Category: American Civil War

In 1865, General Lee surrendered to the Union after the Confederate army’s ambush at the Battle of Appomattox, effectively ending the bloodshed that made up the Civil War. The South’s loss contributed to several blunders led by the Confederate leaders, causing the demise of their government, economic ruin, weak infrastructure, and an unstable army. The pain of their loss inspired Southerners to reimagine the events of the war that fit into an alternate history, where the efforts of the Confederacy are celebrated as part of their Southern heritage to gain independence from an oppressive government. The memorialization of the people who fought to preserve white supremacy and racial segregation in America’s most violent conflict maintains a heavy presence in present-day society in order to avoid telling uncomfortable truths and come to terms with their inevitable defeat as a result of carelessness with their strategy. While the Union technically won the Civil War, the impactful control of the war’s narrative in the aftermath kept their message alive with the utilization of modern, hidden tactics throughout history, minimizing the real cause of the conflict that inspired the North’s reason to fight.

The South’s path to “victory” started off with their rejection of Northern liberty laws. Personal-liberty laws passed in the pre-Civil War era by Northern state governments served to negate the measures present in the Fugitive Slave Acts and to protect the well-being of enslaved residents living in the North. The South took the Union’s actions as a method of maintaining control of their region by slowly eliminating their way of life. Hostility increased after Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 election, prompting states to discuss the idea of secession in order to form a new nation mirroring their own values. On the day of December 9, 1860, South Carolina became the first state to declare secession from the United States when their representatives passed a proclamation, sparking a secession crisis by claiming that “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations” in reference to free states refusing to abide by the Fugitive Slave Acts (“South Carolina Declaration of Secession”).

The main concern for Southerners stood at Lincoln’s election to the presidency due to his “opinions and purposes” that remained “hostile to slavery”, eliciting concerns of slave extinction under his administration (‘South Carolina Declaration of Secession”). Despite all laws that the North passed to prohibit slavery, the South refused to abandon their beliefs and resisted change. Southern states maintained their stance on expanding states’ rights apart from federal control by standing their ground on their threat to secede from their desire to gain independence, with criticism aimed toward Northern attempts to take control of federal law. As Southern states started making their transition to the Confederacy, Northern states found themselves having to soften their position on abolition in order to keep the country intact. While these laws sealed the Union’s win in their efforts to outlaw slavery in the Constitution, disagreements between the two sides exploded into the Civil War, resulting in the loss of countless lives on the battlefield. Furthermore, the South continued to curb Northern ideals to preserve fought the idea of abolition in order to expand slavery into the nation.

Discussions of expansion started with Missouri applying for statehood into the Union. Northern states protested the addition of another slave state, believing that pro-slavery states occupied political dominance over free states in the Senate. The Constitution granted the right for states to consider each slave as three-fifths of a person for tax, population, and legislative reasons. The South gained an advantage in the government in terms of bringing more Southern delegates into Congress, disenfranchising black individuals in the process. An agreement was reached between the two sides with the addition that “authorize the people of the Missouri territory to form a constitution and state government, and for the admission of such state into the Union on an equal footing with the original states” while also prohibiting slavery of the “thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north” parallel (“Conference committee report on the Missouri Compromise”). While the passage of the compromise postponed the inevitable war that occurred later on, the political discourse between the North and South escalated with the issue of admitting Missouri into the country by establishing slavery as the basic foundation of the Southern society and halting the steady liberation of slaves. The issue of slavery continued to dominate the nation despite the North’s attempts to extend abolition.

The North’s inability to eradicate slavery for the future intensified the Southern dream, compelling Southerners to hold faith in their principles. With the South’s loss in the Civil War decades later, Southerners turned their loss into an advantage by enacting federal laws echoing the ideals abolished by the North. For instance, while Reconstruction attempted to unify the country by granting citizenship to black Americans, states continued to pass laws that unfairly targeted black people. In 1865, Southern states like Mississippi enacted the Black Codes that restored some basic human rights to former slaves but also threatened to fine “$200” and imprison black citizens “at the discretion of the court” if they “shall fail or refuse to pay any tax levied according to the provisions of the 6th Section of this act”, “keep or carry firearms of any kind”, or “shall be hired out by the sheriff or other officer, at public outcry, to any white person who will pay said fine and all costs and take such convict for the shortest time” (McPherson). The defeat left Southerners resentful toward the North, which triggered the passage of the Black Codes to retain control of black lives by limiting their freedom once again and reinforcing slavery in an effort to halt political globalization.

The ratification of the 14th Amendment eventually struck down the unconstitutionality of the Codes, but the South’s actions deepened the rift between the two regions and reignited a war that had supposedly ended in the North’s favor during 1865. Therefore, the real issues tied back to the South opposing assimilation originated from the hope of keeping the memory of the Confederacy relevant even after the end of the war. Restoring the slave system meant creating systems that had a goal similar to slavery, presented in a different manner. One strategy introduced to recreate the flow of cheap labor in the workforce included sharecropping, as seen from slave owners such as P.H. Anderson who offered his former slave, Jourdon Anderson, a job to come back onto his plantation in exchange for money, food, clothing, and housing; Anderson not only turned the job down but asked his former master to pay back his owed wages to rebuild a positive opinion of his ex-master (“Letter from a freedman to his old master”).

Anderson reveals the anger behind his enslavement at his former master’s request, which showed that the South never truly surrendered from the war. The South’s need to utilize slave labor and raw materials that once produced an abundance of wealth expose their unwillingness to shift with the times. Instead, their traditional values focus on white power, propelling a nation that remains resentful of a history that does not accept their values. Some ex-Confederates used their privilege to their disadvantage, like Alexander Stephens during a cornerstone speech proclaiming that “our new government is founded on the opposite idea of the equality of the races. Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the Negro is not equal to the White man” declaring that “that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural condition” (Stephens). Stephens rejected the system of slavery as a whole; however, he viewed African slavery as a “positive good” that remained vital for society to function properly due to their inferiority to white people, exposing the true thoughts of Southerners who did not plan on living peacefully among the Northerners but instead planned on taking back the country under their terms. He eventually went on to claim that slavery had no influence in the war, effectively taking racial equality a step backward.

The recognition of white nationalism in the United States further drove the institution of slavery even after abolition as a result of the war. While Congress eventually passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments that preserved equal rights for black citizens, disillusioned Confederate supporters formed the Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups that focused on the superior influence of white identity in their political ideology. The creation of a society that incorporates the rhetoric of white privilege encompassed into the Confederacy’s values today proves that Americans still live in a world that regards white people over minorities, destroying the significance of the North’s victory. In addition, the South rewrote history in order to protect their dignity and justify their ancestors’ actions by propagandizing the narrative of America’s history. To protect the image of Confederate soldiers who died for the Confederacy, ex-Confederate comrades and advocates began arguing that the cause of the war stemmed from the issue of states’ rights instead of slavery. The distorted view of the war circulated to Americans all around the nation who quickly embraced the new way of normalizing their history. The forgotten meaning of the war angered Americans such as Frederick Douglass who remembers the war as a “painful sequence both of slavery and of the late rebellion” fought between “ideas, a battle of principles and ideas which united one section and divided the other” through “slavery and freedom, barbarism, and civilization; between a government based upon the broadest and grandest declaration of human rights the world ever heard or read, and another pretended government, based upon an open, bold and shocking denial of all rights” that “no sentiment ought to cause us to forget” (Douglass). Douglass aimed to curb the minimization of the role slavery played in the war and change the benevolent representation of the enslaved system.

