Category: Civil War

This paper is concerned with the post-Civil War American society up to the end of the nineteenth century. The focus is on the political and economic aspects, while only limited attention is paid to the issues related to race, social factors, and culture. The weakness of the federal government is regarded as the major reason behind the hardships of the nation during the post-war decades. The fierce struggle between Republicans and Democrats is illustrated in detail, and the rise and the fall of the Populist Party are also highlighted. The period finishes with the victory of Republicans in the last presidential elections of the century.

One of the most important items covered in this period is the role the weak federal government played in the history of the United States during the 1870s-1890s. Politicians concentrated on their political prospects and the financial interests of the individuals and groups who could help in their rise to power. Both Republican and Democratic presidents failed to implement effective reforms but made the patronage system the cornerstone of their political agenda. Instead of hiring effective managers and those who could make reforms possible, presidents assigned their relatives, close allies, and those who provided financial aid (including bribes) to the major (or any) posts in the government.

This system made things worse for the country that needed quick and dramatic changes. Instead, the government introduced policies that favored big businesses and landowners while depriving the rest of the Americans of any opportunities to grow financially. Tariffs increased, and prices soared (whereas farming product prices were falling each year), which was the result of the empowerment of the groups mentioned above. Moreover, the politicians who tried to address the issues (for example, enacting the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 or the Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890) failed to enforce them.

The second important item found in this period that is worth consideration is the life of farmers and the influence they had on the development of the country at that period. American farmers found themselves in a very difficult situation after the Civil War. The development of technology boosted the growth of the farming sector as people received new and more efficient tools. Due to the availability of new territories and novel production instruments, farmers obtained larger crops. Ironically, increased crops resulted in lower prices for farmers products, while the costs were still high as technological advances were expensive. Farmers had limited access to funds, and loans they got were provided at high rates. Railroad (and other) tariffs were also extremely high and rising rapidly. Farmers tried to influence politicians decisions and offered different initiatives that could help them improve their financial situation. One of the central concerns of farmers was the governments focus on the gold standard, while Americans believed that the bimetal system would be more beneficial. However, their voices remained unheard until they managed to create their own party.

The rise and fall of the Populist Party is the third item to analyze as it is one of the influential phenomena that had an effect on the further development of the country. As mentioned above, farmers tried to gain more political power in order to improve their economic situation. Early attempts to unite and organize a potent force started in the middle of the nineteenth century. However, those efforts had limited and temporal success, while farmers conditions were worsening each year.

Several alliances were formed, but their political weight was still insignificant and unable to force the federal government to address their needs. In the 1880s, the Farmers Alliance was formed, and it turned into an influential organization that collaborated with other alliances (including the Colored Alliance) to gain more power. It also became the basis of the Populist Party which was established in 1891. The Populist Party gained popularity as it responded to the call of a considerable portion of the American population. The party even managed to earn approximately one million votes during the 1892 elections, which party members saw as substantial success. However, the following elections were the end of the party as they failed to nominate Bryan as their candidate, who was announced as the Democrat Partys candidate. Eventually, the members of the Populist Party became Democrats as Populists decided to support Bryan anyway. Since the goals and methods of the two parties were very similar, the Populist Party simply blended with the Democratic Party.

The development of railroads was one of the factors that boosted the growth of the American economy in the nineteenth century. However, it soon transformed into a significant hazard that resulted in a major economic crisis. Railroad owners raise tariffs, but they failed to estimate the adverse outcomes of their actions (or rather greed). Although the government tried to enact some legislation to control tariffs, those acts were not properly enforced, and monopolies still took advantage of their position and increased their profits. At the same time, high tariffs contributed substantially to the numerous farmers bankruptcies. An increasing number of people fled to cities, which made workers situation worse and the unemployment rate high.

One of the notorious events of that period that were a result of railroad owners irresponsible management was the Pullman Strike of 1894. Workers at many industrial facilities and railroads refused to work due to low wages and unbearable working conditions. The uprisings were also inspired by the so-called Coxeys Army march. Instead of trying to compromise, monopolies responded by dismissal of even more people.

The Coxeys Army was one of the consequences of the overall economic situation in the country. This march took place in 1894 and did not last long but had quite lasting and far-reaching effects. As mentioned above, the unemployment rate grew and reached unprecedented heights. For instance, in the early 1890s, unemployment estimates were as high as 19%, but they skyrocketed in some states approaching 43% (in Michigan). Jacob Coxey, a businessman, headed the march of Ohios unemployed workers to Washington. Hundreds of people joined the march along the way to address the government directly. However, the marchers were not heard, while Coxey and some other marchers were sentenced to prison terms for trespassing the premises of the Capitol. Although the campaign did not achieve its goals, the march had a considerable effect on Americans political preferences. As a result, the popularity of the Populist Party increased considerably. The march also inspired many workers to protest and join riots or strikes.

The weak federal government that could not balance the influence and needs of big business and the needs of the rest of the U. S. population could be seen as one of the factors that contributed to the economic crises. Farmers whose earnings declined and expenditure grew, high unemployment rate, and unwise monetary policy were other influential factors. At that, one of the triggers of the crisis was an excessive investment in railroads. The development of infrastructure was still seen as a highly profitable business, but people failed to see the soaring problems in the sector. High tariffs, disproportionate investment, and a worsening economic situation in the country made the sector a bulb that soon caused bankruptcies and the major economic crisis after the Civil War. Eventually, the economic situation in the country led to the emergence of a strong federal government.

The major political and economic challenges the country faced at the end of the nineteenth century are discussed in detail. Americans witnessed the outcomes of the weak and corrupted government, as well as ineffective monetary policies. Although it was a period of significant economic issues, unprecedented unemployment rate, and issues in farming and industries, the Populist Era had a tremendous impact on the further development of the nation. Appropriate legislation enacted and enforced by the federal government, as well as certain internal and external factors, helped the country overcome the crisis.

