Michalopoulos and Papaioannous The Long-Run Effects of the Scramble for Africa focuses on the lasting impacts of the continents division between the foreign colonial powers. The texts bottom line is that the main long-term effect was the creation of arbitrarily drawn borders that separate peoples ethnic homelands and continue persisting in the post-colonial age. The authors observe ethnic groups whose historical homelands went through such an ethnic partitioning and compare them to the non-partitioned and homogenous ethnic homelands. According to them, partitioned homelands demonstrate a much higher incidence of both civil wars and military interventions from neighboring countries when compared to their non-divided counterparts.1 Moreover, the intensity of violence, whether against legitimate military targets in a state-driven conflict or against civilians, is also higher in partitioned ethics homelands than in the regions where non-partitioned groups reside.2 The fact that split ethnic groups often have limited access to goods and services and that the governments are more likely to systematically oppress and discriminate against them also contributes to the tension.3 Thus, the authors establish a complex of interwoven factors that increase the likelihood of conflicts, including civil wars, in partitioned regions.
While the text offers a wealth of empirical evidence regarding the frequency and intensity of conflicts in split regions, be these civil or state-driven wars, one cannot help but notice that it is largely primordialist. What the authors study is not merely ethnic groups but a territorial separation of the historical ethnic homeland between different national states.4 Thus, the text operates on the assumption that an ethnic group is irrevocably connected to a specific territory associated with its origins, which is an essentially primordialist clause. Moreover, the emphasis on the split ethnic groups implicitly suggests that ethnicity is a rigid and non-malleable concept that retains its fundamental unity even when separated between separate states. These primordialist assumptions mean that the authors can actually underscore the fluidity of ethnicity as a construct and ethnic identity in individuals.
One factor that Michalopoulos and Papaioannous study does not pay enough attention to is identity shift. As Kalyvas points out in Ethnic Defection in Civil War, peoples ethnic identity may evolve and change, not to the last degree depending on the political actor that controls the territory they live in.5 In simpler terms, territorial control occurring in the split homelands discussed by Michalopoulos and Papaioannou may facilitate assimilation, and it would be too presumptuous to disregard this factor.
Apart from that, even if people maintain their ethnic identity associated with a historical homeland, ethnicity itself does not suffice as a predictor of their behavior in a conflict because ethnic defection is always a possibility. Once again, territorial control is essential and can foster collaboration irrespective of initially adverse preferences, including ethnic ties.6 If one accepts constructivist premises that people can change their ethnic identities and defect from an ethnically-motivated cause, Michalopoulos and Papaioannous primordialist approach may seem oversimplifying.
To summarize, The Long-Run Effects of the Scramble for Africa offers a wealth of valuable data but rests on largely primordialist concepts of ethnicity as rigid, non-malleable, and strongly associated with territory. This approach underscores the possibility of identity shift or ethnic defection, which can both happen in conflict settings. Thus, when analyzing civil wars or other conflicts in split ethnic homelands, one should pay careful attention to the dynamics of ethnic identity rather than presume that ethnicity is non-malleable and set in stone.
References
Kalyvas, Stathis N. Ethnic Defection in Civil War. Comparative Political Studies, vol. 41, no. 8, 2008, pp. 1043-1068.
Michalopoulos, Stelios, and Elias Papaioannou. The Long-Run Effects of the Scramble for Africa. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 17620, 2011.
The American civil war is the most deadly event that ever happened in the countrys history because it led to the death of more than half a million people and left a million of others physically or mentally injured.
The war was triggered by the southern states rebellion when they declared that they were no longer apart of the United States of America and instead they formed their own separate union, the confederate states of America led by Jefferson davits. The source of this conflict was the fact that republicans had campaigned against slavery and wanted abolition of slavery expansion in areas that did not have slaves.
The Republican party won the 1861 elections and before they had taken office the southern states declared the rebellion which Abraham Lincoln the elected president rejected. The southern states forces started attacking the other states and this made Lincoln to declare war against the rebellion and also abolished slavery in the south .The war took four years after which the northern states won and that meant end of slavery end of the confederacy and the beginning of a functional federal government in the United States.
The slaves were freed under the emancipation proclamation through which president Lincoln gave orders that all salves in the confederate states would be freed if the states did not return to the union.
Although the slaves were freed, they needed legal protection from the whites who did not support the abolition hence amendments were made in the constitution so as to completely declare them free American citizens.
The proclamation led to the freedom of most slaves though it was a war weapon which did not make slavery illegal so Lincoln decided that it would be appropriate if it was passed as a law and this led to the thirteenth amendment of the American constitution.
The law was passed by congress in 1865 and it declared that Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude&shall exist within the United States. Slavery was defined as any harm or threat made to a person that they would suffer if they did not offer forced free labor while involuntary servitude was holding a person hostage by force or trough threats of legal coercion so as to perform labor against self will.
The amendments protected the blacks but still there was need for more legislation in regard to their discrimination and hence the origin of the fourteenth amendment which was titled citizen rights and was passed in 1868. After the abolition of slavery a newspaper in the north was had an editorial titled Slavery is dead, the Negro is not, and there is the misfortune . The fate of the slaves after gaining freedom was not stipulated at Lincolns death and hence there was a lot of confusion.
There were discussions whether they were to receive economic rights of the whites under the PI principles of property and contract and unrestricted pursuit of economic gain, putting them on the same status as the white men and also no one knew if the freed slaves would receive political rights such as voting and ability to serve in public office, free speech and free expression.
The blacks owned nothing, no land, houses and also they were not allowed to attend school. The northerners did not want their presence in their states since they considered them as competitors for jobs, land, business and even women. The southerners had vowed to maintain their white supremacy through making life difficult for blacks as slavery was their only legacy.
Blacks had no licenses to move from one state to another unless their master obtained it for them, then they would work for them to repay. They still wanted blacks to lower their eyes in the presence of a white person, to tip their hats, and they especially wanted black men to not be loose where they might intermingle with white women.
This led to the amendment that declared all persons born or naturalized in the United States legal citizens, no state was allowed to enforce any law that was against the rights of its citizens ;to include life, liberty, property and the protection by the law among other elements pertaining the southern confederacy. Finally, the 14th Amendment gave to Congress the power to enforce the 14th Amendment by legislation, making the states subject to the national government in matters regarding to equality.
Despite the 14th amendment very few states granted blacks the right to vote and none in the south, hence blacks could not vote for their rights and oppression was not over yet. These led to the 15th amendment which prevents any state from denying any citizen the right to vote on the basis of race religion color or slavery.
It was passed in 1870 and congress was given mandate to enforce it. The first Africa American to vote did so on March 1870.It was the third and final of the reconstruction amendments of the United States constitution.
There has been a challenge for decades on the powers that the president and congress have in regard to sending armed forces to hostile conditions. The congress has all along claimed to have the authority to declare war and send the forces but the presidents are actually the people who have been doing so until the formation of the War Powers Resolution Act.
The act gave the powers to the congress while the president was accorded the power to lead the forces into war as their commander in chief. This prevents the presidents from using his powers to create war or misuse the armed forces for his own personal achievements and also to ensure separation of powers within the three arms of government.
The issue of property rights and liberty contract began with the Lochner versus New York case, in which the government wanted to limit the number of hours per day that a baker could work claiming that it was protecting their health .The supreme courts ruled out the argument deeming it as interference with the rights and liberty in the 14th amendment.
From then on the court has dealt with economic regulations passed by the government that could prevent people from engaging in contracts and ownership of private property .This has been an essential function of the courts in protecting citizens rights and liberties in the United States which would have otherwise caused many controversies.
