiful, captivating Creole girl with light brown skin. This brown girl also had her own black servant, as if to say since she was lighter than her servant, she was better than her as well.

There was a mulatto suitor available for the young Zoraide, but he was not pleasing to her. She was instead infatuated with a black man, but was forbidden to act upon her feelings. However, she disobeyed and became pregnant. The caretaker explained that no one can keep negros from finding a way to love each other. Because of the way this was put, it almost seems as though love is the one thing that takes precedence above all other things for the black population. After that, her love was sold far away, so the only thing she had to hold on to was their baby.

But, out of spite, the child was taken away and told that it was dead. With the loss of her lover and her child, the young Zoraide lost herself. She went crazy, and would not accept her child when they tried to give it back to her. Beautiful Zoraide turned to a pitied and mocked old woman, who undoubtedly died alone. This shows again, just what the love of a child or another human can do when it is taken away. The story also shows how a person’s power over another can unintentionally ruin their entire life. Zoraide’s mistress wanted the best for the mulatto girl, but the girl had hosen a different path. So when the mistress tried to control the outcome of her life, it backfired, causing a young girl to lose hope and her sense, and caused a young child to lose its parents. This story is a show of the emotional pain put on blacks by white people. The next of Chopin’s stories, Desiree’s Baby, is another sad story of love gone wrong. Desiree had been found as a young child and raised by a woman who had no children. The child became a beautiful girl and married a hardworking man whom was a master of some black men. The couple had a baby together, but soon there was something wrong.

The husband became angry and distant with the wife. As it turned out, the child was not white like the parents, but was the color of a quadroon, or a child about a fourth black. The father was very angry, as he was a slave owner, and was married to a woman with black in her heritage, causing them to have a baby that appeared the same. When Desiree confronted her husband Armand about the color of the child, he was angered and put all of the blame on his wife. He wanted her and the baby to leave. It says that “he no longer loved her, because of the unconscious injury she had brought upon his home and his name”(Chopin 424).

Later, Armand burned all of his wife and child’s things, and all of the letters she had sent to him. And in the end, the reader finds that Armand is also hiding a secret. Armand’s mother was a black woman. This ironic turn can create anger in a reader at the injustice of such a man. For it is not just the mother, but the fathers fault as well for the color of their child. But since the father passed for so long as a white man, and has negroes that work for him, it would ruin his life and his name if it were found out that he was black. He would lose everything.

So instead the man made a choice, to give up his love and his child, in order to save his life as he knew it. This turn of events shows that even though love between two people can be strong, the fear of losing everything is stronger. Armand was fearful of his situation; possibly fearful of his negroes working for him, as well as the white people in the area. Because Armand and his wife were of the same mostly white race, their child ended up showing the black inside. And, sadly, that color is all that mattered at the time. Like the writings of Kate Chopin, Charles W. Chesnutt also wrote stories of the Deep South.

His parents were free people of the south. Chesnutt was well educated and became a writer of the stories of slavery. As a light colored black man, he focused on the opposite of Armand in the past story. He encouraged blacks of all shades to honor their past. Because of his writing skills, and perhaps the fact that his readers didn’t know he was a black man at first, he became one of the first black fiction writers to be taken seriously by a white press(Chesnutt 458). The idea of a black person staying true to their past is beautifully portrayed in the story of Mr. Ryder in The Wife of His Youth.

In this story, Mr. Ryder is a light skinned black man, who commonly is seen as white. He is an older gentleman, who seems to be a well suited bachelor. He was well read, educated, with a nice house and furniture. Many women pursued him, but none won him over until Mrs. Dixon came into town. He was planning to ask her hand in marriage. He wanted to do this in order to ensure that he continued to be seen as a white man, and because he was taken by her. As he tried to decide how to address Mrs. Dixon at the ball he was throwing for her, he was approached by an older black lady, who asked for his help.

She was trying to find her husband, who was a free black man, sold by her owner for profit. He had tried to go back to her, but she had been sold as well for punishment. She had been looking for her husband Sam for twenty-five years, making her way through life as if that was her only goal. The reader can see here another example of the everlasting love between this woman, and hopefully her Sam would feel the same. At the ball, when it is Mr. Ryder’s turn to speak, he tells the crowd of this older lady that he has met just earlier that day.

He mentions how rare it is to find people with that kind of devotion to the person that they love. But he explains a part of the story that was untold by the woman. He asked what should be done, if her husband was actually a light skinned, well educated man that could not find her either. And if the man found her all these years later, should he call on her and complete the bond of their slave marriage to make it legal. Mrs. Dixon confirmed that he should acknowledge his past wife, even though he thinks he may have found another to love. Mr.

Ryder is pleased with this response, as he goes to get the elderly lady, explaining that it is his wife. This portrayal of devotion is unlike Kate Chopin’s stories. This work is uplifting and seems to be written in a hopeful way. There are some differences in the fact that this ball was to be taken place twenty-five years after the end of the war, and Mr. Ryder had been born a free-man. This made his transition into the white population much easier. Also, it shows that it was not only the wife that stayed true, but also Mr. Ryder, as he had stayed single all that time as well.

The community encouraged him to continue his life with his former wife, as if it would have been wrong to have it any other way. There is a large difference in social acceptance, as today it is acceptable to divorce, but then, it was unheard of, whether the marriage was technically legal or not. There are some common ideas between all of these stories. First, these stories give a sense that love is unconditional and unbreakable among the black culture. However, when the story becomes about interracial marriages or children, society and culture seem to play a bigger role in what is acceptable.

According to Bratter’s essay, the acceptance of interracial marriages is increasing as the number of these couples is increasing. However, with this increase of marriage is also leading to a higher rate of divorce between mixed-race couples. The rate of interracial marriage divorce has found to be about 10% higher than the divorce rate among same race couples. Whatever the reason, these studies have shown that even though the divorce rate may currently be higher for mixed-race couples, the overall divorce rate continues to climb.