The Civil Rights Movement was an important chapter in American history which led to the establishment of human rights around the world. This high-profile and historic quest for human rights achieved world notice thanks to its unusual approach and also brought to light Americas racist segregation of non-white immigrants. Energized and encouraged by the successes of the civil rights movement, activists worked to reverse the discriminatory laws restricting the influx of darker-skinned peoples into the U.S. Through these actions, the Civil Rights Movement became a stencil for human rights worldwide and revolution worldwide.

It was nearly 90 years after Lincoln issued the Emancipation proclamation that, on May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court unanimously decided that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional in the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kans. This decision overturned the 1896 Plessy vs. Ferguson ruling that legitimized the separate but equal practice of segregation according to race, deciding that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.

The ruling was the impetus for across-the-board desegregation in the U.S. When Rosa Parks was arrested in 1955 for refusing the drivers request to give up her seat to the white man, this act of civil disobedience became the spark that ignited the masses during the 1950s and 1960s in protesting the racial inequalities. She was fed up, Parks friend Elaine Steele said, There comes a point where you say, No, Im a full citizen, too. This is not the way I should be treated (Shipp, 2005).

Because of this event, a group of local ministers created the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) and coordinated a 382-day boycott of the bus company. The ministers took this non-violent action to avoid the possible rioting that was widely rumored to soon ensue and to organize their collective congregations into one, larger and stronger common voice. After discussion amongst the MIA leadership, twenty-six-year-old Martin Luther King Jr., a minister who had moved to town but a year earlier, was unanimously selected to head the MIA. (Garrow, 1987, pp. 45-6).

The now famous first sit-in occurred at a Woolworths lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina when four black students sat down at a whites only establishment and requested service. These activists that braved the threat of being beaten and jailed in order to advance their cause of racial justice were inspired by the illustration of courage by those who participated in the Montgomery bus boycott. Soon after beginning the walk, Meredith was shot and wounded by a white sniper.

Upon hearing the news that James Meredith was shot by a sniper while on a well-publicized walk, March Against Fear, to Jackson, Mississippi from Memphis, Tennessee, King joined with Stokely Carmichael in Greenwood, Mississippi where Carmichael gave his famous Black Power speech (Carmichael, 1966). Malcolm X (Little) became a powerful speaker in the movement and became more important to the cause of his death than he was in life. As King had secured the character of the Southern black, Malcolm had become the messiah of city slums in the North, Midwest and West. The semi-militant organization he headed, the Nation, grew quickly under his leadership. (Hollaway, 1998).

Later generations should be taught the history of the Civil Rights Movement along with the suffering endured by the many generations of blacks from the times of slavery through the mid 1960s. Unless these lessons are learned by future societies, the mistakes of the past could also be the mistakes of the future. This is a horrific prospect when one examines the miserable effects of racial bias and its human toll.

Works Cited

Carmichael, Stokely. Black Power. American Rhetoric. (1966). Web.

Garrow, David J. The Montgomery Bus Boycott and the Women Who Started It. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press. (1987).

Hollaway, Kevin. The Legacy of Malcolm. Documents for the Study of American History. (1998). Web.

Shipp, E.R. Rosa Parks, 92, Founding Symbol of Civil Rights Movement, Dies. New York Times. (2005). Web.

The civil war arose as a result of various circumstances and concepts prevailing in the north and south. They began to exist as separate economic regions since the first was engaged in industry and the second in agriculture. The north was considered a more economically developed part with a high standard of living, while emigrants from factories worked there. At the same time, there was not enough labor to cultivate the fields in the south, and black slaves were brought there from Africa. Some reasons leading to the war were taxes on imported goods, abolition of slavery, the difference in understanding the further development, disagreement of the south with the policy of settling unoccupied lands in the west. The south separated from the north in the hope of defending its foundations but was defeated.

Our country today remembers above all the number of those killed as a result of this battle. It became the bloodiest in history and led to the consolidation of the 13th amendment to the US Constitution and the abolition of slavery. Although the northerners won and began to develop industrial and agricultural activities in the west actively, reconstruction in the south continued for several more years. The war took away many material resources such as equipment, weapons, and money. Dark-skinned became free, but segregation appeared since their financial situation did not allow them to live on the same social level as the white population.

Horton believed that the leaders of the Confederation made slavery the primary motive for secession and war. According to the author, southerners feared the alienation of the slave owners more than they did not like slavery (Horton). The population of the south was not so developed; hence they considered slavery to be appropriate. The rest of America was able to look at the problem from an alternative point of view.

An interesting question for me is inhumanity from eastern society because of their will. On the one hand, they tried to protect themselves and their children from life on a par with black people. It influenced the perception of war by their descendants because children now believe that their ancestors acted for a good cause. On the other hand, all people are personalities, and it is incorrect to judge them by their skin color.

Work Cited

Horton, James Oliver. Confronting Slavery and Revealing the Lost Cause (U.S. National Park Service). Nps.Gov, 2017, Web.

The Dred Scott Case 1857

Dred Scott, who was held captive in 1795, is explained by Russ. Due to the obvious huge enslavement, Scott and several others were compelled to migrate, and he was transferred to Missouri. He used to live in Wisconsin, Illinois State, in which he was a free citizen, before moving to Missouri. Contrary to the Three  fifths compromise, this was a communist dictatorship. As Mister Scott lived in Missouri, he attempted to buy his liberty, however, his master refused (Corbett et al., 2017). He pursued legal assistance, claiming that because the locations he resided in prohibited servitude, he ought to be independent. The jury decided in his defense, citing a landmark US Judgment of the court of supreme that stated Africans, whether captive or liberated, had no freedoms that white folks did.

