Category: American Civil War

After 150 years, America is still haunted by the ghosts of its Civil War, whose story has been romanticized for so long it’s hard to keep the facts straight. In the overall memory of the war, men are the heroes. Fighting their brothers for what each believed to be right. A incredibly overlooked part is how influential women were to the course of the Civil War. Without Rose Greenhow’s masterfully run spy ring, the Union might have ended the war with a swift victory over the Confederates in July 1861. Instead, the widow leaked Union plans to Confederate generals, allowing them to win the First Battle of Bull Run, which caused the war to drag out for four more years. Elizabeth Van Lew, leader of a Union spy ring who also happened to be a “spinster” feminist was a large part of the fall of the Confederate capital of Richmond, Virginia, on April 1, 1865, leading to Lee’s surrender eight days later.

Women held many roles during the American Civil War. One role as we just stated was working as spies for both the Union and Confederate armies. Women were perfect for this role because they were easily trusted and not viewed as threatening by soldiers. Soldiers often let their guard down around women because they missed their own wives, daughters, or mothers. During the early stages of the war many people, especially men, didn’t believe that women were capable of taking on such dangerous roles. Most women would volunteer to spy, however, some of them were recruited by spymasters.

Female spies often gathered information about the enemy’s plans, troop size, fortifications and supplies on scraps of paper or fabric and sewed them into their clothes or rolled them into their hair. Goods like medicine, ammunition or weapons were hidden in packages and baskets. Occasionally, extra stealth was required and they would hide them in the hoops of their skirts or even in dolls. For modesty sake, soldiers would not check women’s clothing, thus making it an excellent hiding location.

“If she (Belle Boyd) was really effective at anything, it was at smuggling. She recruited other Southern women to smuggle weaponry, like muskets and sabers, under their hoop skirts. The 28th Pennsylvania Regiment near Harper’s Ferry woke one day to find about 200 sabers, 400 pistols, 1,400 muskets, and cavalry equipment for 200 men were gone.”[1]

The Civil War broke out at a time when there were strict gender roles for women. While often times this worked in the female spy’s favor, sometimes it did not, and they would be caught. Women raised suspicions because of the unladylike behavior that sometimes came with being a spy. As soldiers caught on through the duration of the war it became harder and harder for women to cross lines without being searched, which led to a lot of arrests. Female spies who were caught were rarely executed but were usually either imprisoned or deported to Canada or the South.

When employing historiophoty as a methodology to analyse the construction of history through images and films, it is evident that the American Civil War is insubstantially represented. This is due to the powerful influence of various director’s context, motives and personal bias, resulting in antithetical interpretations. Consensus history has constructed the American Civil war in a superficial manner lacking complexity by downplaying the conflict. American political historian, Howard Zinn asserts “Life informs scholarship and scholarship informs life,” implying that it is impossible for an historian to create completely objective works and ultimately remove themselves from their contextual prejudices. The War featured in 60,000 books and 126 films being one of the first major conflicts to be recreated through film and photography on a large scale. Due to the prominent role, media plays in society film concerning The Civil War has disseminated misleading information influencing the populous’ perception of American civil war propagating a romanticised consensus history. While film encompasses the potential to create an unfitting and potentially sensationalised representation of The Civil War, the debate arises that film is no more susceptive to the aforementioned biases than other mediums such as historical nonfiction. Discussion propagates regarding both the beneficial and adverse properties of film in history created by the variety of practises that histography encompasses. Therefore, despite the multitude of differing representations influenced by the composer’s context, purpose and biases, we cannot eliminate film and digital media from the process of constructing history as it prompts further investigation about the American Civil War through a different medium.

Historiophoty, the study of history through film, reflects the ever-changing approach to the construction of history namely that of the American Civil War. American historian Hayden White’s work ‘The burden of history’(1966) emphasises that in the present day historians are deceitful. Clarifying that by telling their perceived “historical truth” they create shallow depictions of events. White continues to say that the job of the present-day historian is ‘to re-establish the dignity of historical studies’ by stating fact and stepping back from the practice of making a judgment on historical events. This notion has been met with antagonism from academic historians such as American visual media historian, Robert A. Rosenstone who believe that Whites notion diminishes the worth of their works by lowering the standard of what separates academic history from any other historical piece. British historian and historical fiction writer Ian Mortimer promotes ‘free history’ which legitimises any interaction with the past as a historical one. Mortimer argues that “history cannot reasonably be defined in terms of what professional historians do” due to societies growing interaction with history. Zinn’s assertion “who controls the present controls the past,” encapsulates the political-socio discourse in contemporary society whereby digital media has a major influence on the construction of history and collective memory in American society. By conveying the War through Historiophoty, American Civil War media adopted the biases of the era it was created, such as the racial vilification in D.W. Griffith’s ‘Birth of a Nation’ (1915), rather than reflecting a realistic representation of the Wars events. Historiophoty created a superficial depiction regarding the War, in turn affecting the reliability of digital media as a source for the conflict.

Due to technical advancements of film, such as high-resolution images and the verification process of authenticating film, historians are able to more critically analyse the representation of events by historiophoty. Rosenstone argues that historiophoty complicates and corrupts historical accuracy due to films ability to be staged and edited leading to the omission of fact for entertainment purposes. However, by offering historical investigation through an alternative medium digital media is highly valuable as it creates an ample understanding of events. Opposing this Rosenstone dubs Historiophoty ‘a shaped’ representation of history formed through biased representation of fact which rejects White ‘s concept of photography being an onlooker of events. This notion is evident through American director Ken Burns’ documentary ‘The Civil War (1990)’, whereby he utilises distressing archival footage to catalyse an “emotional truth,” captivating audiences through non-diegetic sound depicting the solemnity of the War. While Burns democratised American Civil War history due to the accessibility of film he instigated an emotionally charged representation of the conflict recording it as one of personal differences rather than a prejudiced confrontation. Consequently, Burns has impacted the discourse surrounding this event by portraying the War as “a bitter dispute over union and states’ rights” rather than constructing a realistic depiction of the American Civil War according to academic consensus. Therefore, while film In history is rapidly advancing in its ability to portray historical events in a realistic manner, the current state of the field is problematic when constructing American Civil War history as directors are able to manipulate footage, just like historians could manipulate archaeological evidence to support their preconceived ideas, “The facts speak only when the historian calls on them”.

