Although these days, it is widely perceived that the Civil War presented mens combat, the role of women should not be underestimated. In addition, it should be mentioned that their role is more significant than self-sacrificing nurses, romantic spies, or brave ladies maintaining the home front in the absence of their men (Blanton, 1993, para. 1; Burns, 1990b). According to the formal figures, it was registered that approximately 400 women participated in the fight, though it is evident that the real number is highly likely to be greater (Righthand, 2011). As women are prohibited from serving in combat, they attempted to enlist as men.
For instance, Figure 1 depicts one of the best-documented female soldiers , Sarah Edmonds, who served as a Union soldier and performed nursing duties during the Civil War (Righthand, 2011, para. 8). Perhaps, her example contributed to social understandings of womens roles in the 19th century, as she showed her bravery and strength on the field.
Figure 1. The woman who fought in the Civil War. (Righthand, 2011).
In addition, women fulfilled the needs of the soldiers at their homes. In the Northern regions of the country, they established special societies to provide the troops with all the thing they may need, and the list included food, clothing, and even cash (Burns, 1990a; Module presentation: Women in the war and the end in sight). In the North, women also attempted to supply essential help for injured soldiers and worked as nurses.
They also achieved the establishment of the United States Sanitary Commission and tried to care for men as mothers and housekeepers (Burns, 1990b). As for the Southern part of the country, women were not indifferent as well. Although their resources were significantly limited compared to the Northern regions, they did their best to provide the essential help for soldiers at the same level as their Northern counterparts (Blanton, 1993). Therefore, it may be concluded that the contribution of women during the Civil War is considerable.
References
Blanton, D. (1993). Women soldiers of the Civil War. Prologue, 25(1).
Burns, K. (1990a). Most hallowed ground (1864). Excelsior College. Web.
Burns, K. (1990b). War is all hell. Excelsior College. Web.
Module presentation: Women in the war and the end in sight. (n. d.). Web.
America has gone through many wars, from the War of Independence to World War II, the Vietnam War, and numerous episodes of US military presence in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria. Traditionally, war milestones are presented in chronological order. Historians try to understand what led to the war, how events unfolded, and how large numbers of casualties could have been avoided. However, the new APD approach proposes to consider what consequences wars brought for the states that participated in them. The APD approach analyzes the American wars regarding how they influenced or even drove American Political Development. This paper argues that, in terms of APD, the American wars gave an impetus for the development of the US fundamental pillars of its statehood and that many significant mass societal improvements evolved as the results of changes stimulated by the need to extract at least small positive benefits from wars.
I intend to present a series of examples to prove this point. First, it is necessary to provide examples of when the war gave impetus to the development of socio-cultural processes aimed at improving the political and economic situation. I will do my analysis with the APD approach, which tries to track US politics and the governments philosophical and historical roots and analyze the overall nature of political development and evolution. In his article Wars and American Politics, David Mayhew (474) argues that there were at least five major wars faced by the US which determined its fate as a progressive state: the War of 1812, the War with Mexico, the Civil War, the World War I, and the World War II. According to the scholar, these wars created windows that are opened by problems (Mayhew 473). In other words, these wars gave an impetus for the further development of the state.
According to Mayhew (475), the War of 1812 was the first important milestone that brought about historical change. In particular, this war brought three important innovations the emergence of the Second Bank of the United States established by Congress, the introduction of the high new protective tariff, and some internal improvements of transportation facilities. The Second Bank was created as the reaction to near-bankruptcy, currency disorder, and debt brought on by the war, and the tariff was established to shield American industries nourished during the war, notably cotton textiles that in peacetime became vulnerable to British competition (Mayhew 476). This war also led to the creation of the Canadian state and the end of Native Indians aspirations for an independent state.
The scholar presents a comprehensive list of other achievements that can be attributed to the war, which is viewed as a large-scale revolution in the traditional views, norms, and rules according to which the state functions. For example, the author claims that the War with Mexico led to the expansion of the United States to the Southwest, to the borders of Texas and California, which can be considered an outstanding geographical fact, given that the area of these territories exceeds the combined size of Spain, France, Italy, Germany, and the UK.