This shows that society’s idea of acceptance is changing. As in The Wife of His Youth, after all that time, the man still took his wife back. The encouragement of the ball’s crowd shows an obvious change in society, not just racially, but culturally. Another common piece to each of the stories is the acceptance of the light skinned mulatto into white society. It seems to be that people really were judged based on the color of their skin. Light skinned black people could be passed off as white people, or were treated almost as third class citizens, above the blacks but below the whites.

Zoraide and Sam Rider are both aware of their true African American roots and choose to stay true to those roots, even though they can pass at white or mulatto. Armand, however, turns his back on his mulatto wife and child, even though he knows the he also carries some African American blood inside him. It is if he is angered at himself, and his wife, that they could not produce a white-looking baby. Armand and Zoraide still live by the ideas that their skin color makes them who they really are. Zoraide knows that she is not white, and should be able to choose from the black men if she cannot be considered white.

Armand, however, is so obsessed with his status, he does not want to have anyone question his or his wife’s race. Back in that time, Jim Crowe Laws tried to categorize who was black and who was white. A black person was seen as any person with any history of black in their family. This was known as the “one-drop rule”(Davis 5). By this law, and the fact that that a person’s rights depended on their race, it is understood why Armand may do this. In contrast, in today’s society, much of the population may have mixed ancestry somewhere in their past line. However, this does not classify their rank or their worth.

In America today, people are judged more on their education and their skills than they are on their looks. Looking at these works, many comparisons can be made about America’s past, and the people that once made it. These writings are the history book for American culture after the civil war. Americans can learn much about the past through these stories. Even though these stories may not be historically accurate, they give the tone and ideas about American’s past culture. It is helpful to see these cultural changes so that Americans can know where they come from and how far the American culture has come.

In the context of the period 1763-1865, how far was the American Civil War caused by long term divisions over the issue of slavery? In his second inaugural address in March 1865, Abraham Lincoln looked back at the beginning of the Civil War four years earlier “all knew,” he said, that slavery “was somehow the cause of the war. ” This essay will endeavour to discuss the role of long term divisions caused by the slavery debate in the eventual outbreak of the Civil War.

In doing so this analysis will encompass the period between the birth of the nation beginning with the start of the American Revolution in 1763 and the conclusion of the Civil War in 1865. This being a period in which the newly independent nation struggled with its state system, with each of the former colonies possessing the rights to a significant level of self-governance that inevitably led to disagreements and conflicts of interest.

One such conflict was the disagreement over slavery which James Ford, like Lincoln, believes was crucial in creating a clear North-South divide that would eventually lead to the Civil War. Whilst recognising slavery’s overwhelming contribution to the outbreak of the American civil war in 1861, one must acknowledge alternative factors beyond slavery, which contributed to the nations descent towards armed conflict. Revisionists such as William Gienapp and William Freehling emphasise the political contribution to the outbreak of the war and the influence of sectional ideology on ante bellum politics.

It was this differing ideology that created the tensions between Southern and Northern parties creating political chaos during the 1850s, the North believing they were attempting to save democracy whilst the South campaigned for increased States’ rights, all of which provoked the outbreak of war. As well as the long-term divisions over slavery and the short term political contributions to the outbreak of war, historians such as Charles and Mary Beard placed emphasis on the fundamental differences between the North and South economic systems, disregarding the moral and political contributions.

This analysis will argue that ultimately the issue of slavery was the main reason for the outbreak of war in 1861; however the short term political blunders and failure of the political system created a chaos that made war inevitable. Had the American political system thrived, the divisions over slavery could have been resolved without war being waged. Slavery is the moral dimension that lies at the heart of the historiographical debate. James Ford Rhodes identified slavery as the central and virtually only cause of the war. If the Negro had not been brought to America,” he wrote, “the Civil War could not have occurred. ” Introducing slavery to America created differences of opinion between the North and the South, on the morality of slavery. It was these differences that created tensions between the regions and ultimately fuelled the outbreak of war in 1861. The Northern climate was not suited to plantation agriculture which resulted in Congress passing an Ordinance in 1787, keeping slavery out of the North West Territory.

The Northern belief insisted that the South was ruled by a ruthless ‘Slave Power’ which, conspiratorial in its methods, consisted of slaveholding planters and political leaders who were determined to convert the whole United States in to a nation of masters and slaves. The aggressive attitude of Southerners arising from the decision by Chief Justice Taney in the Dred Scott case of 1857 that all blacks, slave as well as free, were not and could not be citizens of the United States increased rather than allayed Northern suspicions.

This conspiracy, as the Northerners believed it to be, was fundamentally an aristocracy founded upon these principles; that slavery was not morally wrong, it is a right possessed by the slaveholder, and that it is constitutional. Admitting Missouri as a slave state and introducing the Fugitive Slave Act in the Compromise of 1850, only exacerbated Northern suspicions which is illustrated through what John Rankin believed, “The Slave Power has already seized upon the General Government, and has overthrown the rights of Free States…the struggle between the slave and free institutions is for existence.

They are antagonistic principles and cannot exist long together – one or the other must fall. ” ‘Slave power’ heightened through media influences such as the non-abolitionist Cincinnati Daily Commercial claiming “There is such a thing as THE SLAVE POWER” encouraged the Northern populace that action needed to be taken against the South in order to preserve the existence of their personal liberty. On the other hand, many Southerners like historian Ulrich Bonner Phillips, viewed slavery as a hierarchic order thus making it wholesome practice.

Phillips recalls setting off to school as a young child and burdened by the prospect that his “sable companion” was able to play all day long. According to Hugh Tulloch, the Southerners had evolved a unique form of social relations based on slavery; whereby the master’s role was essentially paternal, “without slavery the black would either lapse into African savagery. ” It is this view and that of Edward Channing’s, “the slaves were often happier than their masters” that appears so distorted in comparison to the Northern interpretation on slavery.