The Lincoln Douglas Debates 1858

As per the Lincoln-Douglas discussions, a sequence of debates and discussions about enslavement and its extension were held next to a large crowd. Prior to these arguments, Lincoln was undefined; nevertheless, by making these speeches, he established a reputation for himself among both federalists and anti  federalists. Douglas sided with the original founders and their work, claiming that Lincoln was harm to the charter of rights and freedom (Nahmias, 2019) s. Lincoln advocated for reform, claiming that a partitioned society is unstable, and that we would not continue as partially.

The Fugitive Slave Law 1850

Graf explains, the Fugitive Slave Law allowed for hunt and seize of escaped slaves anywhere and everywhere in the United States. During the 1850-1860 mainly blacks moved to north Canada because of their fear of being captured. Although slavery was outlawed in Canada year 1834 it was not against the law to discriminate so many did. Discrimination continued to take place among the blacks creating tension.

Assessment of whether the American Civil War was inevitable

Based on numerous chains of events that led so many groups in contention to the military conflict, the war was unavoidable. The victory of Abraham Lincoln fanned the flames of southern states, and it did not start the Civil War. The nations segment territories had just been deepening for years until Lincoln was elected. The presidency of Abraham Lincoln was widely regarded as the biggest blow in the Revolutionary War casket. The conflict was unavoidably necessary since, as history has shown, prior occurrences and conversations never fully resolved the states divisions.

References

Corbett, P., Janssen, V., & Lund, J. (2017). Stepping stones to the civil war. In P. Corbett, V. Janssen & J. Lund, U.S. History (3rd ed., pp. chapter 12, 14 119-176). OpenStax.

Nahmias, J. (2019). The charter of rights and freedoms: undermining parliamentary sovereignty and federalism. 20(1), 57-65. Web.

Civil War in America was a real test for the whole nation. There are a lot of different reasons which contributed to the prolongation of the Civil War and its beginning, therefore, it is possible to say that the War was inevitable and helped the American nation to understand many important things.

Civil War was an important period in the American history, however, different historians cannot agree on the facts about the main reasons and events which contributed to the beginning and duration of the conflict. Economics was one of the main reasons which caused the development of the Civil War as the slavery in the South was caused by the desire of the Northern Americans to get more money at the expense of the Southern slaves.

Levine^[1] is sure that free labor was one of the main reasons for the Civil War development as it is impossible to use the labor of slaves without any contribution to their wellbeing. People can survive in different conditions, however, they are unable to suffer cruelty and inequality too long.

Levine^[2] provides a number of examples when using the labor of the slaves and getting much money from selling the goods produced by slaves, slave owners did not give any additional support to their employees. Slave owners wee sure that a slave is a property which does not need any contribution. As a result people were tired from such attitude, slaves could not stand anymore such relation and the war began.

Supporting Levines^[3] idea about economical contribution to the beginning of the Civil War, the following data may be considered. Slavery as the system introduced into the American colonies before the 19^th century was not that important as while the period of the Civil War.

Further, the whole book discusses and explains why slavery and other related economic reasons were the main aspects while the Civil War. Slaves were considered as the property and were not distinguished from other property of a rich person, therefore, people could not stand too long. It was obvious that human dignity and the desire to lead a normal life will dominate under the fear before rich and powerful slave owners.

However, Holt^[4] disagrees with the economic reasons of the Civil War development. He is sure that the main reasons for the Civil War beginning was the political factor based on the federal system. Of course, it is impossible to refuse from political factor as one of the reasons which were numerous, it is still, impossible to agree on the development of the political aspect as the central in the Civil War causes.

Political life is important, however, the citizens of the poor South were not interested in the political issues. Slaves were busy with other tasks and they had never been really interesting in politics like the citizens of the North America. Therefore, it is impossible to speak about political aspect as the central in the development of the Civil War.

Therefore, it may be concluded that poor South was interested more in economical situation rather than in political problems. The Civil War development was caused by the economical problems and social inequalities which contributed to the duration of the Civil War in America. Political problems were also important, but they did not play that crucial role as economic ones as being poor people were more interested in their well-being than in political troubles.

Bibliography

Holt, Michael F. The political divisions that contributed to Civil War. In Major Problems in American History, edited by Elizabeth Cobbs-Hoffman, Jon Gjerde, and Edward J. Blum, 401-407, Stamford: Cengage Learning, 2011.

Levine, Bruce. The economic divisions that contributed to Civil War. In Major Problems in American History, edited by Elizabeth Cobbs-Hoffman, Jon Gjerde, and Edward J. Blum, 407-413, Stamford: Cengage Learning, 2011.

Footnotes

1. Bruce Levine, The economic divisions that contributed to Civil War, in Major Problems in American History, eds. Elizabeth Cobbs-Hoffman, Jon Gjerde, and Edward J. Blum (Stamford: Cengage Learning, 2011), 410.
2. Levine, 409.
3. Levine, 407.
4. Michael F. Holt, The political divisions that contributed to Civil War, in Major Problems in American History, eds. Elizabeth Cobbs-Hoffman, Jon Gjerde, and Edward J. Blum (Stamford: Cengage Learning, 2011), 404.

The American Civil War of 1861-1865 was the hardest and bloodiest conflict that the United States fought up to that date. Its long campaigns and fierce battles brought forth tested military leaders who came to be the embodiment of the American military art during this period. The two most notable of those were, without a doubt, Ulysses S. Grant on the Union side and Robert E. Lee on the Confederate side.

Both lived throughout the greater part of the 19^th century, and both rose to particular military prominence by the middle of the Civil War. They made major contributions to the period as military commanders  Lee leading the Army of Northern Virginia and Grant commanding various forces in the Western theater and then the Army of the Potomac. It begs the legitimate question of who of these two was ultimately the best general of the American Civil War. Research indicates that Lee was a better tactician, but Grant superseded him in operational art and strategy alike and, hence, was superior to Lee as a military leader.