Southern culture has been stereotyped for its stubbornness, which contributed to the sabotage of American political progress that abolitionists strived to change in the aftermath of the war. In conclusion, the Union won the Civil War while the Confederacy claimed true victory in the long run with racist ideas seeping into the nation’s narrative through laws in a post-Civil War society that reinforced oppression, sharecropping, and other components intertwined with slavery. These laws succeeded in creating racial barriers that strictly prohibited black citizens from executing their basic rights as free people. While slavery was eventually outlawed, elements of the system continued to exist on a certain level even in the modern day. The ideology of white supremacy that emerged against racial equality dominates the political sphere, sparking debates in terms of the direction the nation should be heading. As a result, the “Lost Cause”-esque theory established an outlet in the modernized Republican Party for Confederate supporters to spread their message to others in mainstream media. Confederate supporters maintain a presence in politics, with a few holding government positions in the Senate who carry the future of the country in their hands. The Union’s win over the South, however, prevented a grim future from occurring in terms of racial segregation. A Southern triumph holds the powerful possibility of changing the course of history, where issues of slavery and secession remain rampant all throughout America. While race relations continue to be tenser than before, the Confederacy’s loss serves as a stepping stone on a long journey to building a unified country

My name is Elizabeth Wood and I am a white middle-class woman living in America. I am 50 years old and married with 3 children. I live in a small house in Washington D.C. surrounded by never-ending politics and historical reminders. Over the years I have watched America develop and change before my eyes. My family has experienced many effects of the Civil War which my older brother William fought in. He was 18 years old when he first enlisted in the war and I was 10. It is strange to think that my oldest child is now the same age as my brother when he began fighting for our rights because life is very different now. I could not imagine sending my son off into a dangerous war not knowing if he will return alive. My husband and I often discuss America and how our children are growing up in a completely different society. As I grew up the world around me was constantly changing and it was impossible to know what our country would be like in just a few years.

The time leading up to the Civil War showed great change for me and my family. My brother would soon separate from us to fight for the country’s rights and I would have to take on a new role at home. This time also held great change for the rest of America. The years 1820-1860 before the Civil War began were known as the Antebellum Period and marked important changes in American history. There were many technological advances that changed the way American society worked. In the North, the economy changed with the start of the Industrial Revolution, and in the South, plantations became the main focus of the economy. During this period of chaos and growth new inventions for communication and transportation arose. Railroads were a major form of transportation invented in the 1830s often known as “the first big business”. Railroads allowed people and goods to move quickly over great distances. The first trains contributed to the development of a national market in the late 1800s because transporting materials became simple and practical. During the Civil War armies relied on railroads to transfer supplies needed in battle. This industry gave many Americans stable employment and by 1868 4,000 workers contributed to the construction of the transcontinental railroad. By 1860, there were over 30,000 miles of track covering America with 200 railroads. In 1862 The Pacific Railroad Act would be passed by Abraham Lincoln and would give the government support in building the first transcontinental railroad, built-in 1869. The telegraph, built in the 1830s was another advanced invention that revolutionized communication. Electronic signals and Morse code were used to improve the way people exchanged important information. The first telegraph message was sent by Morse from Washington D.C to Baltimore, Maryland in 1844. Abraham Lincoln would go on to use this invention during the Civil War in 1862 to communicate with generals and officers.

When my brother William first enlisted in the war my family did not approve of it. It was only after my brother explained his reasoning for wanting to enter the war that we accepted he would join the Union. William like any other average farmer strived for adventure, money, and fighting for the country’s rights. Specifically, many people joining the war wanted to fight to end slavery in the South. Slavery was a widely debated issue from the start of the 1800s and kept growing until the Civil War broke out. In the 1800’s around 893,000 slaves were living in America. The South had a primarily slave-based economy. The warm climate and fertile soil were ideal for farms and owning slaves meant getting fast and free labor. Slaves were considered property and helped Southern states remain agricultural since they relied on plantation farming. African slaves were also brought in by landowners to work in manufacturing, transportation, and processing food. Slave owners also claimed that slaves benefited from this system because they were repaid in clothes, food, and shelter.

In reality, slavery was Africans being dehumanized and forced to work long hard hours of physical labor. At the beginning of the Civil War 15 out of 34 states in America were slave states. In the North, the growth of cities and factories with millions of new immigrants seeking economic opportunities, led slavery to subside because northerners had careers in business and products could be made easier with machines. The North originally would fight to preserve the Union and stop the South from gaining additional territory but this eventually turned into opposing the idea of having slavery altogether in Southern states. Northerners were also afraid that the expansion of slavery would take away job opportunities. The South did not want to be controlled or let Northern states determine how they lived so they strived for the option of having slavery or not. They claimed trying to end their slavery was violating their constitutional power. They wanted to have authority over the federal government so that they could make the decision of which laws to keep and which to get rid of. Many soldiers including my brother fought in the war to let states have their own rights without the federal government interfering.

Abraham Lincoln was elected America’s 16th president on November 6, 1860, with 180 electoral votes. On March 4th of 1861, he delivered his first inaugural address for his first term. I remember attending this speech with my family to find out what our president planned to do about the tensions between Northern and Southern states. Around 25,000 people attended this event in Washington, D.C. I remember standing in the crowd amazed at how tall he was and I could not believe I was watching our President speak about his ideas right in front of me. The South had wanted to protect slavery by seceding from the United States and was going to split. In his speech, he attempted to calm the fears of Southerners that believed their rights would be threatened by a Republican leader. He promised the South that he would not interfere with existing slavery or use force to preserve the Union in the North. He also said he would not support the North if it meant neglecting the South. While he wanted to keep peace and unison, he firmly claimed that he would not allow secession or any takeover of federal land. He would handle secession as an act of revolt that is not tolerated. He spoke with caution to avoid chaos and so that some Southern states might remain in the Union. In his compromise, Lincoln emphasized that states were held together by the Constitution and could not separate as a result of unsuccessful attempts in the past. President Lincoln ended his speech by saying states should try and solve the issue peacefully and if not, he would have to react with force to protect the United States. This speech had a powerful impact on America as the country was in crisis and the goal was to put state leaders at ease. Abraham Lincoln went on to give many famous speeches and to be considered one of the greatest presidents in American history. Six weeks after Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address, confederates attacked Union soldiers at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. On April 12th, 1865, the Civil War began.

“Dear family,

It is July 1861. We have just fought in our first battle, the Battle of Bull Run. Before it started, we all thought the war would be over fast, but we are now realizing that is not so. We believed we would win and defeat the Confederates. Families of men, women, and children came with food to watch us win as entertainment. After the war broke out they were forced to retreat like other soldiers. People called our first battle “The Picnic Battle” for the reason that the public was not aware of the violence and came without thinking. One thing I saw during this battle was a Confederate general sitting on a horse like a stone wall, encouraging his people to fight. Word got around that Barnard Elliott Bee Jr., a Confederate States Army general shouted “Look, men, there is Jackson standing like a stone wall!”. The general, Thomas Jonathan Jackson became known as Stonewall Jackson. We were winning the battle up until we saw him on his horse. Many people were shocked we had lost and are nervous about the outcome of the war. There was a total of 2,680 casualties by the end of the battle. It is very frightening to see people dying around me every day but I know I am doing what is necessary. I wish you all the best and send my love.

