Category: Civil War

Post-Civil War Reconstruction (1865-1877)

Prior to the American Civil War of the 1860s, the American economy, particularly the Southern States, was driven by agricultural production. New markets in Europe were the driving force behind this economy. The cash crop of the day was cotton, and the import countries included France, New England and Britain. Initially, agricultural production was organized in small scale, but with increasing demand, it was transformed to large scale production.

Consequently, there was growing need for labor in these large plantations of the south. In effect, it sparked slave trade and slavery that provided for cheap labor. This was how Trans-Atlantic Trade was borne and hence Black oppression.

Slavery was the main recipe for the American Civil War of the 1865. While the White Northerners were opposed to it, their Southern counterparts embraced it. In the post-Civil War, a Northern victory meant that the Blacks were disenfranchised as Emancipation Proclamation was declared.

The 13^th, 14^th and 15^th amendments were passed giving Blacks suffrage rights as well as protecting them. As a result, the Blacks enjoyed a brief spell (before 1977) of partial equality with their White counterparts. In a conclusion, the above literature underscores the fact that the foreign affairs influenced the American domestic issues a great deal.

Late 19^th century industrialization

The 19^th century in the US represents an era in the American history when mechanization of production was intense. Factories were mushrooming allover accelerating the growth of metropolitan cities. The then factories were typified by machines driven by shafts, belts and wheels, with the driving force being steam engines thanks to James Watts. Also, the layout of the factories was such that the machines lay randomly on the flow.

There was no systematic production and hence there was a natural feel to streamline the system. Within a short time in the mid 19^th century, America was, deep, into industrial revolution where division of labor, specialization and mechanization were the buzzwords. The essence was to promote mass production thanks to assembly lines.

This idea was adopted from shipbuilding industry based in England. Also, it was during this period that the need to standardize machinery parts for the sake of interchangeability came to light. This was adopted from France by Thomas Jefferson. These two ideas metamorphosed American industries which came to be termed as American system of manufacturing (Backer 3)

Industrial revolution changed societies as skilled laborers were rendered obsolete. For instance, Blanchards fourteen-assembly, gun making machine in 1926 rendered skilled workers redundant. On the other hand, Henry Ford developed cheap automobile and further enhanced mobility.

Reform movements in the 19^th Century

In the United States, the reform movements of the 19^th century were entirely politically driven. These movements which include abolitionism, temperance and religious movements functioned to change the American society a great deal. Importantly, some of these movements were global, spanning way beyond the American border. For instance, abolitionism was a global movement to stem slave trade.

Ideally, abolitionism had its roots way back in the mid 16^th century when the Spanish government enacted the first law rendering slavery illegal. However, this was not actively enforced. Then a century on, the English Quakers condemned slavery terming it un-Christian. In the 18^th century, abolition was one of the core themes fronted by the First Great Awakening, a movement signed by 13 colonies.

These anti-slavery campaigns would later spread to the US such that in the wake of the 19^th century, most Northern States had abolished slavery altogether. Consequently, the Northern Blacks were granted freedom, nevertheless, racism and discrimination would not end until the mid 20^th century.

Life in the United States in the 1920s

The 1920s in the American history is a period when America was beaming with life, and as such, to many, this period would come to be referred to as the Roaring Twenties. Social and cultural life was changing among the American citizens. Remarkably, there was the enactment of the 18^th Amendment which rendered alcoholism illegal.

Prohibition played to the advantage of the Christian faith, bringing joy to evangelists who envisioned restoration of values to a society characterized by loose morals. Ironically, violence became even more pronounced. For instance, the KKK gang resurfaced, disguising under names like Wizard and Dragon.

This group was against Catholicism, African Americans, Jews, and immigrants who fled from oppression in their home countries. To this end, immigrants who were fleeing Eastern Europe were viewed as inferior by the natives and hence suffered discrimination.

Importantly, with a stable economy, the US was able to use its financial muscle abroad, executing the Dawes Plan in post-WWI, and financed German when it was unable to pay reparations to both Britain and France.

Depression and New Deal in the 1930s

The Great Depression came in the aftermath of the WWI in the year 1929 during President Hoovers era. This was an era in the American history when the economy lay in ruins, crippling financial institutions and industries, subsequently causing an unsurpassed unemployment rate hitherto.

The people back then would hardly forget the Black Tuesday when the stock market came crushing down. Vitally, the economic recess was experienced not only in the US but also in Europe. As such, states went ahead to cushion their industries against collapse by increasing tariffs on imported goods. This did not auger well with the US where the situation aggravated.

Consequently, Hoovers successor, President Roosevelt, came in with his New Deal ideas to relieve the citizens, recover and reform the financial systems. This improved the economy with industries and agricultural sector receiving stimulus package to boost production and employment.

United States in World War II and the Cold War that Followed

The WWII was triggered by Germans aggression on the Poles. However, the US did not engage in the war initially owing to its foreign policy. America was by then committed to its isolationist policy with President Roosevelt devoted to improving the US economy following the Great Depression. Nonetheless, the US changed its foreign policy with the industrial production embracing artillery manufacture.

As such, the US was gearing up for an imminent war that was later sparked by Japan. Back home, the citizens were committed to the war, evident by their willingness to persevere with rationing on the basic commodities (Reischauer 12). The US would later launch its atomic bombs on Japan killing tens of thousands and hence marking the end of the war. In a nutshell, the Axis forces (German, Italy and Japan) were defeated by the Allies (US, Soviet Union, Great Britain, France).

The end of WWII marked yet again the beginning of a new era that was the Cold War, pitting the US and the Soviet Union. The former was wary of the spread of communism by the later, which was spreading like a bushfire across Europe. This influenced Americas domestic policies where Compliance Law came to force to expunge communism.

Reform and Revolution in the 1960s

The 1960s was a decade when reforms were fought in earnest on the American soil. Most of these reforms were fronted by the students with most of their agenda driven by the need for a change in lifestyle. On the other hand, mainstream politicians were campaigning for an end to poverty, the need for government to extend care to the elderly, and the need for the state to offer equal education opportunities across all age groups.

Furthermore, in this dilemma, there was the American foreign policy and the Vietnam War which sparked more protests. To this end, the aggression meted on the Vietnamese greatly influenced the peoples behavior back home. A series of protests by students and by civil rights groups orchestrated by Martin Luther Jr. were the hallmark of the sixties.

Consequently, the fruits of their struggles were realized with the congress enacting a number of legislations including Civil Rights Acts of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Medicare and Medicaid among others (Leuchtenburg 5). Also, the government put to an end the Vietnam War in the early seventies.

Conservative Reaction in the 1970s and 1980s

The two decades stretching from the 1970s to the 1980s was the period in the American history when conservatives (Republicans) were in control of the congress with a brief interruption of Democrat rule. The 70s was the era of Nixon, Ford and Carter, with the later being a Democrat. The 80s came to be known as the Reagan Era, a Republican.

