Category: American Civil War

Can division actually strengthen a community? Let’s examine America’s history to see. America has journeyed through two major divisions during its history. The first was a division from Britain, gaining its independence and creating a new nation. The people were divided into loyalists and revolutionaries. America emerged as a prosperous independent nation, united in strength. The second was an internal division between the North and South within its own boundaries during the American Civil War. The people again were divided, yet the nation again emerged united and stronger than before. Both were tough battles, testing the strength of the people. America prevailed through both, the American Revolution and the American Civil War, giving way to a strengthened nation that has continued to prosper.

America began as a British colony; with financing from companies such as the Virginia Company, settlers were sent to America to enhance the wealth of England and the investors. Survival was difficult for the initial settlers, yet they succeeded in discovering a crop that would make the investors prosper. Tobacco became an extremely prosperous crop in the Virginia colony, enticing the Virginia Company to encourage more Englanders to relocate there. The Virginia Company offered incentives of free land and self-government to anyone willing to relocate to Virginia; however, the land became the property of the person paying for the trip and the House of Burgesses which became the established governing body was limited to only large land owners. With the growing tobacco industry, settlers relied on indentured servants for labor. The indentured servants received a free trip to the Virginia colony in return for seven years of unpaid labor. The indentured servants in the northern colonies had a better life; therefore, making it harder for the Virginia colony to attract enough indentured servants to farm the plantations; yet with the decrease in death rate in the Virginia colony, the number of indentured servants who had completed their contracts to gain freedom increased. With the increased number of free indentured servants, good farmland in Virginia became scarce, creating bitterness in the freedmen. This bitterness with the aid of Nathaniel Bacon led to a rebellion in 1676 against the House of Burgesses and Governor Berkley. The rebellion began when the freedmen encroached on Native Indian territory initiating a battle with the Indians that would end in loss of life on both sides. Governor Berkley was accused of siding with the Indians which caused the freedmen to declare the government corrupt and burn down the House of Burgesses. After Bacon’s death, the governor returned to restore order. This rebellion enticed the Virginia planters to turn towards slavery to avoid any future discontent and conflict with freedmen.

As the industry continued to grow, the labor force in the Virginia colony switched from indentured servants to slaves from Africa. The northern colony of Massachusetts was settled by Puritans; it was a more merchant and industrial-based society rather than farming since the land was not suitable for most crops. The Massachusetts colony underwent its own turmoil as it developed with a few breaking away from the strict Puritan traditions and becoming exiled from the colony such as Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson. The Massachusetts colony also struggled with rumblings of witchcraft. I believe these differences between the colonies of the North and South helped discourage unification enabling England to remain in control of the colonies; however, with the emergence of the “American Identity” through lack of free land, immigration, and the Enlightenment, England control over the colonies will begin to diminish.

Many events contributed to the American Revolution, but four events, in particular, stand out to me as major causes. The first event I attribute to the American Revolution is the French and Indian War of 1756-1763. Also known as the Seven Year’s War, this conflict forced colonial militia to fight side by side with the British military. The American militia was much different from the British military, being less organized and not including ranking systems. Fighting alongside one another brought the vast differences between the colonial way of thinking and the British way of thinking to light; frustrating both units and initiating discontent in the colonists with British rule. During the war England basically turned all attention to the war neglecting the colonists; however, at the conclusion of the war, Britain wanted to enhance control over the colonists which was not received well in the colonies. The second major event that I attribute to the American Revolution was when King George III wanted to prevent westward expansion to reduce costs; therefore, he issued the “Proclamation of 1763” which banned colonists from settling west of the Appalachian Mountains. This infuriated the colonists, they had fought alongside British soldiers for that land and were now prevented from capitalizing on it. Furthermore, the colonists had originally come to the new land on the promise of receiving land, which existing land was scarce and now Britain was refusing to allow migration west. Thirdly, the British government proceeded to issue a series of taxes to the colonies such as The Stamp Act of 1764, The Townsend Act of 1767, and the Tea Act of 1773. The colonies did not feel that Britain had the right to tax them; they felt unrepresented in the British Government. The Stamp Act declare the necessity for a stamp to be placed on official documents that had to be purchased from stamp collectors. The colonies refused and Britain relinquished the Stamp Act. The Townsend Act imposed a tax on trade, but again the colonists refused. The British government repealed the Townsend Act. The Tea Act granted the East India Company the right to a monopoly for colonial tea sales. This initiated the “Boston Tea Party” during which the Sons of Liberty, suited as Indians, climbed aboard three vessels and destroyed all the tea by throwing it into the harbor. The British government in turn announced the Coercive Acts of 1774 which were initiated to punish Boston for the loss of the tea and prevent the spreading of disobedience to the other colonies but actually became the final push to unite the colonies into revolution. The other colonies sympathized with Boston, collectively creating the Continental Congress in September 1774 that finally united the colonies against British rule. Fighting between the British and the colonists erupted with the Battle of Lexington and Concord in April 1775 and the American Declaration of Independence was drafted in July 1776; the American Revolution was now in full swing. The American colonies prevailed forming a new nation, The United States of America.

As a new nation, the first order of business was to create a government that represented all the people. The citizens of the United States of America did not want a very strong central government, they wanted the states to have control. The first attempt at a government came in the form of the “Articles of Confederation”, which created a small unicameral body with each state having one vote and a 2/3 majority required to pass legislation. Shays’ Rebellion in 1786 showed that such a weak central government was not going to suffice to maintain order within the new nation. Western farmers were behind on their mortgages and the banks blocked debtor relief in the state legislatures creating risks of foreclosures for the farmers. Daniel Shays and a group of farmers drew up arms and stormed the county courthouses demanding debtor relief. The rebellion was stopped and the persecutors were punished; however, this showed the defenselessness of the current central government. Hence, it was determined that the “Articles of Confederation” needed revision. The Constitutional Convention, consisting of 55 delegates, met in Philadelphia in 1787. They decided to create a new government instead of revising the existing one; therefore drafting the United States Constitution. Many issues had to be resolved during the creation of the Constitution such as how to count slaves, how to split power between the states and the federal government, and how to balance the federal government to include adequate checks and balances. The Constitution created three branches of the central government: executive, legislative, and judiciary. Each had certain controls other the other to protect against any one branch is too powerful. The legislative branch was further broken into a bicameral congress. Once complete, a “Bill of Rights” was added to the Constitution to ensure the protection of the citizen’s rights and liberties. The Constitution was ratified placing a new central government in charge. Interpretation of the Constitution was split on whether it stated what the government could or could not do; hence, the emergence of political parties arose. The United States territory expanded immensely with the Louisiana Purchase while economic growth skyrocketed as well. Water was the primary source of transporting goods to the United States constructed man-made canals in dry spots that did not contain suitable transportation methods; one example being the Erie Canal created in 1825. In the 19th century, the United States witnessed agricultural and industrial revolutions where the agricultural economy expanded greatly and manufacturing produced an industrial economy. Factories were manned by mill girls who were overworked and underpaid, who eventually went on strike. With the strike failing to improve conditions, the mill girls became scarce paving the road for the development of the middle class. The middle class manned the factories and obtained the little potential to advance. The agriculture of the South expanded tremendously with cotton as the primary crop, which increased the need for slave labor; slavery prospered in the South. Slaves were considered property and were treated horrendously, especially in the South. Frederick Douglas wrote an autobiography on his life as a slave showing the harsh treatment of slaves and pointing out the difference in treatment between northern and southern slaves. The northern slaves although still property was not beaten and starved like their fellow slaves of the south. Even with the United States freshly formed and prospering greatly, differences between the North and the South began to rip the nation apart.

Many factors contributed to the Civil War: the emergence of political parties after the ratification of the Constitution and disagreement over slavery issues were a few. The emergence of two distinct political parties due to how the Constitution was perceived produced a split in the way Americans thought. Citizens would side with one or the other; hence, dividing the people. This set the stage for two distinct sides in a civil war; however, the biggest problem was slavery. Many people had turned against slavery, yet the South continued to increase its slave labor forces. Slavery began ripping the nation in two; those for slavery and those against it. Frederick Douglas delivered a speech in 1852 in defamation of “Independence Day” stating that it did not free all Americans for the slaves were still in chains; his speech stirred antislavery thoughts in many. William Lloyd Garrison denounced slavery, stating that it would eventually strip rights from all Americans posing fear in the hearts of many. First to go was the freedom of speech. In 1830, the state of Connecticut banned public speeches on antislavery; while in 1835, a mob stormed a post office in Charleston burning copies of the Liberator. These events showed the demise of the freedom of speech for the American people. The freedom of life followed suit in leading to the American civil war. In 1837, a mob entered Elijah Lovejoy’s newspaper office and shot him several times causing his death; hence, removing the freedom of life for the American people. Now the people could see their rights being removed due to slavery. With the Dred Scott decision of 1857 taking the side of the slave owner, declaring Dred Scott property and unable to sue in a court of law as well as declaring the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, the antislavery groups could now see that compromise was an option. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 established a latitude line to divide the slave states from the free states. The time had come to admit that the United States would either need to become fully slave-oriented or fully free, division was no longer an option; hence forecasting the American Civil War. The civil war was a harrowing war, placing brother against brother. In the end, the North prevailed and slavery was abolished in the United States of America; which was just the initial step in the journey toward racial equality within its borders.