William”

This is a letter my brother sent me after his first battle in the Union Army of the Civil War. The war began on April twelfth, 1861, and ended on April ninth, 1865. The Civil War was a conflict between the Northern and Southern states. Although there was tension before the war, it was after the election of Abraham Lincoln that the South voted to separate from the North. The South felt that they were being controlled by the North and that it went against the true meaning behind The Declaration of Independence. The people in the Southern states did not want to get rid of slavery because it helped their economy by not having to pay for labor on their plantations. The North wanted to preserve the Union and keep them together as one country. One of their goals was to end the enslavement of Africans. When my brother joined the Union Army to fight, we were worried but only thought it would be for a short amount of time. We did not know that it would become the deadliest four years of American history with millions of soldiers killed and injured on the battlefield. Many lost limbs, died of infections, and diseases, and some even died in prison after they were captured. 2 percent of the population would lose their lives fighting during this deadly time. A total of 2.75 million men fought in the Civil War, 2 million Union soldiers, and 750,000 Confederate soldiers. Before the war America was a country of individual states that governed themselves and after it became a country of one government and democracy.

The Gold Rush of 1848 was a major event that shaped 19th-century history when more than 750,000 pounds of gold were found at Sutter’s Mill in Coloma, California. After hearing about this new discovery, around 250,000 people traveled to California from a variety of regions raising the population to more than 380,000. California flourished during this time becoming the center of business, manufacturing, and trade. The state became very extremely diverse and people of different nationalities and races were brought together. Many of these travelers consisted of Chinese immigrants in search of money and freedom to escape the economic hardship in China. By 1880, there were 105,462 Chinese immigrants living in the U.S. The growing amount of immigrants caused feelings of Nativism in American people and led to racial violence including riots that resulted in several deaths. The competition was increasing and American workers felt that the Chinese were dangerous to society. It was common for many Chinese immigrants to come into the country to find jobs in construction and mining because of the railroad industry and the Gold Rush. Immigrants often worked for little money and were ideal workers for businesses. Because they faced financial pressures and they were easy to pay and supply for, immigrants prevented Americans from finding jobs, and wages were lowered. My husband had a hard time finding work and my family was personally affected by the wave of immigrants that entered. On May 6th, 1882 the Chinese Exclusion Act was signed by the 21st President of the United States, President Chester. This law suspended Chinese immigration for a period of 10 years and did not allow any Chinese resident to gain citizenship. The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first major law prohibiting immigration for a certain group and opened the door to other restrictions and exclusions on immigrants in America. Many Chinese people were forced to decide between staying in the country alone or being sent back to China. This legislation marked a change in the country when it stopped welcoming all people and kept certain races from having control in American society. The Chinese Exclusion Act was renewed 10 years later in 1892 with the passing of the Geary Act. The law stated that all Chinese residents needed to carry a resident permit or internal passport to provide proof that they entered the country legally and had the right to stay. If they did not have proof, they would face deportation. In 1902 Chinese immigration became permanently illegal in the United States.

On March 25, 1865, Robert E. Lee and his army of Northern Virginia left the Confederate capital of Richmond after losing a series of battles around Petersburg, Virginia. There were a total of 3,200 Confederate casualties. They left Richmond hungry, undermanned, and overwhelmed. The Confederates had very little food and supplies by the end of the war and had nothing left to fight with. Robert E. Lee took his troops to Appomattox Court House, a town in Virginia, and with no other choice he surrendered to Union General Ulysses S. Grant on April 9, 1865. The Civil War was officially over. My brother recalls standing outside the building watching the Confederates lay down their arms in defeat. After the Confederate army surrendered and they were no longer a threat, Ulysses S. Grant gave supplies, and food, and sent doctors to those who needed them. At the end of the Civil War, the world no longer looked at America as separate states, but as The United States as a whole. Over 700,000 soldiers died from war wounds and disease while fighting and there were more American deaths from the Civil War than all other wars combined. The Civil War was also one of the most expensive combats in American history between lives lost and money spent on uniforms, materials, weapons, and food with a total cost of approximately $6.6 billion. A couple of days after the war had ended my brother had gone to Ford’s Theater in Washington D.C. to enjoy the play “Our American Cousin” that the 16th President of the United States attended. John Wilkes Booth, a Confederate sympathizer, was a famous actor in this play. During a scene when Lincoln’s assigned guard was not in sight, he went up the president’s balcony a few minutes after 10 pm and fired at him in the head. President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated at 56 years old on April 14, 1865, and died the next day. After leading the country for four years his death stunned the nation. He was the first American president that is assassinated. Despite differing opinions on Lincoln’s time in office, the country joined in national mourning.

Over the years, America has grown into the industrialized and wealthy country it is today. Although in the past 40 years cities were destroyed and millions of people lost their lives, by 1885 slavery was abolished, the Union won the Civil War, and the United States experienced immense growth. When my brother first enlisted in the war my family was in shock and feared losing their only son. Now, he has witnessed many important events including battles between the North and South, Robert. E Lee surrendering to Ulysses S. Grant, and tragic deaths like the assassination of Abraham Lincoln have shaped American history. Technology advanced greatly as the 19th century went on. The railroad industry allowed people and merchandise to be transported quickly over distances and the telegraph improved communication enabling people to send signals to reach others. No one knew how much growth our country would go through or how all of the states would come together and form the United States Of America.

Today, I have my own life and my own children to look after, 2 sons and 1 daughter. Our current president is Grover Cleveland, the 22nd president of the United States of America. He is our 6th president since Abraham Lincoln was killed in office. Both of my parents passed away in 1870 which was extremely hard as they helped create the person I am today. I lost my brother 5 years ago to natural causes and ever since nothing has been the same. From the moment William entered the war he has only wanted to better himself and the people around him. I began my career as a journalist when I was 25 years old and have written in numerous newspapers since. As I enter my 50’s I have decided that I want to share my story and I am currently writing a book about my experiences in America to discuss how the people around me and my environment made me view the world. My family has supported me in my journey of writing and now I will be able to spread my thoughts and memories of my childhood to the rest of the world. I hope that my children will feel the same way when they grow up and will have the opportunity to watch history be created around them just as I did.

Primarily the civil war started with slavery The American Civil War was fought between the United States of America and the Confederate of America. In 1860-1861 the eleven southern states left the union. The main cause of slavery was the disagreement about the institution of slavery. Infect it was the economics of slavery and political control of that system that was central to the conflict. So basically, the key issue was the state`s rights. The southern wanted to assert their authority over the federal government so they could easily abolish the federal laws they didn`t like. Especially the laws that interfere with the Sothern`s right to keep slaves and take them wherever they wished.

While on the other hand, the South wished to take slavery into the western territories, instead of them the North was committed to keeping them open to white labore alone.

The Northern victory preserved the United States as one nation and ended the institution of slavery that had divided the country from its beginning. But this came after the great human loss of about 6,25000

The American civil war was the most destructive. The American civil war was started because of the differences between the free and slave states over the territories over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories.