Significantly, this era was one characterized by competing ideologies from conservatives who were worried of the diluting social values among the American society. Conservatives preferred Republicans who embraced the rule of law and supported Christianity no wonder they enjoyed a long spell in power.

Vitally, they were worried of the foreign influence, for instance, the threat posed by totalitarian governments viewed in most parts of Europe. Nonetheless, they managed to restore sanity in the society and allayed foreign threat.

Works Cited

Backer, Partricia. Industrialization of American Society. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009. Print.

Leuchtenburg, William. Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal. New York: Harper and Row, 1963. Print.

Reischauer, Robert. Countdown to Reform. New York: The Century Foundation Press, 1998. Print.

It is argued that Americans thrive under crisis and that crisis yields the best from American citizens. The American civil is termed as the greatest historical event in American history. The significance of this war is that it helped form the foundation of the modern day American civilization marked by freedom, liberty for all and respect to basic human rights (Kingseed 2). Several historians as well as scholars have come forth to offer explanation about the civil.

These explanations highlight a number of issues connected to the war. Some of these issues include the social cultural perspective of the war, the economic aspects, the political dimensions of the wars and the roles that various people played in the war (Kingseed 1). Most significantly the war has been given a masculine connotation such that a lot of credit has been taken away from the involvement of both southern and northern women directly and indirectly in the war.

Studies of the civil war literature reveal that women were active participants in the war in more ways than one. It has been revealed that other than being nurses in nursing homes where they treated soldiers and other war casualties, women also acted as spies and they were also disguised as men who fought gallantly as soldiers.

The involvement of women in was necessitated by a number of factors such as defending civilian camps when men left to engage at the war fronts (Blanton 1). Other roles include cooking, cleaning as well as relief work. Thus gender roles are a significant issue in analysis of the American Civil War as women made significance contributions.

In the south the role of women took a more social economic perspective. This is true especially for the white women. The white women were divided into two social classes; the rich and the poor. The elite rich woman took a more aggitative role during the war. They nudged their men to enlist in the war as soldiers and fight for the secession of states like Georgia.

Elite women appealed to the ego and manhood of their husbands by asking them to honorably register as soldiers. When their men did this left a big gaping hole at home. These roles, among them farming, running of homes, running of business and many other that were traditionally let for men were now being played by women. Elite women thus ensured a smooth running of homes in absence of their men (Georgia Encyclopedia paras 2  5). As such this role greatly contributed to the victory of the Federal Forces.

While the elite women took a more active role, the middle class and poor women in the southern states bore the much of the economic grudge of the war. These women were more susceptible to the destructive effects of the war. While their elite counter parts pressed their husband to enlist in the war, these women pressed the pressed the state governments to exclude their husbands from war.

This is due to the fact that they were shouldering the entire burden of feeding their families and due to the sever food shortages occasioned by the war they needed their husbands back home. They also pressed the states government for food relief and when the state government did nothing they lead food looting riots in many towns (Georgia Encyclopedia paras 7  9).

The success of any war depends on the roles that spies play in passing important war intelligence especially about the enemy. The American Civil War was no exception. Women provided spy services in many different ways. In some instances women would travel great distances in great peril to warn enemy forces. In 1862, a woman traversed through the woods for more than 40 kilometers to warn the union forces that the confederate forces were intending to damage the Cheat River Bridge.

Such spy work lead to the protection of the bridge by the union forces (Full Valley Archive (a) para 2). Other than travelling in person, women also wrote letters that contained war intelligence and passed it to their armies. Such letters included the letter written to the confederate forces warning of a union wagon movement through Chambersburg (Full Valley Archive (b) para 2).

It is argued that women did better espionage work than men could possibly ever do during this war. This is because women were not expected to be involved in war due to the fact that both the Confederate and the Union Forces looked down upon the involvement of women in war (Blanton para 8). The success of women spies was also reinforced by another some shrewd tactics that enemy forces were oblivious of. The tactic included the charm and the power of women seduction.

One of the renowned seductress spy was Antonia Ford, a federal sympathizer who provide lot of intelligence from the union forces. Ford is said to have used most of her time rehearsing seduction techniques that included dressing, posing and the art of seductive speech. She is said to have possessed such powers that it was so easy for her to retrieved war secrets form the Union Forces (Phillips 55). In one such incident Ford seduced the union soldier who had come to harbor in her family house.

She was able to get and convey useful information about the unions intent of using confederate colors to confuse the Federal Forces. The consequent saving of the confederates defeat by Fords work highlight the roles that southern and northern women spies played in the war (Phillips 59).

The American Civil War has been presented as a masculine war, with the role of women obscured by mens. Civil war researchers are of the opinion that women too emerged in front line battles as soldiers (Blanton para 1).

A number of brave women were involved in military exploits as were the male soldiers. These women also suffered the same fate as their male counterparts, such as suffering in military camps as well as the mistreatment subjected to kidnapped soldiers. These women also took arms and engaged in violent confrontations with enemy forces.

Both the union and the confederate armies did not allow for enlisting of women soldiers. As such the women who intended to engage in war disguised themselves men. They even took masculine names and shed of anything that might have given their feminine identity way. All this was in the desire to help their Armies win the war. Amongst the most famous women soldiers was Mary Owens who had adopted the name John Evans (Livermore 2, 5).

Jane Schultz a professor of American and Women studies at the University of Indiana  Purdue University, Indianapolis has moved to expound a number of mythical beliefs surrounding the roles of women in the American civil war. Under her article Schultz explains that the common myth holds that only a few number of women become nurse to take care of war casualties which included soldiers.

Through out her exploration of the civil war archive the professor came up with valid evidence that proves that the union forces had employed more than 21 000 women who acted as nurses in military hospitals (Schultz para 3). Furthermore she discovered that even though the federal forces had a lesser number of women nurses, the number was no less than 10 000 women nurses (para 4).

Her evidence is backed evidences from the Full Valley Archives records. In one of the letters from Gen. Lee, a federal officer, the General notes that in one of the casualty hospitals there had been about forty nurses taking care of about 300 war casualties. This explains that the hospitals were well supplied with nurses to take care of the victims of war (Full Valley Archives (c) para 5).

Professor Schultz continues to explain that other that other key roles played by women in both the south and the north had been perceived to be minor but never the less were of utmost importance. Women also acted as cleaners, who ensured that her was proper hygiene and also provide sanitary services in hospitals (para 3).

Moreover women also acted as relief workers and as such provided relief services such as food and drugs to soldiers in battle torn regions. The social dimension of the war time society is also evident in this role. While the elite women provide relief services because they had the capacity to, their counterparts from the lower echelons of society did it for a wage. Professor Schultz findings from war time hospital cards reveals that the average woman relief worker received between 6 to 12 dollars per month (para 10).