It was this that became an important factor in consolidating antislavery sentiment in the North, thus widening the sectional rift between the North and South. “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I cannot remember when I did not so think and feel. ” Lincoln’s view on the peculiar institution further heightened the issue as Southern states regarded his election as a threat to their power, and provoked the secession of South Carolina from the Union, shadowed by a further 10 states.

Modern fundamentalists such as James McPherson and Eric Foner similarly describe the two sections as “different and deeply antagonistic societies” agreeing that slavery was the root of that antagonism. The North’s commitment to capitalism and modernisation, these scholars explained, was the context for abolitionism and for the free labour ideology of Abraham Lincoln’s Republican Party. The South’s commitment to agriculture and slave labor was reflected in the region’s distinctive cult of honour, its preoccupation with localism and states’ rights, and its defense of social inequality.

Had African slave trade been declared illegal long before 1808, the million plus slaves that were in the USA in the early 19th century would not have existed, therefore would have had no effect on population influxes which stimulated an industrial and economic change, nor the geographical expansion which caused the conflict within the different states. Although Rhodes placed his greatest emphasis on the moral conflict over slavery, he suggested that the struggle also reflected fundamental differences between the Northern and Southern economic systems.

In the 1920s, the idea of the war as an irrepressible economic rather than moral conflict received fuller expression from Charles and Mary Beard, insisting there were “inherent antagonisms” between Northern Industrialists and Southern planters. Undoubtedly, the issue of slavery itself would not have created divisions and differences within the nation had someone, or a group of people spoke up and shared their desire to “fight the gross evil of slavery” thus the influence and the rise of abolitionists need to be taken in to account when assessing the causation of the war.

Abolitionists were committed to the doctrine of ‘moral suasion’; the idea that Southern slaveholders could be persuaded that slavery was morally wrong. Arguably, it was the abolitionist’s actions that publicised and brought slavery in to the political arena and through their anti-slavery postal campaign in 1835, the Democratic administration could not avoid the issue. By building these campaigns, abolitionists turned themselves into an organised movement, urging the national government to debate slavery and heightening the nation’s opinion on the institution.

The Fugitive Slave Act in 1850, became one of the most powerful weapons in the hands of the Abolitionist Movement. The Constitution introduced a clause stating that fugitives from slave labour must be sent back to the South if captured in the North. It forced citizens to assist in the recovery of fugitives and denied fugitives who claimed to be freemen the right to a fair jury trial. This caused outrage among the Northern black community who were no longer able to legally prove that they were free. Foner stated the act gave slavery what is called “extra-territoriality”, thus making slavery a national institution.

Even though the Northern States could abolish slavery, they still could not avoid their Constitutional obligation to enforce the slave laws of the Southern States. The Act drew more attention to the inhumanity of slavery and caused increased tension between the North and the South. Northern whites resented having to be forced into hunting slaves against their will by the officials enforcing the Act. It was also significant because it helped to create legendary abolitionists and anti-slavery orators such as Frederick Douglas and Henry Highland Garnet and generated the release of ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’ in 1852 by Harriet Beecher.

Beecher’s book expanded support and contributed to the outbreak of the war by personalising the political and economic arguments of slavery whilst providing depiction of the horrors of slavery. Installments were published weekly from June 1951 in an abolitionist newspaper. In November 1862, President Lincoln famously said, “so you are the little woman who wrote the book that started this Great War. ” More importantly, the Act allowed Northerners who had always thought slavery was so far away to see it personally for the first time.

This display of cruelty convinced more people of the evils of slavery and made them opposed to the Southern institution of slavery and the Act as it had now cemented slavery within the law. This increased support for the abolitionists’ cause would infuriate the South and increased sectional tensions. Despite slavery existing in America since the 1600s, economic and social paths taken by the North and the South increasingly began to change towards the 1800s and as a result created significant sectional differences between the states.

Southerners did not necessarily go to war to defend slavery, nor did northerners go to war to end it. It is often suggested that we have ignored the well-known facts that most southerners did not own slaves and that most northerners shared the era’s racist attitudes. After all, only about 25% of southern white families owned slaves and 50% of these owned less than 5 slaves. Consequently, one must consider the basic differences between the economies and the practical issues that divided the sectional leaders.

Charles and Mary Beard came to the conclusion that there had existed an “irrepressible conflict between a static, agrarian South and the expanding, industrialising North. ” The Beards insisted that “inherent antagonisms” between Northern industrialists and Southern planters contributed to the outbreak of war. Massive changes in transport help to explain the agricultural and industrial changes. The development of steamboats revolutionised travel on the great rivers; by 1850 over 700 steamships were operating on the Mississippi and its tributaries and the North were able to boast more than two-thirds of the railroad tracks in the country.

Less than one in ten Americans lived in towns in 1820; one in five did so by 1860, but it was this urbanisation that was more prevalent in the North as opposed to the South with the percentage of population living in towns of 2500 or more being 26% in 1859 on Northern states, compared to only 10% in the Southern states. Unlike the South, the North had a growing number of immigrants; between 1830 and 1860 most of the five million immigrants to the USA settled in the North. Slave labour was the foundation of a prosperous economic system in the South.

In 1793 the invention of the cotton ‘gin’ revolutionised the region; it is significant to recognise the relationship between the invention of the cotton gin and when cotton became America’s leading crop with the number of slaves in the South. In 1790 America produced 1,500 pounds of cotton. By 1815 production had reached over 100,000 pounds and in 1848, production exceeded an astonishing 1,000,000 pounds. Simultaneously, slavery spread across the Deep South as the cotton engine fuelled slave labour, pushing the North and South’s industrial methods even further apart.

By itself, the South’s economic investment in slavery could easily explain the willingness of Southerners to risk war when faced with what they viewed as a serious threat to their “peculiar institution” after the electoral victories of the Republican Party and President Abraham Lincoln in 1860. Economically, the taxes on imported and exported goods contributed greatly to the North- South divide. From the time of the first Congress in 1789 to the outbreak of the Civil War there was dissension between the Northern and the Southern states over the matter of protective tariffs, or import duties on manufactured goods.

