Category: Civil War

Introduction to Reconstruction and African-American Expectations

Using Eric Foner’s definition of Reconstruction, the period lasted from 1863-1877, beginning with the Emancipation Proclamation, the freeing of slaves in rebel states, and ending with the compromise of 1877 (Foner, 2014). African-American definitions and expectations for freedom differed between individuals during this period, but the themes of autonomy, economic independence, and education were constants amongst African-Americans throughout Reconstruction. The Thirteenth Amendment, adopted on December 6, 1865, formally abolished slavery, except as a punishment, and was hailed by many white abolitionists, such as William Lloyd Garrison, as the ultimate success of abolitionism (Foner, 2014). The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments completed the trio of Reconstruction Amendments, bringing equality of rights and voting into the Constitution. However, these amendments were quickly perverted through the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873, which Stephen J. Field’s dissenting statement argued made the Fourteenth Amendment a ‘vain and idle enactment’ (Graham, 2013). Moreover, the actions of white supremacist terrorist groups such as the KKK or White League restricted the rights of African-Americans, particularly opposing the African-American vote, further embedding the inequality of the Southern States. The inability, and lack of desire, of the Federal Government to uphold the Reconstruction Amendments resulted in the African-American goals of autonomy, economic independence, and education being severely restricted, despite some successes such as in religion and emancipation. Reconstruction was a failure for African-American goals, despite its successes, described by Eric Foner as a ‘disaster whose magnitude cannot be obscured by the genuine accomplishments that did endure’ (Foner, 2014).

Religious Autonomy and African-American Churches

Religion existed as the foundation of African-American desire for autonomy during slavery, continuing in this role behind the majority of African-Americans’ visions for Reconstruction and emancipation. Independence from white denominations, which during slavery had often used religion as a tool to enforce bondage, was the backbone of the African-American drive for autonomy. Newly created churches such as the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church allowed former slaves independence from white oversight in one of the most important aspects of their lives (Walker, 1985). During slavery, religion was a unifying feature of slave communities, providing an outlet for the agency, focusing on the Old Testament and the freeing of the slaves in Exodus as an act of hope and resistance (Dennard, 1984). This agency carried through into Reconstruction, the focus on God and family establishing the basis of African-American expectations and hopes for their freedom. To an extent, this freedom was realized, with multiple black denominations forming throughout the South, and Northern churches sending missionaries and expanding (Walker, 1985). These churches existed as the core of black independence from white authority, developing into societies and fraternal orders, largely providing freedom from white oversight (Foner, 2014, Campbell, 1995). By the end of Reconstruction, most Southern blacks were no longer in churches dominated by whites (Foner, 2014). However, these new churches still retained much of the hierarchies of white denominations, with women being refused ordination (Maffly-Kipp, 2001). The continuation of patriarchal hierarchies in African-American churches, and communities, restricted the freedom of African-American women, but they were still able to exercise a vastly more independent religious life than ever before, forming missionary groups, educating, and advocating for racial uplift (Maffly-Kipp, 2001).

The Role of Education in African-American Communities

Education in African-American communities often relied on religious organizations, groups, and scriptures, with missionaries and Northern teachers providing the first public education in the South (Morrow 1954, Foner, 2014, Anderson 1988). Education was seen by the majority of freedmen as one of the most important steps towards increased freedom, autonomy, and economic independence. Through education, African-Americans proved their desire for independence, especially against claims that freed slaves would be lazy and reliant upon the state for survival. Northern societies and state governments provided the majority of the funding for education in the South, but in practice, African-Americans established and ran most of the black education in the South. African-American education was one of the strongest manifestations of black freedom and the goal of racial equality during Reconstruction, by educating themselves, many African-Americans saw education as the best method of ensuring their freedom could be acted upon. Through education, African-Americans saw an opportunity to become politically aware and active, be able to enter into artisan work, and become closer to equality with white Americans. Education has been noted as one of Reconstruction’s successes, giving both the right and means to education to African-Americans, allowing organization and political activism to remove white control from communities (A.A. Taylor, 1938). Even after the white supremacist Redeemers took power at the end of Reconstruction, education in the South remained superior to when blacks were wholly excluded (Du Bois, 1935). However, despite the increased access to education, African-American schools quickly ran out of funding in the early years of Reconstruction; in 1866, The African-American Savannah Education System had to turn over black schools to the white-dominated American Missionary Association as they could not afford the costs, and the black teachers were quickly reduced to assistants, replaced by white teachers (Foner, 2014). It was often near impossible for African-Americans to remove themselves from a white authority, which was usually fuelled by the same beliefs of racial “paternalism” which assumed black childishness and laziness, making freedom through independence increasingly difficult. Moreover, discrimination existed within the African-American community as well, with free blacks from before the Civil War feeling a sense of exclusivity, and reluctant to send their children to school with former slaves (Foner, 2014).

The desire for direct equality acted as the driving goal for many African-Americans, particularly among leaders and intellectuals. Henry M. Turner, a leading African-American minister during Reconstruction stated ‘If I cannot do like a white man I am not free’ (Foner, 2014). Turner exemplified the desire for autonomy, independence, and equality, but by his definition of freedom, Reconstruction was a complete failure. By the end of the period, white supremacist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and the White League had destroyed African-American political participation, and the Black Codes and other pieces of legislation had created de facto black criminalization in multiple Southern states. Immediately after Andrew Johnson’s suspension of slavery in 1864, Tennessee jurisdictions introduced harsh Black Codes, with blacks going from one-fiftieth to one-third of inmates in prison (Forehand, 1996). The de facto laws of black criminalization directly opposed the conditions of the Reconstruction Amendments by specifically targeting African-Americans, such as the South Carolina legislature clearly reusing aspects of slave codes in their language, and creating laws that hindered African-American merchants (Ranney, 2006, Forte, 1998). This inequality is exemplified by what Douglass Blackmon describes as ‘Neoslavery’ (Blackmon, 2008). As the Thirteenth Amendment allows slavery only as a punishment, the Black Codes and other forms of legislation specifically targeting African-Americans can be seen as the South attempting to restore the institution of slavery. Examples of these laws include Louisiana’s 1866 criminalization of cursing and “disobedience” towards white people (Forte, 1998). The Black Codes restricted black autonomy by creating constant white surveillance, and when African-Americans could not afford to pay the fines for their “crimes”, they were sentenced and used as forced labor, often under worse conditions than during slavery, as white overseers now had less economic incentive to protect the lives of workers (Blackmon, 2008, Stampp, 1965). ‘Neoslavery’ and the de facto criminalization of African-Americans in the South demonstrate one of the ways in which Reconstruction failed to achieve African-Americans’ goals. Many Republican lawmakers believed that because African-Americans were legally equal, African-Americans should then no longer need government assistance, an idea reflected in cartoonist Thomas Nast’s ‘Is This a Republican Form of Government?’ (Fairclough, 2018, Du Bois, 1935).

The Impact of White Supremacist Violence on Reconstruction

The violence of white supremacist terrorist groups during Reconstruction further embedded the inequality between white and black Americans. The Ku Klux Klan, throughout the early years of Reconstruction, committed acts of extreme violence against African-Americans, such as lynchings and whippings. These acts of violence were intended to restore white supremacy, as African-Americans began gaining increasing independence and autonomy, particularly attacking African-American leaders and political activists, a tactic later used by the White League for the same intention. Many African-Americans hoped that Reconstruction would signal freedom from the extreme violence of slavery but violence under the Klan was often more extreme than that experienced under bondage, as white supremacy no longer had an economic incentive to restrain its violence. Reconstruction failed to give African-Americans freedom from violence, with the campaigns of the KKK and other white supremacist groups having a clear impact on politics in contributing to the rise of the Redeemers to power and the subsequent disenfranchisement of African-Americans and establishment of Jim Crow laws. The success of white supremacist groups represented a huge loss for African-American freedom and goals, especially politically, as Frederick Douglass stated when the Thirteenth Amendment passed, ‘Slavery is not abolished until the black man has the ballot.’ The loss of political ability and representation, combined with the Neoslavery conditions suggests African-Americans’ goals were failed by Reconstruction. However, Eric Foner notes how the KKK pushed African-Americans further into expressing their individual rights and desires, with the extremity of their violence forcing the Federal Government to intervene to protect the rights of African-Americans (Foner, 2014). But the damage that these terrorist groups did to African-American political participation and representation was one of the most damaging legacies of Reconstruction, the political impact helping establish segregation laws and white supremacist rule, restricting African-Americans’ goals and freedom for generations.