Other than this women were also vey useful in preparing and war attires for soldiers. As such they worked in industries as seamstresses as helped in preparing military cloths (para 11). Further evidence reveals that women also acted as waitresses in army camps. As such they helped cook and serve food for army officers

One of the most overtly expressed significance of the American civil war was the outcomes that helped America shape its future s a true democratic and federal state. This exemplified the fact that Americans have the ability to get the best out of a very dire situation.

However, the role of women in then war is greatly denied by scholars who have fallen short in appreciating the vital gaps that women filled to make the wars a success. Without women the war would have had severe consequences such as an unimaginable loss of human capital. This loss was curtailed by the fact that women selflessly served as nurses who helped stabilize war casualties. Other than nursing the roles of women as spies helped alter the course of the war.

The relief services that women offered were of great effect as they helped sustain armies in dire times. Furthermore these women motivated their men to enlist in the wars. Therefore the civil war in America can attribute its course to the influence of women as it can to the influence of men.

Works Cited

Blanton, DeAnne. Women Soldiers of the Civil War Prologue Magazine, 1993. Web.

Full Valley Archive (a).  Records Related to Augusta County Regiments. The valley of the shadow. Web.

Full Valley Archive (b). Records Related to Franklin County Regiments. The valley of the shadow. Web.

Full Valley Archives (c). Records Related to Augusta County Regiments. The valley of the shadow. Web.

Georgia Encyclopedia. Women during the Civil War. 2011. Web.

Kingseed, Cole. The American Civil War. West Port, CT: Greenwood Press. 2004. Print.

Livermore, Mary. My Story of the War: A Womans Narrative of Four Years Personal Experience. Hartford, CT: A. D. Worthington and Company. 1889. Print.

Phillips, Larissa. Women Civil War Spies of the Confederacy. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc. 2004. Print.

Schultz, Jane E. Ten Common Myths about Women in the Civil War and How to Dispel Them. Foreign Policy Research Institute, 2008. Web.

There are several historians, who discuss the reasons leading to the Civil War in the film Civil wars causes: Historians Largely United on Slavery, but Public. Drew Gilpin Faust is an American historian, who works for Harvard University and explores the Civil War. In the film, she highlights an important insight about the Confederate flag. Although it is associated with Dixie these days, it was not adopted very widely until late in the war (Civil Wars Causes, 2011, 6:34). Edna Medford teaches at Howard University, and her activity implies the Civil War and African-American history. One of her phrases was especially unexpected for me: that it was going to forget what the real cause was because it was too painful to remember that slavery was what divided the nation (Civil Wars Causes, 2011, 4:37). The last historian Walter Edgar is a professor at the University of South Carolina. He emphasizes a crucial thought that the election of Lincoln appeared to be a defining factor in Souths Carolina decision to secede (Civil Wars Causes, 2011, 2:54).

As it has been mentioned above, Edna Medford identifies that the major cause of the Civil War was slavery. The historian also marks this opinion as not widely shared by the public (Civil Wars Causes). She mentions: Americans, unfortunately, dont know our own history, first of all (Civil Wars Causes). Both Drew Gilpin Faust and Walter Edgar agree on this position. I share the same opinion that people do not perceive slavery as the main reason for the war, as they are unwilling to accept their nations mistakes and be aware of them. From my perspective, it is difficult to admit serious ancestors mistakes, which led to numerous victims. In addition, in the modern world, it is challenging to accept that the consequences of the war regarded the death of numerous people. Drew Gilpin Faust states: about 2 percent of the American population died (Civil Wars Causes, 2011, 10:49). Although the results of the war benefited society, I feel disappointed by this impact, as it cannot be replenished.

Reference

Civil wars causes: Historians largely united on slavery, but public [Film] (2011). MacNeil/Lehrer Productions.

The year 1863 was indeed a turning point during the Civil War, but the stage was set a year earlier. By mid-1862, the Civil War had gained momentum, and President Abraham Lincoln was eager to win the war with fewer casualties, but the Confederates seemed resilient (Griffith, 2015). Lincoln confided to his cabinet in August 1862 that he would release a proclamation that would set the slaves free. True to his words, President Lincoln signed the Proclamation of Emancipation on January 1, 1863, which changed the cause of the war in favor of the Union. The freed slaves joined the Union forces in large numbers that which increased the Unions manpower exponentially (Gallagher & Waugh, 2015). As a result, the Confederates, with a shortage of human resources, stood no chance against the reinforced Union military. Hence, the balance was offset, and all the signs showed that the Union had the edge over the South.

Additionally, the accidental encounter between the Confederate army at Gettysburg led by General Lee and the Unions army between July 1 and 3, 1863, further cemented 1863 as the turning point. Although both sides experienced high casualties, the Confederates lost almost half of their troops within those few days (Shi & Tindall, 2016). The results were a weakened Confederate army. Another significant occurrence related to the Gettysburg battle was Lincolns Gettysburg address which pointed out that the Union had transformed its purpose to ending slavery from preserving the Union. After the Gettysburg battle, the focus of the Union was to end slavery in America (Reid, 2013). That means the course and purpose of the war had changed, making 1863 a significant turning point in the Civil War.

References

Gallagher, G. W., & Waugh, J. (2015). The American war: A history of the Civil War era. Flip Learning.

Griffith, J. (2015). A study of Civil War leadership: Gettysburg as a turning point. Cedarville University. Web.

Reid, B. H. (2013). 1863: Military turning points, Gettysburg, Vicksburg, Tullahoma. OAH Magazine of History, 27(2), 23-27.

Shi, D. E., & Tindall, G. B. (2016). America: A narrative history. WW Norton & Company.

American Battlefield Trust. n.d. Maryland, Washington, D.C. Web.

The website mainly publishes information about the American battlegrounds of the Civil War, the Revolutionary War and the 1812 War. However, it also publishes other historical information about America. The author is a charitable non-profit organization who is verified and recognized as an authentic champion for preserving the American battlegrounds (American Battlefield Trust n.d). The websites information is addressed to the general public but most specifically to historians and history students. The author presents the historical information objectively without bias whatsoever and uses accurate information verified from other sources of historical information. The website is not dated, but it has online articles that have current dates a proof that the information presented herein is relevant to the reader. The domain of the website is a.org sponsored by a non-profit organization.

Additionally, there are no ads on the website, and it solely focuses on presenting historical information. Also, the website design is appealing and appears captivating to the reader, and it meets the criteria of a legit website. Therefore, I would recommend the website for academic research because it is non-commercial and hence has no interest in the information it presents to the reader. Moreover, the information is free from bias and presents the known facts about ancient Americas history. The website is considered acceptable for use in college-level research because it meets the credibility criteria.

Imperial War Museums. n.d. City of London, United Kingdom. Web.