Differences between the Northern and Southern states of America triggered one of the most disastrous civil conflicts in American history. The height of the conflict was characterized by the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 (Draper 2). The Northern faction was majorly constituted of Union states while the Southern faction was comprised of the federation states. This four year conflict happened from 1861 1865 (Draper 1).
Since Abraham Lincolns election, the Southerners noted that he was focused on ending slavery and keeping the Northern union together but this ideology did not represent the Southerners way of life. In fact, the conflict was primarily brought about by the different ways of living both regions had.
The Northern union was of the opinion that the Southerners should give up slave trade, build factories and give up their farms as well. However, the Southerners could hear nothing of it. The federal government therefore treated slave ownership as a right to property and they never gave up this right even in light of pressures from the Northern states. This conflict cost America more than 620,000 lives with an unconfirmed number of civilian casualties (Radford 1). Most of the war was fought in the South but it took a lot of time for both states to recover from the effects of the war.
Collectively, the difference between the two national blocks assumed an economic, cultural and constitutional nature. In terms of economic differences, the Northern states wanted the federal government to protect local industries from foreign competition through the adjustment of tax policies (Radford 1).
The Southern states on the other hand preferred the status quo because they assumed that a change in the tax system would affect its sale of large-scale agricultural produce to Europe (Radford 1). This assumption was majorly founded on the principle that taxation would ultimately change the prices of agricultural goods. This kind of stalemate characterized the conflict for a long time and it created a big economic gap between the two state factions.
The Northern states generally had few capital reserves but they had a considerably good track record of investments. On the other hand, the southerners were better economically empowered because they received a lot of revenues from the sale of cotton, and tobacco (Radford 1).
Culturally, the two regions supported different ideologies with regards to slave trade and traditional types of Jobs. In detail, the Northern union supported the end of slave trade but the Southerners preferred the continuity of the slave trade. The Northerners also supported urban white-collar jobs but the Southerners supported small village-like agricultural jobs because its economy was largely supported by agriculture.
The two regions also supported different kinds of governmental set ups because the Northerners were of the opinion that there should be a centralized federal government which had power over all the states but the Southerners preferred that states should have a firmer grip on the running of state affairs. This was to be a secession kind of strategy for the Southerners.
These kinds of differences openly played out even before the civil war when eleven Southern states declared secession from the American union and in turn formed the Confederate State of America which tirelessly opposed the Northern unions government philosophy.
Also, before the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, he strongly campaigned against the extinction of slave trade beyond states which were already practicing it (Radford 1). In a responsive manner, four other states also declared their secession from the American union (Radford 1).
The American government thereafter started opposing calls for secession; terming it as an act of rebellion (Radford 1). This conflict later developed into a state of hostility between the two sides and the attack of the Southerners on a US military installation marked the beginning of the American civil war.
Preferred Philosophy of Government
The Northerners philosophy of government seems to be the most preferred form of government and indeed, the prevailing ideology after the civil war.
This is true because the federal system of government advanced by the Northerners considers the political, economic and social problems plaguing a particular state (Dautrich 79). Local needs are best represented by state senators who live in the state itself and who are in a position to best understand the unique problems of the state and guarantee a unique solution to the same (Dautrich 79).
For instance, when examining the poor state of traffic in Oahu, Hawaii, a long-term solution to the problem can be best formulated by representatives from within the community and not outside. The federal system of government advanced by the Northerners acknowledges these unique needs and provides a given level of autonomy to states to tackle their own local problems.
The federal system of government also represents all manner of people in the population and it offers a blanket representation of people within various states who may have a different way of life, ethnicity or even cultures (Dautrich 80). A federal system of government is in a position to overlook these differences and offer a common solution that suits everyone. Needless to say, this is done in consideration to local needs and tastes.
This system perfectly works for the benefit of everyone. For example, in the state of Arizona, there is a predominant majority population of Hispanic speaking population and therefore the provision of bilingual education is a unique way that has been established to cater for the unique needs of the local population (Dautrich 80).
In this manner, state governments are able to adopt policies and systems that are only unique to the state and which dont need to be adopted by other states. For instance, the federal system of government does not offer legal recognition of same sex marriages but certain states within America have legalized such unions out of the independence state governments are given by the federal government.
The divisive way in assigning duties between state and federal governments is also bound to increase efficiency because the federal government is in a position to tackle issues at a national level while the state government can easily tackle issues at a local level.
In addition, the federal system of government provides an opportunity for innovation because the freedom it gives state governments to formulate their own policies provides enough ground for comparison of which state formulates the best policies (say, in taxation), so that examples can be borrowed for practicability at a national level. These advantages could be easily derived from the Policies advanced by the Northerners in the American civil war.
With regards to the slave trade stand taken by the Northerners, the ideology of banning slave trade was a good position to protect human rights because the ongoing slave trade in the South greatly violated human rights. For starters, slaves were confined in deplorable conditions, chained and forced to work long hours without remuneration.
In addition, the slaves were branded by hot iron, beaten and given little food to eat. They were also treated as commodities and not necessarily regarded as fellow human beings. Comprehensively, the slave trade was morally repugnant and the Southerners support of it to improve their capital base was unjustifiable.
Since the Northerners were more industrialized than the Southerners, they received great opposition from Southerners because the economic composition of the Southerners was greatly characterized by agriculture. The Northerners were therefore advancing for an industrial type of economy which has many advantages over the agrarian form of economy advanced by the Southerners.
An industrial type of economy is characterized by mass production which could be potentially beneficial to the entire country in terms of exports and even in producing enough food to feed the entire country. The level of efficiency in an industrialized economy is also much higher as compared to an agrarian type of economy.
In addition, an agrarian type of economy is also more prone to environmental conditions which increases the risks associated with such type of economies. For instance, if droughts or floods are experienced, there is little chance that production will be sustained in an agrarian type of economy. On the other hand, an industrial economy is all-weather and production can be sustained all year round. These factors withstanding, the Northern ideology was better than the Southern ideology.
Conclusion
The ideology advanced by the Northerners prevailed in the American civil war and it characterizes the world economy today. The Southern ideology which prompted the American civil war was more a selfish move by Southern states and it posed a resistance to change because the agrarian type of economy represented an older type of economy when compared to an industrial economy.
The Northern union also campaigned for an end to the slave trade and an upheaval of the federal system of government which was bound to uphold human rights and increase the level of nationalism in America. These factors stand out as some of the Northerners strong points which led them to win the war and determine the future we live in today.
Works Cited
Dautrich, Kenneth. American Government: Historical, Popular, and Global Perspectives Texas Edition. New York: Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.
Draper, John. History of the American Civil War, Volume 3. New York: BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2009. Print.
Radford, Grant. The Civil War for Fifth Graders. 3. 2004. Web.
The historic United States Civil War, which commenced with the attack of Fort Sumter on 12 April 1861, and climaxed when the South admitted defeat in April 1865, is regarded as one of the deadliest internal conflicts in the history of the country. The battle left about six hundred thousand men dead and massive destruction of infrastructure took place. Eleven Southern states who were fighting for the abolition of slave trade wanted to withdraw from the greater United States of America.
Therefore, under the leadership of Jefferson Davies, the Southern states formed the Confederate States of America in order to engage in battle with the North (the Union). The bloody conflict literally divided the country into two sections. At the end of the war, the Union forces were declared the victors because of a number of strengths and advantages they had over their opponents.
From the time the battle started, the North had clear merits. To say it plainly, the Union had enormous quantities of almost everything that their opponents were lacking (Tulloch, 154). The Union had vast resources that the South lacked any means of even acquiring.