Economic Independence and Land Ownership

One of the main groups of African-Americans that the KKK would target was economically successful. Economic independence became one of the primary goals of African-Americans during Reconstruction, the desire to be free of white supervision and be self-reliant exemplifying the goal of autonomy. Freedom meant economic independence through wage labor and economic emancipation from the reliance on white America. This goal can be shown by the large number of former slaves who demanded ownership of the land they formerly worked, insisting their years of bondage entitled them to the estate (Foner, 2014). Some blacks in 1865 went further, refusing to leave the properties entirely (Foner, 2014). Very few freedmen actually gained land or wealth through this method. Freedmen believed the Federal Government would support their claims to land and redistribution, likely as a result of promises such as ‘Forty Acres and a Mule’ made by Sherman in 1865 (Webster, 1916, Foner, 1988, Saville, 1994). The desire for land is the strongest representation of the African-American desire to escape white supervision, believing that owning land would ‘complete their independence’ (Foner, 2014). This goal was achieved by some African-Americans, a large number of artisan workers developed throughout Reconstruction, almost entirely male, as women were still forced into domestic work (Hunter, 1997). However, the majority of African-American men and women were living in poverty and debt, forced back into a sharecropping system, and often reliant on producing cotton for white merchants (Barney, 1987). The perseverance of cotton farming and poverty for many African-Americans suggests that despite experiencing increases in freedom and rights, especially emancipation, the conditions and institution of slavery continued in all but name, with African-American workers being unable to leave, and their economic independence is severely restricted.

Conclusion: Assessing the Successes and Failures of Reconstruction

In conclusion, African-Americans envisioned Reconstruction as a period of increasing economic independence, greater individual and collective autonomy, and rising quality of life. In some forms these goals were achieved, with a rising artisan class of African-Americans, independent black religious denominations removing the influence of pro-slave Christianity, and increased access and right to education, for all ages. However, despite these successes, Reconstruction was overwhelmingly a failure for African-American rights and goals, especially when looked at through the Reconstruction amendments. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, yet the Southern states quickly returned African-Americans to a form of quasi-slavery through economic domination, white supremacist terrorism, and black criminalization. The Fourteenth Amendment made discrimination on account of race illegal, yet African-Americans routinely suffered discrimination both de facto and de jure, through the Black Codes, terrorism, and the perseverance of slave and paternalistic beliefs of African-American’s “childlike” and “lazy” characters. The violent campaigns of terrorist groups such as the KKK or White League made the Fifteenth Amendment void, restricting the right and ability of African-Americans to participate in politics through fear and murder. The Reconstruction Amendments represented the goals of African-Americans in the Constitution. The manner that which all three were perverted and neglected throughout Reconstruction demonstrates how African-Americans’ goals failed in spite of their agency and determination to reduce white control over their lives and uplift themselves from slave conditions.

Civil War & Reconstruction, 1861–1877

In 1861, a historical time that America faced a great crisis. The southern and northern states of the nation had become divergent politically, economically, and socially. The southern states remained to be agricultural lands, whereas the states of the north had developed rampantly in industries and commercially. Of more essence to this uniqueness, the demon of slavery, African – American slavery, was growing, and of these vast differences, the two states were separating with time. The core reason for the separations was the ‘peculiar institution,’ the people from the north wanted to abolish and do away with slavery while the ones from the south supported slavery and even tried to expand it, making slavery to be the focal point of the crisis. This paper will highlight the consequences, history, and effects of the American civil war which lasted until 1865 and was disastrous by every standard [Ref:1]. [1: Richard O. Curry, ‘The Civil War and Reconstruction, 1861-1877: A Critical Overview of Recent Trends and Interpretations,’ Civil War History 20, no. 3 (1974): 215, doi:10.1353/cwh.1974.0089.]

The split in the fabric of the country led to a bitter war fuelled after the inauguration of President Lincoln by the southern states, which wanted to be declared the sovereign state of America. The civil war that led to the death of many combatants was havoc, and for one to understand it better, a look back at historical documents and pictures would highlight it. Despite the reparations, the war led to the rise of the new America build on the ashes of slavery and a struggle for a reconstruction era that was full of temporary and dramatic changes in the government [Ref:2]. [2: Curry, ‘ The Civil War and Reconstruction,230 ]

The physical destruction led to the anguish of the economic stability of the southern states and generally altered the lives of most, if not all, Americans. The war led to a historical loss of lives in the history of America. The 620,000 soldiers that perished during the fights outnumbered the general sum of ones who ever died in the American wars combined. The bitterness of the war, the pains, and the consequences of the war will forever stick to the hearts of the ones who survived it.

The ‘first modern war,’ which commonly is the civil war, was the first war to depict the full effects of the industrial revolution ever to occur on a battlefield. The presence of railway lines transported supplies and troops to war zones, and that made junctions of Atlanta, Petersburg, and Chattanooga to be principal objectives of the military. Moreover, the presence of telegraph lines was a centered channel for the communication link between the soldiers on the battlefields and their generals. The war occurred immediately after a rebellion in arms manufacturers had to revolt against the traditional musket, which was a famous deadly riffle of the time. Such developments changed the nature of the war, emphasizing the essence of heavy arms giving ones on the defensive –the southern armies- a massive advantage over the attacking forces. The presence of that rifle generated the dreadful causality statistics of battles of the civil wars, and historically no loss of lives had ever superseded that one in America.

The civil war started as a conservative fight for soldiers vs. soldiers. Still, with time, it became a war of the different communities against each other, with slavery as the foundation of the social order of the southern states as a target. In a particular contest like that, the morale of the civilians was an important aspect and would define the winning team on the battlefield, and the willingness of the people to fight became a significant consideration of the armies to take part in the military in the battlefield. To date, research upon whether the Union’s victory was inevitable is still debated by historians and the overshadowing of the confederacy in economic and human resources extended the fight to Western Europe. Hence, the leadership was fundamental to victory, and President Lincoln approved the success of the confederate colleague, Jefferson Davis, in unifying the public, making one of the historians suggest that if the two states had exchanged their leaders, the southern state would have won the battle [Ref:3]. [3: Eric Foner, ‘The Causes of the American Civil War: Recent Interpretations and New Directions,’ Civil War History 20, no. 3 (1974): 197, doi:10.1353/cwh.1974.0073.]

The civil war created the current state in America, and by that, it overwhelmingly changed the relationship of the federal government to the economy of America. To marshal the economic resources of the northern states, the administration of President Lincoln initialized the first national currency, the first banking system, highly protective tariffs, and the first taxes paid on income. Even if the war encouraged or discouraged economic growth, the debates live freshly with historians, and the economic policies of the Union forged a mile pulling an alliance between the republican state and the developing class of industrial entrepreneurs. The move of transferring political power to Washington from the southern farmers to the allies of northern merchants and industrialists led to the political image that America at the end of the century had become the most significant economic power in the world.

The central to the meaning of the war was to abolish slavery. Slavery had laid to be the root that led to the civil war, and the fight became a struggle for liberation even though it did not begin with that aim. The victory of the Union exterminated slavery from the United States by letting the war lead to future generations celebrating several legacies and fighting for the unfinished thirst for racial justice. The obliteration of slavery was a vital element in the building process of the nation; it was achieved through legislation, constitutional amendment, and presidential proclamation. The old image of President Lincoln holding his majestic pen in his hand remained in the minds of many for the firm stand to fight slavery in the nation. Additionally, the soldiers, reformers, and politicians who stood with the president are also at heart, for they too fought in the coming of deliverance.

In 1862, upon the military victory, the radical abolitionists and republicans in the congress who took part in the fight against slavery had to set new policies of fighting the ill in togetherness with the president. In January 1863, the emancipation proclamation began, and it ensured a social revolution would be acquired in the southern states, and the sanity of the American people will be reaffirmed. The black people, too, would be part of the sovereign nation. By so doing, to achieve the targets, a new way of replacing the shattered slavery institution was adopted; the policy carried a new system of politics, race relations, and new labor policies [Ref:4]. [4: Foner “The Causes of the American Civil War: Recent Interpretations and New Directions,’ 95]

Before the malice of slavery and the civil war was dealt with, in 1857, the then Chief Justice had declared that no black person would be considered to be an American citizen and was placed not to enjoy the ‘liberty blessings.’ Since the war, the emergence of civil rights grew, and the unifying of the broken pieces of the country started following the reconstruction of the era of turbulence. With the victory, the status of the slaves became a core point of focus in the freedom aspect, including the right to vote and take part in the development of the country. Immediately when the war ended, the blacks who were enslaved in the southern states came in unison to demand their rights and to establish their ballots of freedom. Correspondingly, the radical republicans in the north, too, supported them and led to the building of a great nation.

Nonetheless, with the end of the civil war in 1875, a biracial government state in the southern states withdrew their last troops from the province, showing the end of the reconstruction and civil war. And by the turn of the century, soldiers from the south and north who were still fighting in the Spanish – American war, also put the bitterness behind them and became unified. By that, the southern states became democratic and enacted a new cultural order based on subjugation, economic disparity, and segregation. Since then, Historical accounts of reconstruction have been based to underlay a vital role in fighting the menace of the civil war and slavery in the south and north states and was termed later to be a tragedy that failed [Ref:5]. [5: H. L. Trefousse and John H. Franklin, ‘Reconstruction: After the Civil War,’ The American Historical Review 67, no. 3 (1962): 745, doi:10.2307/1844162.]

Overall, the era of reconstruction and civil war has led to many questions that stick to be significant to our understanding of our nation. The mysteries of the poise of power between the national and local government and the people entitled to the citizenship of America, and the precise definitions of equality and freedom in the United States of America. These questions live to be matters of controversy until today. In that logic, the Civil War is not thus far ended.