‘The South feared the declaration of freedom for the slaves by government leaders in the North.’ (Mrs. Wise)

Sectionalism- loyalty to the state or lifestyle rather than to the whole country. The North was against sectionalism and the South liked it. The North wanted the government to rule laws for the whole country and the South wanted to have each state choose its own laws individually. South also wanted to return any runaway slaves. North did not want slavery and the South liked it.

Northern victory in the civil war preserved the United state as one nation and ended the institution of slavery that had divided the country from its beginning. The civil war produced changes to the Americans’ lives. So at the outset of the war, Lincoln invoked time-honored northern values to mobilize public support. In a message to Congress, he identified to mobilize public support. In a message to Congress, he identified the union cause with the fate of democracy for the whole family of man. He identified the difference between the North and South in terms of the familiar free labor ideology this is essential for people`s struggle. Lincoln in starting of this insisted that slavery was irrelevant to the conflict. In the war’s first year. The North was not got benefit from slavery, the North had the factories and workers and they had a network of 22 million people, they have a strong railroad network, they also have a navy, and strong financial conditions as they mostly relied on the factory’s production and on the cotton provided by the South but during the civil war

The South stopped the export of cotton to the North. North was strong financially and they have a lot of generals but most of them were politically appointed.

On the other hand, the South have 9 million people including 3.5 million enslaved. South also had lakes in factories and railroads and no navy. They did not have a strong network currency which was the major cause of their loss in the war. They also ceased the cotton dealing with the North but that will also not be going to be helpful for them. South have a mixed lot of generals, with several talented senior generals and that was the major support system for them.

The well-trained generals of the South dragged the war for four brutal years but because of the lack of economy, they could not able to maintain it. Northern military commanders even returned fugitive slaves to their owners, a policy that raised an outcry in antislavery circles. Yet as the Confederacy set slaves to work as military laborers and blacks began to escape to Union lines, the policy of ignoring slavery unraveled. slaves took actions that helped propel a reluctant white America down the road to emancipation. Well before Lincoln made emancipation a war aim, blacks, in the North and the South, were calling the conflict the ‘freedom war.’ In 1861 and 1862, as the federal army occupied Confederate territory, slaves by the thousands headed for Union lines. Unlike fugitives before the war, these runaways included large numbers of women and children, as entire families abandoned the plantations. Not a few passed along military intelligence and detailed knowledge of the South`s terrain. The most valuable and reliable information of the enemy`s movements in our vicinity that we have been able to get, noted the Union general Daniel E. Sickles, derived from Negroes who came into our lines. In southern Louisiana, the arrival of the Union army in 1862 led slaves to sack plantation houses and refuse to work unless wages were paid. Slavery there wrote a northern reporter, is forever destroyed and worthless, no matter what Mr. Lincoln or anyone else may say on the subject. It is plain, declared Thaddeus Stevens, a Radical Republican congressman from Pennsylvania, that nothing approaching the present policy will subdue the rebels. Outside of Congress, few pressed the case for emancipation more eloquently than Frederick Douglass. From the outset, he insisted that it was futile to separate the freedom of the slave from the victory of the government. The fire must be met with water, Douglass declared, darkness with light, and war for the destruction of liberty must be met with war for the destruction of slavery. These appeals won increasing support in a Congress frustrated by a lack of military success. In March 1862, Congress prohibited the army from returning fugitive slaves.

As crucial as the pivotal national victory in the American Civil War is how our nation recalled the significance of that turning point event. In Professor David Blight’s exciting history of Civil War memory, ‘Race and Reunion,’ how and why the American people committed that event to their historical consciousness shows as significant as the event itself. Professor Blight’s study of the fifty-year period following the Civil War will leave those who yearn for racial justice deeply disappointed. It is a cruel irony that deliberate forgetfulness of the past is a central theme of this powerful historical study. For in our nation’s purposeful historical amnesia and racist changing of the Civil War, a compact ‘reconciliations’ view of that pivotal experience sowed the seeds of institutional racism and the deliberate obliteration of the very cause of the Civil War itself. Blight’s exhaustive research, presented in stirring, graceful prose, paints a dreary portrait of post-Civil War America; for all intents and purposes, the South may have lost the Civil War but it certainly won the battle in its unapologetic and energetic attempt to have the nation perceive history through the South’s eyes.

Professor Blight describes an ongoing battle between two deeply different visions of Civil War memory. The ’emancipationist’ vision absorbs the notion of the Civil War as a revolutionary event, one which not only abolishes slavery but begins the process by which African Americans may become full and equal partners in a multi-racial society. Emancipationists point to Lincoln’s ‘Gettysburg Address’ in their understanding of the centrality of slavery to the Civil War and its eradication as the noblest consequence of that war. On the other hand, ‘reconciliations’ propose a vision that holds the South as the victim of the Civil War, Reconstruction as an unmitigated disaster, and the nobility of both Johnny Reb and Billy Yank as mutually heroic soldiers. Completely absent in the ‘reconciliation’ view are African-Americans, other than as loyal, grateful slaves, willing to please their masters and hurt by any ill-guided attempts at freedom or equality.

Professor Blight is completely convincing in his arguments. Even today, with many American communities celebrating ‘Civil War Days,’ Americans feel more comfortable examining battles, proclaiming the mutual valor of both sides, and celebrating reunion than examining our national racial past. Emancipationists tend to make people feel uncomfortable; their idealistic commitments to justice and racial equality invariably place second to materialistic concerns. In this sense, we in the early twenty-first century tend to unknowingly mirror Americans of one hundred years ago. Coming up large is Frederick Douglass, whose passionate commitment to emancipationist views informs his entire public life. He, more than any other character, seems to possess the vision and tenacity to hold steadfastly to the moral purposes of the Civil War. His telling question, asked in 1875, rips to shreds the fatuous emptiness of reconciliations views: ‘If war among the whites brought peace and liberty to blacks, what will peace among the whites bring?’

The civil rights years, in which the nation was compelled to make read the promises of emancipation and the Civil War Amendments, prove that any memory is central to a nation’s self-image. For nearly one hundred years, our country accepted as dogma the ‘Magnolia and Moonlight’ theory of Southern society, our national consciousness saw slavery as compassionate. Our culture denounced Reconstruction and determined to honor both Northern and Southern soldiers as equally devoted and honorable. Only in the past generation have Americans rediscovered the emancipationist vision and been compelled to use that memory as the yardstick to national policy.

Informative Essay

What made the American Civil War the first modern war?

The civil war was previously the primary clash to utilize the apparatus transportation and different results of the mechanical transformation essentially programmed guns. it was at one time the first run-through in quite a while that fight assets and even the armed forces themselves were shipped over the railroad and troopers have been outfitted with weapons with improved near-best quickness and exactness. the utilization of these developments achieved a higher amount of setbacks than something America had ever experienced.

How was the North’s victory over the South tied to the different ways the market revolution had developed in the two regions?

The North had loads of transportation in the sorts of railways and they also had much better-assembling office dislike the South. market upheaval profited northern industry in manners that helped them in war: fabricating railways verbal trade for thick populaces.

Explain how the North won the war by considering its material resources, military strategy, and effective political and military leadership

The North had 22 million troopers as opposed to the South’s 9 million individual warriors. The Association military developed to be the extraordinarily sustained, quality dealt with armed force ever, whereas the Alliance experienced little planning in sanctuary and gear.