The Imperial War Museums website is sponsored by a group of non-profit social institutions whose aim is to preserve, maintain and educate the public on the various historical events in different parts of the world. It is a historical information source that gives historians and history students rich information about various historical events (Imperial War Museums n.d). The websites domain is a.org, signifying that it is sponsored by a non-profit entity whose interest is not to do business or gain from the information it presents but to preserve history and educate the community. The author is a verified entity that provides educational information about the history and conserves materials that support the data. Although the various articles published herein have verifiable dates, the website is not dated, thus giving accurate and relevant historical information to the reader. The information presented in the various articles is objectively articulated and shows no bias in communicating the facts.

Additionally, the information is factual since it can be verified and authenticated from other related historical information sources. There are no ads on this website, a justification that it is not commercial and has no interest in the audiences information. Moreover, the websites general design is captivating and exciting, with the various components adequately placed. Ultimately, the website is a recommendable source of academic research on history because it has met the requirements of a credible source of educational information. Thus it is highly acceptable for research.

US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives. n.d. Capitol, Washington, D.C. Web.

It is a United States federal government website that aims at presenting historical information about the United States House of Representatives. It harbors exciting stories about the rich heritage of the Peoples House and its significance in the United States history since 1789. The author of the website is the Office of the Historian, a United States government entity whose mandate is to preserve and conserve past governments historical information (Office of the Historian n.d.). The website has no date, but the articles published are dated accurately, thus ensuring that the information is current and relevant to the reader. The information is targeted at the general public and historians and history students interested in knowing the countrys political history. The presentation design is quite captivating and uses both written and audio sources of information. The.gov domain of the website implies that the information is non-commercial and the information is solely in the general publics interest.

Additionally, the information can be verified and supported by other related sources, thus assuring the reader of a trustworthy and reliable source of information. The author presents the information in an unbiased manner and objectively articulates the stories with fairness and accuracy. Moreover, there is no advertisement on the website, and the information presented herein is not commercial. The reader does not need to subscribe to access the information they are seeking. The website has met the conditions of a credible source of academic research; the website is highly acceptable for college-level research purposes.

John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum. n. d. The city of Boston, Massachusetts. Web.

The John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum website offer numerous historical resources chronicling the mid-20th century, life, administration, and legacy of John F. Kennedy. The website is managed on behalf of the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum located at Columbia Point, Boston. The physical library and museum are located at the University of Massachusetts. Given that the website is managed by professionals for the purpose of preserving the history of Americas thirty-fifth president, the information is credible and reliable. JFK Presidential Library and Museum website is majorly maintained for educational purposes and for those seeking a new and better world. Educative historical materials such as museum artifacts, permanent exhibits, historic speeches, personal exhibits, and past exhibits can be accessed via the website. Additionally, the website is not biased as it provides information as it happened without exaggerations. The visitors have the mandate to judge for themselves depending on their understanding of the material. Since it is one of the resource centers that teachers and researchers depend upon while learning about John F. Kennedy, the information is accurate. As a national library and museum, JFK Presidential Library and Museum website preserve accurate historical information that corresponds with the real timelines. What makes it even more exciting and reliable is that JFK Presidential Library and Museum website is updated regularly to ensure the currency of information. Therefore, the website meets the criteria acceptable for college-level research.

Wesleyan University. n.d. City of Middletown, Connecticut. Web.

Wesleyan University website is a resourceful site administered by Wesleyan University. The website is credible and reliable since it is managed by an institution of higher learning. Mostly, the information available on the website revolves around liberal arts and history. Hence, the database is entirely appropriate for conducting research on historical topics. Additionally, the website is explicitly meant for education matters, which makes it an invaluable resource for sourcing reliable information. As an educational site, the Wesleyan University website presents impartial information. Resources meant for learning are usually unbiased to avoid misleading the students. Thus, the Wesleyan University website offers accurate information that is reliable for research at the college level. Additionally, the website is kept up-to-date to meet the higher education learning resources requirement. One of the most crucial factors that scholars take into consideration is the currency of the source materials. Current references are more reliable, credible, and trusted than outdated material. The Wesleyan University being one of the most prominent and coveted Universities in Connecticut, ensures its students use materials that meet all the requirements. Among the missions of Wesleyan University is to provide unique research opportunities and cutting-edge facilities, which the Wesleyan University website confirms. Thus, this website is acceptable for college-level research as it meets the criteria.

References

American Battlefield Trust. n.d. Maryland, Washington, D.C. Web.

Imperial War Museums. n.d. City of London, United Kingdom.

John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum. n. d. The city of Boston, Massachusetts. Web.

US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives. n.d. Capitol, Washington, D.C. Web.

Wesleyan University. n.d. City of Middletown, Connecticut. Web.

The source of Civil War in America could have resulted from various reasons. For instance, slavery in the U.S greatly triggered the eruption of Civil War in America. It started in Virginia as early as 1619. Before the Civil War, the conflict between the northern and southern American States revolved around the issue of slavery.

The southern politicians managed to maintain the control of the federal government throughout the first half of the 19^th century by assuring the southerners to defend the abolition of the slavery in those states that supported the use of slave labor in the American cotton plantations.

Despite the fact that most presidents from the United States of America came from the south, the southern politicians were generally concerned about maintaining a balance of power within the senate. The balance was important to them to maintain the use of slave labor.

However, the challenge to maintain a balance between those states that supported the liberty of slaves as well as those that supported slavery heightened as more states were included into the union. In 1820, Maine joined the union as a free state, while Missouri joined the union as a slave trade.

The balance between those states that supported the use of slave labor in American plantations and those that opposed it was compromised in 1850 when the union allowed California to join it as a free state in exchange of laws that were meant to enforce slavery. The balance was further worsened when Minnesota and Oregon states that supported liberty of slaves joined the union later on (Hickman 4).

The diverse views that existed between the northern and southern states about slavery symbolized the philosophical as well as economical differences that existed between the northern and southern states.

Whereas the northern states believed in industrialization, infrastructural growth, influx of Europeans immigrations, high birth rates as well as urbanization, the southern states embraced agrarian plantations economy that was sparsely populated.

The high boost in northern population together with the incorporation of more free states in the union increased the chances of an election of a northern president who was anti-slavery (Hickman 4).

There was a lot of anxiety in the elections held on1860 which resulted from the division of the democrats. The absence of a candidate with a national appeal signaled an impending change. Abraham Lincoln was the candidate who was vying for the presidency as a republican, while Stephen Douglas was for the northern Democrats.

The southerners nominated John C.Breckinridge and the Border States formed a new party referred to as the Constitutional party and nominated John C. Bell as their own candidate. After the elections Abraham Lincoln was declared the winner of the north, while Breckinridge won in the south, Bell the winner of the Border States, while Douglas won the Missouri and New Jersey states.

Because of the high population that existed in the northern states as a result of their well formulated policies that encouraged urbanization, high birth rate as well as high influx of European immigrations, Abraham Lincoln managed to lead all the candidates in votes. The victory of Lincoln brought a lot of apprehension in the union since he was anti-slavery.