America not only had to overcome the powerful hold of Britain through the American Revolution but had to overcome the division of itself through the American Civil War.

America was not always a unified nation, nor was its settlement initially geared towards such. America was originally established to remain an extension of Britain to increase Britain’s wealth. Distance and discontent reared their head, giving way to thoughts of independence; leading to the emergence of a new nation. This new nation struggled with the creation of an acceptable government and disagreements between the people, leading to a division of the nation and a series of bloody battles. Through it all, America prevailed giving way to a unified, stronger nation.

The 1860 presidential election proved that neither the Democratic nor the Republican Party ought to unify the nation. This used to be as soon as carried out through many precise acts of aggression. For instance, Americans dreamed of electing a new, unique leader, however, they had been scared that in the future the new president would now no longer be profitable on foot the nation, and maintain them intact. Through slavery, terror, and succession, the presidential election tested that none of the political occasions had been in a role to unify America. The presidential election mounted that none of the political activities have been in functioned to unify the country, via Slavery, terror, and succession.

In this election, slavery performed a most essential role. An instance of this protected Red Scott v Sandford. Died Scott received proper here to the court to the courtroom to contend a trial. Saying that he ought to have his freedom if slavery in Illinois used to be unconstitutional. As he used to be as quick as a slave that was delivered to a free state. Their verdict ruled in the direction of Scott. Following this it hooked up the oblivious troubles of equality and discrimination, in the specific interior of the government. It is frequent information about Abraham Lincoln, his accomplishments in ending slavery, and his prevailing of this election. However, at the time of his election, he promised that slavery would be kept. This indicates that that`s precisely what the human beings wanted: their slaves. His ensures and presidential marketing campaign is what helped him get into office. Part of that advertising and advertising and marketing campaign blanketed the promise to enable and retain slavery to a limitless margin. However, on the Democratic problem of things, there had been in spite of the reality that troubles with slavery. The states that supported slavery walked out of the Charleston Democratic Convention, stopping candidate Stephen Douglas from receiving the endorsement of the party. Douglas used to be as soon as the end nominated through a capacity of a particular convention, alternatively, Altogether held territorial slavery out. Two activities had been hooked up as a give-up result of these disagreements: the Southern Democratic Party, which differed slightly, then regular democracy. They voted for John Breckenridge as their candidate. He used to be a heavy endorsement of slavery in the West. John Bell, who swept this subject rely actually on under the rug, was once as soon nominated through the way of the Republican breakaway party. Instead of pointing his middle of attention toward slavery, he used to be as soon as once greater pinpointed on upholding the Constitution.

For Southern states, the presidential election of 1860 used to be a predominant downside when you think that they had been at risk of shedding their slaves, which terrified them. For Southerners, their slaves had been their way of life. The Southerners relied on the manufacturing of objects carried out by way of their slaves. Obviously losing the advantage they had with slaves used to no longer be on hand for Southerners. Slaves though have suffered for many years from mistreatment at the arms of their owners. They had been put through misery and lots worse. Testing their limits. Slavery had long preceding on for years and that mistreatment ought to by way of no functionality be forgotten. As it brought on them a lot of grief, all the households broke up. Along with that, slaves had to contend with their embarrassment. They have been beaten, raped, and humiliated, and they had been the ones they wanted the most. It is ironic that African Americans have been hated by means of the use of slave proprietors on the different hand preferred them and ought to in no way suppose about their lives without them. In 1860, involved Southerners have been elected via President Lincoln. When cotton used be once mistakenly despatched to Europe, the cotton revolution modified the whole component for the South. Their monetary desktop and their want for slaves have grown rapidly. Besides being frequent people, with the enhancement of cotton, Southerners saw a large opportunity. The world used to be as soon as modified with the aid of way of this. With such an abundance of land in the South, they had limitless possibilities. This land allowed them to make bigger their production of cotton, resulting in increased slaves. The economic gadget acted in the route of the cotton revolution as an intent for slavery. In relation to slavery, the North and South have been different. While the South relied on slavery for everything, without the need for slaves, the North located a way of life. When it came to slavery, Democrats and Republicans had very unique points of view. Republicans, with Lincoln as president, recognized Lincoln and have been adverse to slavery. Democrats, though, have been for slavery and it would with the useful resource of no skill overcome this dispute. This election tested that there was once as soon as no answer to this disagreement and that we ought to no longer be united. The South had a true deal to lose, till they have been hostilities for slavery. They would no longer be high-quality barring slavery. The Democratic social gathering and the Southern Democratic birthday occasion have been very different essential sections of the terror. The North and the Republicans get collectively have been scared of them. More importantly, they have been terrified that their freedom to rule their very very own states and to take away their slaves would be stripped away. That used to be a huge part of their labor force, and consequently, the Southern economy, as referred to before. This apprehension is what brought about the eleven states to go away from the union and establish the Confederacy. After hearing that the union used to be the foremost of the Northern states that have been anti-slavery states, many of these issues began. The southern states saw the slaves as too treasured to provide up, so via pulling out of the union, they preferred to try to provide up this. It would take a big hit on their economies for the southern states to sacrifice their slaves. In particular, on the grounds that they manufactured most of the world’s cotton and exported it for alternatives to greater than a few countries. Getting this supposed accelerated money go with the flow and larger investments once more into the goods. In us now not unifying and due to this truth inflicting war inside the kingdom itself this worry used to be a massive factor.

Secession then took vicinity proper after the 1860 election. They by using no potential commitment to anything, even though this election truly confirmed that they can additionally wish to no longer be united and that one united state of the united states can additionally want to now not be below all. This division allowed them to factor out their editions and see that the state should now no longer be united thru either Republicans or Democrats. American residents started out to gather the thought of manifest destiny, spreading to the West. They commenced out with it. A direct end result of this would be a higher demand for slaves. There was once a hazard of slavery spreading to these new nations. This led to extra polarization between the settlers. People like John Brown verified the quantity of polarity at this time was substantial. John Brown and human beings alike believed that slavery have to no longer unfold in these newfound lands. They believed that violence used to be quintessential in order to give up it from spreading. The northern states had been no longer inherently incredible with African Americans, on the different hand with Abraham Lincoln in office, they would deem them residents of the United States. The southern states, on the one typical hand, alternatively caught on day-to-day beliefs, believed that slaves are however no longer men and female and that they have the perfect to non-public them as slaves. The 1860 presidential election examined that these events had been not successful in unifying these states and that there was once too lots inner disagreement. Southern Carolina used to be the first country to go away from the union as they feared that they would lose their slaves. They preferred to hold their low-priced labor force. This encouraged the 10 aforementioned states to comply with swimsuits as well. The one thing they all of course had in conventional used to be seasoned slavery. These 11 states ended up forming what used to be once referred to as the Confederate States of America or additionally identified as the Confederacy. This is a true event as to why the 1860Â election no longer unified the country. In fact, it commenced splitting apart due to the reality these states started making their very very personal plans and agendas. These states have been specifically all of the southern states. Regardless of who won the election the union used to be nevertheless going to combat in the route of antislavery, hence this all would have taken area regardless of who got elected into the presidency. Since human beings, couldn`t come to an agreement they went to the extremes of what they believed. This led to even increased anxiousness and sooner or later led to the Civil War. This hostility had precipitated so many deaths of human beings over an argument human beings ought to now not to compromise on. Later on, a compromise used to be in a function to be met. Under one nation, the northern states and southern states in no way have been in consensus and therefore need to not consolidate.

The presidential election illustrated, through the usage of slavery, terror, and succession, that neither of the political events has been in the function to unify America. In some subjects, the Democratic Party, and the Republican Party, as authentic as their respective candidates all had their very own opinions and caught with them. The secession that then led to the Civil War was once the product of slavery and terror. It verified that no relying on who received this election, every event had been unable to unify the nation.