Describe how President Lincoln’s war aims evolved between 1861 and 1863, changing from simply preserving the union to also ending slavery

The underlying reason for the civil war Lincoln asserted was to shield the association because of the reality of Southern severance. Lincoln initially proclaimed a fight to rejoin the states underneath one association anyway with the end goal for that to occur subjugation must be tended to in light of the fact that it was the essential driver for Southern withdrawal. As the fight progressed and the battle for nullification pursued forward Lincoln gave the South a decision which was to either set out their weapons before the finish of 1862 or he would declare the cancellation

How did the actions of slaves themselves, northern military strategy, and the Emancipation Proclamation combine to end slavery?

The move of captives to stop slavery was through aiding the battle of the war as warriors. at the point when slaves crossed the limits from South to North they furthermore gave the association significant information about the confederates that would help the association in the war

How did federal policies undertake during the Civil War and transformed the United States into a stronger nation-state, economically, politically, and ideologically?

Congress secured money-related development as Northern plants worked more prominent trouble than any time in recent memory to give enough materials to the threatening endeavor. Since men have been serving in the military, ladies stepped in to fill in occupations like nursing or assistants in government work environments, giving women additional notoriety and vitality. Congress also gave hugely gives for inner upgrades like railways. Be that as it may, the need to pay for the fighting moreover modified the monetary framework, alongside new charges, and new uncovered cash alluded to as ‘greenbacks.’ A couple of people, similar to Andrew Carnegie and John Rockefeller, took the executives in reshaping and combining electrical vitality and money.

Compare and contrast women’s efforts in the North and South to support the war effort and their families

Many took up positions before being involved through men. they drove political developments to get individuals’ spirits more noteworthy into the war. in the south albeit after a piece the ladies developed to be exhausted with the hardship and potentially thwarted the fighting strain

How did the Emancipation Proclamation, northern military successes, and actions by the slaves themselves combine to finally end slavery?

The civil war was once clearly a battle over the nullification of subjection. the south having no steady military and needed military assets weren’t going to win the fight, to begin with despite the fact that they had a couple of staggering triumphs over the association. The triumphs at Vicksburg and Gettysburg had been the most important of the civil war and cemented Northern power. the north started a stash of fighting which ability they permitted got away captives to try on their aspect so once the liberation decree became effective numerous more noteworthy blacks took an interest in the finish of subjugation through the absolute thrashing of the alliance.

In the long run, by 1804, the greater part of the Northern states canceled slavery establishment, however, the innovation of the cotton gin in 1793 expanded the utilization of slaves in the South and slavery turned out to be vital for the South. Before the Civil War, the pressure between the North and the South put resources into Slavery. The North was demanding that America should turn out to be a free nation and needed to industrialize the South. Then again, the South was restricting the North by being supportive of slavery for their rural industry.

The U.S. Constitution was unmistakably allowing slavery even though the record did exclude the words slaves and slavery. For instance, in the U.S. Constitution Section 2 of Article IV said ‘held to Service or Labor in one State, under the Laws thereof, getting away into another’ (Constitution On Slavery). It shows the criminal slaves should be gotten back to their proprietors. In addition, the Bill of Rights in 1791 didn’t refer to slavery, yet the Fifth Amendment, says ‘Be denied of life, freedom, or property, without fair treatment of law’ (Constitution On Slavery). As indicated by the Fifth Amendment, slaveholders were given a flat-out right to take their property with them. Since the slaves rose to property, they could take their slaves even to the free Northern states. It formed into negative struggles between the North and the South.

Notwithstanding, America acquired a gigantic piece of the West from the triumph in the War with Mexico, including California, Utah Territory, and New Mexico Territory. In Addition, the measure of gold that was found in California was enormous and it drove the Gold Rush in America, which didn’t keep going for long. The issue of whether the new states in the West ought to be opened to slavery or ought to be liberated from slavery brought major political disarray.

The territory of California was critical for the two powers. The North was affirming different feelings from that of the South. Since California got such a ton more extravagant rapidly, if slavery in California got nullified, the southern states would altogether lose their political and financial power. Conversely, if slavery got allowed and secured by the national government, the southern states would have the option to acquire power. The South was saying that they would leave the Union if California turns into a free state. ‘Ultimately, the issue drove the South to attest their viewpoint, which was to choose two unique presidents between the North and the South

the Compromise of 1850 to maintain order between the two distinct powers. Dirt, Calhoun, and Webster suggested that California ought to be conceded as a free state, and keeping in mind that the slaveholding could be lawfully conceded, the Slave exchange ought to be nullified in Washington D.C. For the Southern states, they offered a more grounded outlaw slave act, which was to get the runaway slaves once again to their proprietors by utilizing power. ‘Additionally, the other new domains in the west, for example, New Mexico and Utah were opened to slavery’ (Keesee 265). The Compromise of 1850 was bantered for around 8 months and lastly passed. President Taylor couldn’t help contradicting the Compromise, saying that it could isolate the domains and broaden slavery. His expectation transformed into reality when the criminal slave act brought a counter outcome, arousing individuals in the North with regard to the slavery issue. Moreover, the Whigs party changed its name to the Republicans.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act ‘brought about two occasions which in the long run obliterated Democratic strength of American governmental issues: the ascent of the Republican Party and a virtual common conflict in Kansas’ (Keesee 270). While trying to win the locale, proslavery ‘line hoodlums’ from Missouri and antislavery ‘free-staters’ conflicted in Kansas. On May 21, 1856, line hoodlums scoured the town of Lawrence, Kansas, which was known to be an ardent free-state region. (Martin), and the battle known as ‘Draining Kansas’ had started. The fierce assault that occurred in Lawrence set off another unbelievable occasion. Quite possibly the most pitched event that happened in Kansas was the ‘Creeks Sumner Episode’ (Keesee 272). In Washington D.C., Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, addressing the irate North, delivered a discourse that despised and scrutinized Andrew Butler, a representative of South Carolina. As an outcome, Preston Brooks, a relative of Butler, has furious and stood up to Sumner. Streams ‘hit him more than once with a stick’ (Keesee 272) and Sumner got severely harmed. This shameful occasion demolished the contentions between the North and the South and prompted a fierce arrangement.

Besides, the occasion which at last set off the Civil War was the Election of 1860. The Presidential Election of 1860 contained four official up-and-comers from various gatherings: Stephan Douglas, John C. Breckinridge, Abraham Lincoln, and John Bell. The Northern Democrats designated Stephan Douglas and the Southern Democrats selected John C. Breckinridge. John Bell was designated by the Constitutional Union Party.

On December twentieth, 1860, the primary Ordinance of Secession was started by South Carolina. South Carolina pronounced independence by leaving the Union, and other Southern states thought about it after South Carolina’s way. At last, the 10 different states from the South joined South Carolina by 1861, under the name of ‘Confederate States of America [C.S.A].’ Jefferson Davis, a Senator from Mississippi was chosen as the leader of C.S.A. Southern diarist Mary Boykin Chesnut expressed, ‘We are separated, North and South since we have despised one another so’ (South Carolina Secedes). Besides, as the Union and the Confederates were isolated, they started the bloodiest conflict in U.S. History. The Union was ready to drive the Confederates to rejoin, yet the Confederates continued to decline. Be that as it may, on March 5, 1861, Fort Sumter in Charlestown Harbor, South Carolina needed supplies. Abraham Lincoln was informed by Robert Anderson, the Commander of the Fort, saying that ‘they had not exactly a multi-week supply of food left in the fortress’ (Fort Sumter). In Addition, Fort Sumter was situated in C.S.A. represented region, so the Confederates needed the Fort to be emptied. The fight was not butchered because the warriors from the two sides didn’t bite the dust or truly harmed; in any case, the Battle of Fort Sumter essentially brought about the most butcher and rough conflict in U.S. History.