The southerners had always feared any probability of the union government being under the control of anti-slavery. The victory of Abraham Lincoln resulted to secession of those states that supported slavery from the union. Those states that declared a downturn from the union included states such as Carolina, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, Louisiana as well as Georgia (Kidport.com par.3).

The splitting of the union resulted to an eruption of a Civil War in America. It is believed to be the bitterest conflict that has ever occurred in the United States of America. The cause of the Civil War in the United States of America was highly attributed to the election of Abraham Lincoln and in particular as a result of the significant lifestyle difference that existed between the northern and the southern states.

The northern states of America were heavily industrialized with factories and manufacturing was their main occupation. Conversely, the southern states relied heavily on agriculture. They had established big cotton plantations that demanded large number of workers to provide labor when planting as well as while harvesting the cotton (Hickman 5).

While slave trade was declared illegal as early as 1800, the slaves that were working on American cotton plantations were not freed. The Northern states pushed for complete abolishment of slavery since they did not require slaves to work in their industries.

The northern states were accommodative and had assimilated the concept of industrialization from the European nations as well as from those Europeans who had migrated in the states. On the other hand, the southerners were conservative and greatly opposed the influx immigration of the Europeans in their states.

Their rigidity and inability to accommodate new people and new ideas developed the southerners into conservative people who lacked a vision of the impending change that was sure to come in the near future. Therefore, the southerners can be highly blamed to be the cause of Civil War in America (Enotes.com par.5).

The southern states continued to use slaves to provide free and compulsory labor in their plantations despite the abolition of slavery as early as 1800. They feared that the ban of slave labor will result to severe economic impacts on them, since they greatly relied on slaves to provide labor in their plantations. On the other hand, the southerners should have accepted the abolition of slave trade early enough to avoid such incidents.

They should have been aware that the use of free and compulsory labor could not last forever. In addition, they had enough time to strategize on how to adapt alternative methods to provide labor in their plantations.

Sixty years after the abolition of slavery was enough time for the southerners to transform their farming methodologies. For instance, they could have negotiated with the slaves on how to compensate them after working in their farms, instead of pressurizing them to work in their plantations for free. The election of Abraham Lincoln meant doom to the southerners. This was because he was opposed to the concept of slavery.

Thus, that is the reason that prompted those states that supported slave trade to opt to break away from supporting him. After receding, they formed the Confederate States of America. Subsequently, this resulted to the eruption of the civil war that lasted for approximately 4 years. The War consisted of more than 50 main battles and over 5000 minor combats. The battles resulted to over 600,000 deaths.

Nevertheless, the union soldiers were more powerful and possessed more resources. For this reason, they eventually defeated the Confederate soldiers. On April 9, 1865 General Lee who was the commander leading the Confederate troops surrendered and thus the war came to an end. Five days after the end of the War, a treaty was signed and President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by southerner sympathizers (Hoemann par. 5).

Works Cited

Enotes.com. U.S. Civil War. 2011. Web.

Hickman, Kennedy. American Civil War: Causes. 2011.Web.

Hoemann, George. American Civil War. 2011. Web.

Kidport.com. The American Civil War. 2011. Web.

The source of Civil War in America could have resulted from various reasons. For instance, slavery in the U.S greatly triggered the eruption of Civil War in America. It started in Virginia as early as 1619. Before the Civil War, the conflict between the northern and southern American States revolved around the issue of slavery.

The southern politicians managed to maintain the control of the federal government throughout the first half of the 19^th century by assuring the southerners to defend the abolition of the slavery in those states that supported the use of slave labor in the American cotton plantations.

Despite the fact that most presidents from the United States of America came from the south, the southern politicians were generally concerned about maintaining a balance of power within the senate. The balance was important to them to maintain the use of slave labor.

However, the challenge to maintain a balance between those states that supported the liberty of slaves as well as those that supported slavery heightened as more states were included into the union. In 1820, Maine joined the union as a free state, while Missouri joined the union as a slave trade.

The balance between those states that supported the use of slave labor in American plantations and those that opposed it was compromised in 1850 when the union allowed California to join it as a free state in exchange of laws that were meant to enforce slavery. The balance was further worsened when Minnesota and Oregon states that supported liberty of slaves joined the union later on (Hickman 4).

The diverse views that existed between the northern and southern states about slavery symbolized the philosophical as well as economical differences that existed between the northern and southern states.

Whereas the northern states believed in industrialization, infrastructural growth, influx of Europeans immigrations, high birth rates as well as urbanization, the southern states embraced agrarian plantations economy that was sparsely populated.

The high boost in northern population together with the incorporation of more free states in the union increased the chances of an election of a northern president who was anti-slavery (Hickman 4).

There was a lot of anxiety in the elections held on1860 which resulted from the division of the democrats. The absence of a candidate with a national appeal signaled an impending change. Abraham Lincoln was the candidate who was vying for the presidency as a republican, while Stephen Douglas was for the northern Democrats.

The southerners nominated John C.Breckinridge and the Border States formed a new party referred to as the Constitutional party and nominated John C. Bell as their own candidate. After the elections Abraham Lincoln was declared the winner of the north, while Breckinridge won in the south, Bell the winner of the Border States, while Douglas won the Missouri and New Jersey states.

Because of the high population that existed in the northern states as a result of their well formulated policies that encouraged urbanization, high birth rate as well as high influx of European immigrations, Abraham Lincoln managed to lead all the candidates in votes. The victory of Lincoln brought a lot of apprehension in the union since he was anti-slavery.

The southerners had always feared any probability of the union government being under the control of anti-slavery. The victory of Abraham Lincoln resulted to secession of those states that supported slavery from the union. Those states that declared a downturn from the union included states such as Carolina, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, Louisiana as well as Georgia (Kidport.com par.3).

The splitting of the union resulted to an eruption of a Civil War in America. It is believed to be the bitterest conflict that has ever occurred in the United States of America. The cause of the Civil War in the United States of America was highly attributed to the election of Abraham Lincoln and in particular as a result of the significant lifestyle difference that existed between the northern and the southern states.

The northern states of America were heavily industrialized with factories and manufacturing was their main occupation. Conversely, the southern states relied heavily on agriculture. They had established big cotton plantations that demanded large number of workers to provide labor when planting as well as while harvesting the cotton (Hickman 5).

While slave trade was declared illegal as early as 1800, the slaves that were working on American cotton plantations were not freed. The Northern states pushed for complete abolishment of slavery since they did not require slaves to work in their industries.

The northern states were accommodative and had assimilated the concept of industrialization from the European nations as well as from those Europeans who had migrated in the states. On the other hand, the southerners were conservative and greatly opposed the influx immigration of the Europeans in their states.

Their rigidity and inability to accommodate new people and new ideas developed the southerners into conservative people who lacked a vision of the impending change that was sure to come in the near future. Therefore, the southerners can be highly blamed to be the cause of Civil War in America (Enotes.com par.5).