Bibliography

1. Curry, Richard O. ‘The Civil War and Reconstruction, 1861-1877: A Critical Overview of Recent Trends and Interpretations.’ Civil War History 20, no. 3 (1974), 215-238. doi:10.1353/cwh.1974.0089.
2. Foner, Eric. ‘The Causes of the American Civil War: Recent Interpretations and New Directions.’ Civil War History 20, no. 3 (1974), 197-214. doi:10.1353/cwh.1974.0073.
3. Trefousse, H. L., and John H. Franklin. ‘Reconstruction: After the Civil War.’ The American Historical Review 67, no. 3 (1962), 745. doi:10.2307/1844162.

What Cause the Civil War?

The American Civil War was a result of differences between the north and south to maintain their way of life, as most historians have argued. I plan to show how abolishing slavery, and economic differences between the regions played equal roles in the cause of the American Civil War.

Introduction

The American Civil War was a very important war that helped shape and mold the United States into the country it is today. Even though we still have some problems that haven’t completely healed from the war, this is still one of the greatest countries in the world. Over the years, several reasons were given for the issue of why this war was fought. The issues range from controlling land, to economics, but more often you hear it was mainly about slavery. The American Civil War of 1861-1865 was fought between the southern states (The Confederates) and the northern states (The Union). Although the states were united as America, there were many differences between the northern and southern states. The North was industrializing and working on expanding west, while the South was a large farming industry and its famous cash crop, which was cotton, was one of the largest exports in America. Most northern citizens also view slavery as an immoral practice, while the south looked at it as a way of life. With both the North and the South fearing that their way of life would collapse with the existence of the other, the American Civil War was fought.

Slaves began to be imported to North America in the 1600s and steadily increased until the middle of the 1700s. At the time the Declaration of Independence passed in 1776 there were thousands of African American slaves in North America. (Martinez 2012) Southern states embraced this practice and it was embedded in their economic system. By the late 1850s, the United States accounted for a full 77 percent of the 800 million pounds of cotton consumed in Britain, 90 percent of the 192 million pounds used in France, 60 percent of the 115 million pounds spun in the German Zollverein, and as much as 92 percent of the 102 million pounds manufactured in Russia. ( Beckert 2004) In order to produce these large amounts of cotton, the southern states depended heavily on slave labor. Although the south was a major exporter of cotton, it still had to rely on the north and overseas imports for its manufacturing goods.

Due to the climate in most northern states, this area of the country was not suitable for farming. The North relied heavily on manufacturing, where they took crops and raw materials and converted them into something more valuable. Immigrants were recruited to work in factories; therefore, slavery was not needed. Also, most northerners believed that the practice of slavery was immoral and was already banned from several northern states. To demolish competition from the imported goods from overseas, the northerners demanded high tariffs on the imported goods so that more people will buy the manufactured goods from the North instead of the now more expensive imported goods from overseas. The manufacturing industry and exports overseas meant that cities were growing in the north and city life was becoming the norm in northern society. Since the North and South had so many differences and could not keep a steady compromise, heavy tension between the North and the South constantly grew. The southern states seceded from the North and created their own self-government due to their belief in the lack of state rights versus the federal government’s rule of law. When selected to be the candidate for United States Senator for Illinois, Abraham Lincoln gave the “House Divided” speech to the Republican State Convention in Springfield, Illinois on June 17, 1853. In this speech he stated, ‘A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to be divided.”(Lincoln 1858) In the statement, Lincoln expressed his concern that if the United States remained divided, the United States could lose its way of life, and slavery for all states could be forthcoming.

Slavery Resulting In Conflicts within America

Ownership of human beings as property became a popular culture in America during the 19th century. African-Americans were the subjects of enslavement, providing inexpensive labor to white farms and fabrications. Besides, they were being mistreated, experiencing all forms of human exploitation. Whipping was not exceptional as a kind of punishment. However, on 12th April 1861 conflicts ruptured within American states, slavery being one of the reasons behind such. This paper describes how slavery led to the emergence of the civil war in America, with Northern and Southern states being the parties involved in the disputes.

First, conflicts in 1861 began after states such as Texas, South Carolina, Georgia, and Mississippi among others, withdrew their membership from Union. All the states had their own stand, put in writing, as to why they made such decisions. Georgia emphasized slavery, stating their unwillingness to be governed by an anti-slavery government. Mississippi on the other hand followed different steps stating, “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.” They were worried about losing their slaves. South Carolina was supporting the ideology of slave abolishment (Vornberg, 2001). The indifferences thus began creating an atmosphere of tension leaving no option for each state but to defend their stand with all means.

Secondly, according to Freehling (1994), Abraham Lincoln was ever on the frontline to address the grievances of slaves. While at Gettysburg, Lincoln argued that all acts that exploited African Americans in the name of the benefiting American economy were going against the will of previous American freedom fighters. Besides, those acts were infringing on human rights and promoting inequality. However, President Lincoln was attacked by print media, backing up Will’s claims, “how dare he, then stands on soldier’s graves, misstate the cause for which they died…,” It became evident opposition to Lincoln’s governing style just to support human exploitation. The different mechanisms had to be applied to liberate African Americans from slavery.

Slavery being numerically higher in the southern states compared to northern parts, an expansion of this institution was being advocated for by southern parts, while northern parts were striving for cessation of such institutions. The same year, a disturbing conflict emerged when William Lloyd Garrison formed the American Anti-Slavery Society in the northern parts as a way of influencing followers toward fighting for the abolishment of slavery. This movement was embraced and continuously grew in size each day; church leaders such as Lyman Beecher, Nathaniel Taylor, and Charles G. Finney backed up the ideology. On the other hand, the American constitution adopted enslavement as the basic requirement for its development, further creating agitation. The two parties were no longer sharing a common interest and the whole idea became politicized only to address the economic problems of America (Reynolds, 2009).

With the above illustrations, this paper has described how slavery led to the emergence of civil war in America, with Northern and Southern parts being the parties involved in the conflicts. Southern states valued slaves, as it was their major economical source of development i.e. cheap labor for cotton production and tobacco exportation. Striving for its expansion all over the newly established states was the only way to keep their destiny. On the other hand, Abraham Lincoln alongside other leaders was on the frontline in ensuring no more slavery in America. This made south states feel they were being neglected and being killed politically leaving them with no option but to rebel against such acts. Definitely, the civil war ruptured in 1861 for American Revolution (Daly, 2002).

Three Major Events that Caused the American Civil War

Although the American Civil War was a war fought between brothers, it is still thought of as being one of the bloodiest wars in American history. Ever since slavery was brought to the American Colonies there has been controversy over whether slavery should exist or not. It is because of this that the American Civil War always shares conversations with slavery. These events are what led to the splitting of a nation and what caused brothers to spill blood of their own.

The first major event that led to the civil war was the introduction of slavery to the British Colonies around the early 17th century before the American Revolution. “The British colony of Georgia actually banned slavery from 1735 to 1750, although it remained legal in the other 12 colonies” (Trust 1). There were already controversies over slavery before America even separated from Britain. This may lead a person to believe that the American Civil War was inevitable due to slavery being one of the foundation blocks of the country.

The second major event was John Brown’s raid in 1859. “John Brown was tried for murder, treason, and insurrection on the Jefferson County courthouse at Charles Town, convicted November 2, 1859, and hanged there a month later” (Encyclopedia 1). Although what John Brown did may have been against the law, the North stated that his actions were for a just cause and were infuriated when he was hanged. The south was infuriated for the opposite reason: John Brown had violated the rights of the southern states to own slaves. This event in American History further divided the Northern and Southern states.

The third major event was the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and the Battle of Fort Sumter in 1861. “On April 12, 1861, forces from the Confederate States of America attacked the United States military garrison at Fort Sumter, South Carolina. Less than two days later, the fort surrendered. Only one U.S. soldier lost his life” (Geographic 1). When the confederate states decided to attack the Northern-Owned Fort Sumter, the Civil War officially began. The Northern states were sending in supplies necessary for life, so the Southern states had no reason to attack the fort, but they did so anyway.

These three major events are what led the United States of America to tear itself apart. There are many arguments that the American Civil War could have been avoided. Realistically thinking, there was no way to avoid this conflict between the Free states and the Slave States. It is quite ironic how the greedy nature of mankind led to the splitting apart of a nation founded under God.

Abraham Lincoln became the 16th President of the United States on March 4, 1861. In his first inaugural address, he stated, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them.” (Lincoln 1961) Although Lincoln made these comments, many southern states still feared that they were going to lose their right to self-govern. In this belief, the Confederate states acted against the Union. On April 12, 1861, near Charleston, South Carolina, Fort Sumter was attacked by the South Carolina militia, which sparked the beginning of the American Civil War.

During the war, Abraham Lincoln wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Tribune, Horace Greeley. In this letter, Lincoln stated, “The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be ‘the Union as it was.’ If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” (Lincoln 1862) In this letter, Lincoln expressed his concern was to saving the Union as it was. Because of the economic and resource advantage that the Union had over the Confederates, the north won the war. The Battle of Palmito Ranch is considered to be the final battle of the American Civil War. It was fought May 12 and 13, 1865, on the banks of the Rio Grande east of Brownsville, Texas.