The American Civil War stands as a momentous event in the History of the United States of America. It remains the Nation`s most bloody war of all time, spanning the course of 4 years and claiming the lives of an estimated 620,000 Americans. Whilst the War stands as one of the most infamous ‘Brothers VS Brothers’ bouts in history, the actual cause of the Civil War remains a major source of dispute amongst historians due to the plethora of other factors that could also be considered the ‘main cause’. Stampp regards Lincoln`s desire for the ‘Preservation of the Union’ and The Southern state secession as the most evident and factual causes for the American Civil War, whilst Foner and Owsley sharply contrast this view, believing slavery and the attack on State rights, respectively, remain the main causes due to the large objections it faced from those who opposed it and the South`s ambition to let it remain – in order to protect their constitutional rights. Despite these factors holding considerable influence in explaining different reasons as to why the war began, Southern secession and Lincoln`s aim to preserve the Union still stand as the fundamental causes of the war. The other 2 factors mentioned standing as mere triggers to why the South seceded, due to the federal interference on Southern institutions. It was due to this ‘exit’ by Southern states that Lincoln and the North then felt the war was inevitable to save the union that bonded the country together, and for these reasons, they indisputably stand as the primary causes in understanding why the Civil War began.

Stampp argues, ‘Nothing is more sacred in a nationalistic age than the nation, hence the sanctity of any development which preserved the Union’. This stands as a convincing argument as Lincoln similarly believed the division Secession would cause, would ultimately destroy the unity that held these individual states together, and hence preservation was crucial. The strong withstanding support shown towards this idea can be seen when President Lincoln quoted in his oath of office, that whilst he remained the Head of State, he would ‘Preserve, Protect and Defend, the Constitution of the United States of America’. The Constitution provided the basis of the roots and ideas of the Founding Fathers in their desire to set up a ‘perpetual union’. Abraham Lincoln, one of the founders of the Republican Party, shared a strong conservative belief with his cohorts in upholding the principles of the US Constitution as it stood as a binding contract for the Country, essentially protecting the Union. Thus, Stampp is correct to argue this was the primary cause of the civil war. Additionally, we see further support for Stampp`s argument affirmed in Lincoln`s 1861 inaugural address, declaring State secession was ‘legally void’. This is because the Constitution had no articles for State Secession, prompting Lincoln and the North to believe seceding States were performing acts of Treason. Stampp argues further that the hatred both parts of the United States had for one another due to the polar opposite cultures they shared, heightened the difficulty of preventing a War from occurring – North and South were divided into two antagonistic sections, between whom there existed an intensity of animosity. This argument can be supported by Eckenrode, who said, ‘The Civil War was, in essence, a struggle between that part of the Nordic race which was prepared to renounce its tradition of mastery for equality, modernism and material comfort, and that part of the race which was resolved, despite modernity, to remain true to its ruling instincts’. Both quotations overall indicate the clear differences shared between the North and South. The conflicting views of both sides of the USA resulted in the impossibility of peacefully resolving their differences. We see this obvious difference regarding both sides when the issue of secession was brought up. The North believed it was an illegal act, with the South believed they had the justifiable right to leave as they chose to enter the Union. Stampp also shows the North had an economic interest in preserving the Union. He describes the slave industry as, [the] supremacy of King Cotton in the USA, highlighting its national importance for the United States economically. The economic positives that the South brought through the vast successes of the Cotton industry can also be seen as another reason why Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union. This is because Lincoln and the Northerners understood the economic positives Southern agriculture gave the country -as the industry had been the driving force of providing the material for the British cotton manufacturing industry. In addition to the positives it had on international trade, using slaves, in 1859, the South had produced 3.5 million of the 4.25 million bales of cotton in the whole of the United States. The reason why Southern secession would have affected the North economically is because of how heavily reliant the North was on this king of the industry. Gates Jr provides clear evidence that supports Stampp`s argument in his essay, Why was Cotton King? as he quoted that New England`s economy [was] so fundamentally dependent upon the textile industry. The textile industry used Cotton; this benefitted the country as it generated large amounts of money for the country`s economy, it also influenced the country to be able to borrow and engage in trade in the global market. Stampp`s argument that this colossal industry was a national necessity and was a major reason why Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union is therefore valid. Stampp also argues that the preservation of the Union was essential because it stood as an emblem of union and power and of freedom and prosperity. Stampp`s quote tells us the importance of national unity in preserving the Union and why it needed to be fought for, not for money, land, or success but for the desperate aim to not see a collective institution of States fragment into separate insignificant states with their own agendas. This is convincing as Lincoln`s desire to preserve the Union and prevent further Secession played an extremely important role in reigniting Northern nationalism and personal views of what the Union brought to the overall representation of America. From 1776 onwards, the United States was a country that was intended to be a global recognition of Liberty, Power, and Unity. A lot of Northern admiration towards the Union is because of what it represented, and this is why the war was necessary, in order for this union to be protected. Stampp`s argument, however, can be criticized because America was palpably fragmented before the Civil War was even a topic of discussion. The conflict of cultures between the two sides was evident before, which is supported by Nevins, South, and North were rapidly becoming separate peoples {in the early 1800s}, therefore this divide cannot stand as the main cause of the War as it was always present. Despite this critique, Stampp`s argument that Southern secession and Northern preservation still stand as the most important factors to explain the cause of the Civil War. This is because the hostility between the North and South and the clear polarity that existed between both sides exacerbated extreme tensions, as mentioned before, difficulties resolving issues and the sharp conflicts in ideas meant one side wanted the complete opposite to the other side, showing us the eventual and inevitable climax of Civil War.

While secession and the aim to preserve the Union remain the most important factors to explain why the Civil War began, Foner argues that slavery is ultimately regarded as the most important factor. He argues it may be asserted that there was a single cause, slavery. Rhodes supports Foner`s argument, ‘if the negro had never been brought to America, our Civil War could not have occurred’.These quotations are supported by the fact that if the South had not seen a possible erosion of their slave culture by Republican candidate Lincoln and his party, the chances of secession would have been much lower. The Republican Party, Lincoln, and the majority of the North had made it clear before 1860 that they opposed the existence of Slavery, Foner supports this, ‘The Republicans stand before the country, not only as the anti-slavery party but emphatically as the party of free labor’. Foner`s argument that slavery caused the Civil War is valid as it was only after Lincoln had won the 1860 Presidential election that 7 Southern States seceded, triggering the war. This was because the South`s economy relied heavily on the cotton industry, using slave labor, which Lincoln and the Republicans posed a grave threat to. We also see the importance of this viewpoint in Lincoln`s issuing of the 1863 emancipation proclamation, giving freedom to all slaves which shows it was always a fundamental aim of Lincoln, giving evidence to suggest Foner is correct to argue the issue of slavery was the principal cause of the war. Foner also argues that the opposition towards slavery was based on the threat it posed against the Northern ideology of ‘Free Labour’. Foner described this as being a core belief of the Republican ideology, {Free labor} meant labor with economic choices, with the opportunity to quit the wage-earning class. He emphasizes that a key aspect of Northern life was that the average man could work hard for his own wages and constantly strive to enhance his position in the American Capitalist society. Lincoln supported this as he famously said, this year [the man] labors for himself, and next year he will hire others to labor for him this quote again demonstrates the idealistic view Lincoln and the Republicans had about the perfect American society a playground of hard work and determination to eventually accomplish a life of wealth. This ideology completely contrasted with the way of life in the American South. Rather than it being a place like the North where you work your way up the class ladder, the South represented a fixed society where the aristocracy remained the ruling class and the slaves and workers continued to live beneath; it, therefore, lacked the societal progressiveness that the North posited. Lincoln supported this argument as he mentioned in 1854 that ‘Slavery’ deprives our Republican example of its just influence in the world. From this, we understand a major reason why the North wanted the institution abolished. Foner also argues that southerners believed that slavery would not be permanently safe under Republican administration the southern states alike knew that the election of 1860 had marked a turning point in the history of slavery. This indicates that it was due to the desire to keep slavery, that secession occurred; thus Foner`s claim that slavery was the main cause is convincing. Foner is also supported by the 19th century Confederate newspaper, Richmond Enquirer, Let Congress enact another boundary line, beyond which slavery shall not go, and we would say repeal it, or the South should go out of the Union. This ultimatum suggests the threat to slavery was a defining factor as to why Southern states wanted to secede and in turn, caused the Civil War. Foner also argues how slavery and its dangerous risk of expansion led to the American Civil War, the consequences of such expansion would be so disastrous for both Northern society and the nation`s future that Republicans were willing to risk civil war to prevent it. This is true as the Northern fear of Southern slave expansion to the West stemmed from the threat it posed to free labor and Northern culture. This is because many Northerners at the time believed the development of the Western part of the country was key to America`s advancement and evolution in becoming a greater nation this claim is supported by the French, ‘To bar slavery from the territories was to preserve the territories for the free laborers of the North’. The particular reason for this was that Northerners believed the West stood as an opportunity to enhance the ever-growing glory of the United States of America, an economical goldmine. This was due to the fact the land was vast and cheap and that if promoted right, would lead to constant migration which would in turn reduce labor competition in the North. This would have benefitted Northern society as a whole due to the rise in labor competition with the influx of immigrants that arrived from Europe, in hope of the American dream. Foner also acknowledged this Northern grievance, [surplus population] will necessarily interfere with the employment and the wages of our own citizens. This is valid as extensive land was extremely important in order to minimize the risk of these heavily populated industrial cities becoming too overcrowded with workers, which would have impacted livelihoods. Hence, the North required free land where there didn`t exist an institution that would effectively degrade the Northern ethos of self-determination and social prosperity as slavery would have done. Overall, Foner`s geographical claim argues that the North was willing to risk civil war” in order to exterminate this expansion of slavery to the West as it would have continued to affect the principles of the North, subsequently affecting the American economical advancement of the future. However, this gained significance still cannot compete with the view that the preservation of the Union and secession remain the most important causes as it wasn`t until 1862, a year after the war began, that the abolition of slavery became a primary Northern aim- thus highlighting slavery was not the primary concern. Foner`s argument that slavery was the main cause is weakened by Lincoln himself, who wrote in a letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley that, If [he] could save the union without freeing any slave, [he] would do it. This provides us with clear evidence to suggest preserving the Union remained a clearer ambition of Lincoln and the North, demonstrating to us that preservation of the Union and secession outweigh slavery as being the primary causes of the war.