The southern states continued to use slaves to provide free and compulsory labor in their plantations despite the abolition of slavery as early as 1800. They feared that the ban of slave labor will result to severe economic impacts on them, since they greatly relied on slaves to provide labor in their plantations. On the other hand, the southerners should have accepted the abolition of slave trade early enough to avoid such incidents.

They should have been aware that the use of free and compulsory labor could not last forever. In addition, they had enough time to strategize on how to adapt alternative methods to provide labor in their plantations.

Sixty years after the abolition of slavery was enough time for the southerners to transform their farming methodologies. For instance, they could have negotiated with the slaves on how to compensate them after working in their farms, instead of pressurizing them to work in their plantations for free. The election of Abraham Lincoln meant doom to the southerners. This was because he was opposed to the concept of slavery.

Thus, that is the reason that prompted those states that supported slave trade to opt to break away from supporting him. After receding, they formed the Confederate States of America. Subsequently, this resulted to the eruption of the civil war that lasted for approximately 4 years. The War consisted of more than 50 main battles and over 5000 minor combats. The battles resulted to over 600,000 deaths.

Nevertheless, the union soldiers were more powerful and possessed more resources. For this reason, they eventually defeated the Confederate soldiers. On April 9, 1865 General Lee who was the commander leading the Confederate troops surrendered and thus the war came to an end. Five days after the end of the War, a treaty was signed and President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by southerner sympathizers (Hoemann par. 5).

Works Cited

Enotes.com. U.S. Civil War. 2011. Web.

Hickman, Kennedy. American Civil War: Causes. 2011.Web.

Hoemann, George. American Civil War. 2011. Web.

Kidport.com. The American Civil War. 2011. Web.

Introduction

The American civil war is a conflict that was experienced in the United States in the 19^th century. This war was fought between the Northerners and the Southerners in which the fate of slaves was the bone of contention. The Northerners were against the slavery institution in the South, and this was resented by the Southerners. This paper will provide an analysis of the American civil war with particular reference to slavery as the main cause.

Slavery as the cause of Civil War

Slavery was a very sensitive issue in the United States during 19^th century. The United States Constitution was relatively tolerant in respect to the slavery institution for the sake of uniting the country. The Constitution included a clause on slavery so as to avoid questions related to Americas peculiar institution of African slavery.

Slavery was regarded as the appropriate status for the Africans by the slave-holding states. Stephens observed that slavery was an immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution^[1]. Even though it was included in the Constitution, Jefferson predicted that African slavery was rock upon which the old the old union would split^[2].

Jefferson and other statesmen of the time were of the view that African slavery was illegal and ideally wrong. What was clear is that these statesmen did not have a clue on how to handle the situation but they hoped that in some way or the other, this vice would diminish. This idea was not entrenched in the Constitution despite dominating the minds of many people at the time. In fact, the Constitution secured essential guarantees to slavery for as long as this institution lasted.

Without a Constitutional backing, the ideas held by the various statesmen that slavery would diminish with time were not to be realized. The government that was put in place entrenched the concept of African slavery in that the Africans were regarded as lesser humans and unequal to the whites. The position of the Africans as slaves was justified as being in line with nature^[3].

The constitutions of various states in the United States included clauses that entrenched the enslavement of African Americans. However, on many occasions, the Federal Government would step in to act in violation of these provisions that emphasized on slavery. The states that encouraged slavery saw this as an encroachment of the Federal Government to the rights of the states. This prompted many of the states to contemplate withdrawing from the Federal Union^[4].

South Carolinas case

States like South Carolina became frustrated with the encroachments that were being advanced by the Federal Government and opted to secede when it could take no more. South Carolina held on the principles that it had the rights like any other state to govern itself without interference from outside. Also, it was asserted that the people did have the right to abolish a government when it was deemed as not adhering to the intended functions^[5].

South Carolina, in presenting its case for secession, it argued that some of the states had for a long time deliberately refused to adhere to the Constitutional provision which required states in the North to return fugitive slaves that escaped from the South^[6].

In fact, these states had enacted statutes which did not encourage slavery and the return of fugitive slaves to the South. It was argued that various states such as Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Iowa had put legislations in place that nullified Acts of Congress, or thwarted any efforts to implement such Acts^[7].

In most of these states, the fugitive slaves were discharged from service labor. In this regard, the slave-holding states argued that the Constitutional compact had been deliberately violated. The slave-holding states claimed that the non-slave holding states had assumed the right in which they wanted to decide on the domestic institutions of other states. The non-slave holding states were also accused of having violated the Constitution by denouncing the slavery institution that was protected by the Federal Constitution.

These states were also accused of having allowed the formation of societies that agitated for the abolition of slavery thereby disturbing peace and tranquility in the slave-holding states. In addition, these states were accused of offering assistance to the slaves in their quest to leave their homes. With all these accusations being leveled against the Northern states, a line was drawn between the northern states and the Southern states^[8].

The Northern states were accused of being determined in their quest to eliminate slavery which was embraced in the Southern states. This drew a lot of resentments from the slave-holding states.

The Southern states feared that the south would be excluded from main issues in the country. It was also feared that the guarantees of the Constitution was at risk of being trounced and that there shall be no equal rights being enjoyed all states. Those states that upheld slavery feared that they stood to lose their self-government power and that the Federal Government was perceived as an enemy^[9].

Texas Case

Texas had opted to join the United States with the promise from the former that it would be regarded as an equal state just like the others. This proposal was accepted by the people of Texas in December of 1845 and Texas was admitted to join the Confederate Union.

The main reason for joining the Confederated Union was to enable Texas to enhance its well-being. In this case, Texas hoped that the Confederated Union would be beneficial to her in the promotion of the states welfare; insuring domestic peaceful co-existence; and securing the benefits of peace and liberty of the state to its people^[10].

Texas joined the Confederated Union while keeping its own state constitution with guarantees from the Federal Constitution and the Compact of annexation that Texas, like any other state, would be allowed to realize its potential. Texas joined the Confederated Union while still holding onto the institution of slavery which asserted that the Africans were to serve the Whites.

The people of Texas expected that this institution was to be protected and upheld even in the future. Texas, as a slave-holding state, established a very strong connection with the states of the Confederated Union that encouraged slave-holding. The ties between Texas and these states were enhanced by association as they shared something in common^[11].

Texas was suspect of the position taken by the non-slave holding states that looked determined to frustrate the much valued slavery institution. The Northern states, which had a controlling majority in the Federal Government, were accused of pushing for the destruction of the slavery institution that was highly valued in Texas and other slave-holding states^[12].

The Northern states were accused of being disloyal whereas the Federal Government was accused of not protecting the interests of the slave-holding states. In reference to the Northern state, it has been noted that, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws &^[13] The Northern states were also accused of waging a war on the property of the Southern states.

As the Northern states were being accused of working hard to destroy the slavery institution of the Southern states, the Federal Government was accused of failing to protect the lives and property of the slave-holding states and its citizens.