Mayhew (476) also argues that the Civil War of 1861-1865 brought the changes that laid the foundation for the current political and economic order. First, the Civil War famously led to abolishing slavery and the extension of rights to African Americans. Although the Civil War was rather beginning than the end of the fight for African Americans civil and human rights, it was an important milestone in this fight.
This extension of civil rights was represented by the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to Constitution abolishing slavery, nationalizing rights, and extending suffrage. Then the Civil War also caused the new high protective tariff, new taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and certain luxuries, the beginning of the nationwide banking system, Congressional redesign, construction of the transcontinental railroad, aid to higher education (particularly in military colleges), and free western homesteading (Mayhew 477). Therefore, the scientist gives examples of how the war drew attention to broader social problems that resulted from needs, the urgency of which war helped to realize.
The 20th century was equally fruitful in terms of wars and the changes that followed. Noteworthy, the World War I led to progressive taxation, in particular, the personal income tax rate paid by the highest income bracket rose from 7 percent in 1913 to 77 percent in 1918 and has not fallen below 25 percent since (Mayhew 477). This war also caused the record high protective tariff documented in the Emergency Tariff Act of 1921 and the Fordney McCumbers Tariff of 1922, the appearance of a national budgeting system, the prohibition or the dry cause, the womens suffrage, immigration restriction, domestic intelligence and cartelization of railroads. WWI also led to new issue regimes like the enforcement of prohibition in 1933, cuts in the corporate and individual income taxes established during the war, hydroelectric power, agricultural crop supports, and veterans bonuses.
Finally, Word War II brought policy changes, including the mass-based progressive taxation, new fiscal policy, curbs on labor unions, progress in voting rights for southern African Americans, new science policy, atomic energy policy, curbs on the executive branch, new national security structure, and GI Bill of Rights. There were also four significant changes in the federal policy agenda in civil rights, including voting rights, fair employment, and access to public accommodations, general aid to education, national health insurance, public housing, and slum renewal. Therefore, the five most significant wars in US history have caused changes in American Political Development.
It is paradoxical, how can something as terrible as war lead to positive domestic changes. However, the answer to this question is obvious: firstly, war is always an opportunity for the new, more progressive political forces. Secondly, the economic pressures that war exerts on the state expose existing problems and bring the people to the point where they will no longer suppress their discontent. Therefore, in fear of political instability, governments are forced to introduce new policies that could improve the status quo. Hence, war is the engine of progress in the development of the state.
Thus, it was argued that the American wars gave an impetus for developing the fundamental pillars of US statehood. In particular, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the WWI, and WWII brought new issues to the political agenda and introduced new government policies. Therefore, these wars not only brought destruction but also pushed the state in the direction of actual political and economic development.
Race and APD
The race was always a distinct and painful issue for African Americans, and maybe not so painful for other Americans. Anyway, during American history, its twist and turns proved many times that the American democracy was primarily established by the white American people and for the white American people. Even though there were many conversations regarding more rights for African Americans and some official shifts during particular historical milestones, the US is still on its way to true freedom, equality, and brotherhood. Unfortunately, the country has never reached this ethical ideal before in the full scope of its meaning. This paper argues that recent tragic events that led to the Black Lives Matter movement prove that the US has never really found the solution for the race issue.
To prove this argument, we need to trace how the race issue was addressed throughout US history. Whenever the people masses greeted the humane democratic shifts, the situation did not change dramatically. For example, the Civil War brought some significant changes like abolishing slavery, nationalizing civil rights, and accepting suffrage rights for African Americans. However, in reality, these shifts were implemented only partially since the complex bureaucratic procedure made it next to impossible for the African Americans to influence the electoral process and have actual representation in Congress, let alone the White House.