Northern industries wanted high tariffs in order to protect their factories and labourers from cheaper European products. Demanding that “American labourers shall be protected against the pauper labour of Europe,” tariff proponents argued that the taxes gave “employment to thousands of mechanics, artisans and labourers. ” The vast majority of American industry was located in the Northern states, whereas the economies of the agricultural Southern states were based on the export of raw materials and the importation of manufactured goods.

The South held few manufacturing concerns, and southerners had to pay higher prices for goods in order to subsidise Northern profits. The collected tariffs were used to fund public projects in the North such as improvements to roads, harbours and rivers. From 1789 to 1845, the North received five times the amount of money that was spent on southern projects, “Sectional legislation, such as subsidies to ship-owners and manufacturers, took money from the pockets of the planters and farmers and transferred it to the pocket of Northern capitalists. This economic policy heightened tensions and exacerbated the sectional disagreements over the best type of government. The stark differences in their economies resulted in supporting either the Democrats or Whigs which brings in to play the revisionist interpretation that political blunders and the breakdown of the system ultimately divided the sections, increasing their hostility to one another. The structure of American politics and the antebellum party realignment provides a way to assess the relationship between the American political system and the origins of the war.

Modern revisionists like Stampp attempt to recapture the eventualities of antebellum politics, placing emphasis on the shared values of the North and South and the failure of political leaders to reach compromises which could have averted war. Erin Foner argued the coming of the Civil war constituted the greatest failure of American democracy; “the intrusion of sectional ideology into the political system brought about the war. The fundamental issues can be traced back to the standoff over sovereignty during the American Revolution, and from this founding era the disagreement over how much authority the national government should have on the one hand and how much sovereignty and independence the individual states should retain on the other began. An unworkable arrangement followed, whereby states tried to coordinate a national war effort, a national economy, and a national government without sacrificing their individual sovereignty.

However, continental currency became worthless and states became free to do their own thing. Shays’ Rebellion in 1786-87, occurred as a protest to rising debt and economic chaos and due to the failure of the national government was unable to gather a combined military force amongst the states to help put down the rebellion. This was a catalyst for the Founding Fathers to scrap the Articles of Confederation and devise a new Constitution. However, the Constitution contained a number of provisions that strengthened the forces of sectional division within the nation.

It was the American political system that was particularly vulnerable to sectional strains and tensions and thus the Civil War was able to occur within a particular political framework. William Gienapp believes it was “the Constitution’s provision for amendment that significantly contributed to the outbreak of war. ” The constitution’s ambiguity on whether Congress could impose conditions on a new state or refuse to admit a new state to the Union became a source of controversy which stimulated the growing conflict between the sections.

More important, believed Gienapp, was the ambiguity of whether a state had the right to leave the Union. It was this silence that contributed to the debate over secession as it allowed Southerners to plausibly maintain that secession was a legal right of each state, and thus fuelled Southern extremism. Political blunders from the 1820s widened sectional differences, according to Gabor Boritt; “the crystallisation of rival sectional ideologies orientated towards protecting white equality and opportunity. Each section began to see the other as a threat to its vital social, political and economic interests. A view had been produced that one section or the other has to be dominant. The Missouri Compromise, so Rodger Ramson believed, allowed in the long term, “the right of Congress to pass legislation allowing or prohibiting slavery in the western territories. ” However in 1854 the Kansas Nebraska Act nullified the Missouri Compromise and is claimed to be a political miscalculation of massive proportions. Alan Nevins labelled the entire episode as a “disaster”.

The political effects of this Act were enormous, irrevocably splitting the Whig Party. Every northern Whig had opposed the bill; almost every southern Whig voted for it and due to the competition of the Know-Nothing party and their failure to respond to nativist concerns, the party was effectively killed off. With the emotional issue of slavery involved, there was no common ground to be found and Northern Whigs reorganised themselves to become the Republican Party committed to blocking westward expansion of slavery. Animosity between the North and South was again on the rise.

The North felt that if the Compromise of 1820 was ignored, the Compromise of 1850 could be ignored as well. The Dred Scott case in 1957 brought the Missouri Compromise in conflict with the Fifth Amendment that upheld that no one be deprived of his or her right to life, liberty, and property. Political historian, Michael Holt notes, “The issue that drove the deepest wedge between North and South in the two decades before the Civil War was not the institution of slavery itself, but the question of whether slavery should be allowed to expand westwards beyond the boundaries of the slave states. Without the discipline of a strong party system, more outspoken views on slavery and secession began to be heard. Holt declares that the breakdown of the party system, no longer operating on economic issues, allowed demagogues to arise who accentuated the differences between North and South. Politicians in both sections “kept the country in constant turmoil and whipped up popular emotions for the selfish purpose of winning elections” thereby bringing about the Civil War. Lincoln declared before his unanimous nomination, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.

I believe this Government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved- I don’t expect the house to fall- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. ” Despite Holt placing emphasis on the breakdown of the second party system, Stampp focuses on Lincoln’s actions as president, ‘inviting’ by his proposition a war of sections; “Thus Mr Lincoln invites a war between the free States and the slave States, a war between North and the South, for the purpose of either exterminating slavery in every Southern state, or planting it in every Northern State. The existence of national political parties became increasingly focused on the contest for Presidency. The coming of the war In April 1861 was seen as both sides waging war in an attempt to save democracy as they understood it. For southern secessionists, at stake was the right of self-government and the fundamental right of southern whites to control their own destiny. For the North, the war was a struggle to uphold the democratic principles of law and order and majority rule, as well as preserving the Union, which they believed was inseparably linked to democracy.

Boritt noted, “few northerners failed to appreciate the fundamental irony that they were ready to kill their fellow Americans in order to prove democracy was a workable form of government”. Due to this rivalry of sectional ideologies, each came to think that one section or the other had to be dominant. Residents of each section feared the other, and before the physical fighting the sectional conflict represented a struggle for control of the nation’s future. On December 20, 1860, in response to Lincoln’s victory, South Carolina seceded from the Union.