On the other hand, the attack on State`s rights, as argued by Owsley, is seen to have been the primary cause of the American Civil War. Owsley`s overall argument concludes that the Federal government was infringing and attacking State rights issues that were of no business to them, Let me repeat that peace between sections is placed in jeopardy when one section fails to respect the self-respect of the people of another section. The setup of the country adhered to the constitutional rule of federalism, which meant sovereignty is shared between the federal or central government and the individual states. This core principle was felt amongst the Southern states to have been continually violated by Lincoln and the Federal government, adding to the animosity and rising tensions between both parts of the country. Stephens supports this idea, it was a strife between the principles of the federation, on the one side, and Centralism on the other. This is valid as the concept was stated clearly by the Founding Fathers to ensure the Federal government would seldom interfere and engage in State matters. The South believed the North was disobeying a constitutional rule which in turn weakened the foundation of the United States. Stephens also supports this idea by explaining how the attacks were not only threatening the unity of the country- but would affect the political structure also, destroying the elementary and vital principles upon which the Government was founded. Owsley`s argument also states that this reoccurring attack on Southern rights and institutions began to be strengthened as a cause for increasing tensions due to the rise in Southern nationalism, which enhanced the belief in Southerners to fight back against these unconstitutional attacks. He argues that Northern insult of Southern culture was common, for example, during the Missouri debates, New Englanders denounced Southern society in general. Owsley argues that this led to a rise in tensions as the Southerners became resentful and apprehensive of future bad relations with the North. Now because of these insults and possible extermination of Southern institutions, Owsley argues rampant Southern nationalism began emerging across Dixieland, the effect upon the minds of the Southerners was far more profound since they were the recipients of this Niagara of insults and threats the Northerners were cold-blooded political adventurers. The conflict of ‘North’ VS ‘South’ was becoming more apparent due to the North`s apparent blatant and continual disrespect regarding the South`s way of life. This is convincing to suggest the attack on State rights was the fundamental cause of the war as we saw that it was only after this sentiment of betrayal and hatred towards the North increased, that war became a possible idea as they felt it was of vital importance to protect the South – we saw this when South Carolina`s infantry attacked the Union soldiers on Fort Sumter to kick off the war because they were imposing on ‘Southern’ land. Osterweis gives this argument further validity, the movement expanded in protest against, and in conflict with, the government. Moreover, both of the other arguments mentioned in this piece were ultimately issued as a source of a cause because of the Northern attacks on State rights. This is because secession would not have occurred if the South had not felt the Federal government was bombarding their slave institution, a State matter. This point is strengthened as it is clearly mentioned in South Carolina`s Declaration of the Causes of Secession that, those [Northern] States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation. This example highlights evidence to indicate the Northern harm to State rights had led to secession, perhaps suggesting it was the primary cause. This argument is supported by Benson who writes secession was necessary as their society was in ‘mortal danger’ from Northern aggressors. As I mentioned previously, this infraction of State rights highlighted by Owsley had been common throughout the years leading up to the war and it did generate a sense of Constitutional betrayal amongst the South by the North. An example of this is the FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT OF 1850. Schlesinger supports this case as being a key factor in increasing tensions, [the Southern slaveholding states] being sovereign and independent, had the unquestionable right to judge on its infractions and to resort to positive defiance of all unauthorized acts of the general government. This meant many of the Southerners felt they had the right to disobey laws imposed by the Federal government in order to ensure their constitutional sovereignty remained legitimate.

The invention of Eli Whitney’s Cotton Gin yielded a “Cotton Boom,” and therefore the value and demand for slave labor increased dramatically. Prior to the invention of the gin, slavery, in its entirety, faced decline and what some hopeful northerners believed was its eradication. As a result of the end of the Tobacco Boom, Virginia, the state which held the most slaves at that time, was left with hundreds more than it had worked for. After lengthy debate, whether for economic or ethical purposes, Virginia manumitted more than ten thousand slaves in the following years. This public decision caught the attention of Americans, and many began to question the morality of the institution itself. There was a rumor that slavery had reached the end of its era, until the Cotton Gin monopolized America’s economy, as tobacco once had (Cotton Kingdom). The divide between those who questioned and those who relied on slavery became greater and clearer, and many began to voice these opinions. Here, the foundation and motivation for the Civil War were established, though it was hardly a foreseeable reality. Whitney’s gin, which produced cotton eight times faster than man, led to an increased demand for slave labor. By the 1840s, cotton accounted for one-half of American exports and the South supplied 60% of the world’s cotton supply (Cotton Kingdom). Though the extraction of the seeds was no longer included in the slave burden, the demand for slaves to pick and grow cotton only increased: The Cotton Gin created an empire and slavery only became more vital to Southern operations. As the business of the slave trade and the number of slaves needed to support this revolution grew enormously, so did

The rising demand for cotton in Great Britain, and the jobs the industry brought to the North, created a sense of economic independence for the Confederacy. The financing and transportation of cotton precipitated the northern baking system as well (Cotton Kingdom). This resulted in many conflicted Northerners, who prospered and profited due to slave labor, but disagreed with slavery on a moral level. But this was a two-way street: with a profit increase in the South, this created an even greater market for goods and services in the North. (Cotton Kingdom). Great Britain played an instrumental role in the Cotton Boom, as America was their primary source of cotton. Because the Confederates knew how dependent Great Britain was on their resources, they were confident that they could count on British aid and supplies for war, if necessary. (King Cotton).

The empire that cotton created only increased Southern dependency on slave labor, so the election of President Lincoln was the gateway to secession.

• a. Evidence #1 (citation): Amidst a shift in presidential power, the Confederates felt it was an appropriate time to announce their secession. Most were fearful of national leaders who did not support slavery on a moral level. In desperation to hang onto their cotton industry that they felt was threatened with Lincoln in office, they seceded (American Civil War)
• b. Evidence #2 (citation): The spirit of secession became a grounding hope for the Confederate states, and they had no desire to engage in a costly and destructive battle with the North—they simply wanted to be left alone (American Civil War).

I. Meaningful Conclusion/Idea about the essay:

The Cotton Boom was not simply a financial success, but an era that’s effects have shaped the future of the United States. Whitney’s Cotton Gin started a revolution, one that was settled by Civil War.

The Civil War was very stressful for people during this time period but also very positive in many ways, it completely destroyed the land and took many years to reconstruct, it gave people new freedoms by ending slavery, and lastly, it also took many lives of soldiers and reshaped the role of women. It was time for a positive change in the South and a change of old ways. Leaders came together to make reconstruction happen and to change the way people were living. People worked together and adjusted to the new way of living life.

Times were very tough for people after the Civil War, but a major part of this was the damage that had been done to the property. During the battles, many places such as South Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, and Columbia were completely destroyed and people were left with hardly anything. Most of the livestock was found dead in the South, along with bodies as a result of the war. It took several years to repair the damage. Many people were homeless, plantations were destroyed, and left with little or no money. Some people were kind enough to come together to donate from their own wealth which was around $3 billion. This money was used to help restore the damage. According to a website it states, “Yet this wealth obscured the gains in infrastructure, industrial production, and financial markets that occurred north of the mason dixon line…” Reconstruction rebuilt new houses for enslaved people and people who had lost their homes and belongings. They built new railroads and bridges so people could transport merchandise and people easier, which helped jumpstart the economy.

At the end of the Civil War, African Americans were promised freedom as well as 40 acres of land and a mule. They were allowed to work. This allowed them to feed their families the best they could. African Americans slowly started their journey toward equal rights and sometimes were treated more fairly. Getting fair pay enabled them to get food and other necessary items for their families. On a website, it states “ African American males worked as hotel workers, lumber and log mill rollers, and rail workers.” They were getting jobs that normally a white person would have during this time period. New employment opportunities were being opened daily for African Americans. Instead of being slaves on the farm some became laborers and received pay for their work. African Americans were allowed to choose where they wanted to work and how they wanted to work. Some were no longer subject to working on the Plantations for white men.