References

1. Daly, J. P. (2002). When slavery was called freedom: evangelicalism, proslavery, and the causes of Civil War. University Press of Kentucky.
2. Freehling, W., & Freehing, W. W. (1994). The reintegration of American History: Slavery and civil war. Oxford University Press on Demand.
3. Reynolds, D. S. (2009). John Brown, abolitionist: the man who killed slavery, sparked the Civil War, and seeded civil rights. Vintage.
4. Vornberg, M. (2001). Final freedom: The civil war, the abolition of slavery, and the Thirteenth Amendment. Cambridge University Press.
5. “Trigger Events of the Civil War.” American Battlefield Trust, 1 May 2019, https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/trigger-events-civil-war.
6. “John Brown.” Encyclopedia, https://www.wvencyclopedia.org/articles/668.
7. National Geographic Society. “Battle of Fort Sumter.” National Geographic Society, 24 Mar. 2014, https://www.nationalgeographic.org/thisday/apr12/battle-fort-sumter/

Slavery may have been gathered up as the motivation of the American Civil War, however, the start of the debate started in the hour of the Revolution with a weakened decentralized government under the Articles of Confederation. Later increased momentum as a regional expansion set Americans against one another on discussing whether the new states ought to be slave states or free states, it doubted the intensity of the Federal government regarding state rights and realized instability in the solidarity of the United States as a country. The conflict of the American Civil War started with states’ rights being detached and thrived with the choice on whether slavery should spread westbound or be equally distributed in the Louisiana Purchase an area, however in the remainder of the westbound territory. A conventional struggle has been led by the new way of thinking of “Total War”. Although the expression itself was not coined until the twentieth century; historians of history have recommended that the Civil War had formed into such contention by late 1862. James McPherson has distinguished that phases in the escalation of the war. President Abraham Lincoln thought about the battle as an insignificant local revolt, effectively upheld by just a minority of Southerners, with could be met with a constrained demonstration of power. The inability to crush the rebels in 1861 clarified Lincoln of that idea and the Federal system was reached out to the control of a confederate area. This was to be accomplished without intimidating slavery or some other Southern establishments. Proceeded with Confederate military achievement saw this technique replace in 1862 with an attention on the destruction of radical armed forces. Before long a short time later, Federal techniques were focused on broadening out that destruction to the economic resource that supported the Confederate war application. The South’s defeat meant, for McPherson, expressing enslavement, the interest for unconditional surrender is a vital segment of an approach of Total War. There are also reasons for how the Civil War started. The Civil War started because of the cause of slavery, secession, and Manifest Destiny. There is also another reason that many other individuals are wondering about the Civil War in the North and South Side. The question that should be known is why is the Civil War considered the first modern war? It was considered the first modern war because it was the first war after the industrial revolution, more technologies were invented, and modern weapons were used. It was the war that transformed our country. The Civil War is the first modern war because of many reasons such as the resource, the economy, and the technology of war.

Contrasting both the North and Southside, both sides had certain disadvantages and advantages during the Civil War. On the north side, a few advantages were in Industrialized factories because of their large mass production supplies and invention. They had more population compared with the South which implies they have more troopers and more help, and everybody cooperated to achieve things together and not the only one. They had a solid navy force and their navy force was there for the insurance and they would do well in railroads implying that it was easy to transport people, supplies, troops, and equipment. The disadvantage on the Northside during the Civil War as they had weak inspiration implying that they were not battling for a reason, yet they just required one reason for them to get it. The officials were not forceful enough on the grounds that many neglected to press their enemies when they had the bit of the advantage. Additionally, they were battling on a new area on the ground that most Northerners has never been in the South, poor communication, and long supply line hampered the North and accepted the war would be over rapidly. The advantages on the Southside were home-field advantages meaning they knew the land. They had extraordinary military men who were smart of utilizing weapons or how weapons work and the Southside was used to the climate because, in the Southside, it was extremely hot. The disadvantages of the Southside during the Civil War as they had weak leadership skills, no navy, fewer men and supplies, few factories, less money, and a weaker government.

The first reason why the Civil War is considered the first modern war is because of their resource. “…slowly assemble a narrative from a patchwork of published induction rosters, military service diaries, and death certificates, but your search might suffer from spotty record keeping. Some battle details, for instance, might be buried in federal archives.” (Berman 40) This implies North and South were neither arranged yet the Northside appeared that they appreciate and support in people and material assets. The North has material assets, for example, having cash and credit, factories, food production, mineral resource, and transport. On the Southside, they were for the most part battling for home, medicine, clothes, and weapons, and the main thing that was expected to do without outliving the enemy. Eventually, the war flare-up stimulated patriotism. With preparing armed forces there was a gigantic errand that Union oversaw superior to the confederacy.

The second reason why the Civil War is considered the first modern war is because of the economy. “With the disappearance of the factorage system as a casualty of the war, a system of wholesale merchants developed whose agents, “drummers,” supplied the southern general store.” (Clark 424-433) This means that in the South, war was changed by America’s financial system and Union accounts were raised by the tariff increase, new expenses, and tax, and the first income tax, acquired by selling bonds, printing cash, excused banking and money, wartime monetary strategies, railroaders, and agents, extended power and size of the federal government. This likewise implies the rich soil and warm air of the South made it ideal for gigantic scale farms and yields like tobacco and cotton. Since agriculture was so productive couple of the Southerners saw a necessity for mechanical headway. Eight percent of the work power tackled the homestead. Although two-thirds of the Southerners claimed no slaves, by 1860 the South peculiar institution. In the meantime, on the Northside, war was financially flourishing, yet South soaked in an emergency, confederate economic policies, acquired vigorously to find the war, however not heavy taxes on planters, instead of printed enormous measure of paper cash inflation. Likewise, in the North, transportation was a lot easier which boasted more than two-thirds of the railroad tracks in the nation, and the economy was on a rise.

The last reason why the Civil War is considered the first modern war is because of the technology that the Civil War had. “The debate over why the North won the Civil War has been going on for a century and a half and probably will not end anytime soon. Bridging the historiography of both the war and technology. (Petty 6-7) This means that every one of the technologies that were utilized during the Civil War led the North Side to win. The innovations that were utilized during the Civil War made the North Win, and they are advanced change fighting, railroads, Ironclads telegraphs, observation balloons, crude hand, grenades, submarines, rifles, trenches, favored protective power, high casualties, medical care, high death rate, present-day utilization of purposeful publicity to activate general feelings, current media like paper and telegraph photo that caught stunning truth of the war, and a surgeon’s kit that was used in the Civil War. Since the North had won the Civil War, there ought to have been something behind on what had made them win the Civil War. With the assistance of railroads, everything is by all accounts better for the North. The railroads help the North win since it renewed the military, they had the option to have 25,000 troops come at one time, and it would only take them 7 days to move troops or materials over. The telegraph was another reason the North won, and it was because it was such a great and it was simpler to speak with each other, they had the options to give directions and requests, they realize what’s going on the opposite side of the nation and informing turned out to be simple.

As a result, these mechanical advancements did not give the Civil War army forces an edge in battle yet but essentially re-imagined the basic idea of fighting. The Civil War saw the beginning of numerous techniques for fighting that are still being used today very nearly 150 years after the fact. Even though we would consider these developments rough by today’s standards, they demonstrated destructive on the front line since technologies were a long way in front of strategies and care for the injured.

As time goes on, there are changes that have happened to the Civil War and asking ourselves about what a new U.S Civil War might look like today. It states “It’s easy to imagine that a second civil war might proceed like the first: two institutionalized factions wielding state militaries against each other prescribed strategic fronts. Generals would choose aside, those with the most troops and firepower at their disposal would claim victory. The outcome, we imagine, would likely be a winner-take-all restructuring of the United States.” (Arkenberg) This means that there could be a chance of having a second Civil War but there is an average percentage of having one. For the United States, the state of future homeland conflict will be unbalanced, conveyed, and heterogeneous. A contemporary country struggle would likely self-make with carious powerful groups sorted out by computerized devices around ideological and affinity systems. It would almost certainly be a patchwork of partnered revolt gatherings and partners taking part in light clashes along the covering edges of their systems, blended with periodic high esteem dread assault against soft and hard targets. Such gatherings are a lot littler than ordinary militaries and where they need the capability, they employ transgression. In the Ted Talk “War and what comes after” a woman named Clemantine Warmariya discusses her life in a war. “In 2006, after 12 years being separated away from my family, and then seven years knowing that they were dead and them thinking that we were dead…” (Warmariya) Knowing how her life was like that, imagine how the lives of the people of the United States would feel like if they were in Clemantine shoes. Knowing that losing a family member for that long and then knowing that they are still alive and out there waiting. Whatever happens after a war, there are survivors because knowing how crazy and hectic a war is, there are always survivors.

The Civil War was the bloodiest battle to occur on U.S. soil to date and its consequences lasted long after the final bullet flew. Many argue that the South after the Civil War was in a state of despair. Many establishments, homes, schools, businesses, and many lives were lost to the violence that spread through the nation. This leads many to conclude that the South, including its universities was unable to bounce back after the loss of business, infrastructure, and many young lives. However, following the Civil War, southern higher education experienced a boom that would catapult its universities to become competing forces with its northern competitors. Due to the rise of the middle class, a call for southern universities to compete with northern universities, the backing of the government, and the attitudes of both students and faculties of these southern universities southern institutions were able to rise after the conclusion of the Civil War.