This was interpreted to mean that the federal government was partially supporting the Northern states in their mission. Texas in particular, asserted that the Federal Government had failed to offer protection to its people and property against the Indian communities that were regarded as savage.

Also, the Federal Government was accused of having failed to protect the people of Texas from the cruel attacks of banditti who came from Mexico. In addition, it was argued that when Texas had come up with a plan to facilitate the protection of the state, the Federal Government was accused of refusing to fund the plan. This caused a lot of frustrations among the Texans who argued that their state had become more insecure than it was before joining the Confederated Union^[14].

The Northern states including Maine, Vermont, Rhode Island, Ohio and New York among others were accused of having enacted various legislations that were in violation of the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution^[15].

This opened a leeway for the passage of laws that annulled the material provision of the compact that had been designed to enhance friendship between the slave-holding states and the non-slave holding states. To the Texans and the citizens of slave-holding states, the compact was adopted to promote justice and wisdom. The slave-holding states accused the non-slave holding states of having imposed fines and penalties on the citizens and officers who implemented the provisions of the compact or the federal laws that related to slavery.

Given that the non-slave states were determined to violate the federal provisions and the compact provisions, the slave-holding states were frustrated and opted for secession. The Northern states were accused of championing for the abolition of slavery throughout the United States and called for equality of all human races.

This was contested by the slave-holding states which to them, equality of human races was a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law^[16].

Conclusion

The calls for abolition of slavery by the non-slave holding states was said to have undermined the slave-holding states and made them appear to be minority states in the Union. The abolition movements were accused of inciting the slaves and exacerbating hatred between slave-holding states and the non-slave holding states.

The slave-holding states were frustrated by calls from the non-slave holding states that wanted to do away with the slavery institution. It can be observed that slavery was a contested issue in the United States which ultimately led to the civil war. Each side in the war advanced its own justification, and since each side was willing to compromise, hell broke loose and the war was inevitable.

Bibliography

Dew, B. Charles. Apostles of disunion: southern secession commissioners and the causes of the Civil War. (Charlottesville; London: University Press of Virginia, 2001).

Stephens H. Alexander. Slavery is the cornerstone of the Confederacy (1861) In Frank H. Moor, ed. The Rebellion Record, vol. 1 (New York: G. P. Putnam, 1861-1868).

South Carolina Justifies Secession (1860) In Frank H. Moor, ed. The Rebellion Record, vol. 1 (New York: G. P. Putnam, 1861-1868).

University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Declaration of Causes of Seceding States. The American Civil War Homepage. Web.

Footnotes

1. Alexander H. Stephens. Slavery is the cornerstone of the Confederacy (1861), In Frank H. Moor, ed. The Rebellion Record, vol. 1 (New York: G. P. Putnam, 1861-1868), 71
2. Alexander H. Stephens. Slavery is the cornerstone of the Confederacy (1861), 71
3. Alexander H. Stephens. Slavery is the cornerstone of the Confederacy (1861), In Frank H. Moor, ed. The Rebellion Record, vol. 1 (New York: G. P. Putnam, 1861-1868), 72
4. Alexander H. Stephens. Slavery is the cornerstone of the Confederacy (1861), 72
5. South Carolina Justifies Secession (1860), In Frank H. Moor, ed. The Rebellion Record, vol. 1 (New York: G. P. Putnam, 1861-1868), 60
6. Charles B. Dew. Apostles of disunion: southern secession commissioners and the causes of the Civil War. (Charlottesville; London: University Press of Virginia, 2001), 12
7. South Carolina Justifies Secession (1860), In Frank H. Moor, ed. The Rebellion Record, vol. 1 (New York: G. P. Putnam, 1861-1868), 61
8. South Carolina Justifies Secession (1860), 61
9. South Carolina Justifies Secession (1860), 61
10. University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Declaration of Causes of Seceding States. The American Civil War Homepage. para 1
11. University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Declaration of Causes of Seceding States, para 3
12. Charles B. Dew. Apostles of disunion: southern secession commissioners and the causes of the Civil War. (Charlottesville; London: University Press of Virginia, 2001), 11
13. University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Declaration of Causes of Seceding States. The American Civil War Homepage. para 5
14. University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Declaration of Causes of Seceding States, para 6
15. University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Declaration of Causes of Seceding States, para 9
16. University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Declaration of Causes of Seceding States. The American Civil War Homepage. para 10

The analysis of the American Civil War requires the observation of various views to understand how different scientists regard the causes, progress, and the consequences of the conflict. The historical perspective of the scholars contributes crucially to their specific choices of ideas, methods, and evidence of the research. Consequently, comparing and contrasting the authors views might provide the chance to understand how the beliefs influence the analysis. Hall, Huff, and Kuriwaki (2019, 658) examine the role of financial prosperity in the readiness of the soldiers to participate in the conflict. Turners (2017, 195) review explores the religious and cultural aspect, assuming that the British favored the South due to the similarity in their religious beliefs. Although the two articles are similar in the choices of social concepts and methods of study, they differ in the approaches to the existing historical investigations and their perspectives.

The review of the thesis, evidence, and perspective of the research provides the opportunity to understand what aspect of history of the United States it examines. It is necessary to determine the thesis of Hall, Huff, and Kuriwakis (2019, 658) research. The main point presented in the article is that slave ownership played an essential role in the increased desire of the soldiers to fight the war. The scholars use such evidence as data on different citizens of the Southern part of the country concerning their financial state and the lottery information (Hall, Huff, and Kuriwaki 2019, 660). This material allows them to develop the perspective of the significance of the soldiers socioeconomic status.

The finances determined the interests of wealthy citizens of the United States because the character of this war was related to the stability of their business, depending on slave ownership. Mainly, since this war was associated with the questions of slavery and the economic opportunities that slavery provided for the slave-owners, the factor of financial status seemed reasonably crucial.

The second articles thesis is connected with the idea that religious and cultural similarities of the British and the Confederate Americans defined the support that the United Kingdom provided to the South. Turner (2017, 195) uses various materials and information about the ideas of the churchman Alexander James Beresford Hope as evidence of the views of the British that had a relation to the conflict (Turner 2017, 196). The author chooses this person because he was a recognized church leader and can be viewed as an example of the views of the British of those times. The scholars perspective concerns his focus on the role of religion in the formation of peoples attitudes. He assumes that not only traditionally observed political and economic factors define the interests of the British but also their religious views. Thus, the papers central theme is the analysis of the role of the additional cultural concept in peoples attitudes towards the war.

The comparison of theses, evidence, and perspectives reveals that these two scholarly articles have some similarities. Primarily, both analyses emphasize the importance of the opinions and interests in shaping the point of view about two sides of the conflict. In particular, they both observe the Confederate side to understand what factors define the intentions of different people to support the South but not the North. In addition, the similarities between these studies are based on their focus on the people living during that era. For instance, Hall, Huff, and Kuriwaki (2019, 660) concentrate their interest on dataset records information about the free citizens of the South.