To begin with, the Union forces, under General William Tecumseh Sherman, had better leaders as well as an established government structure. As a result, they did not have to spend a lot of time in trying to establish a governing authority, as did the ill-prepared Southerners. In terms of manpower, the North was boasting of a significantly larger number of people. At that time, the U.S. had a population of about thirty-one million people and only about nine million of the people were residing in the breakaway states.
This made the Union to have huge strengths in terms of the number of troops, which they threw in the combat with the Confederacy. During the war, the Union had at least three times the number of soldiers their opponents had. They had the objective of eliminating the Southerners through the shear use of more numbers of troops in the battlefield.
The Northern states had enormous quantities of land that they used for cultivating food crops. This assisted them in feeding their soldiers as well as providing funds for their manufacturing industries that were also provisioning the soldiers. On the other hand, the Confederacy mainly concentrated on growing staple crops such as cotton, believing that the flourishing industry alone was able to sustain them all through the bloody battle.
As the war was ensuing, the lack of sufficient food made it hard to feed the soldiers as well as the population who were largely dependant on the staple crops. The South made the fatal mistake of not venturing into industrial production where good money to finance the war could have been made with the production of the staple foods.
The South was able to cultivate vast quantities of the staple crops and since they lacked the industries, the North bought them and used them in their industries. In turn, they sold the finished products to the South.
In addition, since the South was mainly dependant on agricultural products, its soldiers could leave the battlefield every spring to harvest their ready crops since their families and themselves could risk starving if they were unable to do this. On the other hand, the Union forces had no analogous responsibilities and they were committed to the war. This economic superiority of the North gave them a greater boost during the war.
In terms of communication, the Union was better placed, and it proved to be an important strength during the war years. The Union controlled the means of transportation at that time. Of the thirty thousand miles of railroads, the Union enjoyed the control of twenty thousand of them.
The North was capable of transporting the requirements of the war both cheaply and conveniently, to almost everywhere they were required in the battlefield (Griess, 2). Consequently, the morale of the army was also increased since they could get supplies in time. In addition, their well-trained naval forces blocked the ports of the Southerners, which further impeded their communication and transport.
The Confederacy, however, with its insufficient production of about 4% of the countrys locomotives and limited control of the railroad, it stood inferior as compared to its enemies. In addition, the South did not embrace the new method of using telegraph as a means of communication. Telegraph communication enabled instant communication in the North while the South did not have adequate funds to embrace this new technology.
In conclusion, the American Civil War was a trying moment for both the South and the North. However, its outcome was apparent from the start since the confederacy was ill equipped for such a war. Nonetheless, as devastating as the war was, the opposing states grew closer together and the United States of America became truly united. Although the Union won the war, it managed to settle the differences it had with the Confederacy.
Works Cited
Griess, Thomas E. American Civil War. New York: Square One Publishers, 2008. Print.
Tulloch, Hugh. The debate on the American Civil War era. Manchester: Manchester Univ. Press, 1999. Print.
When the former colony of the British Empire rose up in rebellion, the ragtag army led by General Washington defeated the battle-scarred war machine of the English army. The founding fathers of the United States of America declared that all men are equal and proceeded to build a great nation. But less than a century later, the words uttered in the Declaration of Independence became the bone of contention between North and South.
The former wanted to abolish slavery while the latter desperately wanted to perpetuate an institution that they desperately needed to sustain their way of life. The Southern states believed that it is their right to own and utilize slaves and then declared that they do not want any part of the Union.
The government was forced to go to war to preserve the Union. In the aftermath of the bloody war, the South was devastated by the scorch earth policy of the North. Looking back it would have been better if diplomacy prevailed and that guns, cannons and bayonets were never used to settle an issue.
Introduction
In the 19th century the United States went through a tumultuous period. Less than a century earlier, the colony of Great Britain secured its independence after trumping British forces in the American Revolution. But the euphoria that came from realizing that they were free from the encumbrances of tyranny was short lived. In the aftermath of the revolution the American people faced the daunting task of building a nation from scratch.
Nation building in itself is very difficult, but the fledgling Union was also pressured to come up with a resolution to a very contentious issue the ownership Negro slaves. Whites and blacks saw two divergent perspectives when it comes to this issue and the struggle brought them to the battlefield to settle their differences.
It has to be pointed out that before the New World became the United States of America, there were two major streams of migration that help build it into one of the most powerful nations on earth. The first one came from Europe and the second one came from Africa. The first one was voluntary the second one was forced. Negro slaves came by the boat loads. Slave traders facilitated their transfer into the hands of their masters.
Slave owners purchased them as if they were cattle. These were also plantation owners who had established themselves as successful owners of vast tracts of land belonging to what will be known as the South.
During those times it was not hard to accept the fact that there are those who are supposed to rule and there are those who are supposed to serve. After the establishment of the Union, it did not take long before ownership of Negro slaves became a divisive issue. As a result nation building took a major step backwards.
Instead of going forward capitalizing from the gains of the American Revolution, Northern and Southern states were at loggerhead in their interpretation of the aforementioned Declaration of Independence. This piece of document meant two different things for two opposing forces. Those who are against slavery used the argument that all men are indeed created equal.
The Southern states on the other hand resented the way the government tried to force their ideas particularly in the area of slave ownership. For them the Declaration of Independence is a reminder that an oppressive government must be challenged and removed from society.
From Old to New
In the 19th century, the world has changed and America has changed. It was already made clear from many declarations as well as the passing of related laws that slavery is no longer an acceptable practice. Slavery had to be abolished.
The Declaration of Independence authored by founding fathers made it very clear that all men are created equal. It is now considered immoral for slave owners to continue enslaving people and treating them like bests of burden.
Even if slave owners will open their hearts and minds to this kind of argument it would be very difficult for them to change overnight. For one, their source of income depended on the use of slaves. Secondly, they have to maintain the status quo where whites are on top and the blacks are at the bottom of the social hierarchy. It would be extremely difficult for them to relinquish control.
This simply means that if the white slave owners will have a sudden change of heart and free their slaves, then no one will run their farms for them. What then will they eat and how can they maintain their lifestyle? This was not an easy question for many landholders and slave owners. Thus, they had to believe in the idea that they had the right to continually own slaves.
Aside from principles of freedom and equality, the abolition of slavery came from the pens and speeches of former slaves as well as sympathizers in the North. Many of the slaves could not wait for the government to rescue them. So they ran away to the North.
In the prelude to the Civil War the national government facilitated the abolition of slavery in many parts of the country. Northern states began to change their policies in favor of Negro slaves. Thus, it encouraged some to escape and flee the South. They were known collectively as abolitionists.
Many of the abolitionists believe in the power of the written word to influence and open the eyes of the many. They continued to do so before, during and after the Civil War. Negro slaves who learned how to read and write while still in bondage used found the chance to use their talents when they were able to escape from their masters.
Through their writings they exposed the wickedness of slavery and this helped many to realize that it is imperative to support the cause of the abolitionists. While there were former slaves who used the pen to fight slavery in the South there were also those who were daring enough to help those fleeing slaves and gave them protection from those who wanted to bring them back to the their owners.
Influential leaders shaped history through their words and actions and one of them was a woman named Harriet Tubman. This lady displayed unusual courage as well as intelligence in maintaining an underground network for helping slaves on the run. When the Civil War erupted she served as soldier, nurse and spy for the Union Army. Before the war Tubman was very successful in leading the Underground Railroad.
This is a network comprised of homes and families willing to risk their lives to aid fleeing slaves. They are mostly Quakers, New England Yankees, and free blacks (Calore, 2008, p.23).