According to Australian war historian Daniel Reynaud, film is the most popular and widely available historical source. Due to the influence of film and digital media, historiophoty has had a profound impact on consensus history which in the case of ‘The Civil War (1990),’ subverts academic knowledge. Robert Rosenstone questions how adequately historiophoty conveys the complex and critical nature of historical thinking, which, according to British historian and philosopher Ian Charles Jarvie is what makes any given “representation of the past a distinctly historical account”. Both Jarvie and Rosenstone argue that film undermines history portraying it as an unacademic field. This is furthered by the glorified representation of events presented by popular history which conveys ‘sugar-coated portrayals of past events’. This notion does not comply with the in-depth analysis that is expected of academic historians thus, popular history and Historiophoty, when applied to the American Civil war present jejune portrayals of history, inadequately constructing an academic history and reliable. In regard to the American Civil War, historiophoty has portrayed the conflict as an economically motivated battle, rather than a conflict propelled by prejudice towards African Americans. D.W. Griffith’s 1915 Film ‘Birth of a Nation’ is ‘Studied today as a masterpiece of political propaganda’ due to its portrayal of the Ku Klux Klan as Southern reconstructionist defending the Confederate states right to succession from the union. by depicting the conflict in this light, it has propelled a narrow focus of the War, rather than understanding the contextual long term causes such as racial prejudice and the abolitionist movement. Burns refers to himself as an “emotional archaeologist” due to his self-acknowledged use of sensationalised features such as the Ken Burns effect which engages audiences through slow panning and zooming across still pictures depicting various War experiences. This explicit contrast from the traditional aim of historical objectivity to Burns’ intention of commercial success, furthers the opinions of Rosenstone. Pierre Sorlin outlines how ‘The director is a leader and an arbiter’ of conversation hence, directors represent events to create an understanding of the factors which caused the event rather than the event itself. Consequently, history through films tends to be beneficial helping to democratize knowledge, develop new approaches to understanding multiple pasts and generate public debate about the function and relevance of history. Through creating interest, historiophoty has presented broad depictions of the War which target American nationalistic values of independence, democracy, social mobility and the American Dream. However, due to this American-centric focus, it hinders the reliability of Ken Burns ‘The Civil War’(1990) as it does not offer a balance between Northern and Southern perspectives, limiting the array factors which instigated the conflict. Therefore, from a contemporary and revised perspective, due to the wide scope of visual media Burns’ visual depiction of the Civil War fails to achieve the detached and objective tone strived for by historical scholars.

Historiophoty, according to White is a depiction of history in its most accurate sense as digital media is an “onlooker of events” while written history is a judgment with hindsight. His argument that ‘historical data does not lend itself to free artistic manipulation’ reinforces the difference between an artist and an historian demonstrating that history by nature constructs the story for you. Through white’s understanding that ‘historical fact’ is what creates history, it is evident that historiophoty is the ideal way to represent events in a detached and objective manner as written “history can be infinitely redescribed” allowing it to be fictitious. Therefore, it is apparent that cinematic depictions of the American Civil War are no more burdened by limitations than any other historical source type.

Rosenstone refutes White’s notion and presents that digital media as a source carries the same limitations as written history with the added biases that historiophoty encompasses.

Rosenstone recognises both the positive and negative aspects of historical film but ultimately declares it flawed by nature. He argues that Historiophoty is too detailed when directors incorporate actors and sets that don’t resemble historical truth. Conversely, he exerts that Historiophoty can also portray events in a limited and jejune manner, whereby multidimensional historical events may be compressed into a three-hour presentation, undermining its usefulness in achieving a detached summary. According to Rosenstone, the way historians view films can be divided into two major categories; the explicit and implicit approaches. The explicit approach regards motion pictures as reflections of the social concerns of the era it was made, while the implicit approach essentially refers to the motion picture as a book transferred to screen. However, this secondary and more practical approach becomes problematic when one assumes that the current practice of written history is the only possible way of understanding the relationship between the past and present and that written history inherently mirrors reality.

Regardless of films impact upon the construction of history, no universal consensus has culminated on how to evaluate the contributions of film to historical study. American post-modern historian Gary Nash emphasises that “historians can never fully detach their scholarly work from their own culture”, therefore, regardless of the way a source is presented it is equally susceptible to biases of context evoking beliefs that digital media is no more prone to predispositions than any other source type. Ken Burns’ documentational series focuses on the emotional and political factors at play during the American Civil War providing a superficial account of the American Civil War depicting partial truths and avoiding historical fact in favour of telling a remarkable story. historians Vivian Rose and Julie Corley in ‘A trademark approach to the past’ 2003 state that Burns reduces “complex historical topics into simplistic stories” and “if burns’ intention is to deliver history to the public, he has done a great disservice”. The Professor of History at the University of Melbourne, Joy Damousi, asserts that it is not the responsibility of a director to portray objective historical fact, rather historiophoty prompts an individual’s interest into independent historical exploration. American screenwriter Frank Miller maintains this notion and states that in film ‘almost all of them (inaccuracies), are intentional’ and that ‘the best result I can hope for is that they’ll (people) go explore the histories themselves.’ While burns had no apparent intent in creating and distributing inaccuracies on a large scale he actively relies on people to discover truths that are not always available to them due to consensus history that is created by lack of consistency and realistic portrayal in Digital media. Hence, the debate of whether historiophoty is useful in the construction of Civil War History lies at the centre of the discussion as to whether one considers historical truth to be based off a collective consensus of the Civil War or rather a literal and indisputable reflection of the past.

The American Civil War faced many boundaries in deciphering historical truth due to the utilisation of Consensus History. Consensus history is a style of American historiography that emphasizes the unity of American values and downplays conflict as superficial or lacking in complexity. This Is evident through the traditional discourse surrounding the War created by the Southern intellectual movement ‘The Lost Cause’, who intended to rationalise their loss as well as defend Southern honour by rewriting textbooks, creating informative films and building remembrance monuments. In their publication ‘the southerners’ 1903 Southern authors and historians Edward A. Pollard and Jubal Early framed the Civil War as a “heroic defence on the Southern way of life” and in doing so depicted Confederate fighters as heroic, enslaved people as content and placed the root of the War on political differences rather than the abolitionist movement. Through mass analysis of Civil war sources, such as archival material from the ‘US Army military historical institute’, the general public has obtained a realistic view of the War which was a racially charged conflict based on a state’s rights to own slaves. Historiophoty actively politicised The Civil War affecting consensus history and creating opposing discourse between North and South that is present till this day. Through the utilisation of film as a tool for propaganda conflicting discourse is disseminated effecting consensus history. The 1915 Film ‘Birth of a Nation’ which portrayed the Ku Klux Klan as “valiant defenders of society, struggling to fight the good fight against the evil blacks that marred the South” depicts an unrealistic version of the conflict in order to act as propaganda. Therefore, to comment on the usefulness of historiophoty in the construction of American Civil War history one must have an understanding of the effect digital media had on Consensus history during the post-Civil War era. Historiophoty allowed for the broadcasting of ill interpreted facts and the publicization of falsified information. With its inherent popularity derived from its visual nature Historiophoty is the most significant and influential historical source of our time due to its accessibility. Thus, “if we academic historians want our discipline to flourish in the new media world in which we find ourselves we will have to come to terms with Ken burns and the kind of history he is producing”. This need to recognise popularised media as a part of the construction of history is imperative for the furthering of historical thought. If academic historians exclude digital media from historical analysis society will receive less reliable and a lower quantity of historical information. Therefore, in order to democratise historical education historians must employ tactics of popular history to ensure that the consensus history is also a highly accurate history instead of disregarding historiophoty which has a major impact on societies perspectives.

In a final appraisal, Historiophoty has proven vital in understanding the American Civil War as it initiates exploration into the conflict through an alternative medium allowing for greater understanding of the War. Due to the prominent role, media plays in society historiophoty has perpetuated the distribution of misleading, politically charged information influencing the populous’ perception of American Civil War history. Regardless of the mediums ability to be tainted by the creator’s context, motives and biases film is no more susceptive to aforementioned predispositions than other mediums. Therefore, despite the various interpretations depicted in historiophoty one cannot eliminate digital media from the process of analysing history as it prompts investigation about historical events, namely the American Civil War, through diverse mediums. Thus, Historiophoty plays a highly significant role in constructing American Civil War history.