Another impact of the civil war was that African American males were given the privilege to vote. The fifteen Amendment was established in 1870 giving all men the legal right to vote regardless of race, color, and religion. According to a website “ prohibited states from denying a male citizen the right to vote based on color, race, or previous condition of servitude.” Although voting was still a struggle for African Americans this was the start for them to have a political opinions and voice their opinions.

On a website, it states “On January 1, 1863, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed the slaves in the area of the country that shall be in rebellion against the United States. “ This Proclamation laid the groundwork and was the beginning of freedom for slaves across the Country. Although African Americans still faced opposition, with some people not wanting them to have rights this was paving the way to getting greater freedom. The Fifteen Amendment and the Emancipation Proclamation was huge stepping stone for equality and freedom for African American men.

The civil war helped create a movement for a good cause. The Thirteenth Amendment of the Consitution of the U.S. abolished slavery. Whereas the Fourteenth Amendment was “established to grant citizenship to everyone born or naturalized in the U.S,” “thereby granting citizenship to formerly enslaved people.” Giving citizenship to African Americans let them better opportunities and rights similar to all men. With the new rights and freedoms for enslaved men and women, doors were finally opening. Even though some faced resistance and adversity, the movement started. A website stated, “Freedmen’s Bureau, established by Congress in 1865, assisted the former slaves by giving them food and finding jobs, as long as homes for them.” “The bureau established hospitals and schools, including such institutions of higher learning as Fisk University and Hampton Institute.” “Northern philanthropic agencies, such as the American missionary association also aided the freedmen.” Education was essential to helping men and women begin their new lives with the chance to better themselves.

Many people lost their lives during and after the Civil War which had a great impact on families. Multiple children were left without fathers and wives were left without husbands. Men never made it home and those that did come home carried sickness or needed care. Lots of soldiers came home with missing limbs and very bad diseases that killed them off very soon. On a website, it states “ roughly 2% of the population, an estimated 620,000 men, lost their lives in the line of duty.” All these families were hurt badly, the women had to run businesses and farms to keep their families alive. Women were forced to take the role of the husband while caring for their disabled or sick sons and husbands.

After the civil war women’s rights became a big focus too. After taking on the same jobs and roles as the males, women wanted the same rights as men. Women wanted the right to vote and have a political opinion. Women took on a lot of roles during the war such as mother, father, and caretaker for their children. Some of the women were even found on the battleground. They also had to take on the role of working out in the fields in addition to their own daily chores. Women planted food and tended the fields. They did this to help their families survive. Showing that women could do the same as men if not more. On a website it states “The war had given women a chance to control their own lives, to earn their own money, to manage their own finances, to be independent.” Women proved they could do the same work as men and some were even better at it. The Civil War began the beginning of the journey for women to vote and work for wages.

Overall, the impact of the Civil War was very positive. The Civil War, although deadly and disastrous, began a movement for slaves and women for freedom and rights. Slaves became paid workers, men were given the right to vote, slaves became free, and women showed they were capable of so much more than being a wife and mothers. Even though the road at the end of the Civil War was not an easy one, it began the process of freedom and rights for slaves and women. Reconstruction was a slow process but eventually, people came together to rebuild the South.

Abstract:

Every aspect of American politics is always connected to economics to some extent. How an economy functions and changes are integral to the start of revolutions. The interests of groups are shaped by the question of how their economic well-being will be affected, and as a result, impact the way politicians and legislators tend to themselves and the public. There was a period, prior to the passing of the Civil Rights Act, in which it was economically favorable to keep African-Americans oppressed and segregated. However, the eventual passing of the act poses the question: What changed? Race in America seems to be a tool used to distract the people and set groups against each other while those in power balance policy in their favor.

In a broad review of American history, revolutions can seem explosive and quick. In actuality, revolutions are a complex, multi-step process that flares up, achieves fractions of their goals, and lies dormant for some time before societal conditions give rise to them again. Economic conditions impact social conditions which then impact our politics. Class struggle is also a constant and driving factor of revolution, as seen in the Civil War and Civil Rights Movement.

The Civil War’s unfinished goals presented themselves as the social consequences predominantly seen in the South, which fueled the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. How the relationship between class and race shaped the Civil Rights Movement is something to be explored through the use of Nelson Peery’s book, The Future is Up To Us.

Focusing on both the general trends of the South and a specific case of Birmingham, Alabama through the use of Diane McWhorter’s book, “Carry Me Home: Birmingham, Alabama: The Climactic Battle of the Civil Rights Revolution”, I will explain the movement’s fascinating history. I will elaborate more on the process of a revolution, and prove how economic interests are always at the heart of those movements. Thinking about the current implications of the intersection between economic conditions and race will shape the conclusion of this paper.

What Composes a Revolution

As stated by Nelson Peery, “A revolution…begins with the emergence and eventual supremacy of a new means of production and ends with the consequent reorganization of society”.1Innovation in a society’s means of production is sure to impact its economic system. To further explain what this new change really means for society, Peery uses an analogy in which he likens an economic system to a machine. When a new part is added or subtracted, the system no longer works. Like a chain reaction, a change in the economy forces a change in society which forces a political revolution.

To understand how this applies to the revolutionary change of the Civil Rights era, one must recall the events that produced the Civil War. The creation of industry in the North allowed for the mechanization of slave labor, which meant that slavery was no longer necessary and African-Americans were driven into the cities post-abolition. The economic revolution in agriculture was the foundation for the social revolution later born as the “Freedom Movement”.

How Class Struggle Drives Revolution

Class struggle can be defined as a “fight to overthrow a social system and create a new one”. The original system that worked for the South was slave labor as it was extremely profitable for those with access to exploitable land. However, the technological advancements in the North that allowed for industrialization made the agricultural labor of the South the inferior system. The North’s new advantage helped it gain momentum for the abolition of slavery, a huge threat to the South’s economy.

As a result, the Civil War ensued. It would be inaccurate to characterize the war as strictly a fight between the forces of a unified North and a unified South. There existed a struggle between classes in the South, and it was the white elite that was most reluctant to release their grip on the slave labor system that had allowed their wealth to accumulate. “Ten percent of the Southern population owned seventy percent of the arable land in the South”, so there was a large gap in wealth dictated by one’s geographical location.2 The Southerners not opposed to the North’s cause were the poor whites, those who lived in the foothills and owned small farms. This class of folk could not and did not benefit from plantation slave labor and as a consequence were most harshly hurt by the war.

One’s morality is always somewhat directed by the prospect of economic well-being in the long run, and there came a point when all those poor families wanted was for the war to end. Peery writes, “As that dribbled down to the blood and misery and destruction that the Civil War really was, people began trying to look out for themselves…Read the letters of the wives of poor whites to their husbands on the front. The women and children were starving. I don’t mean uncomfortable, they were starving”.3 It has also been discovered that the desertion rate of the Southern armies was about fifty percent higher than that of the Northern armies, proving that the strongest forces fighting for the South were the ones who could afford to and had the most to lose.

The conflicting interests of classes in the South ultimately weakened its cause and allowed the North to come out victorious. In the Civil War, class struggle aided the success of the industrial revolution and the consequential liberation of slaves. The effects of this feat created the conditions that led to the Civil Rights movement and critical events of 1963 Birmingham, which were the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church and the killing of four young black girls. Ultimately, this catalyzed the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which brought closure to the vision of equality and freedom from the Civil War.

How the Outcomes of the Civil War Shaped the Civil Rights Movement

The abolition of slavery saw that there was immediate retaliation from the ruling class of the South. They were threatened by the entrance of African-Americans into society as members who could compete in the economy and would have to if they intended to survive. As the country moved into the Reconstruction period, a multitude of obstacles arose that prevented African-Americans from gaining stable socioeconomic footing. Despite post-war amendments granting slaves the right to vote, Southern states kept African-Americans disenfranchised through the implementation of poll taxes and literacy tests.4 Further retaliation was demonstrated through the formation of the Ku Klux Klan and “Jim Crow” segregation laws.

Northern need for the relocation of industry found it cheaper to settle in the South, wiping out sharecropping and forcing African-Americans into the cities. Obligated to aggregate into segregated communities with little assets, African-Americans were immediately put at an economic disadvantage and thus formed another poor class. The segregation of schools negatively impacted the quality of education for them, and the disenfranchising obstacles put into place prevented African-Americans from participating in politics and being able to vote for policies that would raise their standard of living.

Although the rich class of white Southerners was most opposed to the abolition of slavery, a threat was posed to the poor white class as well. Poor whites wanted the war to end because it had strained them financially, but were also unappreciative of the amendments resulting from the war. Those already struggling to get by did not want more participants in society to compete against. This is how racist sentiment was created among the majority of the Southern white population.