Generally speaking, Grant and Lee received different treatment in the annals of American history. In Grants case, the political atmosphere of the war and the following decades ensured that his military career would be under consistent and unfavorable scrutiny. Being a staunch Republican, Grant was often criticized for his operations by those of Democratic leanings, and this politically-motivated scrutiny only intensified during his tenure as the US President. As a result, the 19^th-century historiography coined the image of Grant as an unimaginative butcher who won through sheer numbers rather than any military talent.¹ While contemporary historians are rethinking this interpretation, it still lingers and can affect the generals perception for the worse.²

On the other hand, Lee became an icon for the Lost Cause myth and, as such, was lionized and glorified as the epitome of Southern manhood and military genius.³ As a consequence, he was as likely to be praised for his military performance as Grant was to be criticized. External political influences impacted the images of both generals  Lees to the better and Grants to the worse  and it is necessary to see through them.

The first logical step is to compare Grant and Lees grasp of tactics  that is, the ability to win a given battle. Lees tactical style emphasized maneuver, envelopment, and the combination of premeditated defense and vigorous counterattack when the moment was ripe. The prime example of his tactical competence was the Second Battle of Manassas of August 29-30, 1862, when Lees army withstood the initial assault of the Union forces and then routed them with a flanking counterattack.⁴ One may agree with John Hennessy calling it the ultimate case study in the Army of Northern Virginia at its best.⁵

Grant, though, is not as known for his tactical acumen. The battles he commanded often degraded into frontal engagements with heavy casualties on both sides and were sometimes poorly prepared. An example would be the Battle of Shiloh of April 6-7 of 1862, when Grant neglected to entrench and defended and counterattacked frontally with scarcely an attempt to flank.⁶ While it is arguable whether Grants tactical performance was due to the personal shortcomings of lack of capable subordinates like Jackson and Longstreet, he was still a less accomplished tactician than Lee.

Next to tactics, one should evaluate the two generals command of operational art or the ability to continuously direct the effort of their forces throughout a campaign to the achievement of an intermediate strategic goal. As an operator, Grant possessed a laudable focus on his goal and tenacity in achieving it. He began his Overland campaign of 1864 with a clear focus on the operational goal of crippling Lees army and besieging Richmond.⁷ Ever conscious of this goal, he pushed onward, despite the heavy casualties Lee inflicted on him, and succeeded in reducing the latter to the state when his army was surrounded and starving.⁸

This ability to persistently pursue a goal set for a campaign was the hallmark of Grants blunt but undeniably effective operational style.

Lee could demonstrate the same tenacity and focus in his operations. An example would be the Peninsular Campaign of 1862, when he forced General McClellan to retreat and evacuate in a series of determined, if not always successful, assaults.⁹

However, he was not always that focused, as demonstrated by the Gettysburg campaign. If, as Lees posthumously published autobiography claims, the goal of the operation was to defeat the Union in a pitched battle, he should have used Stuarts cavalry for reconnaissance rather a sweeping raid.¹⁰ If the goal was to put the army on a better logistical footing and amass supplies for it, then Lees commitment on the third day of the battle of Gettysburg was an over-commitment and a clear example of sunk cost fallacy.¹¹ Given that, one may agree with Reardon that Lees Gettysburg campaign was characterized by the lack of clear specifics.¹² Hence, one may consider Grant a more focused and goal-oriented operator than Lee.

Finally, it is also necessary to discuss the generals understanding of strategy or the ability to view and plan war in its entirety  and, in this respect, Sherman was clearly the superior one. His plan of the 1864 offensive, including the Overland Campaign and Shermans March to the Sea to simultaneously defeat Confederate forces around Richmond and Atlanta, is an example of bold yet sound strategic thinking.¹³

Conversely, Lee was not as adept at viewing the war strategically. In 1863, after his victory at Chancellorsville earned him some breathing space, Lee had an opportunity to reinforce the West and possibly prevent the Union capture of Vicksburg. However, he opted in favor of the Gettysburg campaign, essentially dooming the Confederacy the West and sacrificing strategic concerns for the operational expediency of fighting on a familiar theater against a weakened enemy.¹⁴ Considering this, there is no doubt that Grant was a better strategist than Lee.

As one can see, Grant comes superior in his comparison to Lee as a military leader. Admittedly, he was not as capable a tactician as Lee, although less experienced troops and the initial lack of competent subordinates likely contributed to his poorer performance in this department. However, his operations always had a clear focus, while Lee was not perfectly consistent in this respect. Finally, Grant always kept the strategic picture in his mind and planned his actions accordingly, while Lees choice in favor of the Gettysburg campaign indicates his tendency to sacrifice strategic considerations for better operational prospects. Since strategic and operational mastery is ultimately more important in winning the war than tactical excellence, one may conclude that Grant and not Lee was the best general of the American Civil War.

Bibliography

Fitzgerald, Sean. Challenging the Butcher Reputation: General Grants Strategy in the Overland Campaign.. 2021. Web.

Grant, Ulysses S. Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant. Web.

Hennessy, John. The Second Bull Run Campaign. In The Cambridge History of the American Civil War, vol. 1: Military Affairs, edited by Aaron S. Dean, 120-140. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2019.

Hulsman, John C. To Dare More Boldly: The Audacious Story of Political Risk. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2018.

Johnson, David A. Battle of Wills: Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, and the Last Year of the Civil War. New York: Prometheus Books, 2016. EBook.

Lewis, Aaron. The Confederate Triumvirate: Stonewall Jackson, Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and the Makings of the Lost Cause, 1863-1940. PhD diss., University of South Florida, 2020.

Long, A. L. Memoirs of Robert E. Lee, His Military and Personal History Including the Large Amount of Information Hitherto Unpublished. New York: J. M. Stoddart & Company, 1887.