Introduction

“Aftershock beyond the Civil War” is a compelling historical analysis written by David W. Blight that explores the long-lasting repercussions of the American Civil War. In this summary essay, we will delve into the key points and themes discussed in the book, highlighting the profound impact the Civil War had on American society, politics, and race relations.

Summary

“Aftershock beyond the Civil War” offers a comprehensive examination of the post-war period, revealing the complex and often overlooked consequences of the Civil War. Blight argues that the conflict did not end with the surrender at Appomattox but reverberated through the nation for decades, shaping the trajectory of American history.

The book delves into the aftermath of the war, exploring the challenges faced by both the North and the South in the process of reconstruction. Blight emphasizes the immense social and economic changes that occurred during this period, including the emancipation of slaves, the reconstruction of the Southern states, and the struggle for civil rights.

Blight also explores the continued presence of racial tensions and the struggle for equality in the post-war era. He examines the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups, as well as the resistance faced by African Americans in their fight for voting rights, education, and economic opportunities. Blight highlights the ongoing struggles for racial justice and the ways in which these issues have shaped the fabric of American society.

In addition to racial dynamics, Blight also analyzes the political and ideological consequences of the Civil War. He discusses the transformation of the Republican Party, the emergence of new political alliances, and the reshaping of the American political landscape. The book underscores the lasting impact of the war on the nation’s political institutions and the continuous struggle for power and representation.

Furthermore, Blight delves into the cultural and literary aspects of the post-war period, examining how the war was remembered and commemorated. He explores the rise of the Lost Cause narrative, the construction of Confederate monuments, and the ways in which the memory of the war shaped Southern identity. Blight offers a critical analysis of the myths and legends that developed around the war and their impact on American memory and historical understanding.

Throughout the book, Blight presents a nuanced and thought-provoking analysis, drawing on a wide range of primary sources, including letters, diaries, speeches, and memoirs. He intertwines individual stories and historical events to paint a vivid picture of the tumultuous post-war years, allowing readers to gain a deeper understanding of the complexities and legacies of the Civil War.

Conclusion

“Aftershock beyond the Civil War” is a compelling and insightful exploration of the far-reaching consequences of the American Civil War. Blight’s comprehensive analysis illuminates the profound impact of the war on American society, politics, and culture. By examining the complexities of the post-war era, Blight challenges readers to reconsider their understanding of this pivotal period in American history. Through his meticulous research and engaging storytelling, Blight highlights the enduring legacy of the Civil War and its ongoing relevance in shaping the nation we know today.

The American Revolution (1775-1783) and the Civil War (1861-1865) are two pivotal events in American history that significantly shaped the nation’s identity and trajectory. While both conflicts played critical roles in defining the United States, they differ in their causes, goals, and outcomes. This comparative essay will explore the similarities and differences between the American Revolution and the Civil War, shedding light on their historical significance.

Causes and Context

The American Revolution was primarily motivated by a desire for political independence from British colonial rule. The colonists sought to break free from British control and establish a new nation based on principles of liberty, equality, and self-governance. Factors such as taxation without representation, trade restrictions, and perceived infringements on individual rights fueled the revolutionary fervor.

In contrast, the Civil War arose primarily due to deep-rooted sectional tensions over the issue of slavery. The Southern states seceded from the Union, driven by the fear that their economic and social system would be threatened by the growing abolitionist sentiment in the North. The clash between the agricultural, slaveholding South and the industrializing, anti-slavery North led to the outbreak of hostilities.

Goals and Objectives

The American Revolution aimed to establish an independent nation free from British control. The colonists sought to create a system of government based on democratic principles, individual liberties, and the rights of the people. The revolutionaries’ goals were focused on the establishment of a new nation and the pursuit of self-governance.

On the other hand, the Civil War had multiple objectives for both sides. The Union, led by President Abraham Lincoln, aimed to preserve the Union and abolish slavery. The Confederate states, fighting for their independence, sought to protect their right to own slaves and maintain their way of life. The Civil War became a defining struggle over the fundamental principles of the nation, including the abolition of slavery and the preservation of the Union.

Outcomes and Impacts

The American Revolution resulted in the establishment of the United States as an independent nation. The signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783 recognized American sovereignty and secured the country’s territorial boundaries. The revolution’s impact extended beyond independence, as it inspired other movements for self-determination and democracy around the world.

In contrast, the Civil War preserved the Union and led to the abolition of slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation, issued by President Lincoln in 1863, declared the freedom of slaves in Confederate-held territories. The Union’s victory in the war ensured the end of the institution of slavery in the United States and set the stage for the subsequent struggle for civil rights.

While both conflicts brought about significant change, the American Revolution focused on the establishment of a new nation and the principles of self-governance, while the Civil War centered on the preservation of the Union and the abolition of slavery.

Conclusion

The American Revolution and the Civil War represent two distinct periods in American history, each with its own causes, goals, and outcomes. The American Revolution was driven by a desire for political independence and the establishment of democratic principles, while the Civil War emerged from deep divisions over slavery and the preservation of the Union. Despite their differences, both conflicts shaped the nation’s identity, ideals, and trajectory. The American Revolution set the stage for the birth of a new nation, while the Civil War determined the fate of the Union and the future of slavery in the United States. By comparing and contrasting these transformative events, we gain a deeper understanding of the factors that shaped America’s journey towards freedom, equality, and self-determination.

Introduction

The Civil War was a defining period in American history, marked by intense conflict and the struggle for freedom and unity. In this informative essay, we will delve into the life and contributions of Benjamin Howard, an important figure during the Civil War. Through examining his background, role, and impact, we can gain a deeper understanding of his significance in this pivotal era.

Background

Benjamin Howard was born on December 15, 1800, in Kentucky. Prior to the Civil War, he served as a lawyer and politician. In 1834, he moved to Illinois and became involved in state politics, eventually rising to prominence as a Whig Party member.

Role in the Civil War

When the Civil War erupted in 1861, Benjamin Howard played a crucial role in supporting the Union cause. He enlisted as a brigadier general in the Union Army and was assigned to the command of various units throughout the war. His military experience and leadership skills made him a valuable asset to the Union forces.

Howard’s most notable contribution came during the Battle of Fort Donelson in 1862. As a part of General Ulysses S. Grant’s Army of the Tennessee, Howard led a brigade in a critical assault on the Confederate defenses. His tactical expertise and bravery helped secure a Union victory, which had a significant impact on the war’s outcome.

Impact and Legacy

Benjamin Howard’s contributions to the Union cause extended beyond the battlefield. He played an instrumental role in recruiting and organizing troops, helping to bolster the Union Army’s ranks. His leadership and dedication inspired those under his command, fostering a sense of unity and determination among the soldiers.

Furthermore, Howard’s political background and connections allowed him to advocate for the interests of the Union Army and support the war effort at the state and national levels. He worked tirelessly to secure resources and support for the troops, ensuring they had the necessary provisions and reinforcements to carry out their mission.

In recognition of his service, Benjamin Howard was brevetted as a major general in 1865, acknowledging his exceptional contributions to the Union cause. After the war, he resumed his legal and political career, continuing to serve his community and state.

Conclusion

Benjamin Howard’s role in the Civil War cannot be understated. As a brigadier general in the Union Army, he displayed leadership, bravery, and unwavering dedication to the cause of preserving the Union. His military achievements and contributions to the war effort had a lasting impact on the outcome of the conflict.