While a system was in place, for the Underground Railroad to work there is a need for an able conductor a sort of a guide that will help Negro slaves travel 15 treacherous miles before they cross the border between North and South. One of the most daring and resourceful conductor was Harriet Tubman.
Tubman was a former slave and came from pure African ancestry. This explains her tenacity and willingness to risk her life just so she can help a great number of Negro slaves escape the horrible life of bondage that she is well acquainted with.
Her popularity is not only aided by her success but also by the strategies that she employed to ensure that her party will never be tracked down and apprehended by their slave masters. According to one report Tubman carried a loaded pistol and threatened the fleeing Negro slaves in her care that she will shoot those who will lose heart and turn back.
Her experience in the Underground Railroad gave her mastery of the terrain that crisscross between North and South as a result, The Union army, realizing that she had extensive knowledge about the geography and many routes in and out of Confederate territory, recruited her to help in their efforts in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida (Eggleston, 2003, p.122).
She proved an invaluable help to the Union army as her expertise would help them save time and also to formulate the correct strategies in fighting the Confederate army.
Her life became an inspiration to many and prompted others to serve in the cause. Tubman was unselfish. She could have died doing all those subversive acts. It is common knowledge during those days that slave masters hired slave hunters whose sole task was to track down, apprehend and drag slaves back to where they belong.
Tubman could have had a chance encounter with a slave hunter but she was able to elude all of them. At the end she was responsible for helping many achieve freedom. Aside from Tubman there was also another influential figure and his name is Frederick Douglass.
Slave owners and their sympathizers can conjure clever arguments against the preservation of the slave system but when Douglass slave spoke out about the cruelty and depravations experienced by Negro slaves it is hard not to agree with his indictment of the said practice, which according to him undermines the greatness of America and he said:
The existence of slavery in this country brands your republicanism as a sham, your humanity as a base pretense, and your Christianity as a lie. It destroys your moral power abroad; it corrupts your politicians at home. It saps the foundation of religion; it makes your name a hissing, and byword to a mocking earth (Lowance, 2003, p. 222).
The words of these great men and women created tremendous pressure so that the Federal Government could no longer ignore the plight of the Negro Slaves. The Union challenged the South to give up their slaves. The South made a move that forced the North to declare war. When the South made known their desire to secede, it was only a matter of time before Union soldiers would invade the South. America was plunged into Civil War.
Douglas, Tubman and other writers and intellectuals were the inspiration of those who were in bondage to aspire for freedom and new identity as freed men and women. But aside from eloquent speakers and gifted writers, Negro slaves were also inspired by those who were drafted by the Federal Government to fight the Confederate Army.
At first it seems that Negro slaves would have to be content to stay at the sidelines and be mere spectators to a war that will determine their destiny as American citizens. But it did not take long before the Union Army decided to recruit them and made them a part of the fighting force that will help liberate their brethren who were still in bondage.
Those who were living as free men in the Northern states were conscripted into the army (Donovan & Griess, 2002, p.21). But officially the first recruitment of blacks took place in the occupied areas of the South and this was made possible by an act passed in July 1862 (Donovan & Griess, 2002, p.21).
This is clearly a strategic move as well as a political one. There is need for more troops and what could be a better solution than to use newly freed slaves in the fight to free others.
The recruitment of former Negro slaves into the Union army was a significant event. When they took on the uniform of the North it was the acceptance that they so desired. According to one local newspaper, It is an honor understood by our fathers who fount on the plains of Chalmette in 1815 & he who defends his fatherland is the real citizen, and this time we are fighting for the rights of our race (Tunnell, 1992, p.71).
A more excited response was recorded when someone said that, From the day that bayonets were placed in the hands of the blacks & the Negro became a citizen of the United States (Tunnell, 71). But freedom came at a price and no one knew how to deal with the aftermath of the Civil War.
Shaping U.S. History
According to Ron Eyerman, Four million slaves were liberated at the end of the civil war. The exact figure was 3, 953, 696, which represents about 12.6 percent of the total American population and 32 percent of the Southern population (2001, p. 23). This is a sizable portion of the population. This figure also means that the whole economic landscape was significantly altered by the event.
The South was devastated and crumbled at the onslaught brought upon by Union soldiers (Franklin, 1994, p.2). On the other hand the Negro slaves were freed and the emancipation that they had hoped for had finally arrived.
It was supposed to be a story book ending. Freedom loving Union troops attacked the Southern states and liberated scores of Negro slaves. If it was a chapter in worlds best fairy tales book, the last scene would have depicted slaves packing up their belongings and leaving their masters home for good, never looking back excited to chart their own destiny.
But it did not end that way. Everyone was so preoccupied with the idea of freeing the slaves that no one had the time to figure out the consequences of such moves.
In the aftermath of the Civil War, the following eyewitness account made it very clear that was should have been avoided, and he wrote, Fields were laid waste, cities burned, bridges and roads destroyed & even most of the woefully inadequate factories were leveled & and if the Union forces did not loot quite as many smokehouses and pantries as they were blamed for, what they did do emphasized the helplessness of the once proud Confederates (Franklin, 1994, p.2).
This could have been averted if only both sides were willing to make a compromise. Yet they did not and even today the impact of the U.S. Civil war can still be felt. Even before the first volley was fired men and women of insight were able to see that a Civil War will serve only to bring the Union close to the brink if extinction.
In the period following the Civil War, in a time known as the Reconstruction, whites and blacks continued to have differing perspectives in the aftermath. The Negro people in the time of Reconstruction were suddenly aware of their rights and yet at the same time fearing that they will never experience the real meaning of freedom. Thus, many of them migrated to the Northern states.
On the other hand while the white people in the South grudgingly accepted defeat as well as the political and economic ramifications of that defeat, they also knew very well that the newly freed slaves will remain second class citizens especially in their states. It would require a successful Civil Rights movement and the passage of time before white and blacks can see eye to eye with regards to equality and human rights.
Importance of Studying History
Without a correct understanding of history one can simplify the events of the U.S. Civil War and say that it was merely a fight for freedom in behalf of the Negro Slaves. Although there is much truth to this statement, much has been left unsaid. It is also important to show that the war was destructive to both blacks and whites.
It is a sad commentary to the post-slavery period that there are many former African-American slaves who were not able to capitalize on freedom. And no one can blame them. They were taken captive from their ancestral land and then placed in an environment where they were treated as animals.
It only takes a few years for the mind to adjust to the new surroundings. And therefore when freedom came, the man has already turned into a non-thinking drone unable to do anything without the guiding whip of the harsh taskmasters.
One of the first African-American intellectual, George Washington Williams wrote about the sad plight of the newly freed slaves, Here were four million human beings without clothing, shelter, homes, and alas most without names.
The galling harness of slavery had been cut off of their weary bodies, and like a worn out beat of burden they stood in their tracks scarcely able to go anywhere (Eyerman, 2001, p. 23). So for every single African-American who was able to rise out of poverty and ignorance there are other countless poor souls who could not figure out the meaning of freedom.
A correct understanding of history will reveal the evils of war. As a result policy makers in the present time will gain wisdom by studying history. They will realize that war must be used a last resort. There are times when war is indeed inevitable. But it must be made clear that war brings with it a destructive force that no army or population can control. In many instances the destruction and the emotional wounds far outweigh the gain.
Conclusion
The U.S. Civil War was one of the most important events in the history of the United States. It was a war that threatened to destroy the Union. In hindsight it would have been better if North and South laid down their differences and worked hard to find a way to resolve their differences. The destruction of the South and the sudden emancipation of Negro slaves created an economic backlash.