In this period after Reconstruction and prior to the Civil Rights movement it is clear to see how racist sentiments would follow the threat of economic competition. In order for people to unify, an outsider must always exist or be created. The outsider to the South’s white folk were newly freed African-Americans. The bourgeois class took advantage of the poor’s fear of African-American advancement to intensify hatred and violence toward them. In the United States, racism became a color issue in order to propagate an “us versus them” mentality and villainize blackness. It distracted from the root of the problem, which was that the capitalistic circumstances of owning plantations and slaves allowed for a disproportionate amount of people to accumulate wealth while the rest were forced to compete for too little.

The conditions that led to and the passion behind the leaders of the Civil Rights movement were a culmination of the offenses and blatantly unfair treatment of an entire demographic of people for too many years.

Spinoza’s ethics is concerned with the achievement of maximum human happiness. To that end, he develops a theory of human knowledge, emotions, and relationships that, deductively, yield a form of behavior, that of the “free man”, which should constitute a happy and fulfilled life. For Spinoza, “everything, in so far as it is in itself, endeavors to persist in its own being.” That is, each individual object is essentially a conatus, an inner striving that seeks self-affirmation. In that sense, each individual object (humans, states, bacteria, or ethnic groups) exists strategically, seeking to become more, to have more power, and to be more the cause than the effect of what occurs to it (Lean, 2013).

In essence, the evolution and adaption of organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) have over time developed recruitment strategies that appeal to human emotion. As terrorist organizations begin to bolster their regard for emotional concern in the recruitment of members, the success in adapting such a strategy represents and appeals to many of the social, political, and economical changes depicted around the environment. Given that the KKK has managed to maintain an active status over the years, the organization manages to continue to fuel hatred and terror as their primary means of maintaining the sense of identity and purpose for so long that it has brought significant changes to their recruitment process. In this paper, I will examine the many social and political ideologies that arose after the Civil War, which resulted in both the assistance and maintenance of the such organization. In addition to their recruitment strategies, which is an essential tool in the development of the formal and repute status of the organization, in the essence that it has become an influential concept that oversees the recruitment process.

In early December of 1915, the birth of a nation, David Wark Griffth’s epochal motion picture, came to Atlanta, Georgia, for the first time. The picture was supposed to be a patriotic portrayal of the division and reunion of the United States during and after the Civil War. It also represented a remarkable advancement in the technological development of motion pictures, but the most conspicuous feature of the film for nostalgic Southerners was its depiction of white-robed Ku Klux Klansmen (Alexander, 2015).

Since the early 1800s, when the extremist organization of the KKK came to rise it allowed for the development of ideology principles that promoted and influenced both white supremacy as well as white nationalism. During the 1920s many writers tried to explain the phenomenon of the Klan movement. Most of them, like H. L. Mencken and his staff on the American Mercury, is about grown men in white robes and hoods burning crosses on hillsides and trying to scare their neighbors. Others ventured into the hinterlands, to places like Birmingham, Tulsa, Dallas, Indianapolis, Denver, or even Augusta, Maine, to observe the Klan in action (Alexander, 2015).

In their attempt to advance political agenda that supported the minimization of immigration, the Klan would eventually begin to openly launch scathing attacks against those they considered the abomination of the white race by specifically targeting religious organizations, particularly the catholic church when this allowed for its members to engage in a plethora of violent and terrorist attacks as means of advancing their respective belief system. In February of 1921, the Texas Klan emerged with a vengeance, initiating a campaign of violent moral and social reform (Alexander, 2015), that paved the way for many murders, threats, kidnaps, and hate crimes to become acceptable and observable behavior of its organization.

In recent years, the shift in legitimizing actions portrayed by members of the KKK has become more acceptable as the population within their group continues to grow. Despite the mysticism or secrecy of their existence throughout the nation, the KKK remains a focus of both political and social debate that over the years has become a prime example of right-wing extremist willingness to go to extreme lengths in order to advance and protect political agendas that glorify the existence of the white race by further implementing institutions or transgressions that support segregation and equality.

With the rising threat of right-wing terrorism supporting white supremacists and anti-government extremists, organizations such as the KKK, are imperative to the fact of maintaining a substantial amount of members that will continue to spread and impose their agenda amongst members of society. The mounting factors that influence guidelines of recruitment strategically support their method of pinpointing members they sought after. An example of such, is Colonel Simmons strategically placed advertisements for his new organization in Atlanta newspapers, alongside promos showing ‘the birth of a nation.’ He solicited new members by billing the Ku Klux Klan as a “high-class order for men of intelligence and character.” Simmons used fraternal ties as means of recruiting new members, and drawing upon the skills he crafted as a circuit-riding preacher, used fiery religious oratory in public-speaking engagements to motivate audience members to join his new organization (McVeigh, 2009).

By further implementing the use of recruitment services, such was the case during the 1920s when COL Simmons acquired professional organizers Edward Young Clarke and Elizabeth Tyler. Clarke and Tyler’s ‘southern publicity association became the propagation department of the KKK. The propagation department sent recruiters, Kleagles, into the field working on commission. It kept 80% of all fees collected from new members (initiation fee $10), paying commissions and other expenses out of its 80% share (McVeigh, 2009). The fact that the Klan compensated individuals with higher wages and rewards for the successful recruitment of members, motivated the intrinsic aspects of money as this generated a rise of individual effort that allowed for the rise of social structure and political activity as a merit to the increased recruitment. In other words, the utilization of rewarding the recruitment process with monetary rewards assisted the recruitment practice that is responsible for the existence of the Klan over the years.

Aside from monetary rewards, Kleagle members have managed to create leverage through various dynamics affecting American culture. Jackson argues that the Klan lacked a meaningful reason for its existence and relied upon emotion rather than reason. David Chalmers, the author of what is perhaps the most widely read historical study of the movement, describes the Klan as a response to a breakdown of traditional social order embodies in the religious and moral values of small-town America (McVeigh, 2009). By generating and/or re-enforcing beliefs of white supremacy, individuals are then more likely to influence the agenda of the Klan.

The complicity of recruiting members can then be understood by the foundations of social, economic, and political changes that attribute to human emotion. With changes implied, the role of white members changes the representation of society. As social status or class citizens begin to consider emotional experience to the environmental changes they are then more likely to influence behavior and provide a foundation for understanding human cognition. It is here where personal values and beliefs are developed and reinforced by the idea of emotional experience that is encountered by the individual. These same emotional experiences are then utilized in the form of manipulation by Kleagles in order to facilitate the process of recruitment. Despite social and economic class, educational levels are fundamental values that influence the necessary core principles of the Klan. The emotions of historical events and social changes have since guided the process that is desired by the Klan as it becomes the tool that amplifies its population.

The industrial revolution in the United States began, in earnest, in the aftermath of the American civil war. In light of the ending of the Civil War, former slave owners in southern jurisdictions experienced what the Klan would see as an emotional connection victory when the Northern Army managed to abolish slavery. As former slave owners relied on slave labor for financial gains, the abolishment generated no income for them, therefore, facilitating the need to join the Klan. As slave owners leveraged wrongful doing in the abolishment of slave work, this then allowed the opportunity for slaves to educate themselves as they continued to experience oppression. Because white supremacists were intimidated by the concept of black citizens who in time would have the same value as them in society, the principles of personal attacks resulted in the search for extremist organization practices (McVeigh, 2009).

In other words, the exposure to emotion and appeal of social and political change only fuelled the recruitment process post-civil war, the Civil Rights Act that came about nearly 100 years later, and the actions that followed served the new interpretation in strategy for Kleagles to leverage members into the organization. Such practices continue to be illustrated through the utilization of hatred and extreme racism by further implementing the fascist political agenda they once refused. To this day, many continue to believe and suggest the idea that now more than ever, media outlets facilitate the division amongst race, gender, and ethnicity in an attempt to continue to divide and manipulate.

In observance of this, media outlets manifest their use of the recruitment process to those that are most vulnerable to the recruitment process and the pressures of society. An example of such a by-product would influence, the economic changes of the preceding generation to create profound social strains and widespread misery. Mothers worked for long hours in unsafe factories in exchange for fewer dollars than single people, let alone families, could survive on in decency (McVeigh, 2009). In other words, the Klan has managed to develop leverage with those that society pressures and underestimates. The belief system implemented as means of providing financial support and membership to white supremacy increases popularity, thus allowing for the survival of the Klan by spreading necessary attention to their agenda.

There were many events that led to the American Civil War. The American Civil War was a war that took the lives of over seven thousand people. The Nebraska Act, Missouri Compromise, the Dred Scott Case, and the Election of Abraham Lincoln resulted in yearlong battles between the Northern and Southern states. The civil war started with a disagreement over slavery. Slavery was illegal in most of the North because it had been outlawed in the 19th century, but it was rampant in Southern states. In the North, farming was less significant, whereas, in the South, slavery provided a cheap workforce that supported the economy. Slaves could be bought and sold as property, and any children they had could also become property, thanks to the rise of chattel slavery. Unlike in the North, people were owned outright.