By the time of his inauguration on March 4, 1861, six more states had also seceded and formed the Confederate States of America. Ramson states, “the attempt by the southern states to create a Confederacy separate from the American Union failed because the slave society of the South was unable to sustain an effort in the face of a determined foe. The promise of eliminating slavery eventually provided a unifying force behind the North’s efforts to hold the union together. ” In conjunction with the fight for democracy, revisionists like Holt, Gienapp and William W.

Freehling have focused on those political debates within each section that do not fit into the a direct narrative of the slavery controversy. Political historians have shown Northern voters were preoccupied with and motivated by issues such as nativism; slavery was not their overriding concern and did not explain their voting behaviour. The Southern electorate, too, was deeply divided on the basis of class, economic setting, and sub-region. The differences between the Upper South and the Deep South in particular make it dangerous to generalise broadly about the “fundamental” nature of Southern Society.

When historians assert that slavery caused the Civil War, most are saying that only the presence of the “peculiar institution” made it impossible to resolve peacefully the constitutional, political, and economic issues that had long animated sectional tensions. Conversely, Historians like Jefferson Davis have been keen to refute the argument that the war was caused by the long term divisions of slavery and support the political argument that it was the Republican Party that engineered the war by furthering Northern political and economic aggrandisement against the South.

As soon as the question of slavery expansion in to western territories entered the political agenda, voters were unwilling to drop the issue without protest but when waging war, the North and the South were fighting for what they believed to be a democracy and were motivated by nativism to defeat the opposition; which posed threat and disunion to their democracy. To conclude, the divisions over slavery in America ultimately contributed to the outbreak of war in 1861. This long term factor influenced the economic and social paths taken by both Northern and Southern States during the 1800s and as a result widened sectional differences.

This greatly impacted the American political system resulting in the breakdown of the two-party system through blunders made by politicians in the 1850s in an attempt to win elections and save their democracy. This breakdown heightened tensions between the two sections and was exacerbated by the increasing influence of the abolitionist movement from 1830s onwards. It would be a limited assumption to deem the breakout of the Civil War purely on the divisions of slavery, as many fought in an attempt to save their own democracy.

However, had slavery never been introduced in to American civilization the nation would never have been divided over the institution, the economic paths taken by both North and South wouldn’t have been so diverse, thus eliminating political differences and an abolitionist movement would never have been formed. ——————————————– [ 1 ]. Hugh Tulloch, ‘The debate on the American Civil War era’, p. 110. [ 2 ]. James Ford Rhodes, ‘History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850’, p. [ 3 ].

Kenneth M. Stampp, ‘The Causes of the Civil War’, p. 21. [ 4 ]. Ibid. , p. 23. [ 5 ]. Hugh Tulloch, ‘The debate on the American Civil War Era’, p. 37. [ 6 ]. Ibid. ,p. 35 [ 7 ]. Ibid. , p. 38 [ 8 ]. Ibid. , p. 37 [ 9 ]. Eric Foner, ‘Politics and Ideology in the age of the Civil War’, p. 35. [ 10 ]. Charles and Mary Beard, ‘The rise of American Civilization’, p. [ 11 ]. Hugh Tulloch, ‘The debate on the American Civil War Era’, p. [ 12 ]. Eric Foner, ‘Politics and Ideology in the age of the Civil War’, p. 61. [ 13 ].

Kenneth M. Stampp, ‘The causes of the Civil War’ p 93 [ 14 ]. Ibid. , p. 86. [ 15 ]. Eric Foner, ‘ [ 17 ]. Gabor S. Boritt, ‘Why the Civil War Came’, p. [ 18 ]. Roger L. Ransom, ‘Conflict and Compromise: The Political Economy of Slavery, Emancipation, and the American Civil War’, p. [ 19 ]. Michael F. Holt, Political Parties and American Political Development from the Age of Jackson to the Age of Lincoln (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1992), p. 4. [ 20 ]. Kenneth Stampp, ‘The causes of the Civil War’ p

Carly Tucker 9 January, 2013 AP US History Mr. Barber Betweeen the years of 1860 and 1877 the united states went through the civil war and reconstruction era. Dramatic changes occurred during this time that brought about drastic constitutional and social development. The dramatic changes brought a revolution. The Civil War was not officially fought over the issue of slavery, but one of the most important outcomes of the war was the emancipation of all slaves in the United States.

The reasons for southern states’ secession ranged from unfair duties imposed on the states to the recurring issue of slavery (Document A). This secession unofficially started the war and created great tension between the North and the South. President Lincoln’s main purpose of commencing war was to unite the divided nation, and with tactics such as his Emancipation Proclamation and gaining the Border States’ support he was able to achieve his goal of reunification. Other results yielded by the war were the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution.

These provisions formally ended slavery and guaranteed the black freedmen future citizenship and suffrage. The blacks argued that if they fought in the war to preserve the Union that they were entitled to voting and having the same rights as other American citizens (Document C). The Civil Rights Act of 1866 declared that every person born in the United States, without regard to race, color, or previous conditions of slavery or involuntary service, is entitled to citizenship. The end of the Civil War marked the end of the bloodshed but the beginning of reconstruction of the nation.

The United States still had many issues to address. One such issue was the new banking and currency systems. Senator John Sherman felt that the country was not nationalized enough. (Doc B) He felt that America would prosper more if it had its own unique exchange system. As opposed to different states doing their own things which is why the government could be overthrown. Although the slaves were finally freed, things were still rough for the freedmen. (Doc C) Some Africans felt that they were being betrayed by their government.

He did not understand how after they have fought for their nation and government, they are still eligible to vote for their representatives. In the petition it explains how they are treated unfairly in court and how the courts will not even receive negro testimony. At that time the government was not too willing to help out the freedmen. Gideon Welles, Lincoln’s Secretary of the Navy wrote in a diary that the Federal Government has no control of whether or not blacks can vote or not. (Doc D) He felt it was entirely up to the states to decide if they vote or not.