The Civil War started with the Battle of Fort Sumter. As time elapsed, the War got more fierce and genuine. Siblings killed one another and a huge number of men passed on. The War had various fights at this point the Battle of Gettysburg was the main skirmish of all.

These days, individuals consider America a country loaded with opportunity. Slavery was a horrible condition and no one needed to be under that condition. The Civil War finished and carried the opportunity to almost 8 million slaves. It additionally carried sensational progress from slavery to resident boats. The Civil War was unavoidable and fundamental since there was the ‘abolitionist slavery’ Northerners and the ‘favorable to slavery’ Southerners existed in a similar country. Slavery has probably been prohibited because all people are made similarly and ought to be dealt with similarly.

In Conclusion, The Civil War was caused due to slavery, various struggles between the North and the South, and the Secession of 11 States in the long run brought about by the Election of 1860. I trust that the Civil War of 1861 assumed a critical part in building a more grounded country since it allowed the country by liberating slaves, the external struggles between the North and South states were closed by Union’s triumph, and the War impacted emphatically the Industrial Revolution of America. By noticing the Civil War, we can discover that the War inside the country night is essential in building a more grounded and more steady country. Indeed, the United States of America has the most grounded position on the planet now.

Introduction

The Battle of Gettysburg, fought from July 1 to July 3, 1863, was a pivotal moment in the American Civil War. Taking place in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, this bloody confrontation between the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, led by General Robert E. Lee, and the Union Army of the Potomac, led by General George G. Meade, marked a turning point in the war. This informative essay will delve into the key events, strategies, and outcomes of the Battle of Gettysburg, highlighting its significance in shaping the course of the Civil War and its lasting impact on American history.

Overview of the Battle

The Battle of Gettysburg began when Confederate forces clashed with Union troops on July 1, 1863. The three-day engagement was characterized by intense fighting across various locations, including Seminary Ridge, Cemetery Hill, and Little Round Top. The battle unfolded in a series of coordinated attacks and counterattacks as both sides sought to gain tactical advantage and control of key positions.

Key Figures and Strategies

General Robert E. Lee, leading the Confederate forces, aimed to invade the North and disrupt Union supply lines. His strategy relied heavily on aggressive offensive tactics and the skill of his seasoned soldiers. On the other hand, General George G. Meade, in command of the Union forces, focused on defensive positioning and utilizing the advantageous terrain of Gettysburg.

Notable figures emerged during the battle, such as Confederate General James Longstreet and Union Colonel Joshua Chamberlain. Longstreet played a critical role in leading Confederate assaults, while Chamberlain’s heroic defense of Little Round Top became a legendary moment of the battle.

Key Outcomes and Significance

The Battle of Gettysburg resulted in a Union victory and marked a major turning point in the Civil War. Several key outcomes contributed to its significance:

Halt of the Confederate Advance: The Confederate forces were forced to retreat, abandoning their invasion of the North. This setback shattered their hopes for a decisive victory and dealt a blow to their morale.

Loss of Valuable Confederate Forces: The battle resulted in heavy casualties on both sides, but the losses suffered by the Confederacy were particularly significant. Lee’s army lost approximately one-third of its total strength, severely weakening its military capabilities.

Boost to Union Morale: The Union victory at Gettysburg boosted the morale of the Union Army and the Northern population. It demonstrated that the Confederate forces were not invincible and increased support for the Union cause.

Gettysburg Address: The battle’s significance is further underscored by President Abraham Lincoln’s iconic Gettysburg Address, delivered at the dedication of the Soldiers’ National Cemetery. Lincoln emphasized the preservation of the Union and the importance of equality, immortalizing the battle in American history.

Shifting Momentum of the War: The Union victory at Gettysburg, coupled with the Union victory at Vicksburg occurring concurrently in the West, marked a turning point in the war. The Confederacy’s chances of achieving a decisive victory were significantly diminished, and the momentum of the war began to shift in favor of the Union.

Conclusion

The Battle of Gettysburg stands as one of the most significant and well-known battles of the American Civil War. Its three-day engagement resulted in a Union victory, halting the Confederate advance and inflicting heavy losses on their forces. The battle’s outcomes boosted Union morale, contributed to the shifting momentum of the war, and inspired President Lincoln’s famous Gettysburg Address. As a turning point in the conflict, the Battle of Gettysburg remains a testament to the sacrifices made by both sides and the enduring impact of the Civil War on American history.

In international relations, the relationship between states has primarily been analysed by observing them as having a singular identity and being utility maximizers no matter the level of cooperation. However, “while realists view interests as material and objective phenomena, social constructivists tend to argue in interest flow from identity and are not first and foremost material properties” (K.M. Fierke, 2015, p.83) There is a different way to analyse states and the insecurities constructed overtime, and this can be done with the theory of constructivism. Constructivism applies to how states perceive other states based on criteria of nationalism, ethnicity, race, gender, and religion. The ideology chosen by the state may form within these group of variables. This theory describes why states interact with each other, explaining when states are allies, enemies, neutral, peaceful, or aggressive towards one another. These perceptions form patterns of war and peace, giving away for the formation of foreign policy which is done by considering historical subjectivity, rather than the realist assumptions of ‘a state is a state’ and all potential states could be threats. Constructivism allows states to be a number of things at the same time. This leads us to understand that different states view other states through a constructed identity which fundamentally shapes perceptions of the norms made through the culture and the agents that affect the insecurities. This essay will be analysing how insecurities were constructed before the American Civil War broke out, the construction of identity in Rwanda of Tutsis and Hutus which lead to the Rwanda Genocide of 1994, and the various civil wars that took place in The Democratic Republic of Congo post-independence. These arranged group of case studies relate to civil wars which will stablish a clear base for the understanding of the construction of insecurities. In addition, it will compare the constructivist approach with different neo- realist and neo-liberal perspectives in order to broaden the standpoint relating the origins of these wars. For the international peace keeping action and global security, the essay will be focusing on the role of the United Nations and their role in peace keeping and peacebuilding at an international level has had a big impact in the relations between states.

Humans are essentially social beings, and fundamentally exist within a society. Society is ruled by norms that change with the passing of time, nevertheless, Thomas Luckmann puts focus on the idea that human society has been socially constructed as “individuals begin to adopt, consciously and unconsciously, the norms and conventions of the social world that they engage with, they undergo the process of socialisation” (Columba P. Nick V. Williams, 2015[1966], p.16). The following dimensions “social construction of reality, inter-subjectivity, identity formation and socialisations” (Columba P. Nick V. Williams, 2015[1966], p.17) can be explored when the constructivist theoretical approach is used in assessing how insecurities of states are constructed. Established the context of social construction, it is fair to argue that identities, norms and culture are shaped by one another, and continually affect one another. Social construction exists because of the systematic construction of identities. In the book Identity, Adrian Poole explains that identity “is a dream, a fiction, a kind of heaven, a kind of hell… identity of meaning is its cause and its consequence, freely given and received, beyond all vicissitude” (Walker and Leedham-Green, 2010, p. 24-25). With this description, the idea social identities are linked with social contexts depending on the geographical station of individuals, the culture they follow allowing for the interests to derive from their identities. This shows identities are not a given by anyone, but rather constructed throughout time as they are unsolidified and can change.