The South struggled to rebuild while former Negro slaves are faced with the dilemma of freedom without resources to use in order to create a life of dignity and respect.
Ironically, the war did not solve their problems; it even required a Civil Rights movement in order for the members of the Negro race to experience total emancipation. However, it must be made clear that in a situation where two opposing forces are adamant about the righteousness of their respective stance, there is no other option but to go to war.
References
Calore, P. (2008).The Causes of the Civil War: The Political, Cultural, Economic and Territorial Disputes Between North and South. North Carolina: McFraland & Company, Inc.
Donovan, T. & T. Griess. (2002). The American Civil War. New York: Square One Publishers.
Eggleston, L. (2003). Women in the Civil War. North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc.
Franklin, J. H. (1994). Reconstruction After the Civil War. IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lowance, M. (2003). A House Divided: The Antebellum Slavery Debates in America, 1776-1865. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Tunnell, T. (1992). Crucible of Reconstruction. LA: Louisiana State University.
The term war is defined to be a conflict or a long and overdue disagreement between a group and individual people. In this case, war can be categorised in various groupings depending on the nature and the causal agents. Many parts of the world have experienced war in one way or the other. The origin of civil war can be traced back to the ancient times during the fight for dominion and ownership of various properties all over the world. One of the countries that have exemplified civil war is the United States of America. For instance, there occurred a hellish civil war in the American soils within the period of 1861 and 1865. There was actually no need for the eruption and occurrence of this civil war. This indicated a premise that war is simply one way of destroying the agreement that may be in existence between two or more individuals. It does not pay anything to the residents of the place. However, others may and have always considered war as a weapon to overcome the weak in the society. Moreover, it is one of the ways of eradicating evil in the society.
Between the periods of 1861 and 1865, America experienced one of the deadliest civil wars. It was admitted by the American individuals. This was one of the hell-like ways of solving disagreements between two or more individuals. It was a violent encounter between the American people and other civilians. This was further epitomised by the declaration that more that half a million people lost their lives for the sake of the county, yet with others losing most of their properties. It was actually a civil war between the states of the United States of America.
The war was between the states. The eleven states of the southern region also known as the confederacy, being led by Jefferson Davis, fought against the union that existed. This union was supported by all the Free states. In this states, slave trade had been abolished, and was thus the fighting point for the confederacies. The 1860 marked the election of the republican Abraham Lincoln as the president. The republicans had been fighting for the stop of the expansion of slave trade that was in existence in some states. Before the coming of Abraham as the president, some states had declared secession from the union. The legality of the secession had actually been illegalised by the outgoing president, likewise to the incoming. They both considered it an example of a rebellion.
There was the emergence of rivalries in 1861. This was discernible by some assaults of the martial mechanism at Fort Sumter in the southern part of Carolina. This was subject to the confederate forces. To evoke the central property, Lincoln had to call for unpaid assistant armies from each state. These people were to participate in a battle with the opponent groups. As a result of this, four more states declared their secession. They raised armies as the union maintained their borders as they stood in guard. As much as some states were declaring their secession, some were rejecting the same. They had realised the need for an end in the slave trade within all the American states. There was a further establishment of the naval blockade as the civil war emancipated.
Several rivalries erupted within the states and individual governors who were the subjects of the union. It was after a particular period of time that many individuals and some states were overwhelmed to the side of the republicans. There were other battles as the battle of Gettysburg. Many territories were captured with a resultant reduction in the levels of slave trade in many regions of the United States of America.
The American civil war was actually one of the first and fierce industrial wars in the world. The battle of Gettysburg marked the fierce nature in which individual states could turn out on one another and fight endlessly. This shows that as much as there are conflicts between certain groups of individuals, it is always very crucial to have the two groups come to an agreement that will overshadow their differences. In the battle of the Gettysburg, there were numerous destructions that resumed, even to date. Many weapons were employed extensively. For instance, individuals and the governing bodies embodied the use of weapons as steamships, and other mass-produced weapons. The resultant effects were the destruction of property and lives. The battle was and is still the deadliest wars in the American soils.
In conclusion, there were a number of aspects to be learnt in the American civil war. Some of them include the battle of Gettysburg, American history, the total war, the battles of attrition against some of the leaders of the time and much more. All these are some of the lessons that can inspire and bring out the fact that the American civil war could be prevented as there were many other options that could be involved in solving the problems at hand.
The eighteenth century in the USAs history was marked by critical political events that started with the Constitutions adoption. The colonized territories obtained their independence, which set the benchmark for the future political processes, as well as the tensions related to economic interests, slavery issues, and governance opportunities. This essay will explore the process of establishing a party system in the USAs political life in the eighteenth-nineteenth century, the democratization of politics, and the causes of the American Civil War.
The Reasons for the Rise of Partisan Politics in the Early Republic
The main reason for the rise of the first parties in the Early Republic was the establishment of the central government by the declaration of the Constitution in 1787. The first parties were the Democratic-Republican and the Federalist parties that emerged as the distinctive expressions of political views of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, respectively (Norton et al., 2008). The differences in the views on the Constitution, the approaches to the elimination of economic crises, and other issues were the main concerns in the party development in the Early Republic.
The Development of the Second Party System
Comparison of Whig and Democratic Parties
The Second Party System was the process of the formation of the two main parties, Whig and Democratic, during the beginning of the nineteenth century. The main similarity between these two parties was their shared struggle with the dichotomy of the slavery issue (Norton et al., 2008). As for the differences, Whigs supported corporate charters, a national bank, and paper currency, but Democrats opposed their views (Norton et al., 2008, p. 325). Also, the Whigs supported the power of Congress, and Democrats proclaimed the power of the people.
Leaders and Constituents of the Parties
The leader of the Democratic Party was Andrew Jackson, who, together with his supporters, initiated a movement to increased democracy in the political life of the Republic. Martin Van Buren was one of the most influential constituents of the Democratic Party (Norton et al., 2008). The opponents movement within the newly formed Whig Party was led by Henry Clay, who integrated the Republican Party with other political parties to form a strong Congress-oriented opposition to Jacksons party.
Increased Democratization
The Second Party System period is regarded as the contribution to the increased democratization of the politics in the Republic. This tendency might be explained by the relatively equal representation of the two parties within different regions of the country. Also, the two-party system expanded to broader territories to the states where a single party had usually been dominant. This period allowed for greater inclusion of populations opinions concerning politics.
Major Movements and Events that Led to the Civil War
Pro-Slavery and Abolitionist Arguments
The antebellum period was marked by the rise of anti-slavery movements. Abolitionists claimed slavery was inhumane and fought for equality. However, pro-slavery activists opposed abolitionists arguing for slavery as an affordable and effective tool in gaining economic goals. South was particularly interested in preserving slavery and oppressing abolitionists since there were farms and plantations there that needed slaves workforce.
Westward Expansion and Increasing Sectional Tensions
The growth of the Western territories of the Republic in the nineteenth century caused sectional tensions between the North and the South over the slavery issue in the West. Southerners were interested in the expansion of slavery to the West, while the Northerners fought against slavery. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was aimed at eliminating the issue of slavery from the debate around westward expansion (Norton et al., 2008).
Major Events that Contributed to the Outbreak of the Civil War
The overall political, social, and economic tensions between the South and North contributed to the Civil War. Firstly, the ending of the Mexican War contributed to the increased sovereignty of new states and imposed controversy as per slavery in those states. Secondly, the Fugitive Slave Act triggered an increased abolitionist movement in the North. Thirdly, the publishing and significant popularity of the book Uncle Toms Cabin became a contributor to intensified social movement and tensions that led to war (Norton et al., 2008). Thus, the partisan tendencies and democratization of the politics in the Early Republic have led to tensions between the parties, as well as between the South and North over slavery and other issues that ultimately led to the Civil War.