Turner (2017, 195), comparatively, applies the primary sources containing that information about Hope and his views. This emphasis on the primary sources allows the researchers to make their unique conclusions about the role of the viewpoint in forming the citizens position. Consequently, the authors perspectives have some close features because both articles use the view of the role of the beliefs and interests in favoring the Confederates.

Although the two investigations have some common characteristics, they also differ in some aspects. Mainly, the analysis of the role of wealth focuses on explaining the connection between financial interests and the desire to fight. On the other hand, the second paper emphasizes peoples religious beliefs, demonstrating the significance of faith. The next dissimilarity concerns the authors choice of the sample. Principally, Hall, Huff, and Kuriwaki (2019, 660) regard those directly connected to the events because they were the United States citizens. Turner (2017, 197), on the contrary, chooses a person that observes the situation from the position of a distant viewer.

Hope, on the other hand, did not participate in the conflict directly. Finally, the observations of the historical perspectives of the scholars reveal the differences. For instance, the authors of the article about wealthy Southerners demonstrate that their position is different from the traditional view regarding the role of prosperity in participating in the conflict (Hall, Huff, and Kuriwaki 2019, 660). Turner (2017, 197) contrarily chooses to add his ideas to the conventional beliefs. These facts reveal that the authors have different historical perspectives associated with their view of the previous studies.

Both these studies reflect social history explaining what role various concepts have in the American Civil War. The scholars choose the qualitative methods of research to define the social aspects of the conflict. Remarkably, they regard the population of the country and the views of the churchman to understand how their status might determine the processes in history. They use the orientation on the material factors and cultural specifics of the conflict to display how society influences the development of the war. Mainly, Hall, Huff, and Kuriwaki (2019, 659) address the concept of economic factor using it to explain that it can affect armed conflicts differently than the traditional history might consider.

For instance, they explain that usually, the historical research reveals that wealthier people aspire to avoid wars (Hall, Huff, and Kuriwaki 2019, 661). However, their investigation makes them conclude that when the social context is considered, such a concept as financial status becomes essential. Turner (2017, 197) also stresses the role of religion as the social aspect of the citizens views progress. Therefore, although their approaches are related, considering the social point of the analysis, they differ in their views.

Thus, two scholarly analyses have common features because they regard the social aspects of war development and use similar observation methods, but they vary in assessing the previous studies. Both studies view the social concepts of material security and religious beliefs examining the data concerning people living in those times. However, the research that observes the wealthy Americans assumes that the previous observations demonstrate that prosperity makes the citizens avoid engaging in the conflict. However, their findings reveal that the Civil War situation differs because its characteristics make the wealthy soldiers join the army.

At the same time, the analysis of the religious aspects adds to the previous investigations accepting the conclusions about the significance of the economic and political situation and emphasizing the religious component. These differences reveal that although the scholars may have similar study methods, their perspectives influence their choices and conclusions.

References

Hall, Andrew B., Connor Huff, and Shiro Kuriwaki. 2019. Wealth, Slaveownership, And Fighting For The Confederacy: An Empirical Study Of The American Civil War. American Political Science Review 113 (3): 658-673. Web.

Turner, Michael J. 2017. British Sympathy For The South During The American Civil War And Reconstruction. Church History And Religious Culture 97 (2): 195-219. Web.

This paper would seek to outline two conflicting views regarding the historical development of the Civil War and in effect, and which argument could be said to have played a greater role in creating an irrevocable division between the North and South territories. The arguments which would be analyzed for the purpose of this paper would be that of David Potiers the Sectional Divisions which resulted in Civil War and the other one is that Michael Holts The Political Divisions which resulted in Civil War.

Both of these e viewpoints are strongly defended in each of the two essays and they highlight different causes which culminated in the eventuality of the Civil War. According to the arguments presented forth by Potier, sectional divisions had roots long before the major divide between the North and South conflict; these differences were issues such as taxes on imports and exports, navigational rights, taxation of slave property. The issue of slaves and their right to freedom, according to this paper, resulted in the breakout of what we now term as the Civil War. This paper highlights certain historical developments such as the Missouri sates application to become a slave state.

Over time, the political developments had shifted from the federal to the local level and hence, this issue once again ignited the issue of slaves and freedom. This resulted in the divide between the free territory in the North and the practice of slavery in the South, an issue which the federal authority was unable to resolve hence, creating a boundary between these two regions.

An important aspect which this paper presented was the concept of the Missouri compromise which eventually resulted in a conflict amongst the Northern and Southern governing parties, one wanting to extend it to other regions while the other seeking its annulment. This resulted in the Southern people revolting against any presidential candidate or party which were going to promote annulment of the slavery laws. Hence, the paper presents the issue of free soil versus the existence of the Missouri compromise.

Compared to this, the argument represented by Holt presides on the notion that the political divisions resulted in the Civil War. This was initiated by the collapse of the Two-Party system and by the time the new parties emerged, the one which won majority federal seats was the Anti-South Republican Party. Hence, resulting in a clear political divide between the two regions. Over time, the issues had become much more localized resulting in the emerging power of the local parties and the lessening influence of the Congress. The Southerners had also lost faith in the efficacy of the political parties and the emergence of the Republican Party had resulted in adding to their woes.

Over time, the growing conflict between the political parties had resulted in the end of the Two-Party system and eventually, in a mass difference of political thought between the two territories. Hence, this paper soughs to provide a link between the growing political differences and the breakup of the Nation.

However, if one was to analyze both arguments it would be seen that the argument presented by Potier seems to be stronger as the issue of slavery was in fact one of the fundamental causes behind the break-up. The issue of slavery was a fundamental part and parcel of the Southern way of living and when it was compromised by the political parties in the North and in the center, resulted in the building of anti-North sentiment in the South.

The Southerners had developed a way of life which was quite different from the North as the majority of them were land-owners and hence, slaves were a necessity for their economic survival. Hence, the argument presented by Potier makes more logical sense as this issue was the key factor behind creating a divide between the American nation. When the basic livelihood of the Southern was brought into question especially since it was a fundamental part of their way of life, it resulted in a growing sense of unrest and conflict. The greater interference of the Northern territories and the Federal authorities into this key matter of the Southern affairs resulted in a divide of thought and understanding.

As the political system, these key variations were the cause behind the collapse of the Two-Party system as well as over time, these regions thinking process was too different to find any common ground. As long as the issue of slavery and a free-soil could not be contended upon, the Southerners were never willing to back any political party which had anti-slave sentiments.

Hence, by the time the Republican Party came into power, the Southerners had lost most of their trust and confidence in a central authority which was far removed from their way of life and which clearly refused to allow the possibility of a system in which slavery could be allowed. The conflict over the Missouri compromise was a key indicator to the vast differences that had developed over time and hence, civil wars eventuality was unquestionable.

References

POTIER M, D The Sectional Divisions That Led to Civil War.

HOLT F, M The Political Divisions That Contributed to Civil War.