The Federal Government has done it job by freeing the state and suffrage is not their issue. And some states took advantage of this with things like the Poll Tax, Literacy Test, and Grandfather Clause, which prevented blacks from being able to vote. The few that could afford the Poll Tax most likely could not read, and if they did it was highly unlikely that their grandfather voted since slaves were not even considered citizens of the United States from the Dread Scott decision. This does not mean that there were no efforts to support the freedmen.

The Freedmen’s Bureau was set up to help blacks do things like read and write so they could be more equal to the white man. In a petition to the Bureau and the President, the Freedmen of Disto Island stated that they were promised land from the government but have yet to see it. As one can see during the years 1860-1877, many developments both constitutional and social put the nation through a revolution. These things have changed the country greatly not just for the blacks but also the whites and for the nation as a whole.

The American Civil War was, as all wars are, affected not only by the men fighting on the battlefield, but by the women who served on the home front, in military hospitals, and occasionally next to men on the battlefield. Just as women influenced the war, the war changed the world in which the women lived. The women’s rights movement began shortly before the Civil War, and continued through the war, growing stronger as women were touched by the war, and longed for rights equal to men. Women supported men by donating supplies to the effort in both the North and the South.

Women served as soldiers, worked in military hospitals, and spied to discover valuable information to aid their homeland. Women were a very valuable resource during the war, and the war was very influential on the way women lived their lives in America. Before the Civil War, women’s roles in America were changing. Economic modernization caused the production of items previously made by women to occur outside of the home. In some cases, families needed women to work for wages in or out of the home. [i] In most cases, however, the men left for work while the women stayed at home to tend to the house and raise the children.

This caused the existence of “separate spheres. ”[ii] With this shift in production, the purpose of the home changed. Mothers were the source of love and nurturing for the children. When families became more centered on love and affection, midle class families started having fewer children. [iii] This, in turn, caused women to be able to be more active in society, since they were not constantly expecting or nursing a newborn. [iv] In the early and middle 1800s, women moved out of the home and into the public sphere.

Many unmarried women had little chance of being planters, and they were not hired in the city. [v] Most commonly, women worked from the home. Occupations that took place outside of their home were traditional feminie roles of seamstress, laundress, or nanny. Few women were able to acquire jobs in retail, and women with larger homes could open a boardinghouse. [vi] Women (and children) worked in factories for wages and served humanity, and were generally overlooked by others. [vii] In the North, the manufacturing of cloth items such as clothing moved from the home to factories.

Northern women increasingly could purchase thred, cloth, and clothing, while the South had fewer factories, so clothing was made in the home. [viii] Southern women did not question their place in society and admired the traditional way of life on their plantations. [ix] With fewer children and much less work at home, families sent their children to school more, and the public education system changed. The school became responsible for education and social skills. Women became more involved in the schooling system, and most teachers were women. Because of this, women needed to be educated, too. x] Women found work as schoolteachers because the environment was safer and more comfortable than a factory. [xi] Other women worked as private music, dance, or art tutors. They did, however, make low salaries. Though women found employment as teachers and in factories and shops, they longed for a traditional family life. [xii] Education was viewed different in the North and in the South. In the North, women were expected by intelligent and independent free thinkers, while Southern women were expected to use their intellect to make polie conversation and support their ladylike character. xiii] Increasingly during the Antebellum period, women learned how to read. More families owned books and taught their children how to read. [xiv] Wealthy families may have had private libraries, from which daughters could read a variety of literature to maintain intellectual abilities. [xv] Though more women learned to read, many Southern women remained illiterate – some white women could not even write their own name. [xvi] Young women often preffered romantic novels that described a fantasy life out of her reach, which caused parents to encourage solid, factual literature.

Surprisingly, women were interested in learning the things men learned, and yearned for an education equal to that of their husbands and brothers. [xvii] Unfortunately, the advancement of education for Southern women was far behind that for Northern women, and was only available to the rich, leaving poorer girls from farming families feeling more ignorant and belittled. [xviii] Women in the North were becoming increasingly active in the public arena, and hungered for a say in government. Previously, women persuaded their husbands on moral ground and raised moral citizens; now they began taking a tand for themselves, speaking to legislators about their concerns. [xix] The most common way that women participated in society was by serving with churches and joining temperance and antislavery societies. [xx] Some women “delivered political tirades, denounced officials, gave advice on military strategy from the lecture platform, or participated in violent public demonstrations;” these were the ones that troubled the public. [xxi] One of the most well-known femal lecturers during the civil war, Anna Dickinson, delivered speeches on the conflict between the Union and Confederacy. xxii] Her skills brought overwhelming popularity, fame, and wealth for some time, but her eccentricity and womanly unawareness of business caused her time in the spotlight to be limited. [xxiii] Since many women spoke against slavery, many men assumed that the emancipation of slaves would pull them from the public eye, and keep them back in the home. [xxiv] Many women, however, quietly expressed their opinions through personal writings and private conversations. The war was a very personal event, so women were individually affected by the choices made by their political leaders.

In both the North and the South, women criticized leaders and blamed them for the heartbreak of the time. [xxv] As women became increasingly aware of and opinionated about national politics, they yearned more and more for a say in the election of governing officials. [xxvi] The first broad attempt to achieve women’s suffrage was at the Seneca Falls convention in 1848. Nearly two hundred Americans gathered here, led by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, to discuss women’s rights. [xxvii] They drafted and approved the Declaration of Sentiments, which outlined faults in the male-dominated American government, and called for a change.

Unfortunately, men continued to claim that a woman’s place was in the home, not politics, and no state would make a law allowing women to vote until several decades later. [xxviii] While the women’s rights movement gained speed in the North, the South prided itself on avoiding issues of feminism. Some Southern women visited the North and attended meeting of women’s right activists, and noted that they disliked the mixing of races and equality of sexes promoted. [xxix] Louisa McCord attacked Northern movement for femal suffrage, claiming that it took away feminity from women.