Reardon, Carol. The Gettysburg Campaign. In The Cambridge History of the American Civil War, vol. 1: Military Affairs, edited by Aaron S. Dean, 223-245. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2019.

Footnotes

1. Sean Fitzgerald, Challenging the Butcher Reputation: General Grants Strategy in the Overland Campaign,. 2021. Web.
2. Fitzgerald, General Grants Strategy.
3. Aaron Lewis, The Confederate Triumvirate: Stonewall Jackson, Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and the Makings of the Lost Cause, 1863-1940 (PhD diss., University of South Florida, 2020), 67.
4. A. L. Long, Memoirs of Robert E. Lee, His Military and Personal History Including the Large Amount of Information Hitherto Unpublished (New York: J. M. Stoddart & Company, 1887), 198.
5. John Hennessy, The Second Bull Run Campaign, in The Cambridge History of the American Civil War, vol. 1: Military Affairs, ed. Aaron S. Dean (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2019), 129.
6. Ulysses S. Grant, Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant, 158. 2021. Web.
7. Grant, Personal Memoirs, 319.
8. David A. Johnson, Battle of Wills: Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, and the Last Year of the Civil War (New York: Prometheus Books, 2016), chap. 1, eBook.
9. Long, Memoirs of Robert E. Lee, 161-181.
10. Long, Memoirs of Robert E. Lee, 269.
11. John C. Hulsman, To Dare More Boldly: The Audacious Story of Political Risk (Princeton: Princeton UP, 2018), 168.
12. Carol Reardon, The Gettysburg Campaign, in The Cambridge History of the American Civil War, vol. 1: Military Affairs, ed. Aaron S. Dean (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2019), 225.
13. Grant, Personal Memoirs, 313.
14. Long, Memoirs of Robert E. Lee, 269.

The American economy as it is in the present was shaped by the occurrences of history, especially during the post-civil war period. Many events of industrialism and developments that occurred after the war led to a revolution in the economy of New York and America in general. This paper explains the events that occurred after the war and the impacts that they brought in New York. The merging of different states to give New York is profiled, and the industrialization and the research of the period are described. Capitalism issues are also addressed. The formation of labor unions is also outlined which was to counter different capitalism effects. The great depression of 1929-1930s is also explained and its effects outlined. The First World War and its effects on New York are also explained.

The post-civil war period

The economic aftermath of the American Civil War (18611865) is mainly because of the Northern control of the federal government during and after the war. The American civil war occurred during 1861-1865. The then-president Abraham Lincoln on January 1 1863 issued the Emancipation proclamation, where slaves were freed in all rebelling confederation states this led to the civil war. During the war the majority of whites in New York stayed in New York to protect their properties, the war brought economic hardships and a high rate of unemployment of the blacks and Irish workers.

Four legislation passed during the civil war were critical to the economic development; these legislations included; the Morrill Tariff of 1861 which raised rates to 20 percent on average and ended the over thirty years of declining rates, the Morrill Land Grant Act (1862) which established agricultural and mechanical colleges by allotting state in the Unions large tracks of land, the National Bank Act of 1863 which established standards for the banking industry, and the Homestead Act of 1862 which gave free quarter section in western territories to those who settled there for five years and were interested in being citizens (Civil War, Economic Impact of (Issue, 1999). The wartime impacts of the south where the war destroyed much wealth in the south hence the north was favored for economic growth. The economy in the post-Civil War was favored by the construction of railroads which connected the industrial cities of the northeast and the agricultural areas of the Midwest and the plains.

The modern New York was formed in 1898, from the merging of five separate jurisdictions which were Manhattan, Staten Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx, which came together to form a new municipal known as the Greater New York. Brooklyn Township was formed from the city of Brooklyn together with other municipalities for the east like Kings County, and New York. The Queens Township was a merger of Queens County (Nassau County) and Richmond County. This led to the abolishment of all county towns and city municipal governments (Burrows, & Wallace, 2000 p.1222). The merging of these townships increased trade and had fewer administrative rules which favored the development of the city to what is being seen today.

This post-civil war economic reconstruction period was referred to as the Gilded Age where the economy relied on industries and population for growth. This led to capitalism where the whites were the industrialist and financiers while the minority who included the blacks, Hispanics, and the natives provided labor. During the 1880 period, New York City was then filled with immigrants reaching approximately 1.9 million who had immigrated to America in search of a better life. This immigration caused more upheavals and Tammany hall was exploited by corruption and bad governance which saw the state experience economic segregation due to social exclusion (Burrows & Wallace, 2000, p.1088). Capitalism was also present as the city was controlled by 60 percent of the leaders of New Yorks national corporations, investment banks, and railroads were descendants of old-moneyed families (Burrows, & Wallace, 2000 p.1083). various cities including New York, Brooklyn, and Jersey City merged to form the Central Labor Union (CLU) which introduced various regulations and policies that included introducing eight-hour workday, illegalizing child labor, establishing policies on equal pay for equal work, government-issued currency to eliminate the then bank-issued currency, abolishing the tramp laws and enforcing the end of class privileges (Burrows & Wallace, 2000 p.1098).

The immigrants were mistreated and exploited and they used to provide cheap labor. Crime prevailed in the city and the then American Protective Association was never effective and was overpowered. This crime rate affected peoples stays but never stopped the many innovations and developments of New York.

The civil war led technicians and innovators to revolutionize many industries by 1870. Many scientists began working in collaboration to produce inventions. Inventions of that time include the modern steel mills, the first electric bulb, drilling and extracting oil from the ground. Emphasis was put on research through the provision of subsidies to the Universities leading to increased innovations and opportunities for development. Economies of scale led to the establishment of huge industries, increased labor supply, and urbanization while the high population led to mass consumption and increased advertisement. The late nineteenth and early twentieth century gave more development in terms of economic, political, and social developments. The industrial revolution of this period increased in trends and can be traced as the start of the matrix of the present New York.