Clifford Geertz defines culture as “an historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic form by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes towards life.” (Clifford Geertz 1973, p.89) This definition shows what constructivist aim to understand when they analyse insecurities constructed, as culture enables the understanding of different social groups’ motivations that might have come from the “symbolic forms by means of which men communicate… and develop knowledge…”.

Jeremy Benthan in A Fragment on Government, described the main aim for humans should be “the greatest happiness of the greatest number, that is the measure of right and wrong.” This utilitarian theory entails behaving to certain incentives to maximise utility. The construction of identities and norms in an international society can be argued to have come about with this in mind. This argument can be supported with the analysis of the American civil war and how the constructed identity of African slaves by the American government was done in order to propel the economy which lead to the civil war of 1861. This argument not only explains why identities and norms could have been constructed, but also how insecurities ravel from these constructions. Norms are shared expectations, or as Peter Katzenstein stated, they are the “collective expectations about proper behaviour for a given identity” (Peter Katzenstein, 1996, p.5). These are accepted to a certain degree, they are internalised, however, it is a choice to accept them or not accept them, becoming part of a rational idea of how the society lived in works. Even if norms might hold a moral context, it does not mean these have to be good. In America, since winning back in 1776 and ratifying their constitution, they began expanding to North America through the purchase, conquest and the genocide of millions. At the time, the purchase and ownership of slaves coming from various African countries was a big business, making most of the economy dependent on slave labour as “’it was the sale of Africans in the New World—the slave trade—that laid the financial foundation of the United States” (J. A. Rogers, 1961, p.35). Many acts in the constitution enabled this behaviour, facilitating the view of white supremacy into becoming a social norm. However, when Abraham Lincoln became president this norm would begin to be challenged. North America began to be modernised and industrialised, however “the Southern economy was based principally on large farms that produced commercial crops such as cotton and that relied on slaves as the main labour force. Rather than invest in factories or railroads as Northerners had done, Southerners invested their money in slaves—even more than in land…” (Jennifer L. Webber, 2018) The construction of identity for black slaves in this case had allowed the US to and many other European countries to grow their economies, broaden markets, as “the slave trade, which had a great impact on the growth of European ports and promoted the emergence of manufacturers processing raw materials cultivated by Africans” (UNESCO, 1979, p. 20) The insecurity constructed came primarily from the freeing of slaves and the possible economic outcomes which could decrease profits as slaves would not be counted as property with free labour but people who should also be paid for their work. The constructivist approach shows this was the beginning of the end for the norm which motivated white supremacy. Finnemore and Sikkink explain the three cycles of norms: norm emergence, norm cascade and norm internalisation, coming to this issue to the last stage where “norm acquire a taken-for-granted quality and are no longer matter of… debate.” (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998, p.894-905) After the confederacy was created, and the war between the north and the south of American began, what had been a norm and part of the American culture was challenged as even voluntary conscription to flight in the war was allowed for black Americans for the first time in history.

In order to analyse how the insecurities were constructed and lead to the American civil war, a few neo-realist assumptions will be put in place. In neo-realism, “states claiming sovereignty will inevitably develop offensive military capabilities to defend themselves and extent their power” () due to the nature of the theory of defensive and offensive capability. this key point can be highlighted when the provisional government the Confederate states of America began to accept voluntary conscription in order to create their own army. Also, another neo-classical realist assumption can be seen in this example which is “national security or insecurities is largely the result of the structure of the system” (John Baylis, 2011, p.233) The insecurities came from the political structure of the state itself. The economic balance between the north and the south began to change drastically, and agents and structure are mutually constituted therefore if the agents believe in the structure that is what it will be, but if they do not, then insecurities for the state will begin to emerge.

Moving forward to the 20th century, the conflict between the Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda marked the beginning an ongoing war which lead to the genocide of approximately 800,000 to a million Tutsis in 1994 in an ongoing killing of 100 days. This came as a result of a deep-rooted prejudice, and a division based on hatred which invigorated the Hutu ruling regimes after independence to see Tutsi as intrusive foreigners even though they had been living in harmony pre-colonial times. This ideology encouraged the idea for the extermination of all Tutsis. In this case, insecurities began to be constructed by their colonial settlers, who at the beginning were the Germans, but after WW1 reparations had to be paid, therefore the land was handed to the Belgians. As mention earlier, identity is fluid and has an important factor for the impact in the construction of social reality, it can be argued that in Rwanda, the hatred between Hutus and Tutsis can be traced back to the construction of their identities by the hands of the Belgian settlers. “The colonial power further polarized the groups by classifying Rwandans into ethnic groups and making it obligatory for them to carry ethnic identity cards classifying people according to their ethnicity. The Belgians deemed the Tutsi to be superior to the Hutu and thus Tutsi were favoured in administrative positions, education and jobs in the modern sector” (Nikuze, D., 2014, p. 1089)

After colonisation, the Congo was embroiled in what is called the first Africa’s World war. From 1906 until independence, the territory was under Belgian rule, and due to this when independence was given in 1960 many of the Congo’s new leaders did not have much formal education or leadership experience. The new president, Mobutu was able to build the economy based on the copper boom from 1965 to 1975 until the crash of commodity prices including copper that followed the Vietnam war plunging the country into debt.

The Rwanda genocide of 1994 played an important part in the disintegration of the Congo. Conflict in Rwanda between Hutu and Tutsis people predates Rwanda’s independence in 1962 but the path to genocide began in1990 when the Tutsi-led Rwandan Patriotic Front began to cross border into Rwanda from their base in Uganda. In 1994 the plane of Rwanda’s Hutu president was shut down. This lead to the 100-day killing of Rwanda’s tutsis by Rwandan’s Hutus. This made millions of Tutsis fled to Eater Zaire crowing them into refugee camps in the city of Goma.

Since the beginning of time, technology has been constantly advancing. People are constantly looking for way to improve things. For a country, self-sufficiency and wars can drive technology advancements. People have a competitive nature so countries also have a need for gaining the upper hand to advance in both economic and military points. There is always a need for military production and growth for national security for that competitive nature. Wars are responsible for some of the fastest advancements. For example, after World War II, the Soviet Union had incredible and fast innovations pertaining to nuclear warfare. The industrial revolution influenced lots of technologies for both everyday life and war during the Civil War. During this time industrial warfare was booming and the production of weapons. There were many advances in science that were applied to making new technology. Conditions of the people in the military were always changing due to the fast developments of war tools. There were productions being made to equip soldiers for the land, the sea, and in the air. These technologies not only aided and helped change the war, but also helped shape today’s warfare. In this essay, focusing on the Civil War which was around the time of the industrial revolution era, I will discuss some major technology advancements, their functions, and how they’ve been innovated and redesigned for modern warfare.