Although the war ended in victory for the Northern states, many political coalitions valued cooperation with Southern partners. They, therefore, were ready to make tacit concessions in terms of rights for the African American people in exchange for funding or other political benefits. The Southern states still tried to preserve, albeit unofficially, the prevalence of white supremacy ideal, which was implemented through the segregation policy. Although they did not openly support these ideas, the Northern states did not provide real opportunities for African Americans in the Northern cities. In these cities, African Americans were forced to live in inhuman conditions, faced unemployment, and could only be paid for low-skilled work. Only a few managed to achieve success, but this was rather an exception to the general rule.
The post-World War I period did not bring any change to African Americans. Many African Americans participated in WWII (as well as in WWI), which shifted public opinion regarding the rights of African Americans. This change was documented in The Soldier Voting Act of 1942 and a Supreme Court ban of the white primary. It meant that African Americans have now gained more influence over the electoral process, but we see no actual representation for the African Americans in Congress to this day. The fundamental changes were achieved only thanks to the Black Power movements of the 1960s, which led to the end of segregation and the first semblance of equality among black and white Americans.
Therefore, the APD brings us to an understanding of the origins of the Black Lives Matter movement. Significantly, the movement began in response to numerous beatings and killings of African Americans by white American police officers. Not only should this degree of racial hatred be considered barbaric in the 21st century, but the police also have not been adequately punished, which should be considered the collapse of the US legal system. Thompson and Thurst (117) note that some demonstrators carried such blatant posters as I cant believe I still have to protest this shit! Despite the rudeness of the statement, this opinion is an exhaustive expression of the current state of the race issue.
For some reason, what should have happened back in 1789 never met its logical conclusion in 2021. The racial issue is particularly absurd given that the Founding Fathers considered it the self-evident truth that all men were created equal and that one nation cannot be half free and half slave (King, para. 11). Malcolm X was probably catastrophically correct in stating that American democracy was created by white Americans as part of the bloody American Revolution and therefore serves the interests of white Americans, while African Americans are hostages of this just (for whites) and highly humane regime (638). Interestingly, Malcolm X also argued that Black Nationalism is the only philosophy that ensures African Americans can resist White Nationalism, which is at the core of all widely accepted US government ideas (639).
Martin Luther King Jr. also said that the oppressor would never willingly give up the policy of oppression if the oppressed did not oppose such a policy (para. 5). For a long time, African Americans were pacified by claims that their rights were represented and protected, although the issue of racial hatred remains relevant to this day. Knowing and understanding history and the APD is vital to avoid falling into the trap of false ideas about the race issue. For example, the moderately aggressive rhetoric of Malcolm X scared off moderate whites in the 1960s and still does. However, the essence of this rhetoric boiled down to the fact that African Americans have no choice but to mirror the attitude of whites towards the issue of superiority and must control their communities, including in an economical way, which is still relevant today. No less relevant is the devastating impact of the moderate whites criticized by Martin Luther King in his Letter from Birmingham Jail (para. 7).
The BLM movement should not have arisen in the 21st century when everyone likes to believe in the victory of the ideas of freedom, equality, and brotherhood. But this movement arose to point out existing problems when violence flourishes not only as a fact but also in the form of ideal concepts. The idea that some Americans do not believe in the guilt of police officers who shoot or otherwise killed African Americans due to speeding is horrifying. However, it also proves that public opinion and public morality are still based on the ideas of white supremacy, which were officially defeated back in 1865.
Thus, it was argued why the recent tragic events that led to the Black Lives Matter movement prove that the US has never really found the solution for the race issue. This issue was always painful for African Americans throughout American history. Even though it received particular attention during the historical milestone periods, the promised freedoms usually turned out to be only speculative. The privileges granted were either not implemented, as in the case with the suffrage right, or immediately taken away, as in the case of the nationalization of civil rights.
Labor, Class, and APD
Class depolarization is a new trend in American society that has mixed the cards for leftist political forces, the Democrats. At the same time, Republicans navigated the situation quickly and capitalized on the increased volatility in political preferences among the working class of white Americans. Unfortunately, the Republicans success was due to their manipulation of public opinion through populism since they had no real intentions to improve living and job conditions for the working class. This paper argues that class considerations had an utter impact on election results in 2016 and 2020 and will significantly impact the distribution of electoral sympathy in the future.