In 1900, New York heat and Power Company started lighting the city gas and electric light was incorporated into the economy. Advancement of the fire department, building codes, and workplace occurred following the disasters of the fires that erupted in 1904 and 1911 which left many dead. New transportation systems e.g. the subways were established in 1904 (commonly known as the Inter-borough rapid transit) and also railroads that operated from Grand Central Terminal to Pennsylvania came alive during this period. In the 1920s the City saw many African American immigrants from the south and the Harlem Renaissance, an age that witnessed the construction of the skyscrapers as viewed in the current New York City. During this period, the city grew in terms of industry, commerce, and communication although crime also rampantly increased parallel to the economic development.

Post World War 1

Growth was however reduced by the First World War since many trade routes were closed, and the Immigration Restriction Act led to less immigration which meant the absence of cheap labor. The great depression which occurred in 1929-1930s was an economic crisis that hit the world and New York was not spared. It led to the crash of the stock markets and affected the economy adversely with the personal income dropping, tax revenues of the state dropped, profits also dropped, unemployment increased, and led to reduced trade. After the end of the recession, significant growth related to the investment in the post-civil war started emerging and increasing.

Although New York was hit by the great depression, major developments were witnessed after the depression. The civil war severely affected the capitalist in New York, but it led to more innovations that shaped the future of the US. The effects of the civil war were expected to reduce development in New York but as viewed above, the war acted as a turning point to the city and the whole nation. Although it led to more capitalism with the whites claiming most of the properties, the wise invested heavily to boost growth and development. If this period never occurred, then the American dream could have just been a vague dream and maybe America of today could not be a superpower. New York has continued to be a perfect example in industry, commerce, and communication since this period.

References

Burrows, E. G. & Wallace, M. (2000). Gotham: a history of New York City to 1898. London: Oxford University Press US. Web.

Civil War, Economic Impact of (Issue). (1999). Gale Encyclopedia of U.S. Economic History. The Gale Group Inc. Web.

The Civil War in America was the ensuing consequence of the opposition between the South and North. The main cause of the war was slavery, which decelerated the development of the economy. The War resulted in the Reconstruction of the whole economic system of the United States with the indispensable condition of slavery abolition. The works by Jordan, Johnson and Zinn helped to make a notion of the historical importance of Reconstruction. Using the documentaries, it is on the point to define the results of the Civil War and Reconstruction.

In the middle of the nineteenth century slavery in the South hampered the economical and social development of the country. In the North there was a rapid growth of capitalism, the industrial revolution reached the crucial phase, embracing all main branches of industrial production. But the South remained to be a backward slavery region. In the South, only minorities of white people were slave owners, but many poor whites were persuaded that their future also depended on the maintenance of slavery. Some Southern whites volunteered, and others were drafted (Zinn, 197). The alignment of class forces changed to this period. While the old trade bourgeoisie, bankers, and cotton manufacturers were economically tied with the South, the new industrial bourgeoisie faced planters about customs tariff and financing of the railway building, channels and harbors. The capitalistic development demanded the formation of the single national market, and the transition from slave labor to wage labor. Zinn notes, It was the classic situation, the onset of war spurring demands for national unity, though in reality the nation was divided between rich and poor (Zinn, 198). A significant role in the growth of the revolutionary movement was played by the armed revolt of a farmer and abolitionist, John Brown. Civil War resulted in the victory of the North, abolition of slavery and reconstruction of the whole economic system in the country. Jordan quotes President Jefferson, The essential principles of our Government& form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation (Jordan, 184). The bourgeois-democratic reforms applied to the South in the first place. Reconstruction touched the North farming indirectly, as they were satisfied by The Homestead Act. Free Negros, fighting for soil and civil rights, became the main revolution power. Most had retained control of their land, but with slavery gone, they now had to bargain for the labor of their former slaves (Johnson, 396). In the labor organization there raised the question of the equality of whites and blacks. But a lot of Negros and white poor men occupied the position of sharecroppers.

As a result of four years of war and a period of Reconstruction, the political and economical system of the USA was greatly developed for benefit of free States. Slavery was abolished, Negros were freed and got the right to free soil usage. But these results were gained at the cost of millions of deaths. The significance of the examined works can be started by Johnsons quote, One of the most important things we can do young man, is never forget (Johnson, 404).

Works Cited

Jordan, Winthrop D. The White Mans Burden: Historical Origins of Racism in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.

Johnson, Charles, Patricia Smith, and the WGBH Series Research Team. Africans in America: Americas Journey through Slavery. New York: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1998.

Zinn, Howard and Anthony Arnove. Voices of a peoples history of the United States. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2009.

Introduction

The Battle of Gettysburg in 1863 is considered a turning point in the American Civil War. The following year, the main leitmotif of the Norths military campaign was an attempt to stiffen Confederate defenses on all fronts and, if not to defeat them in a decisive battle, at least to deplete the Souths living and material resources and destroy its economy. Nevertheless, the Confederacy was not yet broken and was unwilling to admit defeat. In May 1864, the enemies met again at the Spotsylvania settlement, a series of cabins made strategically important by their proximity to the crossroads.

Yankee Blitzkrieg. Wilsons Raid Through Alabama and Georgia Review

The book Yankee Blitzkrieg. Wilsons Raid Through Alabama and Georgia explores primarily the U.S. Civil War, highlighting significant figures and battles for one side or the other. One of these generals, reviewed and studied in this book, is Emory Upton, who made a tremendous contribution to the war effort (Jones, 2021). The book analyzes every action and decision the general made, step by step, and focuses on the battle of 1864, where Emory created a whole new type of offensive.