The overwhelming desire to exploit cheap slave labor in the South vs the Union’s abolitionist culture caused considerable disagreements between the two parties, which eventually erupted. The Confederate army led out gunfire on fort sumter in Charleston Harbor. Two causes of the civil war were economic and social differences plus the fight over slave and non-slave state reconciliations. Grant finally broke through Lee’s lines at Petersburg which forced the army of Virginia to flee. When North Virginia abandoned their city, it left Richmond vulnerable. The civil war laid the foundation for America to destroy slavery, shift power, and performances done by the Union. The civil was inevitable because being the reason for the war slavery consequences occurred. Sadly, it didn’t stay inevitable because of the southern states. The southern states seceded and formed a confederacy. There was no hope to be able to bring the southern states back by using force from the union. The war could’ve been avoided with many different ways to start it.

One of those ways was they could have taken it to the officials and made something happen instead of fighting about it. Many people are taught to believe that the civil war was caused solely by the disagreement on the freedom of slaves. Though the war started in 1861 after decades of simmering tensions between the Southern and Northern states’ rights, there was more to the war than that. In the mid-18th century, the U.S. was undergoing a shift from a farming-based economy to an Industrial one. In the North, manufacturing, and industry was well established and agriculture was more limited to small farms, but in the South. The economy was based on a system of large farms that depended on the labor of black enslaved people to grow and sustain crops and other goods. With growing abolitionist sentiment in the North, this caused many southern states to fear that the existence of slavery, the foundation of their economy, was in danger. Because the climate in New England and the rest of the north was not conducive to farming, this industry did not flourish. Instead, manufacturing was a burgeoning business in this region, and items were manufactured rather than grown. Crops and raw resources were taken and converted into something more valuable, reducing the necessity for slave labor in the North, and immigrants were recruited to work in factories instead.

Cities were able to flourish in northern states, and city life became the standard of northern society, thanks to a booming manufacturing economy and exports overseas. The South, on the other hand, has a lot of good soil, especially in the mineral-rich river basins, making it a much superior place for growing. Owners could have big farms with enormous open fields, unlike in cities, thanks to the agricultural business. Cotton, rice, tobacco, and indigo were among the most important crops. In 1854, congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act. It essentially opened all new territories to slavery by asserting the rule of popular sovereignty over congressional edict. Pro and anti-pro-slavery powers struggled in the “Bleeding Kansas” Act while opposition to the act in the North led to the birth of the Republican Party, based on the principle of opposing slavery’s extension to western areas. Three months after the election of Abraham Lincoln, seven states seceded from the U.S. soon evolving into the Confederacy. This ultimately led to starting of the civil war when Confederate forces fired the first shots on April 12th, 1851, at Fort Sumter. Although, as the Civil War progressed, the Union cannot be preserved unless the main cause of the war was not stopped. the purpose of the war changed due to a change that needed to happen. The issue of slavery mattered to the Union Soldiers and Abraham Lincoln so he decided to make the Emancipation Proclamation. At first, no northerners agreed, but in the second part of the civil war, instead of the urge to fight, they wanted to save America, and now American soldiers fought for liberty as well.

Introduction

This is essay is about the significance of tolerance in solving civil war based on locks theory we want more know about this subject and discus about it also know what is tolerance and more explained it at the first we start discus about tolerance and explained it the we want talk about virtues of civil society more ever get some information about civil society` what locks view about this case , then about lock’s tolerance at the end will talk about possible and impossible solutions civil wars.

Tolerance

Tolerance and allowances are very important in engineering disciplines. Tolerance is the sum of the allowed size changes. This is the difference between the largest sizes. The margin is the specified difference between the largest materials of the mating parts (Admin, 2017). Tolerance can be expressed simply as the ability to accept diversity and live and to live with others. This is a standing behavior that has nothing to do with you or that you disagree with. Any highly tolerant person who can exercise fair and objective behavior against those who have different opinions. Through tolerance, you respect and learn from others, assess differences, fill cultural gaps, reject unfair stereotypes, discover commonalities, and create new bonds. In many ways, tolerance is the opposite of prejudice. Acts that do not respect others, such as despicable or bullying, or lying or stealing, should not be tolerated. Tolerance means treating others the way you want (moose, 2017). Tolerance can be defined as a fair and objective attitude towards people with different lifestyles and lifestyles. The degree of tolerance in your life can be attributed to the degree of happiness and satisfaction (Qamar, 2018). Tolerance refers to the desire to accept the opinions and actions of others that do not conflict with the rights of others and see their value. This is a fundamental aspect of moral life. Desire to solve problems in the most ethical way and respect the basic rights of all people (Benjamin, 2012). When individuals and/or groups compete for rights, who wants to be as tolerant as possible and face the plight of their supporters. We want to respect fundamental rights and minimize

The negative impact of any decisions. It is usually art, not science. Some ingredients are necessary to make the right decision:

• Commitment – even if the injury will make us personally pay the price, the desire to make the right decision
• Facts – through decisions about real facts, not rumors or heresy
• Opinion – consider the arguments of both sides
• Kindness – always besides being kind, understanding, understanding, and accepting (Benjamin, 2012).

John Locke (1632-1704) was one of the most influential thinkers in the Enlightenment. The thought of the British philosopher is the essence of the establishment of the United States; in fact, it can be said that his thoughts formed the thought of the American Revolution (Miltimore, 2016). Political philosopher and social psychologist John Locke is an outspoken advocate of equal rights in a governed society. He adopted the natural rights of people, namely the right to life, liberty and property, and explained that the purpose of each government is to protect these rights of citizens (Broers, 2009). This is a view of the social contract that the legitimacy of the government depends on the consent of the citizens on an equal footing. Locke’s concept of equality is not limited to the political arena. He also advocates religious tolerance, and atheism is a prominent exception. He supports widespread tolerance for other religious beliefs but encourages early contact with non-believers (Broers, 2009).

Virtues for Civil Society: Tolerance

Historically, tolerance has a very positive meaning. Tolerance is to accept understanding, to listen and learn, to allow other opinions, and more, to try to understand them. A tolerant person welcomes diversity, values diversity, and believes that differences help us promote a better society. Tolerant people tend to be more heterogeneous than they do: they think different approaches give us the best solution (Keenan, 2016).

Cultural warfare is known for its intolerance and lack of courtesy! They refused and failed to participate. Before we heard them, they drew lines and signs where people should be placed. War papers put their opponents in these camps as if they were prisoners of war, they don’t need it, and they shouldn’t be heard. Cultural warfare has a booming headline that highlights their lack of tolerance. From their repertoire, they closed what they called ‘working class or politically correct prejudice, boring conservatives or burning liberals (Keenan, 2016).

Tolerance of this situation certainly does not mean that it agrees with another point of view, but it is actually an act of encouraging this view. Some polite people may find themselves tolerant of what is missing in courtesy. There is no elegance in itself to promote diversity, but it is because diversity is possible (Keenan, 2016).

Locke’s Tolerance

John Locke’s tolerance model stems from these other story and is closely related to his Christian theological obligations. In this respect, it can be distinguished from contemporary secular peers: it is more ideologically based and based on written statements. For Luke, the facts of the Christian Bible and the attributes of Christian God are certain. But Locke suspects that human beings have the ability to achieve these facts. Religious truth is achieved through the practice of human thinking, and is often uncertain (Neill, 2015).

Locke believes that as long as people know the truth of a particular problem in good faith, people should get their spiritual beliefs. Therefore, tolerance is important because it gives people the freedom to participate in the effective process of identifying beliefs. Such a process makes them eligible for religious beliefs, although there is no guarantee that their beliefs are true (Neill, 2015).

In a sense, Locke’s point of view is similar to the tolerant novel of contemporary liberals: one of the reasons for Locke’s tolerance is that it promotes social cooperation. From Locke’s point of view, the purpose of human society includes protecting property and protecting human labor. Tolerance promotes cooperation and enables people to achieve these goals peacefully. This is why Luke also supports the message of tolerance, regardless of his theological obligation (Neill, 2015).

Locke is today considered a model philosopher of liberalism. Theorists continue to call on Locke to deal with religious issues: the relationship between religion and civil society and the limits of tolerance for public cultural pluralism, especially in the West, where suddenly so convincing secularism is a feature that cannot be overcome by modern times. Liberalism is different from modern secular liberalism. His information may be shaken and shaken by a clearly limited foundation and tolerance. Not only has that, but Locke’s exclusion of Roman Catholics and tolerant atheists also indicated that his headquarters is rooted in the gospel of Christianity. His argument is not like Spinoza, but who is more comprehensive and more skeptical is radical. It is shameful that Locke is not John Stuart Mill, because of freedom (1859), we turned to the debate on pluralistic celebrations and moral diversity. Finally, the term “tolerance” refers to patience and disagreement, and Locke maintains the diversity of religion rather than praising it. Moreover, it does not show tolerance in the field of ethics; instead, it supports sacred life as a better aspiration for civil society than discipline for worship and worship. The first thing to confirm is (Goldie, 2016).