Reference
Norton, M. B., Kamensky, J., Sheriff, C., Blight, D. W., & Chudacoff, H. (2008). A people and a nation: A history of the United States. Cengage Learning.
Reconstruction Era in America is a period that that refers to the entire history of the United States covering the period from 1865 1877. It is the period following the civil war. Reconstruction can as well refer to a period in which the southern states were to be transformed with the aim of reintroducing them back to the union. The reconstruction plan was brought forward by President Abraham Lincoln (Richter, 2004).
The southern states were supporting confederacy, and the reconstruction was to make them support the United States. They were to free all the slaves after the reconstruction. However, this was not easy, and much did not change after the reconstruction. The aim of this paper is to analyze how reconstruction changed the United States after the civil war.
Reconstruction
Abraham Lincoln became the president of the United States in the year 1860. It was a time dominated by the crushes between the northern states and the southern states. Lincoln came with the plan of reconstruction. He was determined to make the southern states get back to the union, but he said he had no intention of opposing slavery. In his first inaugural statement, Lincoln said that he was not going to interfere with the institution of slavery since he had no legal right to that (Zinn 2005).
However, after the civil war, if the southern states rejoined the union it could mean that slavery would no longer be allowed. The southern states had to free all the slaves, and this was to be like a punishment to them for their attempt to split the nation into two. The president was assassinated in the year 1865, and his vice Andrew Johnson took over as the president of the US.
He came in with a different plan to forgive the southern states. Under President Johnson, the southern states were to be allowed back to the union after their governor approved the 13th amendment which was to free all the slaves. By the year 1870, the states had rejoined the union (Peacock, 2003).
Reconstruction helped reduce the mistreatment of the black people in America and especially in the south. Before reconstruction, the number of illiterate black Americans was unusually high. In fact, it is reported that 90% of the blacks were illiterate by the time slavery was abolished.
The number of the illiterate blacks reduced to less than 70 percent by the 1880. Illiteracy among the blacks continued to reduce further in the following 20 years, and by 1900, it was below 50%. This was a significant change that was achieved as a result of reconstruction. However, the number of literate black Americans was still far below the as compared to that of whites. It was an improvement from what it used to be before the reconstruction (Perman & Taylor, 2011).
In addition, the economic status of the blacks also improved after the reconstruction. Reconstruction is a period in which the slaves were to be freed. It allowed them to fight for increased wages in the plantations where they worked. According to Perman & Taylor (2011), slaves made up what was referred to as the human capital. After the freeing of the slaves, the capital ownership was transferred to the free slaves.
Before the emancipation of the slaves, they could only receive 22 percent of the income that was realized from the cotton plantations. The percentage increased to 56% after emancipation. Black people now received a larger share of the income. Their living conditions were better as their economic status had improved (Perman & Taylor, 2011).
Reconstruction also reversed the laws of the relationship between the wage earners and the landlords. There existed the Black codes which ensured that the black lived in dependency of their masters. This had worsened their economic status as well but was improved after reconstruction.
End of Reconstruction
Northern soldiers were sent to the southern states so as to enforce the reconstruction laws. The southerners were opposed to the laws and did not want the blacks to be given the rights to vote as well as other rights to go to school and get employment. They formed groups such as the Ku Klux Klan which were to make the lives of the black people hard. The northern soldiers started to withdraw from the south making the blacks be treated harshly by the southerners.
By the year, 1876, all the northern soldiers were removed from the South by President Rutherford B. Hayes, and this marked the end of reconstruction. Reconstruction was ended through the compromise of 1877 which also helped to settle the election disputes that saw Rutherford handed the white house office (Kennedy, Cohen & Piehl 2011).
By the time reconstruction came to an end in the year 1877, it had not achieved its main aim which had been to free the slaves from the oppression of the Southern elites. The Northern soldiers had given up on the bid to defend the blacks. They were forced out of the south with their mission not completed. This was due to the resilience of the Southern whites to oppose the freedom of the black people.
After Reconstruction
After the Northern soldiers were withdrawn from the South, the Southerners took full control of their states. They started to treat the black men harshly with no fear. Reconstruction did not help to change the way of thinking of the southerners, and they still believed that they are superior to the blacks and that the blacks should not be given the rights to vote.
After the civil war, the segregation of the black people was written into law. In addition, 19 out of 24 northern states denied the blacks the right to vote after the civil war. Discrimination was not written into law in the Northern states. However, it was believed that the practice of discrimination and racism was still there.
Negros oppression in the south was at its climax. They were given all mistreatment. As Zinn (2005) writes in his book, for the Negros in the south, it was a time of burning and hanging. It is described as the time when the blacks life in America was at its lowest point. They were denied education they claimed that the government had betrayed them, and they were also living in absolute poverty.
The Negros working in the Southern plantations were not paid at all. For those who got a pay for their labor, they could only get as low as 50 cents in a day. The blacks were tied in the plantations by debts whereby the plantation owners ensured the blacks were always in debts.
The economy of the United States had gone down in the year 1873. After the civil war, it was a time when the political leaders of the South together with those of the North decided to organize a march of economic growth. In this bid, during the period between the civil war and 1900, use of machinery in the plantations was introduced. Human labor was to be replaced by machines for improved production. Infrastructure began to be developed and transportation was made easier.
Labor force now came from Europe and china to America. During the same period, the United States gold reserves depleted. However, despite efforts to rebuild the economy of the nation, the government was still serving the interests of the rich people and settling their disputes so that they can control the poor people rebellion (Zinn 2005). When Grover Cleveland became president in the year 1884, his stand was different from that of the republicans whose candidate stand was from the wealthy class.
Conclusion
Reconstruction was a mission that was aimed at bringing the southern states back to the union and to end slavery. The Southern people were not ready to abandon slavery, and as a result, they opposed that idea. They formed organizations such as the Ku Klux Clan which were aimed at denying the blacks any form of freedom.
The blacks were given rights to vote and get an education but this did not last long. The resilience of the southern forced the Northern soldiers to give up on reconstruction, and blacks freedom continued to be denied. After the civil war, reconstruction did not achieve much change in America as it was intended.
References
Kennedy, D. M., Cohen, L., & Piehl, M. (2011). The brief American pageant: A history of the Republic. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Peacock, J. (2003). Reconstruction: Rebuilding after the Civil War. Mankato, Minn: Bridgestone Books.
Perman, M., & Taylor, A. M. (2011). Major problems in the Civil War and Reconstruction: Documents and essays. Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Richter, W. L. (2004). Historical dictionary of the Civil War and Reconstruction. Lanham [u.a.: Scarecrow Press.
Zinn, H. (2005). A peoples history of the United States: 1492 present. New York: Harper Perennial.
The American civil war (1861-1865) was idealistic since the combatants were driven particularly by principles rather than comrade power. A large number of those men in blue and gray were intensely aware of the issues at stake and passionately concerned about them. [1] The war was as a result of the unrest between the federal government and eleven Southern states that wanted to split from the United States (Union). The main issue at hand was slavery, the rights of the states and conflicts over trade and tariffs.
The North was against slavery and this intimidated the Southern economy since it was founded on slaves who labored in plantations. The victory of Abraham Lincoln, a Republican in 1860 saw secession of the South who claimed that they had a right to possess slaves. This saw creation of the Confederate States of America or the Confederacy in the South under the leadership of Jefferson Davis. The North became the Union under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln who was the president.