Methods

In order to understand Uptons contribution to the development of strategy and combat tactics, it is necessary to pay attention to what factors he considered significant. From the text of the book and the generals own reasoning, it can be seen that Emory Upton considered two factors to be fundamental to success on the battlefield. It is namely the number of soldiers and time in terms of the amount of it in the enemies (Jones, 2021). From this point of view it is necessary to conduct a detailed analysis of his strategy, and to identify the reasons for the failure of the most significant battle in the history of the general.

Results of Findings

Then, it was decided to throw units of General Governor Warrens 5th Corps in support of Upton. Once again the choice proved unsuccessful, Warrens men had already participated in a hopeless attack a few hours earlier that had ended in profuse bloodshed. The order to attack Confederate positions did not excite the troops (Jones, 2021). The soldiers were reluctant to advance, but when they entered a field littered with blue uniforms, they turned back and quietly occupied their trenches.

It was at that moment that the fate of Uptons men was decided. Taking advantage of the confusion among the Federals, the Southerners moved three infantry brigades to the site of the breach. Deployed in lines, the Confederates advanced on three sides toward the plucky colonels position. Fortified in the trenches, the Federals fought off fierce enemy attacks for hours, hoping in vain that backup was imminent. Upton simply could not believe that everything had gone to waste and that the successful breakthrough would end in nothing. Nevertheless, the Confederates succeeded in breaking the resistance of the irrepressible Yankees. The Federals lost more than a thousand soldiers, Colonel Upton himself was wounded, and was eventually forced to order a retreat (Jones, 2021). Keeping order, the shot regiments of Northerners left the dead-covered trenches and returned to their original positions, bringing several hundred prisoners with them.

Uptons Strategy Research

Before the attack, Upton decided to inspect the formation to determine the weaknesses of the opponent and to determine which vector to take. Ultimately, the officer concluded that the main objective was to break through the fortifications, since the situation did not allow for bypassing or outmaneuvering them. It should be noted that the positions of the opponents were better fortified than usual, which made the task much more difficult. Then Emory Upton decided that a classic attack would be defeated by musket-wielding detachments. Then the general decided to divide the troops into four sections so that each had a width of three.

At that time, the advancing infantry often lost formation and the attackers mingled into one unruly crowd. The general decided to deal with this problem not in the classic way through training, but by stealth. He gave each squad a tactical assignment that prevented soldiers from mixing among themselves and disrupting the strategic formation (Jones, 2021). After the breakthrough, the 121st New York and 96th Pennsylvania Regiments would deploy to the right and capture an artillery battery, while the 5th Maine would deploy to the left, extending the breakthrough area (Jones, 2021, p.88). The 2nd and 3rd attacking lines would enter the breach, while Vermont regiments would remain behind and act based on the situation. One point Upton stressed was that officers had been ordered not to allow soldiers to stop, even to help the wounded.

Notably, Uptons regiment was tasked with breaking through enemy fortifications. At the beginning of the battle, Uptons detachment came out of the woods and was immediately hit by a musket volley. Without stopping, the attackers rushed forward, crossed the open space in a minute, and rushed the fortifications. The barrage broke their line, then they were hit by the second volley, but did not stop, and the fight in the fortifications began (Fitzpatrick, 2017). The second wave of attackers broke through the line and the regiments began to turn left and right, widening the breach. So Uptons objective was accomplished and the fortifications were destroyed. The remaining regiments immediately continued their advance, suffering fewer casualties because the musketry was destroyed or scattered. However, the plan was thwarted and could not be executed to the end, resulting in defeat. Upton accomplished his mission  he broke through the enemys fortifications and waited for Motts advance, not yet knowing that he would not be there. Meanwhile, the Southerners moved to counterattack, pushing their positions back (Fitzpatrick, 2017). Uptons entire plan was based on the idea that additional units would be brought into the breach, but Motts attack was repulsed, and General Wright did not know how to proceed.

Although the attack resulted in defeat, one cannot overlook Uptons enormous contribution to infantry strategy. The fact is that such an attack alarmed enemy generals, who began to develop defenses against such attacks. Uptons actions were extremely effective against infantry fortifications, which were very popular in ground strategies (Fitzpatrick, 2017). Thus, the generals main contribution consists of new insights into the fight against defenses and barrier units. His actions forced modern generals to reconsider both defense positions and attack capabilities (Fitzpatrick, 2017). In addition, tactical decisions at the time were made on the battlefield rather than analyzed afterward. With this in mind, Upton introduced the concept of unpredictable troops, that is, actions on the part of the enemy that cannot be predicted.

While on the front lines, the commander of the 2nd Infantry Brigade, Emory Upton, watched the battle intently. In spite of his youth, Upton was considered an experienced serviceman: just before the war he graduated from West Point, began his service as a second lieutenant in the artillery, advanced quickly because of his ability and scientific mindset, and at Gettysburg was already in command of an infantry brigade (Jones, 2021). Upton suggested to General Grant, commander of the Army of the Potomac, that he abandoned the satchel and break the Confederate positions with a massive infantry attack on a narrow section of the front. The attack was directed at the weakest part of the enemys trenches, which due to their configuration became known as the Horseshoe of the Mule (Jones, 2021). The offensive was to be carried out by twelve reliable infantry regiments, arranged in a powerful assault column of four successive lines (Jones, 2021). The attack was to be conducted at an accelerated pace, turning into a run, while the personnel were strictly forbidden to stop and get involved in a firefight with the enemy.

Knowing that no one would follow instructions in combat, Upton made sure the soldiers, while loading their rifles, did not put the primer on the breechblock spigot. An exception was made only for the first line. At about six oclock in the evening of May 10, 1864, 5,000 blue uniforms, in four battle lines, like a devil out of a snuffbox, emerged from the woods and, issuing a belligerent roar, rushed toward the enemys positions (Jones, 2021, p.74). The Confederates were experienced soldiers and were not the least bit confused. As they drew the enemy closer, they fired a powerful salvo that swept away the first wave of attackers. While the greys reloaded their weapons, a second wave reached the fortifications, almost unhindered. The Federals jumped up on the bulwark and fired a killing salvo at the enemy at point-blank range (Jones, 2021). The surviving Southerners had already been bayoneted from top to bottom, like harpoons. General Doles three Confederate regiments, manned by Georgia natives, were almost entirely dead in their positions.