Possible and Impossible Solutions to Ethnic Civil Wars

This is focuses on how to end the national civil war and review alternative solutions. After briefly considering other alternatives, the authors advocate partitioning as the most appropriate and practical solution for a national civil war (Kaufmann, 1996).

Kaufman believes that the international community tends to work to restore multi-ethnic countries and pave the way for politics in a racially diverse society. On the contrary, in the context of the civil war, it is recommended that the international community work hard to promote and protect the flow of people to build a true national homeland. He believes that competing ethnic groups should not live in the same political entity, because injustice during conflicts can lead to recurrence of violence. Therefore, dividing the demographic battle group into a defensive pocket is the only stable solution. Separation is considered to eliminate incentives and more opportunities for combat and reduce the risk of ethnic cleansing (Kaufmann, 1996).

He also believes that the split after the civil war and the establishment of a new racial homogeneity zone will eliminate the security dilemma brought about by the important causes of ethnic conflict. A national armed force can protect the people. As they will be on the defensive, the offensive dimension of the unit will disappear. Therefore, the security dilemma will disappear. According to him, the separation of groups does not necessarily mean creating a country of ethnic homogeneity. It is worth noting that the remaining minorities must be small enough to pose no threat to the host group. It also advocates the need to divide boundaries between defensive terrain, such as rivers and mountains. The lines should be as short as possible to allow the defensive front to be the heaviest front line (Kaufmann, 1996).

Kaufman acknowledges that ethnic separation does not guarantee peace. With the separation, the possibility of ethnic cleansing and inevitable rescue disappeared. Once the ethnic group moves to a new area and creates a homogeneous country, the conflict will move from civil war to interstate war. Both sides have deterrent power to deter each other. Therefore, the potential for war between the state and the newly formed nation state is not zero, but very low (Kaufmann, 1996).

Conclusion

At the end of this essay we concloude that Tolerance and allowances are very important in engineering disciplines. Tolerance is the sum of the allowed size changes. This is the difference between the largest sizes. The margin is the specified difference between the largest materials of the mating parts also know Tolerance is the willingness to accept, and see value in, the views and actions of others which do not interfere with the rights of others. It is an essential aspect of living more ever we had know deoring this essay John Locke’s model of toleration descended from these other accounts and was closely tied to his Christian theological commitments. In this respect, it is distinguishable from its contemporary, secular counterparts also know about Possible and Impossible Solutions to Ethnic Civil Wars Kaufmann argues that international community tends to exert effort to restore multi-ethnic states and pave the way for politics in an ethnically diverse societies. Instead, he suggests, in case of an ethnic civil war international community must exert effort to “facilitate and protect population movements to create true national homelands.

References

1. Admin, (2017) What is the difference between the Tolerance and Allowance [Online]. Available from: https://www.mechcadcam.com/what-is-the-difference-between-the-tolerance-and-allowance/ [Accessed 20 Nov 2019].
2. Benjamin, J. V. (2012). What is tolerance? [Online]. Available from: https://www.quora.com/What-is-tolerance [Accessed 21 Nov 2019].
3. Broers, A. (2009) John Locke on Equality, Toleration, and the Atheist Exception [Online]. Available at: http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/75/john-locke-on-equality-toleration-and-the-atheist-exception [Accessed 21 Nov 2019].
4. Goldie, M. (2016) Locke on Religious Toleration [Online]. Available from: https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/locke-on-religious-toleration-by-mark-goldie [Accessed 22 Nov 2019].
5. Kaufmann, C. (1996) Possible and Impossible Solutions to Ethnic Civil Wars. [Online] Available at: http://summaryhub.com/article/164/possible-and-impossible-solutions-to-ethnic-civil-wars [Accessed 22 Nov 2019].
6. Keenan, J. F. (2016) Virtues for Civil Society: Tolerance [Online]. Available from: https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/virtues-civil-society-tolerance [Accessed 20 Nov 2019].
7. Miltimore, J. (2016) You Are Here. [Online] Available from: https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/john-locke-religious-tolerance [Accessed 21 Nov 2019].
8. Moose, S. (2017) Tolerance Is the Strength of Society [Online]. Available from: https://studymoose.com/tolerance-is-the-strength-of-society-essay [Accessed 20 Nov 2019].
9. Neill, J. (2015) The Rich Roots and Spoiled Fruits of Liberal Toleration [Online]. Available from: https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/03/14323/ [Accessed 22 Nov 2019].
10. Qamar, C. (2018) What is Tolerance? [Online]. Available from: https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-tolerance-definition-types-examples.html [Accessed 20 Nov 2019].

The Civil War was a turning point in American history. It was a time when the most powerful country in the world hung in balance. The Civil War was an all-out battle between the 23 Northern (Union) states and the 11 Southern (Confederate) states. Many actions took place to cause the Civil War. From the abolitionist Movement that started in 1750 and ended in 1865 and the slave Fredrick Douglass that cried the tortures of slavery. The election of the 16th President of the United States officially kicked off the Civil War. This is how the Civil War began.

Widespread protests against slavery have been voiced as early as the 1750s. Quack Walker, a Massachusetts slave sued for his freedom by using the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, that stated “All men are born free and equal”. His success led to the abolishment of slavery in Massachusetts. In 1831, a radical anti-slavery activist and journalist, William Lloyd Garrison established an anti-slavery newspaper called The Liberator. Two years later Garrison co-founded the American Anti-Slavery Society that demanded the immediate emancipation of all slaves and a change in America’s spiritual values. In 1856, an anti-slavery activist, John Brown led the Kansas Free Soil Militia into “Bleeding Kansas” (was given this nickname due to the mass violence that occurred between anti-slavery and pro-slavery activists in Kansas due to the Kansas-Nebraska Act) to get revenge for the havoc that was caused by the Kansas-Nebraska Act. During the attack, five unarmed anti-abolitionists were hacked to death with swords in what became known as the Pottawatomie Massacre. Brown later led a raid on the federal army depot at Harpers Ferry, Virginia to initiate a rebellion. The raid failed, and several people and a free slave were killed by Brown’s man. Federal troops led by Colonel Robert E. Lee cornered and executed Brown. This pro-abolitionist movement was credited with bringing the Civil War closer than ever before.

Fedrick Douglass was also credited with bringing the Civil War closer. Fredrick Douglass was born a slave in Maryland and was made to work at a plantation. He was later sent to Baltimore as a servant. When he was 12 his master’s wife started to teach him how to read, which was forbidden by law and by his master. When he was apprehended by his master and punished, he continued to learn how to read and write with the help of local white children. Douglass would buy newspapers and books when he could afford them, and this introduced him to the politics and philosophical debates of the period. When he was 15, he returned to the plantation in Maryland. He refused to work under the appalling conditions of the plantation. He was taken to a “slave-breaker”, Edward Covey, and was whipped multiple times. In 1838, Douglass managed to escape by impersonating a sailor. He took the opportunity to join William Lloyd Garrison’s Anti-Slavery Society, and he wrote his own exposé, Narrative of the Life of Fredrick Douglass. His book became a best-seller, and this led him to create the newspaper The North Star. Fredrick Douglass led the fight for equal African-American and women’s rights. His work pushed for a Civil War for the abolishment of slavery.

Lastly, and most of all, the election of the 16th President Abraham Lincoln led to the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln was chosen by the Republicans with the hope of creating a policy that bans the spreading of slavery, while the Democrats chose Stephen A. Douglas a pro-slavery spokesman as their candidate for the presidency. Lincoln was propelled as the forefront runner for the Republican Party due to his visible and vocal political energy that spoke almost solely on the condemnation of slavery in the later 1850s. Lincoln declined to hold rallies and give speeches but he managed to defeat his rivals, including Vice President John C. Breckinridge and Southern Democratic Party’s breakaway candidate Tom Bell. He defeated his closest rival Breckinridge with 180 electoral votes when only 152 were needed, and Breckinridge only had 72 votes. The hearts of the North belonged to Lincoln but his Southern opponents detested him and he didn’t win any of the 11 states. When Lincoln took the White House, this pushed the most radical Southern states to separate from the Union, commencing the Civil War.

The Civil War had an unprecedented death toll at the time with over 600,000 deaths. The Civil War was a brutal battle that ended with blood on American soil, however, it gave hope to many Americans that after something so horrible there can actually be peace. As said in Lincoln’s second inauguration speech in which he called for “malice towards none” and “charity to all”. We know what happened during the Civil War and what happened after it, and now we know how it was caused. This was how a Civil War was made.