The North was more populated and more economically stable due to growth in transport and industrial sectors as compared to the south. According to McPherson, Confederates fought for independence, for their property and way of life, for their survival as a nation [2] while the Yankees fought early in the war to preserve the Union against the threat of `dissolution, anarchy, and ruin.[3]
The confederacy wanted to secede from the United States which was for antislavery. Consequently, the Unions nationalism took secession as an affirmation of treason. As a result, the civil war was initiated on 12th April, 1861 at Fort Sumter, Charleston, S.C. when the Confederate attacked the U. S military[4].
Lincoln commanded the army to volunteer and seize the federal possession where further secessions were announced by the confederacy. This triggered the military forces from both sides to join the war where thirty thousand Union soldiers moved to Richmond, Virginia a confederate capital. However, they faced resistant from confederate troops where they moved to Washington D.C.
This was a mark of defeat for the Union and five hundred thousand troops were recruited to the war as Lincoln declared Emancipation Proclamation in 1862, whose aim was to abolish slavery in the South during the war without any international intervention. The period was characterized by bloody warfare over four years where the confederacy defeat meant the end of slavery in every state in America. The Union became more powerful as the federal government, able to accomplish various tasks in the Reconstruction period.
Union and Confederate soldiers view the issue of slavery
Slavery was initially viewed as risky to republicans because of slave power. Wealthy whites who processed slaves took advantage of their political power over the governments leadership, Supreme Court as well as the Congress which was intimidating to the occupants of the north.
However, this changed over time as the soldiers of the Union and the Confederacy viewed slavery as the cause of sectionalism. This was reflected where the Northern economy, social setups and political norms differed significantly from those of the south. The North had abolished the issue of slavery and therefore, it had become more industrialized, improved its infrastructure to become more urbanized with a high population and many resources.[5]
Conversely, the South strongly upheld the slaves to labor in plantations as well as in the Whites farms. Therefore, the South incorporated fresh farms in the southwest states ranging from Alabama up to and including Texas. As a result, the south was rural and ragged behind in industrialization. Due to this fact, abolition of slaves in the Southern states whose economy relied heavily on slavery was a nail in the coffin.
This triggered hostility in the confederacy troops who claimed that it was the Souths rights to possess slaves. This was however rejected by the North whose aim was to curb further extension of slavery. The whites were moving towards the north in large numbers and wished to carry their slaves with them. However, the north resisted this and pointed out that slaves property could not be allowed in Free states since this was against their mission of stopping father extension of slavery.
Soldiers utilization of American Revolution ideas in war
The military employed railroads, steamships, and strong weapons and telegraphs during the war. The civil war was a war of complex ideals which could be tracked at the period of colonization. The confederate and union soldiers were driven mostly by principle ie slavery in which the south considered it p[art and parcel of their lifestyle.
Conversely, the northern were critical on morality as well as pragmatism to curb slavery hence, maintain the Union. Slavery had established in 1619 in Virginia where during the American Revolution, many Northern States rejected the issue while Southern states still used slaves in their plantations. Preceding the civil war, there were several conflicts arising as a result of the issue of slavery. For instance, this issue triggered debates such as the Compromise of 1820 and that of 1850.
As a result, the nineteenth century was characterized by conflicts between the North and the South where the north wanted to abolish slavery while the South aimed at defending it. As long as the South were in power of the federal government, they were safe about retaining slavery within their borders. Many presidents emerged from the South and this helped them achieve control over the senate.
New states were joining the Union and this followed that compromises had to be met so as to balance the Free and Slave States. However, the balance was eventually set off when Free states exceeded the slave states. All the same according to McPherson, the civil war marked a fight back for 1776 heritage established by the Founding Fathers where the Southerners pursued liberty from an oppressive government as opposed to the Northerners view that for republicans to thrive, secession had to be illegitimated.
Declaration of Independence was meant to maintain a democratic America either through secession or being in the Union.[6] This could be the case since the soldiers from both sides were learned and experienced in pursuing a frontline idealism as indicated through their diaries and letters they wrote in their course of the war.
Reason for the lack of political solution to the issue of slavery
The politicians eventually were unable to precisely achieve a political solution to the issue of slavery because over time, slaves were included in the army. Also the combatants became patriotic and tended to embrace the character of duty, honor and country. [7] The Confederacy only had to defend their values whereas the North had to actively capture southern territories for them to acquire victory.
Lincoln utilized the Emancipation proclamation for unions advantage which rejected international intervention that the confederate would have utilized to destroy the blockade. The war only destroyed the southern economy where slaves were inevitably held useless as the Northern economy became stronger. The slaves were used by the union in the war for its benefit over the Confederate, which could not engage slaves in the war.
However, political disagreements on abolishment of slavery and curbing secession became problematic after the war. Mere victory was not enough since the confederacy was to become incorporated in the union without having to include their pro-slavery elements. Therefore, after the war, the federal government had to use the Emancipation Proclamation and pass the Thirteenth Amendment which would give freedom to the slaves in the Confederacy and Border States respectively.
Change of reasons for fighting the war over time
Over time, although the soldiers motive for fighting changed, the general motives for fighting the war drifted from liberty and republicanism. [8] This was through abolition of slavery as a right for in the southern states to other reasons, which focused on soldiers and economic purposes.
They embraced aspects of liberty still in pursuing the issue of slavery. Initially, the Anaconda plan for instance was drafted by Winfield Scott and aimed for the North to war with minimal deaths and casualties. Thus he proposed a Union blockade on major ports to collapse the Souths economy through scarcity of basic supplies, which affected the living standards of Southern citizens including slaves who lacked essential commodities such as food[9].
The Confederate navy had to act as they attacked the Union navy although they lost since they did not have the technology for creating strong warships. As war continued, the declaration of the Emancipation Proclamation encouraged ex-slaves who had escaped to engage in war to safeguard the Union which was facing a shortage of soldiers while the South were looking for other means of reinforcing its military forces.
Bibliography
McPherson, James. What they fought for, 1861-1865, Baton Rouge: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 1995.
Footnotes
James McPherson, What they fought for, 1861-1865 (New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 1995), 4
Liberia is a country located on the shores North Atlantic Ocean in West Africa. Covering an area of 43,000 sq. miles and having a population of around 3.49 million people, its capital city is Monrovia, which has a population of 1.01 million. In addition, the countrys annual economic growth rate as at 2008 was 2.1%.
Unlike most African countries, Liberia was never officially colonized; it became a republic in 1847, having been established by slaves who had been sent to the country from the US after being set free. Liberia therefore regards the United States of America as its pseudo-colonialist. There are 16 indigenous tribes in Liberia with the most dominant group being the Kpelle accounting for about 20% of the population.
There are also descendants of freed slaves that arrived in Liberia after 1820, who make up less than 5% of the population (US Department of State, 2010). The population of Liberia is predominantly Christian (85%) with Muslims forming a sizeable percentage, 12% (US Department of State, 2010). Moreover, the official language of Liberia is English.
Liberias mainly depends on agriculture, with rubber being its cash crop. For many years, Liberia was among the stable countries in Africa until the onset of the civil war, which ravaged the country and brought it onto its knees. The country is now trying to recover from the devastating war, with political reforms being put in place. Liberia held its first democratic elections in November 2005, with Ellen Johnson Sirleaf emerging victorious to rule the nation and become the pioneer African woman to head country democratically elected.
History of the Liberian civil war
Since the inception of Liberia as a republic, it has been ruled mainly by the Americo-liberians. This is despite the fact that they account for less than 5% of the population. This group created legislation, which ensured that they remain in power. They ensured that the members of indigenous communities could not be allowed to vote until 1946 when the law was repealed.