Benjamin Howard’s legacy extends beyond the battlefield. His organizational skills, political connections, and advocacy for the Union Army helped support the troops and ensure their success. His service represents the courage and commitment displayed by many individuals during the Civil War, as they fought for the principles of freedom and unity.

Introduction

The Civil War was a pivotal moment in American history, shaping the nation and its future. To gain a deeper understanding of this significant event, a Civil War Scavenger Hunt offers an engaging and informative way to explore key artifacts and documents from that era. In this essay, we will embark on a virtual scavenger hunt, uncovering important items that provide valuable insights into the Civil War and its impact on the United States.

Gettysburg Address

Our first stop on the scavenger hunt is the Gettysburg Address. This iconic speech, delivered by President Abraham Lincoln on November 19, 1863, at the dedication of the Soldiers’ National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, is a cornerstone of American history. The address emphasizes the principles of equality and democracy and has become a symbol of national unity and remembrance.

Emancipation Proclamation

Next, we move on to the Emancipation Proclamation, issued by President Lincoln on January 1, 1863. This document declared that all slaves in Confederate territory were to be set free, fundamentally altering the goals and purpose of the Civil War. Although it did not immediately end slavery in the United States, the Emancipation Proclamation played a crucial role in shaping public opinion and transforming the war into a fight for freedom.

Battle of Antietam Photographs

As we continue our scavenger hunt, we come across a collection of photographs depicting the aftermath of the Battle of Antietam, fought on September 17, 1862. These images captured the horrific realities of war, showcasing the devastating impact on soldiers and civilians alike. These photographs serve as a powerful reminder of the human cost and the brutal nature of the Civil War.

Sherman’s March to the Sea Map

Moving forward, we discover a map depicting General William T. Sherman’s famous “March to the Sea.” From November to December 1864, Sherman led his troops on a campaign across Georgia, devastating Confederate resources and infrastructure. This strategic maneuver demonstrated the effectiveness of total war tactics and played a significant role in hastening the end of the war.

Confederate Uniform

Our scavenger hunt leads us to a display showcasing a Confederate soldier’s uniform. This artifact provides a tangible connection to the men who fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War. Examining the uniform allows us to gain insight into the conditions in which soldiers fought and the challenges they faced on the battlefield.

Conclusion

The Civil War Scavenger Hunt offers a fascinating journey through key artifacts and documents that shed light on this transformative period in American history. From the powerful words of the Gettysburg Address to the harrowing photographs of the Battle of Antietam, each item provides a unique perspective on the realities and consequences of the Civil War.

Through this scavenger hunt, we gain a deeper understanding of the significant events, influential figures, and lasting impacts of the Civil War. These artifacts serve as a reminder of the sacrifices made by soldiers and civilians alike and the enduring legacy of this pivotal moment in American history.

As we conclude our scavenger hunt, we are left with a renewed appreciation for the importance of preserving and studying these historical artifacts. They provide us with a window into the past, enabling us to learn from the experiences of those who came before us and to better understand the complex and enduring legacy of the Civil War.

Regardless of the time period, issue, or importance, when it comes to politics, people are bound to make mistakes. Sometimes these mistakes are quite large, and other times they are rather small and insignificant. But sometimes these mistakes can develop into scandals. During the Reconstruction period after the American Civil War, there were four main scandals that occurred, the Tweed Ring scandal in New York, the Credit Mobilier scandal, the Black Friday scandal, and lastly, the Dawes Acts.

The Tweed Ring scandal was a political scandal that stretched from 1866 to 1871. During this time, Tammany Hall in Manhattan was the Democratic organizer and it was led by William ‘Boss’ Tweed. On top of being the main leader in the political aspect of the organization, Tweed was also the chief officer in embezzling millions of dollars in public funds. Although he managed to steal millions of dollars, the scandal had more to do with politics. The Tweed Ring organization dominated New York politics, encouraged judicial corruption and even bought votes from many people. This ongoing and extreme fraudulence went on from the mid-1860s to the early 1870s, but reached its peak in 1871 when they openly remodeled the City Court House, which History.com describes as a “a blatant embezzlement of city funds that was exposed by The New York Times”. After the efforts of many opponents, every member of the Tweed Ring was swept from power and many, if not all, were formally punished and sentenced to prison. Boss Tweed was tried and sentenced to prison which he served for a short period of time before escaping and fleeing to Cuba. However, he didn’t last long before he was identified and sent back to prison where he eventually died. After stealing millions of dollars and holding the politics of New York in his hand, he was forced to be punished.

The next scandal we will talk about is the Credit Mobilier scandal. The Credit Mobilier scandal was a political scandal that involved the stealing of money amongst the bribery of many important political figures. Thomas Durant was the Union Pacific Executive and the chief involved in the Credit Mobilier scandal. He created what was considered a business model that was a money-making machine. It wasn’t illegal at the time, but it should have been. Durant believed that building a railroad would be easier than running one. So, he created a construction company and involved a specific group of investors while greatly limiting their liability. Through skilled work and bribery amongst other executives in the business, Durant was able to essentially hire himself to build the railroad, being paid by the Union Pacific and the investors while barely spending anything himself for the actual construction of the railroad. He had conned his way into making astronomical profits for his phony business. He even went so far as to add an unnecessary 9-mile bend to the railroad, generating even more profit from absolutely nothing. Some three years later, the company was taken over by Oliver and Oakes Ames, who later found themselves overwhelmed by legislators who wanted in on the action. Later, scandal erupted as the stock receipts from the business showed the embezzlement as well as the name of a dozen or so political figures involved in the corruption. Congress looked to an investigation on all who were involved, including the investors, but only the Ames brothers and those they specifically pointed out were punished. Durant, the investors and others on the board for the organization were never punished, only one of Ames brothers and a single Democrat investor were tried. American Experience explains the situation by saying, “As a crowning insult to the public trust, the schemers were never punished”.

Next, we have the Black Friday scandal. The Black Friday scandal, like most political sandals, involved stealing, embezzlement, conning, and even political figures. Two men, Jay Gould and Jim Fisk were financers who worked through bribery and conning to gain wealth and important positions. When Ulysses S. Grant became president, he wanted to work at improving the economy by reducing the supply of paper money. His plan was to buy the paper money back from people using gold. This plan would ruin Gould and Fisk’s plans at cheating Wall Street. They wanted to buy as much gold as they could while the value rose, and then once the price of gold got high enough, they would sell it off for a huge profit, but if President Grant put more gold into the market, it would devalue and keep the prices low. Gould and Fisk plan was to connect with Grant’s brother-in-law, Able Rathbone Corbin, who was also a financier. The three of them would meet and discuss finances with Grant at social gatherings, arguing against the idea of putting the gold into the market. Corbin came in contact with a man named Daniel Butterfield who was also a con man in the financial world. Corbin then convinced Grant to hire Butterfield as the assistant of the Treasury, where he would then tip off Gould and Fisk’s when the government was thinking of selling the gold. This plan seemed flawless until Grant started to become suspicious. He discovered a letter from his sister to his wife, talking about the gold con, and then was fully aware that he himself was being conned. Furious, he sent word that Corbin should be stopped, and Grant immediately began to sell the gold. Gould and Fisk’s plan to buy gold as the prices raised worked, but once the government gold hit the market, the prices dropped at an extreme rate. Many people lose thousands of dollars including Corbin. Butterfield was removed from his post, Grant was seen as having gone through another scandal, Gould escaped with a profit and managed to continue conning his way through various companies, while Fisk’s didn’t last long before he was killed by a fellow financier.