She said women should display their opinion in society only through their male counterparts, not by giving public speeches and voting in elections. McCord stated that “The true woman . . . preferred caring for her family to tinkering with constitutions. ”[xxx] Some women may have agreed with female superiority, but were too scared of change to bring their thoughts forward. [xxxi] Women worked to supply materials to their armies. The United States Sanitary Commission was created only weeks after the beginning of the war by Henry Bellows.

He cooperated with Dorothea Dix, who was also working on forming a “nursing corps,” but Bellows did not want to work with her. Through the course of the war, Northern women worked to provide valuable materials to aid soldiers in war. [xxxii] Some soldiers were accompanied by their wives, who aided soldiers. They worked doing laundry, cooking for soldiers, nursing soldiers in emergency situations, or counseling soldiers during this traumatic time. [xxxiii] These women often cared for the men and boys as if they were her own sons.

Many groups of soldiers claimed a woman as its mother figure, and continued to include and honor her long after the war. [xxxiv] While it was easier for a woman to enter the army with a husband and not be questioned too intensely, women who chose to help soldiers independently were often critisized by the public. [xxxv] Many women demonstrated their patriotism by dressing as men and fighting in the army. Even more women thought and wrote, wishing that they could be allowed to fight alongside their male counterparts. xxxvi] Regulations prevented some from attempting to join, others wrote to generals asking permission to volunteer to fight, and there were women who joined battle as a confrontation was occuring, bypassing official enlistment altogether. [xxxvii] The physical examination was a barrier for females – while some were not able to join because of this, other doctors lied on women’s behalf to allow them to join. Still others joined without a physical examination or even official enlistment (women may have joined soldiers and began fighting during a skirmish or battle). xxxviii] Women joined for many different reasons: to be with husbands, brothers, or fathers (though some enlisted secretly, against the wishes of relatives); to leave home; for the money or adventure; patriotism; and some, “to escape the oppresive social restrictions placed on women in that day and age. ”[xxxix] While some joined with family members, others risked the end of family communications by joining. When Ellen Goodridge informed her father that she would fight alongside her fiance, her father disowned her. [xl] Young women dreamed of changing the world, of doing something important, and joining the army could be their chance.

They looked up to figures such as Joan of Arc, and wanted to achieve that kind of glory. [xli] The view of people’s enlistment choices varied by gender. While men were looked down upon if they did not fight alongside their brothers, women recieved the same social treatment if they did join the army. [xlii] Women obviously faced difficulties – menstruation, concealing their figure, and the fact of voice and lack of facial hair. To deal with thease complications, women found privacy as many modest men did and posed as adolescent boys, who often made their way into the regiments. xliii] To enhance their masculine reputation, women learned to act like men by playing cards, smoking cigars and chewing tobacco , drinking, and swearing. [xliv] One thing that helped women maintain their disguise was the fact that no soldier expected to find a woman in the ranks; men were not looking for them, so it was easier to remain unnoticed. [xlv] Wounds and hospital treatment was the most common way for a woman’s gender to be discovered. [xlvi] Unfortunately, a woman’s sex was sometimes uncovered before she even set foot on the battlefield – Sarah Collins and Mary Burns, for example. xlvii] Collins, who was of very good health and “could have easily borne the hardships incident to a soldier’s life,” was an orphaned teenager living in Wisconsin who enlisted with her brother. [xlviii] She was “detected by the was she put on her shoes and stockings” before being able to support the Union next to her brother. [xlix] Mary Burns, also a Northerner, joined to be with her significant other from Michigan. [l] She was arrested in Detroit, also before fighting next to the man with whome she enlisted. [li]

These women fearlessly performed any task asked of them, and fought bravely in a situation where society assumed women would not be able to function, much less fight like the man standing next to her. [lii] Women soldiers readily performed any task given to them, just as if they were a male soldier. It was not uncommon that soldiers were pulled off of the field and asked to work in hospitals. [liii] Some women joined for medical service directly. [liv] Volunteers retrieved wounded from the battlefields and nursed patients as they waited for a surgeon. Women were usually untrained, and had to follw strict regulations.

Many soldiers died simply from disease caused by new exposure to the ranks, and thousands died on the battlefield after being left unaided. [lv] Across the Confederacy, societies were formed to gether supplies and volunteers that were sent to Virginia to help wounded soldiers. Women learned to dress wounds efficiently, where they may have fainted at the sight before the war. [lvi] Soldiers and generals were hungry for information about the opposing side. Women sometimes gained insight from Federals through casual conversation, but others were sent north to spy and bring information to Jefferson Davis or General Robert E.