Historically, before the Civil War and shortly after, the reputation that proceeded many southern universities was not one of prestige. Many southern students opted to attend northern universities, especially in the medical professions, as the consensus was that southern university poorly trained their doctors. This was due to the south having few regulations in place for training procedures and establishments that were to check physicians and doctors in regards to their training and practice. Throughout the south, there was a lack of structure and procedures for universities to follow in regards to curriculum. The common trend of southerners before the war was to attend northern universities. Once the Civil War had ended, there was a large push for southern states to create mandates, requirements, and outlines that many professionals had to follow in order to practice in their respective fields. This was one of the key factors that allowed southern universities to become credible institutions that we’re handing out diplomas of value.

During the war, many institutions including Mount St. Mary’s experienced a loss of both students and professors alike. Enrollment in both the North and South was dramatically lower than it had been in previous years due to young men joining either the Union or Confederate army. Some southern institutions even had to close for a short period of time. In a letter written by the president of North Carolina University, Solomon Pool addresses his faculty and parents. President Pool expresses his profound sadness in having to temporarily shut down the university due to low enrollment, the school had to close during the war as so many students and professors had gone to fight for the confederates. Mount Saint Mary’s would be faced with a similar issue due to the decline of their enrollment. According to Analecta V, “In 1858 the combined enrollment of the prep school and college was 186. In 1860 it dropped to 173; in 1861 it fell to 127.” As dramatic as this is, southern universities would still prevail in the face of obstacles faced before them.

After the Civil War, the middle class in the South was growing exponentially due to the industrialization of the south and the availability of jobs. Some saw the South as unable to move past the idea that the money was all to be found in old plantations. However, manufacturing was now sweeping across the South creating more jobs. This led to a number of new reforms in the South including public schools and banks. A growing middle class was now emerging in the South when previously the wealth had not been evenly distributed. The impact that this boom in the middle class had on higher education can often be overlooked. However, the growth of the middle-class opened doors for many children of this emerging middle class that before they would not have had access to. Higher education was no longer just a privilege extended to wealthy southerners and colleges were now admitting new types of students into their campuses. This growth of the middle class caused a

The end of the Civil War also marked a new movement in the realm of southern education. As Michael Cohen details in, Reconstructing the Campus Higher Education and the Civil War, that social and political reforms caused major changes to higher education in the South. It was after the end of the war that the emergence of federal funding began to be used in education. Congress began to provide funding to schools so that they would be able to provide courses in the military and another practical curriculum as well. Congress also created a Department of Education at this time which monitored institutions and curriculum. This increased the credibility of public institutions and instilled more confidence in these institutions than before the Civil War. New funding and regulations in the world of higher education made the credibility of these institutions increase. There now were regulations put into place that required universities to meet certain standards that historically had not been there before the war. This drew in more students from the south to stay and attend college and subsequently rebuild the New South. Mount St. Mary’s was not affected by this decision as a whole. Before the Civil War, they had already established themselves as a credible, private institution. Therefore, their enrollment increased after the war as well due to a new influx of students but also the return of their students and faculty who had been absent during the war.

Attitudes of professors and students in the south after the Civil War were also a major reason why southern universities became a competing force to their northern counterparts. Although which attitudes are correct, which is often debated amongst historians; the argument can be made that southern attitudes, in general, had a significant impact on the increased enrollment in southern universities. Some historians, such as Flynt Wayne, argue that regional patriotism along with college recruitment of veterans spiked a rise in enrollment in southern universities. Much like Mount St. Mary’s, southerners wanted their children to be enrolled in schools that supported their views on slavery. Flynt argues that textbooks were censored and faculty was higher that supported the views of the universities. This could have been a contributing factor to veterans of the war choosing to remain in the South to receive higher education. However, a conflicting view from Civil War historian Frost argues that the South, in regards to higher education, was not focused on bandaging its wounded ego but rather was striving to better its academic status. He argued that professors at southern universities were returning to and focusing on classical studies rather than the political attitudes at the time. He claims the viewpoint that higher educators wanted to cling to the notion of the economic and intellectual world of the plantation south was untrue. Either argument would explain why enrollment at southern universities increased after the end of the Civil War.

Looking at the damage done in the South to infrastructures such as schools, banks, businesses, and homes; the logical conclusion would not be that higher education spiked in the south shortly after. However, it is true that throughout the south enrollment increased due to the middle class, a call for southern universities to compete with northern universities, backing of the government, and the attitudes of both students and faculties of these southern universities. Nationally, they became competing forces against their northern neighbors and remodeled their universities into some of the most prestigious institutions globally. Mount St. Mary’s had a reputation nationally as one of the best institutions to attend both before and after the Civil War. This trend that southern universities increased enrollment exponentially cannot be said to have reached the Mount in the same way. The enrollment at Mount St. Mary’s increased but at a steadier pace than most of the South experienced.

To what extent was Rwanda an example of the importance of modernity in explaining genocide?

Introduction

In Rwanda 1994, 800,000 to 1 million people were slaughter mercilessly in 100 days. The genocide was meticulously planned, and the larger purpose was to eradicate the Tutsi race, this was identified before the genocide had occurred. It is worth noting that Romeo Dallaire, the Force Commander in charge of the UN peacekeeping mission during the Rwandan genocide repeatedly warned the UN Security Council that there was a plan to exterminate all Tutsi’s (CBC Radio, 2019). The pre-meditated nature of the genocide emphasises the epitome of modernity. However, the portrayal of this particular genocide is thought of as barbaric, and the massacres and torture of the Tutsi’s in the hands of the Hutu’s were placed in the category of ancient tribal fears and age-old hatred (Destexhe, 1994:9, Des Forges, 1999). This prejudice is often emphasised in the media, in political speeches and in academic research, justifying tribal violence and killings as a common practice within Africa. The field of genocide studies since the 1950s onwards is dominated with literature of the Holocaust with 70 percent of all literature written on the Holocaust (Rummel, 1994, Rosenbaum, 2008, Chorbajian and Shirinian, 1999:XXI). Authors such as Bauman, Browning and Aly and Heim treat the Holocaust as an embodiment of modernity and rational thinking (Balorda, 2013:2) thus aligning the concept of modernity with the uniqueness of the Holocaust. Therefore, studies of genocide are polarized between the modernity of the Holocaust and tribalism of other genocides such as Rwanda. In this essay I will argue that dispute the contrasting literature, the Rwandan genocide was an appropriate example of modernity in genocidal studies.

The concept of modernity is a Eurocentric way of thinking, yet, before the colonisation process, Rwanda was an organised state with a bureaucratised rule, a division of labour and a monarchy (Lemarchard, 1970:119). Yet, The West’s perception of ‘modernity’ fails to incorporate African society, thus perceiving the Rwandan community as needing to be ‘civilised’. The colonial legacy implemented modern aspects such as identification cards, feudalism and political and societal systems, all which contributed to the pre-planning condition for a genocide to have taken place. Additionally, Bauman identifies the ‘gardening state’ and the idea of nationalism as an aspect of modernity in genocide, although perceived as a way of understanding the Holocaust, this directly relates to the Tutsi’s as foreign invaders, thus paving the way towards the need to eradicate the Tutsi’s from Rwanda. The use of technology during the genocide such as the radio was a modern aspect of society of which the Hutu’s relied upon to promote the killings of the Tutsi’s. All these points give weight towards the idea that this genocide was indeed a modern phenomenon. There will be some critical analysis of attributing all aspects of the genocide as modern, such as the use of close proximity weapons such as machetes, however, as spontaneous as it may seem, the colonial legacy of racial ratification in Rwandan made genocide unavoidable.

The Concept of Modernity The specificity of the term modernity is difficult to define, but it is universally understood as the concept of development; economically involving the idea of capitalism; politically, involving the idea of governments and socially it replaces the idea of ‘traditions’ with ‘humanity’ (Hinton, 2002:8). Yet, these terms are Eurocentric and therefore the debate continues on how we as humans define the processes of ‘modern’. The conceptualisation of ‘barbarity’ of the perception of the Rwandan genocide is viewed as age-old tribalism, when indeed these so called ‘tribal’ societies as formulated in the minds of The West could actually be ‘modern’. Discourse on ‘others’ are structured as binary opposites such as modernity/tradition, civilisation/savagery, humanity/barbarity etc (Bauman 1991; Taussig 1987) which legitimised the annihilation of indigenous people and permitted the process of colonisation (Hinton, 2002:8). This legitimisation permits the abuse of indigenous people and thus allowed the Germans and Belgium’s to colonise Rwanda, segregating the Hutu’s and Tutsi’s to their advantage to ensure control over them and ultimately this control and the aspect of ‘modernity’ contributed towards the genocide in 1994. But despite the optimistic promises of modernity, there are two sides of modernity, an enlightened side and a dark side, and one cannot exist without the other (Bauman, 1989:7).