Lastly, we have the Dawes Act. Unlike the other scandals mentioned in this paper, the Dawes Act was an inhumane scandal against the Native Americans. It didn’t involve money, conning, or political figures, it only harmed the Native Americans and their way of life for the convenience of the white man. It was proposed by Senator Henry Dawes of Massachusetts and was enacted in 1887. Under the Dawes Acts the federal government could break up the Native Americans land into sections, and only those Native Americans who accepted the rules and laws under the Dawes Acts were allowed to become U.S. citizens. Essentially the purpose of the Dawes Acts had started out innocent, those who agreed with it wanted the best for the Native Americans, but under these initial laws, it didn’t gain enough approval, and in effect the Dawes Act became a severely harsh treatment of the Native people of the country. By the time the Dawes Act was passed and put into action, its purpose was to bring Native Americans into the new culture by annihilating their own culture and social traditions. As a result, over 90 million acres of land were stolen from the Native Americans and sold to non-natives for the purpose of ‘helping’ the Native Americans. This scandal was among one of the most gross, inhumane periods in American history. As a result, Native Americans lived in poverty, were stricken with illness and disease, lived in filth and many were unable to conform to this society that was forced upon them.

American history has had its highs and its lows. Through the development of the country and its culture men, whether powerful or not have managed to con, deceive, steal and lie their way to wealth and power. These acts of unhealthy desire have led to the cause of some of the biggest scandals in American history. Scandals such as the Tweed Ring, the Credit Mobilier, and the Black Friday scandal all involved the embezzlement of money along with the distrust of many political figures. While scandals such as the Dawes Act were proven to be inhumane and disgusting towards others in the country. As was proven by all of these, lying and deceit will only get you somewhere until you inevitably get caught.

References

1. History.com. Editors. “‘Boss’ Tweed Delivered to Authorities”. History.com, A&E Television Networks, 9 Feb. 2010, http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/boss-tweed-delivered-to-authorities.
2. Georges, Jessica. “Boss Tweed and the Tammany Republicans”. The Gotham Center for New York City History, The Gotham Center for New York City History, 15 Sept. 2016, http://www.gothamcenter.org/blog/boss-tweed-and-the-tammany-republicans.
3. “The Crédit Mobilier Scandal”. PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/tcrr-credit-mobilier-scandal/.
4. “The Crédit Mobilier Scandal”. US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives, http://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1851-1900/The-Cr%C3%A9dit-Mobilier-scandal/.
5. “Black Friday, September 24, 1869”. PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/grant-black-friday/.
6. “The Dawes Act (Dawes Severalty Act) (Article)”. Khan Academy, Khan Academy, http://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/the-gilded-age/american-west/a/the-dawes-act.
7. “Dawes General Allotment Act”. Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., http://www.britannica.com/topic/Dawes-General-Allotment-Act.

How did the Colonists win the American Revolutionary War? Baron Von Steuben, born November 15, 1730, died November 28, 1794. At the age of 17, he enrolled within the Prussian army and fought within the seven-12 month’s struggle. Then discharged from the navy and noticed Benjamin Franklin needed help within the Revolutionary War. So he asked Ben to send a letter to George Washington to allow him to assist within the conflict and became a General within the American Revolution. Baron Von Steuben stimulated the American Revolution in critical methods. Baron Von Steuben did crucial work throughout the American Revolution by training the colonists into soldiers, boosting the morale of the soldiers, and taught the Colonists an awful lot-needed military techniques and drill formations.

Baron Von Steuben’s function in the course of the American Revolution turned into education for colonists to be turned into army squaddies and to live up to the name militiamen. How Baron trained the infantrymen was by drilling Prussian combating strategies into the colonists to create men out of them. Also, he drilled the area into the colonists to assist with schooling them in the end. The evidence explains how Baron Von Steuben turned into so crucial to the American Revolution due to the fact Steuben skilled the colonists into infantrymen to fight the British and have a chance to win the war. Also, the education will hold with them at some stage in their lives and to protect their households. Baron Von Steuben affected warfare with the aid of boosting the morale of the troops to live and maintain combating.

How Baron boosted the morale became with the aid of giving them the spirit, showy presence, and an intelligent eye for navy strategy. Also, he throws an especially wild birthday celebration at night for all their difficult work and boosts morale. The evidence explains how Baron Von Steuben affected the conflict because if the infantrymen didn’t have morale they could be down in the dumps and not need to do something and might forestall fighting. Which could purpose the Americans to lose the war and to live under Britain.

Baron Von Steuben’s best accomplishment become teaching the colonists how to emerge as an army. How this was Baron’s greatest accomplishment changed into because he did something so exquisite that today humans nonetheless recognize him. You need to recognize why it’s due to the fact Baron didn’t care what anybody stated approximately he wrote a manual about navy stuff that still is being taught at this very second. The proof explains how this is Baron’s greatest accomplishment due to the fact that it is stuff nevertheless being taught almost 2 hundred years later which is a lot higher than different people. This additionally suggests that if he didn’t educate the colonists any of this stuff then no one nowadays could know whatever about him and what he has achieved for our very united states.

Conclusion

How did the Americans win the Revolutionary War? The Americans gained the struggle by way of Baron Von Steuben schooling the colonists into infantrymen after which spread morale to hold them fighting for their country. It is essential to observe the lives of members of the American Revolution to study from what they have got accomplished to create the foundation of our U. S. A. The American Revolution is vital to us nowadays because it gave us our freedom from Britain and to be our personal united states of America.

After decades of simmering tensions between northern and southern states over slavery, states’ rights, and westward expansion, the united states civil war broke out in 1861. Seven southern states seceded and formed the confederate states of America after Abraham Lincoln’s election in 1860; four more states quickly joined them. The civil war, often known as the war between the states, ended in 1865 with the confederate surrender. The war was the most expensive and deadly ever waged on American soil, with 620,000 men killed out of a total of 2.4 million, millions more injured and most of the south destroyed. ( (Historytm n.d.))

One of the main causes of the American civil war was while the united states were enjoying tremendous growth in the mid-nineteenth century, a fundamental economic divide existed between the country’s northern and southern areas, the northern economy was based on large-scale farming that relied on the labor of colored enslaved people to grow crops, cotton, and tobacco, whilst the souths economy was based on a system of large scale farming that relied on the labor of black enslaved people to grow certain crops, especially cotton and tobacco. Many southerners feared that the existence of slavery in America and hence the backbone of the economy built on the back of slavery was in jeopardy as a result of growing abolitionist sentiment in the north after the 1830s and northern hostility to slavery’s development into new western territories. The Kansas-Nebraska Act, passed by the united states congress in 1854, effectively opened all new territories to slavery by emphasizing the primacy of popular sovereignty over congressional fiat. In ‘bleeding Kansas,’ pro and anti-slavery factions clashed brutally, while opposition to the act in the north resulted in the founding of the republican party, a new political body founded on the basis of opposing slavery’s expansion into the western territory. The election of Abraham Lincoln in November 1860 was the final straw, and within three months, seven southern states had seceded from the United States: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. ( (Historytm n.d.))