The first technology that I will be discussing is the telegraph. During the war communication was crucial to improve war efforts. The telegraph was invented by Samuel Morse in 1844. It was a device used for sending and receiving messages from long distances. Messages were sent using electrical current pulses via a language system called the Morse Code, named after Samuel Morris. About 15,000 miles of telegraph wire was quickly installed all over the east coast strictly for war purposes. This invention was extremely beneficial because it was used for the first time in warfare to help commanders and generals give battle field instructions and operations from long distance. There was even a telegraph wagon located on the front lines in order for this to be done to receive direct orders and to send updates which directly helped the Union States win the war. President Abraham Lincoln was a prime example of how the telegraph was used. He primarily used it to gather information and understand what was going on within his military. About 6.5 million messages were sent and received during the civil war. Today the telegraph is not in use because there are more efficient and accurate ways of sending information now. Today there six different military communications used: the alert measurement systems, the signal corps, military radio systems, cryptography, nuclear command control, and network centric warfare.

Next, I would like to discuss the use of railroads. The first actual railroad track was developed in 1830 and it was 13 miles long. Later they were quickly developed once people saw that it could help with lots of things. Railroads became very important during the industrial revolution mainly at the time of the Civil war which is when they were used heavily for the first time. Railroads contributed to a lot of economic and political factors which had a lot to do with the war. One of the biggest advantages that the Union states had in the war was their use of the railroads. This eventually led them to victory. The Union states were very industrialized and constantly innovating and had a good economy while the Confederate states fell behind in industrialization. Their economy relied heavily on agriculture and slave labor and their railroads were in terrible shape. The Union states lad over 22,000 miles of railroad laid down while the Confederate states only had about 9,5000 miles of railroad. Today railroads have the same use and still contribute to political and economic needs. They are mainly used to transport troops, civilians, supplies, raw materials and sometimes even both.

Now I would like to discuss the Gatling gun. This is a hand driven machine gun that was used for rapid fire. It was the most successful rapid firing gun before the birth of more modernized guns. This gun was invented by Richard Gatling in 1861 during the Civil War. He created such a dangerous weapon to show the destruction that it can bring in hopes to end the fighting. He wanted to show people that all wars bring is death but it just proved that it was quite efficient in killing which only made war more gruesome, bloody, and deadly. This rapid firing gun was a lot more convenient to use. It works by turning the crank that will rotate the barrels inside the giant cylinder. Then each barrel passes under an ammunition hopper before it gets to the top of the cylinder.

In a Rede lecture, The Parallel Between the English Civil War and American Civil War, Firth said that the comparison between the English Civil War and America Civil War was very interesting (1910). Recently, I learnt the history of both civil wars and I am interested in this history. Thus, I will mainly compare the disputes that caused English Civil War and American Civil War as well as the implications behind these differences and similarities.

First of all, religion was a controversial issue both in the English Civil War and American Civil War. In England, the king’s religion and behavior were contrary to the mainstream. For instance, much of the regulation and ceremony in the king’s court was derived from Catholic models (Morrill, 2001). What’s more, Charles I assigned William Laud as the see of Canterbury in 1633 and asked him to enforce the Book of Common Prayer to Scotland. Actually, the Book of Common Prayer irritated the people of Scotland and William Laud’s cruel persecution to puritans raised dissatisfaction throughout the nation. Consequently, as Firth said, “the conflict concerning the religious question grew in importance and the freedom of conscience became by degrees the only solution of the problem.”

In America, the disputes within America were the different ideas about slavery (Wesley, 2019). In the North, most people considered the emancipation was essential so that new areas in America can be better constructed free of slavery. However, the South believed that owning slaves was natural because the Bible told them so. As a result, the different understanding of slavery’s place in American society became nonnegotiable and the war came (Miller, 2000).

The second dispute that caused the two civil wars was power. In England, as Ireton said, the dispute was whether the “supreme trust was in king or Parliament”. Morrill said that Charles I had very strong and arrogant views of his power and believed that he was chosen by God to develop and protect his country (2001). While on the other, the king’s behavior irritated the Parliament and pushed the Parliament to fight for the power. For example, Charles I refused to reach agreements with the English Parliament and from 1629 he suspended it sine die (Morrill, 2001). As a consequence, the power dispute between the king and the Parliament gradually became more serious.

In America, the dispute was who should have the power. The government or the individual states? In Firth’s Rede lecture, he gave an example to illustrate this issue. The delegate of the South, Calhoun, said that the sovereignty is in those several states instead of the so-called government. However, the doctrine of the North is that the power is owned by a government founded on the agreement of the people. Their speech clearly demonstrates the opposing position of the two sides on the issue of the power (1910).

Another significant dispute in both civil wars was money. In a BBC documentary, A History of British, Simon Schama pointed out that it was money that triggered the civil war’s countdown. In England, Charles I started wars with countries like Spain and France but lost many of them and needed to pay for the money. Unfortunately, the Parliament refused his requirement. As a result, the king determined to keep himself free of Parliament by using his power arbitrarily to raise money and his favored action was the coping stone on the civil war (Morrill, 2001).

In America, the North and the South had different economic systems at that time. The North mainly depended on industry whilst the South relied on planation. Miller suggested that the long practice of the slavery brought the South prosperity and the abolition made them afraid the collapse of the economy (2000). However, the North also worried that the slavery would do damage to their economic development.

The last difference was the division mode. In the English Civil War, the opposing sides were mainly divided by their ideology. For instance, the royalist supported Catholics while the other side preferred Puritanism. However, in American Civil War, the opposing parties were mainly divided geographically. Specifically, in the Rede lecture, Firth explained that “the line was drawn across the United States by the Missouri Compromise in 1820, in order to limit the northern extension of slavery—known as Mason and Dixon’s line” (1910).

The above are four differences concerning the disputes that caused the English Civil War and American Civil War. Besides, we can find resemblances beneath the differences.

First, according to Firth’s Rede lecture, the formal cause of the two civil wars was the question of sovereignty (1910). Specifically, in England, the question was, what share of sovereignty belonged to the king, and what to the Parliament? In America the question was, the sovereignty belonged to individual States or the Federal government?

Second, people in both wars showed their fear toward the future. In England, for instance, people afraid two things. One was that Charles I may raise higher taxes to pay for the war and his personal use. Another fear was the promotion of Catholics. After all, the king’s wife, Henriette Marie was a Catholic and it was said the king’s children were being secretly brought up as Roman Catholics. Likewise, in America, as Miller described, “to the southern mind, the North was perverting the Bible and God’s plan by its worship of money, its growing heterogeneity, and its prideful intrusions into other’s affairs’ (2001). Moreover, the league of the South described Abraham Lincoln’s army as “heartless brigades of aggression and occupation” (Kaufman, 2009).

From the differences and similarities, we can also find the implications behind them. First is that money really matters. In both wars, money was a long-lasting issue throughout the process. Why money was that important? I think it may because everyone wants profits and no one wants to lose money. Let us imagine, if Charles I had always won wars and seldom lost and even brought money to England; and if the slavery could bring both the North and the South huge profits, would the two civil wars happen? That might be another question deserves our thinking.

The second implication is that the causes of a historical event are complicated. For example, there are many reasons that caused the English Civil War, including economy, culture, politics, ideology etc. Similarly, the disputes on commercial, religion, foreign policy, agrarian interests are involved in America (Miller, 2001). What’s more, the collapse of slavery was marked by great variation across time and space (Sternhel, 2019).

The above is a brief compare between the English Civil War and American Civil War. And I believe this comparison not only makes us critical but also instructs our future development.