Lee. Women carried notes filled with information hidden in hams or in the folds of their skirts. [lvii] Some hid in conspicuous places and acted as faithful members of the opposing side, others rode out after midnight to deliver information to officials. This was sometimes dangerous work – soldiers shot these women from afar to stop them from delivering secret plans or other information. [lviii] As citizens of America, the war undoubtedly impacted women. With the absence of men not experienced previously in America, women’s roles shifted ramatically, in and out of war. When men left, women took their place, and that change could not be reverted when the war was over. The result of the American Civil War – emancipation – also altered women’s home life. ———————– [i] James M. McPherson, Ordeal by Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction (New York: McGraw Hill Companies, Inc. , 2001), 19. [ii] McPherson, 19. [iii] McPherson, 20. [iv] McPherson, 20. [v] George C. Rable, Civil Wars: Women and the Crisis of Southern Nationalism (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1989), 26. [vi] Rable, 27. vii] Mary Elizabeth Massey, Women in the Civil War (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994), 153. [viii] Rable, 27. [ix] Rable, 30. [x] McPherson, 20. [xi] Rable, 28. [xii] Rable, 29. [xiii] Rable, 18-19. [xiv] Rable, 17. [xv] Rable, 17. [xvi] Rable, 18. [xvii] Rable, 17-19. [xviii] Rable, 20-22. [xix] Jeanie Attie, Patriotic Toil: Northern Women and the American Civil War (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1998), 46. [xx] James L. Roark, et al. , The American Promise: A History of United States, 2nd ed. (Boston and New York: Bedford/St Martin’s, 2002), 380. [xxi] Massey, 153. xxii] Massey, 154. [xxiii] Massey, 154-55 [xxiv] Massey, 161. [xxv] Massey, 161. [xxvi] Michael P. Johnson, ed. , Reading the American Past: Selected Historical Documents, Volume I: To 1877, 3rd ed. (Boston and New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2005), 225-26. [xxvii] Johnson, 225-26. [xxviii] Roark, 380. [xxix] Rable, 15-16. [xxx] Rable, 16. [xxxi] Rable, 16-17. [xxxii] Attie, 78. [xxxiii] Massey, 78. [xxxiv] Massey, 78. [xxxv] Massey, 78. [xxxvi] DeAnne Blanton and Lauren M. Cook, They Fought Like Demons: Women Soldiers in the Civil War (New York:Vintage Books, 2002), 25 [xxxvii] Blanton, 25-28. xxxviii] Blanton, 25-28. [xxxix] Blanton, 30-32. [xl] Massey, 80. [xli] Massey, 78. [xlii] Blanton, 30. [xliii] Blanton, 46-50. [xliv] Blanton, 52-53. [xlv] Blanton, 57. [xlvi] Massey, 80. [xlvii] Massey, 80. [xlviii] Blanton, 33, 56. [xlix] Massey, 80. [l] Blanton, 31. [li] Blanton, 124. [lii] Francis Butler Simkins and James Welch Patton, The Women of the Confederacy (Richmond and New York: Garrett and Massie, Incorporated, 1936), 80. [liii] Blanton, 65-66. [liv] Blanton, 65-66. [lv] Simkins, 82-83. [lvi] Simkins, 82-83. [lvii] Simkins, 82-82. [lviii] Simkins, 82-82.

Causes of The English Civil War In this assessment I will be analysing the many causes and roots of the English Civil war which broke out in 1642. The English civil war was a long chain of conflict and rivalry, which was set between two very powerful forces, who consisted of The Royalists (King Charles I, and his supporters), and the Roundheads (Parliament, and their supporters).

The feud erupted on the 22nd of August 1642, and lasted for 7 years, when its final action took place in 1649. There were many reasons for this intellectual battle, including political arguments, economical arguments and also religious arguments, which will be categorised and stated in this essay. To begin with, one of the fundamental causes of The Civil War includes a religious argument, about James I’s and Charles I’s dedication to the ‘Divine Rights of Kings’.

The Divine Rights of Kings was a religious doctrine, which states that a monarch is to have no authority to the will of his/her people, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of only God. James and Charles were both very firm, believers of The Divine Rights of Kings especially that, as to begin with James expected a great amount of attention from Parliament, by letting him make his own decisions, and did not expect any of his decisions to be argued with.

However at this time, Parliament consumed a major advantage over James, as parliament contained a great amount of money, whereas James was constantly short of it. It was from his father that Charles acquired to also be a very strong devotee to the Divine Rights of Kings, as he realised the damaged relationship which was left between his father and Parliament, and blamed this action entirely on Parliament. This led to a complete ignorance with the Parliament, from Charles, and set his Godly rights to do as he pleased.

But this action was considered a huge shock to Parliament, during this time, as parliament had experienced to be more powerful under the period of the Tudors, and anticipated current Kings and Queens to listen and abide by their commands, just like Elizabeth I had done, by being a succeeding sovereign, listening wisely to the Parliament, and standing by their rules. But the actions of Charles meant that the power of Parliament had been undertaken by the monarch, and their reputation continued to weaken. Because of this parliament now despised Charles very much. All these actions shows that The

Divine Rights of Kings is implied as a very significant reason to foundation of the civil war, as it is considered as the main reason for the start of the whole dispute and disagreement between the Royalists and Roundheads. This whole feud continued to develop, as parliament were increasingly getting more frustrated, with the fact that James I and Charles I, were acting even more foolishly upon idiotic decisions they made. An important political reason for this is that both Charles I and James I, thoughtlessly and carelessly, choses the most unhelpful advisors for themselves.

James I choose the Duke of Buckingham, for the most idiotic reason; because he was good looking. James thought that the Public would be attracted to this reason, but unfortunately were not, as Buckingham came out to be very stupid and a waste of choice. Charles also foolishly chose his advisor, by selecting his best friend the Earl of Strafford, which was a he mistake as he public hated him, which led to a bad impression on the king. Another action that Gave Charles a bad impression was the amount of money that was wasted by him, by spending a hefty amount on insignificant things, such as cloths, parties and palaces.

But this meant that Charles was continuously losing his money, and therefore, always ended up asking Parliament for more money. Charles found other ways to get more money, as he also need money for a war taking place against Spain at the time. One way Charles’s used was asking Parliament to increase taxes, so that he could gain the money he needed, but unfortunately this didn’t happen as Parliament refused to give the money to Charles, as Parliament had a list of demand to get more power off the King.

But Charles did not take any of this, as he would not allow his power to be destroyed and taken away by Parliament, and in a terrible rage of anger he made the simple decision to shut down Parliament in 1629 for 11 years, which changed England politically, as it meant that there was now less control over England, to guide its path! making this decisions also lead to consequences, as now that Parliament was gone, he needed to depend another resort to get more money.

In 1635, Charles decided made a very important economic decision to resort to the ancient custom of demanding ship money. Ship money was an ancient tax, when kings were able to order coastal towns and villages to pay for the expenses of the navy and ships. However, Charles demanded more ship tax the following year, and intended to ask for it every year. But this gained Charles a vast amount of complaints. Especially when in 1637, a man named John Hampden was prosecuted for refusing to pay ship tax. This made people very angry. And eventually in July 1641 ship tax was abolished.