Therefore, this led to the introduction of the Emancipation proclamation. President Abraham Lincoln issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1862, ‘shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free’ declaring that all enslaved individuals in the states currently engaged in rebellion against the union would be freed on January 1, 1863. When he signed the formal emancipation the following January, he didn’t actually release all of the estimated 4 million men, women, and children enslaved in the united states. The document only applied to enslaved person’s confederacy, not those in union-aligned border states. However, despite its primary purpose as a military measure, the proclamation signaled a significant shift in Lincoln’s views on slavery. Emancipation would change the nation after the civil war, shifting the focus from preserving the union to abolishing slavery. ( (Historytm n.d.))

Although the emancipation proclamation did not abolish slavery in the united states, it won the hearts and minds of millions of Americans and changed the course of the war. Every advance of federal forces after January 1, 1863, increased the realm of liberty. In addition, the proclamation proclaimed that black males would be accepted into the union army and navy, allowing the released to become liberators. Almost 200,000 black soldiers and sailors fought for the union and freedom by the end of the war. Slaves had fought for their own freedom since the beginning of the civil war. The emancipation proclamation reaffirmed their belief that the union’s fight had to become a war for liberty. It gave the Union cause more moral heft and strengthened the union military and politically. The emancipation proclamation has earned a place among the great documents of human freedom as a watershed moment on the path to slavery’s ultimate abolition ( (National Archives n.d.))

The original of the January 1, 1863 emancipation proclamation can be seen in the National Archives in Washington, DC. The document was originally tied with slender red and blue ribbons and wafered impressions of the United States seal on the signature page, with the content filling five pages. The majority of the ribbon is largely intact; sections of the seal may still be read. While others have worn away. The text was combined with other proclamations in a big volume that the department of state kept for many years. It was reinforced with strips along the center folds and then mounted on a bigger sheet of strong paper when it was ready to be bound. The number of the proclamation, 95, is written in red ink on the upper right-hand corner of this big sheet, long after it was signed by the Department Of State. The book containing the Emancipation Proclamation was transferred from the Department Of State to the National Archives Of the United States in 1963, along with additional papers. ( (National Archives n.d.))

Therefore, after freeing all the enslaved on January 1, 1863, Abraham Lincoln explained his action as a wartime measure, but he did not go so far as to free the enslaved people in union-aligned border states. Nonetheless, the emancipation proclamation freed the majority of the confederacy’s workforce and shifted foreign public opinion dramatically in favor of the union. By the time the war finished in 1865, 186,000 black civil war troops had joined the union army, with 38,0000 of them dying. ( (Historytm n.d.))

Consequently, the main reason why the emancipation proclamation was directly caused by the American civil war was because of the economy and politics of slavery which led to conflict ultimately leading to the civil war. This was due to the humongous growth of the economy built on the back of slavery from the start of the 17th century (1601) to the end of the 18th century. Building a business out of the wilderness necessitated a lot of hard work. For much of the 1600s, the American colonies were primarily agricultural economies. The ‘cotton slavery’ existed from the end of the 18th century to the beginning of the civil war and was one of the biggest ‘businesses’ throughout the whole country made to maximize profits. Cotton picking and washing was a time-consuming operation that delayed manufacturing and limited supply. An inventor by the name of Edward Whitney invented the machine in 1974 that combed cotton bolls for free of their seeds in a matter of seconds. One enslaved worker could manually harvest the seeds from ten pounds of cotton in one day. Whitney, therefore, designed the ’cotton gin’ in 1794 that could process 100 pounds of cotton at once 10x more in a matter of seconds than the average enslaved worker could do in a whole day. However, there was a sense of irony about it all. Many individuals assumed that because the cotton gin could replace human labor, it would eliminate the needs of enslaved people. However, the extra processing capacity actually sped up demand. The more cotton that is treated, the more it may be shipped across the world and as a result of the increased demand, more land is needed for cultivation with the increased number of plantations expanded. ( (vox n.d.))

The cotton gathered by thousands of enslaved men and women labeled as the property was used to accoutre people around the world and fuel global industrialization. These men and women were America’s largest financial asset; they were forced to maintain America’s most exported product, and the amount of cotton gathered daily by a slave surged by 400% in 60 years, from 1801 to 1862. Subsequently, between 1801 and 1835, the US cotton exports increased from 100,000 to over a million bales, accounting for half of all US exports. This was the start of America’s big business. A historian and the author of the book The half has never been told: Slavery and the making of American capitalism by the name of Edward E. Baptist reports that ‘cotton was the No.1 export from the US, which was largely an export-driven economy as it was modernizing and shifting into industrialization. The slavery economy of the US south is deeply tied financially to the North, and to Britain, to the point that we can say that people who were buying financial products in these other places were in effect owning slaves, and extracting money from the labor of enslaved people.’ ( (vox n.d.)) Edward insinuates that the US economy expands into different parts of the world and those who purchased supplies from America, therefore, had a share in the slavery market and were not bothered as this business made them richer. The book argues that as America observes 400 years since the 1619 arrival of enslaved Africans to the colony of Virginia, these deprivations are seeing increased attention and so are the ways America’s economic empire, built on the back of the enslaved, connects to the present. So therefore, as a result of the massive increase in profit earned from the demand for cotton growth and picked out by the enslaved, there were more millionaire slave owners in cotton enslavement districts than everywhere else in the united states. This is significant because the use of slavery to gather cotton increased demand for everyday necessities like clothing and led to a boom in the US economy and industrial power. As a result of this enslaved people became a legal form of property that could be used as collateral in business transactions or to pay off outstanding debt. ( (vox n.d.))

Therefore, on the rise of the civil war, states in the south realize that the regions around them plan to abolish slavery. The southern therefore become fearful as what once made them millionaires is soon about to be gone so, southern states wanted to retain as much power in their states as possible. However, when southern states so that the idea of slavery was becoming less popular and the abolition of slavery was becoming more popular, they began to panic. They saw the land which was given to them was very slow and wasn’t growing as fast as the Northern states which therefore had feared them so much that soon enough they would lose slavery and not become economically powerful as they were before from the enslaved. Therefore, as the nation expanded and people move west, Southern states develop a strategy, an idea that they need to expand slavery into these new territories out west especially those territories that are more along the southern paths of the United States. However, with slavery being an economic activity it is difficult for southern states to move plantations across to the west to achieve this task. They also realize that they are being surrounded by political opposition such as John Brown with the main focus on fighting slavery which makes them fearful of losing this economic and industrial power known as slaves. Therefore, as the united states expand they start to see more and more compromises being made such as the compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska act which therefore leads to more conflict as new territories came in with the fight of whether it would be slavery or free causes more political conflict. This leads to the victory of Abraham Lincoln in the election of 1860. However, Abraham Lincoln did not get any votes in any of the southern areas as they feared he would abolish slavery. therefore, with his election, southern states begin to secede to protect slavery. This, therefore, begins to start the war as the Northern states say that the southern states do not have the right to secede away from the union and that if they try to leave the northern states would forcefully make them stay in the United States. This is consequential as this then leads to the American civil war as southern states try to not become part of the United States by seceding away from the union which therefore leads to the northern states forcefully making them stay. Ultimately leading to Abraham Lincoln introducing the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863.

On the other hand, however, the Emancipation Proclamation was directly not caused by the American civil war, in fact, as a war tactic to shorten the war and stop the Southern states. The civil war is commonly thought to have been fought to abolish slavery in the United States. Slavery’s abolition was not a top priority for the North even a year into the civil war. Despite the presence of a strong abolitionist movement in the North, many people particularly soldiers, opposed slavery but did not support emancipation. They expected slavery to die over time. ( (U.S History n.d.))