The blue uniforms were able to take a fairly wide swath of terrain at once. Fortified in the trenches and deployed lines to the right and left, the Yankees began mowing down Confederate units with longitudinal fire. At the Battle of Gettysburg, the division was caught in a meat grinder and exsanguinated (Jones, 2021). Since then, the personnel never recovered from the shock. Besides, the soldiers were nearing the end of their contracts and no one was burning to take a bullet in their last days. Motts division had no time to turn around when Southern artillery batteries pelted it with buckshot (Jones, 2021). It was enough for the soldiers, disregarding the officers shouts, to turn around and flee into the nearest wooded area.

Conclusion

To conclude all information above, Uptons strategy was so effective that it drew the attention of the entire command. Furthermore, the general himself was promoted despite the fact that the troops were defeated in this battle. The tactical technique of conducting a frontal assault on entrenched infantry was deemed successful. It is believed that this attack formed the basis of the infantry tactics used in World War I trench warfare.

Nevertheless, it is essential to emphasize the generals own attitude toward what happened. He was disappointed and attributed the blame for the defeat to himself. He ignored the fact that in this case the victory was not due to the problems of Motts detachment, while Uptons actions had been flawlessly executed and the defense had been breached completely, as the general had planned. Uptons contemporaries described his decision solely as an unusual, cold and extremely effective tactic. Those who were with him on the battlefield wrote that his actions were so deliberate and prudent that they could not result in a single mistake or strategic miscalculation. Moreover, the attack itself was so lightning-fast that the enemy had no time to do anything about it.

References

Fitzpatrick, D. J. (2017). Emory Upton. Misunderstood reformer. University of Oklahoma Press.

Jones, J. P. (2021). Yankee Blitzkrieg. Wilsons raid through Alabama and Georgia. University Press of Kentucky.

In the modern world, the foundations of peacemaking, peacebuilding, and democracy are the reasons why humanity still exists. Ethiopian President Abiy Ahmed seemed to follow peacemaking principles, resolving a conflict that lasted 20 years. However, Abiy Ahmed became a participant in a new contest, which contradicted democracy and peacebuilding a year later. Moreover, this violent conflict has led to a wave of migrants, an acute problem before that. The aim of this paper is to analyze the reasons and possible ways to end this conflict regarding the concepts of peacemaking and peacebuilding.

In 2018, Ethiopian President Abiy Ahmed and Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki signed a peace agreement that ended a prolonged border conflict. Cultural, financial, and logistic ties were restored, and Abiy Ahmed was awarded the Nobel Prize. However, in 2020, a civil war was started against the forces of the Tigray Peoples Liberation Front (TPLF) and Ethiopian authorities. After the conflict turned into a military phase, fierce fighting and clashes led to a new wave of refugees and migrants. Thus, asylum seekers can lead to racial mixing or substitution and health issues (in the event that they have to live in unsanitary conditions for a long time).

Before identifying possible ways to resolve this violent conflict, it is necessary to analyze such concepts as peacemaking and peacebuilding in more detail. The peak state of irritation and discontent from both parties is direct hostilities, which firstly originated from threats. Peacemaking is a way to achieve repose, which includes diplomatic, peaceful, and fair methods of resolving disputes. Peacebuilding includes more ambitious measures to achieve peace, such as supporting the fight against corruption and implementing humanitarian programs. Peacebuilding is more than just an instrumental method of achieving peace. It also includes training, education, and human rights monitoring through observation and analysis of past or existing violations.

Elections held by the Tigray administration unleashed the conflict in Tigray, and the Ethiopian government declared the vote illegal. The reason for this was the Covid-19 pandemic, due to which the elections throughout the country were postponed. Further, the Ethiopian parliament broke off all diplomatic relations with the Tigray (Council of Representatives) legislative border, and the conflict entered a military phase. Armed formations of TPLF were created that opposed the Ethiopian army. According to observers, the management of TPLF wants to restore its power in Ethiopia, which led to military confrontations.

Peacemaking is usually characterized by measures that deal with a pre-existing conflict. Thus, in the current confrontation, it is important to determine a process to finish it using the framework of peacemaking. Thereby, the main principle is to bring the parties of the conflict to negotiations. In the future, these negotiations should lead to the development of a documented or oral (less often) agreement. Accordingly, in the current conflict, such items as the withdrawal of troops, the disbandment of armed groups, and a number of economic agreements could be considered.

Peacebuildings main goal is to prevent escalation or revival of the conflict in the event of a settlement. Additionally, the main goal is to develop an environment with a mutually beneficial policy for further development. In this regard, in the event of a settlement of the current confrontation, it is necessary to review political, financial, and logistic points between the parties. Further, given the main principle of peacebuilding, namely the construction of a peaceful, free, and developing state, one should develop strategies and actions in the event of a new confrontation. In other words, it is necessary to understand what points will be possible to yield, but at the same time, it should be beneficial to the state and not damage its economic development.

To conclude, the process of conflict resolution is a multifaceted and complex concept. It includes two main phases, namely peacemaking and peacebuilding. The first point includes measures that are taken in the event of an ongoing war and are aimed at its resolution. Possible ways to resolve the current conflict in the framework of peacemaking would be to lead the parties to negotiations. The end result should be a document (or verbal agreement), which outlines the points of a mutual solution to the conflict. There may be some political, economic, or logistical concessions, and the main mechanism is the principle of reciprocity. Regarding the peacebuilding framework, these points should involve those that would prevent the reescalation of the conflict.