The Colonial legacy and Identification

The development of the colonial state in Rwanda by the Belgium Administration in 1916 (BBC, 2018) was the first major transformation of the pre-colonial society. The Belgium’s governance took the form as a ‘conquest state’ (Mamdani, 1996) and ruled indirectly through Tutsi kings (BBC, 2018). Modernisation in the form of classification, with the implementation of identity cards in 1933 (Fussell, 2001) lead to the racial stratification between the ethnic groups of Hutus, Tutsi and Twa (Chre ́tien, 1999:139–50; Vidal, 1999). The identities between the groups previous to colonisation were conducted on social stratification, thus the colonial administration introduced racialisation that had not previously existed (Fussell, 2001), in turn, directly facilitating the rise of segregation and hatred. The development of the Rwandan state during the colonial period presented a situation to which the Tutsi minority had monopoly over political, economic and social power (Nkundagagenzi, 1961:22–3). This created a situation whereby the Hutu cadre viewed the Tutsi’s as foreign invaders as a result of the historical development of racial stratification between the Hutu’s and Tutsi’s (Langford, 2005:5). The outcome of the post-colonial state was therefore linked to the struggle between the two racial groups, ultimately resulting in the contest for the retention of political power and the situating capacity to produce the genocide in 1994.

The capability of the Hutu’s to unleash a tirade of killings and torture from April 1994 till June 1994 is linked to the structure of the post-colonial state and the particular development able to plan, organise, and implement an extermination programme within the institutional framework of the Rwandan state (Langford, 2005:1). The ability to conceive and organise a campaign of extermination is not a random and spontaneous event, but rather a premeditated result of cumulative radicalisation of ethnic identities and social structures as a product of longer-term continuities between the colonial powers of Belgium and the development of the Rwandan state (Langford, 2005:1). Group classification played a significant role in facilitating the identification of Tutsi victims (Fessell, 2001) particularly at checkpoints such as roadblocks, whereby Tutsi identification equated to death. Additionally, the ID cards played a role of psychological distancing the perpetrators from the victims (Fessell, 2001) thus enabling the killing to be carried out on such a scale of speed and magnitude. The systematic organisation of identity checking is a consequence of modern advancements, the colonial powers had such a position of authority, they were able to influence and create knowledge to such an extent that the Hutu’s and Tutsi’s believed in racial categorisation themselves (Balorda, 2013:181). This directly emphasises the high extent to which modern aspects of identification played in the facilitation of the genocide.

Hutu Nationalism and The Hamitic Myth

The rise of Hutu nationalism began to gain momentum with the first set of domestic reforms between 1951 to 1959, with the introduction of political parties in 1957 (Balorda, 2013: 184). During this time, the Tutsi Conseil Supérieur du Pays controlled 90 percent of the seats causing resentment from the Hutu’s, as they envisioned a democratic system of majoritarian. The Catholic Church played a critical role in the education of the Hutu’s but under the Tutsi administration they were rejected from jobs, causing anger and frustration (Mamdani, 2001:36, Destexhe, 1994:42). Thus, the Hutu’s with support of the Catholic Church and the left-wing Belgium media sort to gain control of the territory of Rwanda (Balorda, 2013:186). In relation to modernity, the implementation of indirect rule created a system of capitalist greed, with tight bureaucratic rule, and increasing pressure (Lemarchand, 1970:121). Along with the Christian values of discipline and rigorous work, ‘The civilizing presence of the Belgian authorities made the rule of the chiefs a singularly uncivilized one’ (Lemarchand, 1970:123). The strong division between society prevented the cohesion of nationalism and instead ethno-nationalism prevailed, the Belgium government sided with the Hutu’s creating power from the top-down, and as a consequence the wage of violence against the Tutsi’s started, with chiefs killed and Tutsi refugees staging guerrilla warfare attacks along the border of Uganda (Prunier, 1995:51, Lemarchand, 1970:332).

The ideology of nationalism creates a notion of them vs us creating an establishment of conflict between the Hutu’s and the Tutsi’s. Bauman identified this as a concept of modernity, and although analysed in Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide is directly comparable. The implementation of identity cards by the Belgium administration and use of indirect rule created a scale of ethno-nationalism so great, violence stipulated towards one group by the other was inevitable. Moreover, Bauman identified the gardening state as another key concept of modernity, the classification and categorisation of the Tutsi’s relates to the idea of them as ‘weeds’ (Bauman, 1989:13), foreign invaders to the state of Rwanda. This notion was reinforced by the Hamitic hypothesis, which portrayed Tutsi’s as a branch of the Caucasian race and was legitimised by the facilitation of hierarchal order by the Belgium authorities (Eltringham, 2006:432). Accordingly, the Tutsi’s were portrayed as the embodiment of western values, of capitalism and corrupt morals, and so the Hutu’s used this as propaganda to justify violence, extermination and expelling of the Tutsi’s. Yet, it is humans’ own perceptions to categorise and create certain connotations for aspects in society such as the negative definition of ‘weed’. The form takes shape as a pest and these perceptions are continued by the masses, thus the consciousness of Tutsi’s as invaders of Rwanda was reinforced by the colonial leaders to ensure control over their colony and the Hamitic myth was reinforced by the masses in society.

The Role of the Radio The concept of modernity and technology Bauman prevails upon, makes it difficult to define other genocides as modern other than the Holocaust, but it is worth stressing that modern aspects did play an important role in the genocide. Modernisation paradigms of communication theories of Daniel Lerner (1958) and Wilbur Schramm (1964) attributed the radio as a key element of development and the radio was promoted greatly by aid agencies as a key development tool (Kellow and Steeves, 1998:115), suggesting Rwanda was in the process of modernising. Owing to the widespread illiteracy and cultural obedience in Rwanda at the time, Hachten (1974:396) suggested that ‘listeners tend to conceive it as literally the government itself speaking’, it may perhaps be observed that the Rwandan people interpreted the radio as orders from the government itself. The role of the government-controlled Radio-Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM) was a main contributor for inciting hatred, using a fearmongering framework of killed-or-be-killed (Kellow and Steeves, 1998:107).

Following the shooting down of President Juvénal Habyarimana plane on 6 April 1994, RTLM created propaganda of the Tutsi’s using a technique of reversal to encourage genocide (Kellow and Steeves, 1998:119). The adoption of the term ‘work’ to signify slaughter, and the adoption of the derogatory term ‘inyenzi’ translating to cockroaches, was used to promote the extermination of the Tutsi’s (Kellow and Steeves, 1998:119). The influential role the RTLM had generated widespread panic and invocated fear into the lives of ordinary people so much so that they participated in the killings. One man imprisoned for his crimes in the genocide, an illiterate farmer aged 29 by the name of Alfred Kiruhura, stated that ‘I did not believe the Tutsis were coming to kill us, but when the government radio continued to broadcast that they were coming to take our land, were coming to kill the Hutus—when this was repeated over and over—I began to feel some kind of fear’ (quoted in Berkeley, 1994:18). Rwandan theologian Tharcisse Gatwa (1995:19) concludes that it took 4 years of ‘psychological preparation’ for the radio to have such an effect on ordinary people and before the 1990s, the Rwandan genocide would have been implausible. The use of the term ‘psychological preparation’ implies that the genocide must have been pre-planned in nature to have been plausible, relating to the process of modernisation, and therefore not a random turn of events. The significant role the radio played in the indoctrination of defining Tutsi’s as enemies of the state, created psychological frameworks of fear, in turn, invoking ordinary Hutu’s to participate in the killings of their neighbours so to protect themselves and their families.

Critiques Hannah Arendt argues that in the Holocaust the perpetrators acted in a certain way to further their career and Bauman argues that the bureaucratic state was an element of modernity to create a necessary condition for a genocide to happen (Bauman, 1989:13). However, the idea of the modern bureaucratic state fails to encompass to barbarity of ordinary people murdering their neighbours and friends. In this sense, there was no real motive to killing the Tutsi’s on such a scale other than fear, in light of this, it must have been obvious that Hutu’s had outnumbered the Tutsi’s, yet, the killings continued. In the book ‘The Cultural Face of Terror in the Rwanda Genocide of 1994’, Taylor argues that the violence stipulated in the genocide embodied a metaphor of flow and blockage (Taylor, 1999). The myth that the Tutsi’s were blocked beings, was indoctrinated into minds of the Hutu’s resulting in torture such as severing of Achilles tendons, genital mutilation, clogging of bodily conduits etc, the torture and killings structured in this way mark the Tutsi’s as blocked (Hinton, 2002:20). The discourse of the torture and massacre using machetes and other up-close weapons do not necessitate ‘modernity’ compared with the Holocaust, in turn, it could be argued that the act of the killing was ‘uncivilised’.

Conclusion

The extent to which the Rwanda genocide encompasses modernity is high, and the pre-mediated state for the genocide to have occurred dates back to the Belgium colonial legacy. Identification as a means of control, instigated the concept of racial ratification, fuelling hatred between the groups and caused the retention for the battle of political power. The idea of modernity in the Western world correlates with development, state-of-the-art, and contemporary, but the common misconception as identified by Bauman, implies that aspects of modernity also has a dark side as demonstrated during the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide. The role of the radio contributed significantly to the misguided propaganda of the Tutsi’s, ingraining fear into the Hutu’s, and the ideology of ethno-nationalism greatly divided the state of Rwanda. The Hamitic myth conceived by the Belgium administration had grave consequences in Rwandan society, stipulating the idea of Tutsi’s as foreign invaders. Moreover, Bauman’s modern aspect of the gardening state relates to the idea of the eradication of the Tutsi’s as ‘pests’ and invaders of Rwanda. The colonialization process of civilising and developing the Rwandan state deeply divided society until the perceived myths were believed and atrocities were committed.