Interestingly, class depolarization is a unique phenomenon that arose due to economic progress, when people without higher education, who mainly constitute the working-class group, began to do business and have more or less significant finances. The second factor that influenced the shift in preferences was the urgent need for change when political parties needed to move from words and declarations to concrete actions to protect the rights of the working class (Levitz, para. 12). Therefore, class depolarization led to the emergence of an entirely new political climate.
Experts believe that the Democrats have not paid enough attention to the white working-class group in the past eight years and have not sufficiently understood its motives and aspirations. In particular, Lerer notes that Biden received 23% of support from this group (para. 7). At the same time, Trump, as a representative of the Republicans, retained the advantage and received 31% of support (para. 7). This trend suggests that if the Democrats do not change the partys political program, they may face serious problems in the next elections.
Levitz (para. 15) proposes to increase the amount of campaigning directed at the working class and not to limit it to traditional Democratic voters, who are white-collar workers with higher education and high income. The expert also insists that democrats must develop actual policies to protect the interests of the working class. Otherwise, they risk losing forever these voters, who demonstrate a constantly decreasing level of trust in democratic rhetoric. In other words, Democrats must analyze their political presence in working-class preferences from an APD perspective, which could lead them to collaboration with labor unions and local communities.
The class was always a part of all common political changes that shaped American Political Development. Moreover, the white working-class did not always favor one party, changing camps from time to time. In particular, Levitz (para. 8) notes that the white working class has recently moved into the Republican camp and that this change was due to specific reasons. The first main reason was the change in popular opinion about liberal political ideology in the mid-1970s. During this time, Democrats began to lose touch with the workers electorate, over-relying on voters with higher education.
Stable support from the black working class also contributed to this tendency. Levitz (para. 16) stresses that while the black working class continues to support Democrats, this is not evidence of good leftist policies that protect the interests of the working class but instead speaks of issues with equal opportunities for the black and white working classes. This tendency may be happening because the only rhetoric or concession to the working class from the left is the policy of protection against all kinds of discrimination, which, according to experts, does not provide real equal opportunities.
It is noteworthy that class depolarization is also characterized by an increasing gap between the level of education and the level of earnings. With new business opportunities opening up, more and more working-class people have incomes comparable to white-collar workers. Moreover, more and more working-class people can be called white collars by the sphere of employment. Another interesting trend characteristic of class depolarization is the discrepancy between the partisanship of political preferences between generations. Earlier, sons tended to vote the same way as their fathers, but now more working-class children who go to college tend to support Democrats rather than Republicans.
Class depolarization is the most important factor that influences the preferences of the working class and will have a significant impact on the results of future elections. Given the arguments presented above, the general conclusion is that there is confusion regarding voting preferences for ideology or rhetoric promoted by a party or candidate. Simultaneously, the only way to overcome depolarization is to rely not on slogans but on actual deeds. Moreover, it should be considered that the working class still has an ideological connection with the trade unions and is ready to support politicians who, in turn, support them. When implementing various policies, it is also necessary to consider the APD and the historical context to win the sympathy of voters and convince them that the political force is interested in their problems. For example, Democrats could initiate the removal of curbs for trade unions introduced after World War II.
Experts believe that democratic, progressive forces should consider these trends if they want to have a political advantage in the next elections. At the same time, given the current statistics, it will not be easy for Democrats to win over the sympathies of the white working class, which have been lost for decades. Therefore, this process should be gradual, as already indicated, based on actual policies and cooperation with trade unions and other labor organizations. Historically, Liberal Democrats have had the edge over Conservative Republicans in terms of working-class sympathy.