By the middle of 1862, Lincoln had come to believe in the necessity of abolishing slavery. Apart from his dislike for the institution, he believed that the south could not rejoin the union after attempting to destroy it. The democratic party, which is in opposition has threatened to become an anti-war party. General George McClellan, Lincoln’s military leader was a staunch opponent of emancipation. Many republicans opposed giving black people more rights because they supported measures that prohibited black settlement in their states. When Lincoln told his cabinet in mid-1862 that he wanted to issue a declaration of freedom, they persuaded him that he ought to wait until the union had gained a significant military victory. The win came at Antietam in September. No foreign country wants to form an alliance with a country that could lose power. This union’s triumph revealed that the south could lose. They refused to recognize the confederate states of America as a result, and Antietam became one of the war’s most important diplomatic engagements, as well as one of the bloodiest. Lincoln opted to issue the emancipation proclamation five days after the battle, which went into effect on January 1, 1863. He said their slaves ‘should be then, thenceforward, and permanently free’ unless the confederate states re-joined to the union by that day. ( (U.S History n.d.))

The Emancipation Proclamation is sometimes believed to have freed no slaves. In some ways, this is correct. as an act of seizing enemy resources, the proclamation would not only apply to the confederate states. Lincoln was freeing people he didn’t directly control when he freed slaves in the confederacy. Much of the union forces accepted the proclamation because of the way he explained it. He promoted emancipation as a means of shortening the war by draining Southern resources and therefore weakening the confederacy. As a soldier, even McClellan backed the policy. The border states received no such pledge of liberty from Lincoln. ( (U.S History n.d.))

However even though Abraham Lincoln used the Emancipation Proclamation as a tool to shorten the war and stop the South from seceding, the Emancipation proclamation established an atmosphere in which the abolition of slavery was considered one of the war’s principal goals. Overseas, the North appeared to be the most morally justified. Even if a foreign government wished to intervene on the South’s behalf, the people of that country might resist. although the Proclamation only freed a few slaves, it was the end of slavery in the United States. The Emancipation Proclamation eventually led to the proposal and adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment to the constitution, which effectively ended slavery in the United States.

So how do you define a Civil War and what criteria do you have to fit to say that your country is at what? The most seen academic definition has two key criteria. ‘’The first says that the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second says that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side’’.

Civil wars evidently involve countless types of conflict. The conflict actually only happens between residents of the same country, which is why the name Civil War was given. Many analysts differentiate between civil wars in which rebels try to take over and rule the current government. Conflicts that started due to wanting to gain full control of the leading government can sometimes involve rebels originating from inside the heart of the state apparatus, for example, coups which are carried out by the military (Military coup) like that of the Turkish coup d’etat, which in fact was a mostly filed attempt on 15 July 2016. The coup in Turkey was against state institutions, which included the government along with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The coup which was conducted by only a fraction of the Turkish military names themselves the Peace at Home Council. The aim was an attempt to seize control of several recognized places in Turkey such as Ankara and the capital Istanbul. Even though they attempted to seize control of these places they failed to take control of other forces who were loyal to the country and helped to defeat them.

These challenges don’t only stem from the inside of the political formation but also from the outside too. Experts differentiate between cultural wars in which the rebels and persons who are in control of the government have detached ethnic identities and innovative wars in which rebels attempt to achieve a huge key social revolution. Colonial wars are occasionally singled down to a kind distinct from civil conflicts on a state’s core ground. Nevertheless, with these variances a given civil war will frequently combine numerous factors. An example of these factors would be that the insurgencies might be equally culturally and ideologically built and the insurgents’ intentions can alternate over a period of time from secession for a limited territory area to then governing the entire state. Civil wars are normally not as severe as national battles. If you were to measure and create a death toll from the direct battles, the vast majority of logged deaths in battle since the cold war actually comes from civil wars. Civil wars tend to be more recurrent and last a much longer time than a national/world war would. Civil war can also have a considerable indirect influence on an individual’s well-being outside of the actual loss of life statistics. Over the passing years, it has been found by numerous different academic studies that the different countries who are competing in civil wars will in fact suffer hugely from a distinct downfall in gross domestic product and they won’t ever be able to recover to enable them to get to their previous economic growth level. conflict disrupts trade and investments badly and the trade in that state may even end up coming to a complete halt. this will then leave great social legacies in jobless former soldiers and displaced persons which is then hard to turn around. The negative penalties of civil war are not only felt by countries that actually experience and play a role in them: bordering countries will also end up suffering the undesirable economic effects which then may mean they are then more disposed to the chance of being involved in a civil war and violence in the upcoming future.

There is not a large amount of information and statistics prior to 1945 when it comes to that of civil wars, even though there are a lot of historic accounts of civil wars that did happen before the year of 1945. Since 1945 there have been reasonably few national wars that have happened. Civil wars have been a common occurrence around the globe. If there was to be an interstate war, this would usually last over a short time span, whereas civil wars would tend to and still do tend to last for a substantial amount of time, and are then not as likely to be settled by a formal agreement, unlike a world war. Even if a civil war was to be settled, it wouldn’t be long before the war broke out again due to the government not meeting demands or following what was promised in order for the war to be ended originally. Experts have ‘’regarded the outbreak of new civil conflicts immediately following the Cold War as evidence that the world would be more turbulent and violent after a long period of stability based on the strategy of nuclear deterrence adopted by the United States and the Soviet Union’’. However, at the end Cold War, the total number of new civil wars starting did actually decrease in comparative terms due to the initial peak close after the Cold War ended.

The majority of past and present civil wars happen within moderately inferior and less wealthy societies. Scientist in American Politics Ted Gurr ensured that he highlighted in his writing, inequality and how rebellion from many groups was the last resort after being unsatisfied for so long with the current and ever-lasting economic status, which was also relative to their aspirations. Latin American countries civil wars were a lot of the time interpreted inside a framework that would focus on economic grievances which would arise from the unequal distribution of land or upper-income discrimination. The empirical indication however which links individual income inequality to civil conflict is very mixed. Subsequent political-economic studies of civil war tended to discharge the role of grievances. Some of the individuals who researched the topic contended that criticisms are in fact universal and that the biggest importance is to concentrate on the difference in the prospects for violence. Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffler argued that ‘’low overall income makes it easier to mobilize insurgencies since potential recruits have less to lose in foregone income from normal economic activities’’. James Fearon and Davis Laitin, American political scientists appealed that ‘’civil war is primarily a problem of weak states and that weakness is largely determined by economic development’.’’ Researchers had then also linked mobilization to the role of individual incentives. The chance that insurgencies can grow from conflict, for example, through stealing or being able to gain control of valued natural possessions. The said link between the existence of valued natural resources and a higher risk of civil war was also supported by empirical studies. The many civil wars that take place in African countries are examples that are usually taken as evidence to support these perspectives.

Another cause of civil war can because of political deprivation. A lack of political rights or colonial subordination can be an example of political deprivation and these factors can resort in an excuse for citizens resorting to violence. Certain conflicts which occurred after 1945 happened due to groups trying to achieve their freedom in areas that were under colonial rule.