Bibliography

1. Balorda, J. (2013) ‘Genocide And Modernity, A Comparative Study Of Bosnia, Rwanda And The Holocaust’, University Of Leeds, available at: http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/6898/1/FINAL%20DRAFT%20MERGED%20%282%29.pdf, accessed 29 April 2019.
2. Bauman, Z. (1989) ‘Introduction: Sociology After The Holocaust’, in Bauman, Z. (ed) Modernity And The Holocaust, Cambridge: Polity Press.
3. Bauman, Z. (1991) Modernity And The Holocaust, Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press.
4. BBC (2018) ‘Rwanda Profile – Timeline’, available at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14093322, accessed 22 April 2019.
5. Berkeley, B. (1994) ‘Sounds Of Violence: Rwanda’s Killer Radio’, New Republic, vol.21, no.8–9, pp.18–19.
6. CBC Radio (2019) ‘My Soul Is Still In Rwanda’: 25 years After The Genocide, Roméo Dallaire Still Grapples With Guilt’, available at https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-sunday-edition-for-april-7-2019-1.5086008/my-soul-is-still-in-rwanda-25-years-after-the-genocide-roméo-dallaire-still-grapples-with-guilt-1.5086075, accessed April 25 2019.
7. Chorbajian, L., and Shirinian, G. (1999) Studies In Comparative Genocide, Palgrave McMillan.
8. Chre ́tien, J.-P. (1999) ‘Hutu et Tutsi au Rwanda et au Burundi’, in: J.-L. Amselle and E. M’Bokolo (eds) Au coeur de l’ethnie: Ethnie, tribalisme et Etat en Afrique, Paris: Editions La De ́couverte, pp. 129–65.
9. Destexhe, A. (1994) Rwanda And Genocide In The Twentieth Century, New York: Pluto Press.
10. Des Forges, A. (1999) Leave None To Tell The Story: Genocide In Rwanda, New York: Humans Right Watch.
11. Eltringham, N. (2006) ‘‘Invaders Who Have Stolen The Country’: The Hamitic Hypothesis, Race And The Rwandan Genocide’, Social Identities, vol.12, no.4, pp.425-446.
12. Fussell, J. (2001) November. Group classification On National ID Cards As A Factor In Genocide And Ethnic Cleansing, In Seminar Series Of The Yale University Genocide Studies Programme, New Haven.
13. Gatwa, T. (1995) ‘Ethnic Conflict And The Media: The Case Of Rwanda’, Media Development, vol.3, pp.18–20.
14. Hachten, W. A. (1974) ‘Broadcasting And Political Crisis’, In S. W. Head (Ed) Broadcasting In Africa: A Continental Survey Of Radio And Television, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, pp. 395–398.
15. Hinton, A.L. (2002) ‘The Dark Side Of Modernity: Toward An Anthropology Of Genocide’, Annihilating Difference: The Anthropology Of Genocide, pp.1-40.
16. Langford, P. (2005) ‘The Rwandan Path To Genocide: The Genesis Of The Capacity Of The Rwandan Post-Colonial State To Organise And Unleash A Project Of Extermination’, Civil Wars, vol.7, no.1, pp. 1–27.
17. Lemarchand, R. (1970) Rwanda And Burundi, New York: Praeger.
18. Lerner, D. (1958) The Passing Of Traditional Society: Modernizing The Middle East, New York: Free Press.
19. Mamdani, M. (1996) Citizen And Subject: Contemporary Africa And The Legacy Of Late Colonialism, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
20. Mamdani, M. (2001) When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism And Genocide In Rwanda, Princeton University Press.
21. Nkundagagenzi, F. (1961) Rwanda Politique 1958–1960, Les Dossiers du C.R.I.S.P (Brussels: Centre de Recherche et d’Information Socio-Politiques).
22. Prunier, G. (1995) The Rwanda Crisis, 1959-1994, History Of A Genocide, London: Hurst and Company.
23. Rosenberg, H. (2008) Political And Social Consequences Of The Great Depression Of 1873-1896 In Central Europe, The Economic History Review, vol.13, no.1-2, pp. 58-73.
24. Rummel, R.J. (1994) Death By Government: Genocide And Mass Murder In The Twentieth Century, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
25. Schramm, W. (1964) Mass Media And National Development: The Role Of Information In The Developing Countries, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
26. Taussig, M. (1987) Shamanism, Colonialism, And The Wild Man: A Study In Terror End Healing, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27. Taylor, C. (1999) Sacrifice As Terror: The Rwandan Genocide of 1994, Oxford: Berg.
28. Vidal, C. (1999) ‘Situations Ethniques au Rwanda’, in: J.-L. Amselle and E. M’Bokolo (eds) Au coeur de l’ethnie. Ethnie, tribalisme et Etat en Afrique, Paris: Editions La De ́couverte, pp. 167–82.

From many different aspects of the pre-civil war, the era was an immense amount of tension. Both sides could utterly be deemed as greedy for wanting more territory for their own benefits but it also served economic growth in both stances. The north was prospering in immense ways with industrialization, as well as urbanization in most of the Union territory. And the south was boosting the economy using plantations and growing goods like cotton. But once the booming standards erupted for both sides, the north and the south craved more like any other prosperous territory would. The north was intimidated and felt that the south’s way of life could be influenced by the Union, this also created tension among the sides because the south also felt if the north had taken away the slaves, the thriving society they were experiencing would all be taken away. And since the south highly depended on these slaves, their plantations would be put at risk and sustainability would decrease immensely. The gravitational pull both sides were feeling to gain territory rapidly was an extremely evident point of the war.

The South truly wanted to expand for their own beneficial agendas and the competition of the north only made it worse. The south’s economy was succeeding in unimaginable ways, and they were not only power hungry, but money hungry too and they would stop at nothing in order to gain more land and profit off of slaves. The slave market was extremely profitable for plantation owners and they didn’t want anyone to mess with their wealth status which would completely destroy their economy since they do rely heavily on the slaves. Since the government truly did not want to get involved because they felt as if choosing sides would be too controversial and end in more tension created now between the south and north as well as the government. The Mexican-American war had just ended around the time when there were rising tensions between the slave and free states, the north, and the south were very adamant about getting the territory they wanted. In some ways, as a learner, I believe some of the acts enacted were temporary bandaids the government used because they wanted to stay out of the controversial situation. But the north believed that in some ways these acts were one-sided for the south, such as the fugitive slave act. These acts were part of the compromise of 1850 practically benefiting the south in all ways possible that, the north had to send back any fugitive slaves which were very heart-wrenching for many citizens that were forced to send back slaves under this act. In an article written by brainly.com, they suggest that “It favored the south because they wanted to maintain slavery and the act helped them in doing so.”

The north was completely and utterly successful without the help of slaves and plantations in order to create a very outstanding economy. The North knew of the ruthless and disgusting tactics the south would use against the slaves and the north found it to be completely disturbing, they believed that completely abolishing having slaves was the best idea because if the north can boom without slaves then the south can stop using these inhumane tactics and be progressive like the north. In an article by nationalparkservice.gov, they state that “The North produced 17 times more cotton and woolen textiles than the south, 30 times more leather goods, 20 times more pig iron, and 32 times more firearms.” This factual statement only contributes to the fact that the south was clearly less progressive and more intimidated leading me to believe they wanted the increase in the land to benefit themselves and were very narrow-minded. The Missouri compromise only led to more tension increase between the north and the south. The Missouri compromise completely didn’t align with what had been originally agreed upon in which the states in the north were all considered to be in the Union, and this completely disrupted that peace, the north received Maine in return but were admittedly frustrated. The greediness from both sides soon led to the Kansas-Nebraska act deemed as the allowance for popular sovereignty, which immediately led to violence and protests between Pro-Slavery members and Anti-Slavery members. The sectionalism was very noticeable from all outside nations which were utterly ironic due to the fact it is called the “United States”, and juxtaposed to the fact that the north and the south were anything but united and lacked togetherness. The economic and political greed contained by the south was getting too frustrating for the north and they wanted to put an end to this sectionalism overall, but there was no peaceful solution that wouldn’t end up in power and money-hungry civilians, leading to the fact that they had to fight.

In conclusion territorial expansion definitely played a part in the start of the civil war. But, I feel as though too many aspects also were involved in the tension rising between the north and the south. Such as the preposterous acts such as the fugitive slave act, were not directly involved with territorial expansion, but definitely played a part in the start of the Civil War. As a learner, it seems that sectionalism also was a major part of the lead-up to the Civil war, the south had its own ways of boosting the economy, and had strong political standpoints, which I think is also where the true issues lie since the north was too progressive for the south it seems.

When you imagine what life as a Civil War soldier would be like you think of the things that they had to suffer through and all the pain that came with it, but what about the times when they weren’t fighting during the Civil War, some free time was spent with small groups of friends huddled around the fire (Frank 512). Times they spent with one another created a bond and help create a sense of nationalism. The main pastimes of the Civil War consisted of the following: Gambling, sports, whittling, making music, and letter writing.