However, the domination of the americo-liberians continued until 1980 when a group from the indigenous Krahn tribe, led by Samuel Doe, staged a military coup against the government that was led by William Tolbert, an Americo-liberians (Insight on Conflict, 2010).
In a surprise turn of events, Doe put to death William Tolbert and many other officials of his government who were mainly americo-liberians and aided in the formation of Peoples Redemption Council (PRC), a party of the indigenous Liberians. This party ousted the True Whig Party, which had been in leadership since the inception of the republic (US department of state).
However, Does subsequent rule was characterized by very cruel oppression of political opponents and general nepotism towards his ethnic tribe of Krahn. The favoritism of the Krahn tribe created ethnic tensions between them and other ethnic groups.
Doe continued to rule the country until its invasion from Ivory Coast by Charles Taylor, former minister in Does government. By early 1990, Taylor controlled much of Liberia but Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) prevented him from seizing Monrovia. In fact, the power struggle between Taylor and Doe created a very bloody civil war (US department of state, 2010).
ECOWAS facilitated a peace agreement, which led to the formation of a five-man transition government, leading to disarmament and eventually elections on 19th July 1997 (US department of state, 2010). Charles Taylors National Patriotic Party worn the elections by collecting 75%; however, democracy led to increased ethnic tensions in the groups, which were loyal to the opponents of Charles Taylor.
At the same time, Taylors support for a rebel faction involved in the Sierra Leone civil war, the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), led to regional tensions. This later led to renewed violence in Liberia. The second civil war was ignited by conflict between the Liberians for Reconciliation and Democracy (LURD) group and the local community; however, the government could do little to quell the situation as a result of sanctions, a situation that accelerated the spread to the strife in the country killing dozens of citizens.
This culminated in the eventual resignation of Taylor in 2003 after he had lost control of about two thirds of Liberia leading to the arrival of peacekeepers to quell the heavy fighting in the capital Monrovia. Taylor was thereafter put to trial in Sierra Leone due to his support of the RUF, which was involved in the Sierra Leone civil war (Insight on conflict, 2010).
Among the root causes of the first civil war in Liberia was ethnicity between the tribes of Liberia. This problem was first cultivated by the americo-liberians who founded the state of Liberia. They denied the indigenous tribes the right to vote in elections and put in place other legislations, which generally oppressed the indigenous Liberians. This was despite the fact that they were not indigenously Liberians and accounted for a very small percentage of the total Liberian population
Literature review
Many different scholars have studied the civil war in Liberia and proposed different causes of the conflict. One such explanation of the Liberian civil war is the ethnic theory. The country was divided into the americo-liberians and 16 indigenous groups. The people who controlled the country both politically and economically were the americo-liberians; and each of the groups had its own institutions, cultures, and values, as well as motives.
The americo-liberians wanted total political and economic control of the country despite the fact that they formed less than 5% of the total population of the country. In addition, the americo-liberians dominated the political and economic aspects of Liberia from 1847-1980. However, they were succeeded by another ethnic community, the Krahn, which dominated the country from 1980-1999. Moreover, each of the groups that was in power tried to benefit only people from the same ethnic group (Kieh, 2008, p18).
Another explanation of the causes of civil war in Liberia is known as the settler state theory. This theory classifies the Liberian community into two groups: the settlers and the indigenous group. The settlers, the americo-liberians, came from abroad and their main agenda was to establish domination in the country where they settled.
The settlers saw themselves as superior to the indigenous group. They tried to make the indigenous group conform to their cultures and termed the cultures of the indigenous group as backward. After the indigenous groups accepted the cultures of the settlers, they formulated laws to help them acquire land and have general domination over the indigenous group. The settlers also gradually become autonomous from the mother nation, and then established systems to advance their general agenda (Kieh, 2008 p25).
Both these theories have been used to explain the causes of Liberian civil war. However, these theories are not correct; one important point to note is that in both cases, the theories explain that the civil war is caused by general inequality in the Liberian society with some groups of people being superior to others.
The levels of inequalities between the americo-liberians and the indigenous communities are very high in Liberia. Indeed, the americo-liberians control a large part of the social, economic, and political spheres of the Liberian society.
Possible solutions
Many countries in Africa have had civil wars including Angola, Congo-Kinshasa, Congo-Brazzaville, Sierra Leone, and Ivory Coast, with Angola having had the longest civil war in Africa (Handelman, 2010). However, depending on how a country tackles the challenges posed by civil war, it may be the springboard for a nations path to prosperity.
Many countries have emerged even stronger after being on the brink of total collapse due to civil war. For instance, the American civil war helped America to become even stronger politically and economically. Immediately after the war, measures were taken to ensure equality of blacks who were considered inferior to the whites. This was through the enactment of various legislations by the state, with the thirteenth amendment to the constitution (1865) abolishing slavery.
The congress then passed legislation to ensure that the blacks had more freedom (the civil Rights Act). This gave the blacks the freedom to enter into contracts, own property and bear witness in court, as well as giving the blacks more economic and political freedom. These and other legislations allowed the states that had left the Union to come back to the union, the result of which was consolidation of peace and prosperity of the United States of America.
To reduce the probabilities of occurrence of civil war the government must be able to fully tackle the underlying problems that led to the civil war so that there may be long-term prosperity. In Liberia, the greatest problem has mainly been lack of ethnic equality and fair distribution of resources.
These are the main factors that led to the first and second Liberian civil wars. However, the government must first tackle the immediate problems that the country faces due to the prolonged civil war. Disarmament of the youth should be among the priorities of the government.
The government must also devise means of integrating these youths into the community to avoid recurrent violence; for instance, the youth must be taught how to coexist peacefully with other members of the community (Youth in Humanitarian Crises, 2010).
The government must also create ways of rebuilding the infrastructure, which was destroyed by the war. These include transport and communication systems, electricity, and improvement in security.
However, the most important measure to guarantee prosperity would be the enactment of legislation, which gives economic and political freedom to the population. This would ensure peace and therefore help in attracting foreign investors into the country, thereby helping in job creation and reduction of other problems caused by the war (Radelet, 2007, p 8).
The government must also ensure that there is peace and security, in addition to revitalization of the economic activity. Primarily, the majority of Liberians are dependent on agriculture for their income, with rubber being the main cash crop. Therefore, the government should move in quickly to restore the agricultural production in the country through subsidies and other viable agricultural policies. This will not only enhance food supply in the country, but also create jobs for ex-fighters, refugees, and youth.
The opening up of the economy through the reduction of barriers to trade will lead attraction of investments in manufacturing and services industries. This will create jobs for both skilled and unskilled people while at the same time enhancing exports, thereby enabling the government get the much-needed foreign exchange.
Finally, the government should strengthen the governance and establish the rule of law in the country, strive to create an efficient civil service and eradicate corruption and impunity. The government should also strengthen the judiciary and parliament so that the two may act as foundation for the rule of law (Radelet, 2007, p 9).
Conclusion
Most third world countries have at one time of their existence either had a civil conflict or are still in a state of civil war. Therefore, civil war presents a major setback for most third world countries in achieving economic and political prosperity. These countries must therefore be able to understand the reasons of civil war in order to avoid them at any cost.
Since most third world countries have had the experience of civil war at one time of their existence, how they tackle their post civil war problems determines so much about their future path to prosperity. This will also apply to Liberia, a country that is currently recovering from the pangs of civil war that had significant and adverse effect on its socio-economic and political environments.
References
Handelman, H. (2009). The challenge of Third World development: NJ: Prentice Hall Pearson.
Insight on conflict. (2010). Conflict Profile: Liberia. Web.