The Indochina wars between 1946 and 1975 and the Algerian War of Independence war between 1954 and 1962 were wars that helped to start movements in other countries due to the wars showcasing exactly how influential colonial powers could be overpowered, due to continued violent movements. The Soviet Union and Ethiopia and many other ethically distinct groups that are within empire states had similar struggles when it come to national liberation. However, there is very little evidence to back up claims that cultural diversity itself makes a country more of a target of civil war than other countries that don’t.

The American Civil War was a war that overwhelmingly formed the way in which we know and perceive America today. Fought amongst the Northern and the Southern states from 1861-1865, it is said by many that the war does in fact stand to be one of the greatest misinterpreted events in American past to date. The president of the United States at the time was Abraham Lincoln. The American civil war began because of the inflexible differences between the unrestricted and slave states over the state government to forbid slavery in the terrains that had not yet become states.

Marx and Engels branded the actions in the run-up to the American civil war momentous. In January 1861 Marx sent a letter to Engels after the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln, but before the actual day of his inauguration, saying, “In my opinion, the biggest things that are happening in the world today are on the one hand the movement of the slaves in America started by the death of John Brown, and on the other the movement of the serfs in Russia.” During the war, Engels chose to specialize in the tactic of the military, of the Lincoln administration, and the Confederate Jefferson Davis rebel government. Along with Marx, he produced many perceptive articles for the New York Tribune on many political and military issues. Karl Marx however, had a more comprehensive look when it come to conflict, from the financial expansion of the country to the activities of the political and military leaders. The war did bring out a resolution for the Americans. The questions which were brought forward to be resolved through the civil war were ones that were left unsettled by the revolution. These were whether the United States was to be a dissolvable alliance of independent states or an undividable nation with an independent national leadership; and also, whether this country, which was born of a statement that all men were shaped equal rights to freedom would last to exist as the biggest slaveholding state in the biosphere.

The Bangladesh War of Independence also known as the Bangladesh Liberation War refers to the armed war between West Pakistan (which is now known as only ‘Pakistan’) and Eastern Pakistan (which is now Bangladesh). This Civil war started in 1971 and lasted for about nine months. The main and most important outcome for Bangladesh was that it gained its independence from Pakistan and become its own country. Eastern Pakistan had the largest population compared to all of the other provinces, however, it had much less political power compared to that of West Pakistan. Over time this caused the population of East Population to rebel. The leader at the time Sheik Mujibur, who was in control of the Awami League in the East of Pakistan had to demand both more political and financial power. From this, the country finally went to war for independence.

Pakistan was the first contemporary state in the world to be founded solely on the basis of religion. The partition due to religion happened in 1947 when Pakistan separated from India due to the ‘two-nation’ thesis that both Hindus and Muslims could not live together in agreement due to the differences in the religions. ‘’ Both East and West Pakistan remained united because of their religion, Islam. West Pakistan had 97% Muslims and East Pakistanis had 85% Muslims. However, there were several significant reasons that caused the East Pakistani people to fight for their independence’’. (Alburuj Razzaq Rahman ) It was June 13th, 1971 when an article was released in the UK’s Sunday Times which truly exposed the extent of the brutality of Pakistan’s suppression of the Bangladeshi uprising. ‘’Abdul Bari had run out of luck. Like thousands of other people in East Bengal, he had made the mistake – the fatal mistake – of running within sight of a Pakistani patrol. He was 24 years old, a slight man surrounded by soldiers. He was trembling because he was about to be shot’’. The article was written by Anthony Mascarenhas, who was a Pakistani reporter who printed his articles in the UK’S Sunday Times. For the first time in history, Andrew managed to expose the scale and force of brutality that Pakistan’s army would use to suppress its breakaway from the eastern province in 1971. It can’t be said for certain the exact number of people who were killed during the civil war but the number is certainly very huge, especially compared to civil wars in other counties. Some independent researchers have claimed to think that the number of deaths ranged between 300,000 and 500,000, however, the Bangladesh government has put the figure forward at an astonishing three million. One of the most notorious war crimes committed by Pakistan’s army was when soldiers stormed Dhaka University, lined all the students up along with their professors, and executed them. Bangladesh is now able to celebrate the 40th anniversary of its separation from Pakistan after Pakistan’s failed strategy. Due to Mascarenhas’ report on the brutality of the Pakistan military and government, it is believed and no doubt that the article played a significant role in turning the world opinion on Pakistan, ending the war, whilst also reassuring India to play a pivotal role. Since Bangladesh’s separation from Pakistan, they haven’t had the best relationship with each other, even though it has been many years since the separation.

There are also several Civil Wars that are taking place right now, in many different countries. When we think of Civil War it should just be remembered as something that happened tens of years ago. The three conflicts that I am going to briefly discuss now are conflicts that have caused at the minimum of 10,000 deaths which have been caused by direct violence so far this year or throughout the last calendar year.

The Civil War in Afghanistan which first started in 2001 is one of those ongoing conflicts that has claimed an estimated more than 38,000 Afghanistan, and around 58,600 Afghan soldiers, this being since the war began in 2001 (Realtime Data, 2018).

The Taliban had control of the majority of the country since 1996 and during that period they allowed al-Qaeda (a terrorist organization) to set up training camps around the country and recruit terrorists and commit acts of terror. Al-Qaeda was responsible for the nearly 3,000 deaths of innocent people killed in the 9/11 twin towers terrorist attacks. In November 2001, they were defeated by the British and American Military, along with many fighters from an Afghan group known as the Northern Alliance. After the Twin Towers attack, George W. Bush who was America’s President at the time chose to launch the first of many missiles over to Afghanistan in October 200. The goal in mind was to destroy both al-Qaeda and the Taliban in order to save the country from any more terrorists. Unfortunately, after 17 years the Taliban is now stronger than they ever have been and continue to fight for the control of the Afghan government, with the a-Qaeda which once became extinct now reappearing.

Another conflict that I personally would not have thought of as a Civil War is the Mexican Drug War, 2006. The Mexican drug war is a war that claims thousands of lives every year, due to many parts of Mexico actually being controlled by some of the most notorious drug lords. El Chapo, being the most famous drug cartel of all time is currently on trial in the US.

It is said that Mexican drug cartels can earn between at least $19 billion and $29 billion each year purely from drug sales within the US only. A 2018 Congressional research study claimed, ‘’many sources indicate, that about 150,000 international homicides since 2006 were organized crime-related’’ (Congressional research study, 2018).

With tens of Civil Wars still happening around the world right now, all with different reasons behind them, why aren’t countries like Britain or America trying to help stop them? The end of the Cold War did bring a small reduction to the Civil Wars around the world, although wars cease to come to a halt in countries such as Yemen, Libya, Syria, Iraq, etc.

A Professor of International Politics, Monica Duffy says that what the history of the world and the Civil War tells us is that there are two ways which are the most effective way to end Civil wars and they’re Military victory and negotiated settlement. “The international community has a strong proclivity towards negotiated settlements, so you want the parties to both lay down their arms and negotiate an end to the civil war where each of them feels as if they have a part to play in the configuration of the new state. That is the absolute preference that the international community has, and it pushes for that. We are pushing for that today in Syria, Afghanistan.’ (Monica Duffy, 2016).

Toff contends that remaining soldiers from the country going through conflict come together with the American military to represent the nation’s wider interests and close down the Civil Wars. To me this is probably unrealistic as the county in conflict may not stick to the negotiations agreed on, which will in the long run develop a bitter relationship between themselves and the US who helped them to end the war.