One pastime soldiers enjoyed during the Civil War was gambling. Gambling was a great way of distracting the soldiers from the anxiety and boredom and it required little to no physical effort and was a great source of entertainment. Which made it extremely popular among the soldiers and helped create a bond with one another. In fact, 9 out of 10 gambled. One recruit even wrote to his father” a young man cannot guard himself too closely in camp… where to be considered an accomplished gentleman it is necessary to be a scientific and successful gambler” (Murphy 59). There were multiple ways in which the soldiers could gamble including buying raffle tickets for a nickel, drawing tickets from hats, betting on horses, cockfights, wrestling, boxing, raffles, even fights and races with the soldiers. They got barely any money which made the stakes pretty low, such as five dollars, a chicken, buttons, corn kernels, and matches (Frank 512). Some people believed that gambling was a great way to pass the time however it got too intense and resulted in arguments or fights over things like losing or cheating (Frank 315). Ministers and priests often read from the Bible wanting them to repent for their sins but they got irritated with the service and went back to gambling (Frank 513). Ulysses S. Grant the commanding general of the union army, was a card player all throughout his life especially in the war as well as Abraham Lincoln another former president who likes Grant learned at a young age. Lincoln learned when sailing a flatboat carrying produce from Illinois to New Orleans (Harris).

Another pastime during the Civil War was Sports. One of the sports that they played was baseball. In their spare time, soldiers helped further develop the game of baseball. Abner Doubleday, a soldier in the civil war was given credit for inventing this game but that assumption was false. Abner never said he invented the game and he was in WestPoint in 1839 at the time when the game was said to be invented (“Who Invented”). During the war, the balls were made out of things that were made easily accessible like old shoe leather, socks, or woolen uniforms material stuffed with soft material and sewn together. They used basically anything that was useable like carved out tree limbs or wooden posts for bats. The game was so popular on Christmas during the war in 1862 40,000 spectators attended the game between the 165th New York volunteer regiment and another team including A.G. mils who would later become president of the Nation League when it was formed in 1876 (“Baseball”). Ninety-one former players of the Brooklyn Excelsior enlisted into the Union Army. One member, physician A.T. Pearsall, joined the Confederate side. When these men left for the war, they brought baseball back home with them, laying the foundation for an increase in baseball’s popularity during the Civil War (Frank 490). More athletic activities included wrestling, boxing, leapfrog, racing on foot or horseback, and horseracing, cricket, and other small things to do with what little they had like bowling using cannonballs to knock down rough wooden pins.

Whittling was another way to pass the time, it wasn’t a popular hobby until the war in 1865. Not all soldiers enjoyed this pastime or had the skill to pursue it but the soldiers who did enjoy it and have the skill would carve items such as figurines, sculptures, smoking pipes, fans, whistles, and balls in a cage out of things like bone, wood, and other materials they could find. A common item that was made was chess pieces, Lieutenant colonel Robert J. Lawrence was captured in Fort Donelson Tennessee in February 1862. Lawrence was blessed enough to be exchanged for another prisoner in October but while he was a prisoner he stole firewood to carve a chess set out of maple and black walnut and used broken glass and a pocket knife. (“Whittling”). Another man, a member of John Hunt Morgan’s raiders made a knife out of beef bone when he was in Fort Delaware and William hayes took it home with him. The knife has a bumpy handle with crosshatch designs (“Whittling”). Whittling requires skilled hands and a lot of free time but in the end, it makes beautiful “soldier art”. Not only did the soldier’s whittle but Europeans and British as well along with most of the commanding officers including General Grant who was enlisted (“Gettysburg”).

Music was also an important part of the War. The soldiers found comfort in singing and creating music as well as using instruments such as drums, guitar, banjos, fiddles that they made out of wooden cigar boxes, fifes, bugles, and harmonicas. There were drummer boys who served during the Civil War that were too young to fight but wanted to help the soldiers and ended up doing so on both sides, although some didn’t realize it at first. It kept the soldiers motivated, providing a beat for marching drills or just communicating to the soldiers that meals were ready.

Lastly, letter writing was a common pastime. Soldiers wrote letters home to family, friends, and loved ones and wrote about how they were doing and how much they missed them and wanted to come home to them. Mail service for the union soldiers was on time and reliable during the war but the confederates never fully delivered the mail because of the confederate government but they made an effort to deliver the mail best they could so they could get the letter back as soon as possible in “rain, sleet, or the gloom of the night”(Murphy 55). Young boys in the war often wrote about their duties and about the warlike in this letter to the boy’s mother “Deputy while in the noble army of Northern Va and if I were to desert and lie out of this Struggle as many are doing I could not go anywhere but that the Eys of man and woman would look at me … I would feel worse than a Sheep killing dog” (Davis). Letter writing in the Civil War took on different viewpoints for the men who had left everything they’ve ever known behind. It kept them grounded and helped them to stay connected to the people they loved.

Many people have said that the Reconstruction era did not go over well and basically failed. There were 3 different plans for reconstructing the United States after the Civil War. The 3 plans were called Lincoln’s plan of Reconstruction, the Radical Reconstruction plan and Johnson’s plan.

Abraham Lincoln had a plan for Reconstruction also known as the ‘Ten-Percent Plan’. Abraham Lincoln was the president during the Reconstruction period until he was assassinated in 1865. Abraham Lincoln had a goal of having the south rejoin with no trouble. Lincoln was more lenient in his plan and was not as harsh with the rules. He wanted it to go smooth and easily. He also had a goal of abolishing slavery and he wanted freedom. He also wanted 10% of people to take what he considered to be a loyalty oath. Higher up officials and military officials would not be included in the oath or any pardons included in it.

Andrew Johnson took over the presidency after Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. He was impeached in 1868 and was found not guilty. He had his own reconstruction plan also known as the Presidential Reconstruction. Andrew Johnson thought that Reconstruction was unnecessary and he did not have the same type of communication skills that Abraham Lincoln had. Andrew Johnson’s plan followed closely to Abraham Lincolns. In Johnson’s plan, there would be pardons for taking loyalty oaths, but they would not be available to higher officials or people owning land worth 20,000 dollars.

The last plan was called the Radical Reconstruction plan. They believed that whites and blacks were equal and deserved to have all the same opportunities. The radicals were determined to get back at the South because they were partially to blame for the start of the war. They wanted a national banking system and they wanted to make sure that everyone had a right to vote. They stated that each state had to accept the 14th Amendment.

In the end, Reconstruction failed in many ways and it succeeded in other ways. Confederacy was destroyed because of Reconstruction and every state was rejoined to the union. African Americans started to gain more freedom and some were even appointed to government positions. Groups like the KKK were downsides of Reconstruction. Some of the people that were originally part of the confederacy began to undo some of the successes that Reconstruction had reached. William Harvard Taft served in the executive and judicial branches of government. He also served as Chief Justice of the United States. Upton Sinclair wrote ‘The Jungle’ to show the world what was truly happening in the meat packing world.

Egotistical ideas that these individuals were not brave or intelligent enough to be an impactful soldier. However, ultimately they were allowed to fight, which was the force needed that allowed the Union to win against the Confederates. Tubman was exceptional. Not only was she an African American slave that escaped her bondage, but she was also a female. Her gender and race was a double factor to her oppression by the white men, however, she did not let her circumstances deter her form her responsibilities, fight and belief for freedom.

During Tubman’s time in the Civil War, she faced many racial and economic complexities. She was always underestimated based on the color of her skin and gender, but she proved to be one of the most significant figures in the War and in history. Not only was she a fighter for rights, but also economically, she helped shift African American roles. She was a fugitive on the run with a bounty on her head, but still aided other slaves in escaping their captors. Tubman raised money to aid freedman. She later joined Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony in their movement for suffrage for women. She worked with Sarah Bradford, a white writer, on her “autobiography as a potential source of income” (Harriet Tubman). According to “Harriet Tubman: A Legacy of Resistance,” Tubman attended the NACW convention and later attended the “women’s suffrage meeting in Rochester, New York, in November of 1896.” She was led onto the stage by Susan B. Anthony where she professed to an appreciative audience her eight years as the conductor of the Underground Railroad, as well as how she never lost a passenger or went off track (Harriet Tubman: A Legacy of Resistance). Tubman married Nelson Davis, a Union soldier who was born into slavery as well. She cared for the elderly in her home living in Auburn, New York in 1874. She and her husband adopted a girl, and after a wide reaching movement for military pension, “she was finally awarded $8 per month in 1895 as Davis’s widow […] and $20 in 1899 for her service” (Harriet Tubman). One can notice the financial and economic hardships she endured; however, she continued to aid others by creating the Harriet Tubman Home for the Aged on property close to her household.

All throughout her life, Tubman was a selfless and caring individual. She fought fiercely and served in anyway she could. She was an honored figure, and represented so many ideas for different groups of people. Tubman represented the fight for freedom and rights for African Americans, but she also fought for women rights. One could argue that she is the pillar for the victory of the Civil War. She is a figure that has accomplished a lot in a time of oppression and cruelness for African Americans. In respect to other figures, she is in the top tier of the most impressive and powerful individual. She needs to be acknowledged for her great achievements and the sacrifices she made. Despite enduring racist and discriminatory actions and words, she fought until the very end for equality. She is an amazing historical figure that underwent political, social, racial and economic complexities.