According to experts, in the 1970s, Republican voters were predominantly white elites, as Republicans defended values close to the owners of large companies, who sought to maintain the status quo. The working-class shift to the right was driven solely by disillusionment with Democratic rhetoric and the assumption that both parties operate exclusively in rhetoric and offer no real help. The subsequent events developed in the ideological plane, and Democrats must reverse this trend by regaining the sympathy of the working class, which constitutes a very significant percentage of the US population.
Thus, it was argued how the class considerations impacted election results in 2016 and 2020. It was also discussed why these considerations would significantly impact the distribution of electoral sympathy in the future. The working class in America has historically favored Democrats, who have always championed liberal values and defended the interests of the oppressed. Recently, however, Democrats have been paying insufficient attention to this category of voters. This situation can have dangerous consequences, given the recent trend of class depolarization, and can be overcome through cooperation with trade unions and altering the traditional rhetoric.
Works Cited
King Jr, Martin Luther. Letter from a Birmingham jail (1963). Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, and the Civil Rights Struggle of the 1950s and 1960s: A Brief History with Documents (1963).
Mayhew, David R. Wars and American politics. Perspectives on Politics (2005): 473-493.
Thompson, Debra, and Chloe Thurston. American political development in the era of black lives matter. Politics, Groups, and Identities 6.1 (2018): 116-119.
X, Malcolm. The ballot or the bullet. In Cohen and Fermon, Eds: Princeton Readings in Political Thought. Princeton, 1996: 636-641.
World War II exacted a heavy toll on every country that was dragged into the conflict. Dawson (2019) states that women were conscious actors who made decisions to fight for survival, for civil rights and for participation in the war (176). During the war, thousands of women served their land everywhere: both on the front line, fighting alongside men, and in the rear working on factories and plants manufacturing weapons, clothes, food.
Factory work was by no means easy, and it did not provide many opportunities such as career growth or social welfare. Instead, it only asked for sacrifices shifts lasted more than 10 hours in a row, and the production demand was very high. Women had to leave their families, parents, and children, to provide for them, working themselves to the bone. In addition, the conditions in which women worked were not pleasant either, and more often than not become the cause of illnesses and injuries to them.
Despite the war being a major danger for everyone, there were still racial and gender prejudices in American society. For example, factories did not allow Black women to work in higher positions, such as clerks or secretaries. Instead, they were only let into the harder jobs of a lower level. Moreover, Blacks, as well as other minorities, were not allowed into the workers unions, and there was still racial tension towards them.
In the propaganda posters of military time, women were represented more as symbols of liberty, painted in a feminine light, according to the gender stereotypes of women being lesser than men. Wollney and Sternadori (2019) state that wartime posters and ads typically showed middle-class women in individualistic jobs, while lower-class women were depicted in more communal settings, subordinate to men, and working unskilled factory or farm jobs (6). Rather than calling into action as an example like in the Soviet war propaganda American propaganda mostly depicted women as White, middle-class caretakers, drawn into the labor by patriotic impulses.
World War II was unprecedented in its scale and impact. During it, a lot had changed, and the perception of women was one of the aspects that gained a new perspective. I would like to think that women, whose labor helped to secure a victory against the Nazis, taught then their children especially daughters that they are capable of much more than what society thinks they are.
Works Cited
Dawson, Sandra Trudgen. Women and the Second World War. International Journal of Military History and Historiography, vol. 39, no. 2, 2019, pp. 171180., doi:10.1163/24683302-03902002.
Wollney, Easton, and Miglena Sternadori. Feminine, Competent, Submissive: A Multimodal Analysis of Depictions of Women in U.S. Wartime Persuasive Messages During World War I and World War II. Visual Communication Quarterly, vol. 26, no. 1, 2019, pp. 321., doi:10.1080/15551393.2018.1530600.
The phenomena related to military conflicts are considerably diverse, enveloping the areas of social, cultural, and economic endeavors. In general, war is understood as hostilities between two contending parties, the outcomes of which cannot be predetermined due to similar military power of the involved sides and the corresponding surrounding conditions. Various theories have been suggested to explain the war tactics between multiple nations, groups, and other hostile parties. A pertinent theory has been suggested by Antoine Henry Jomini, who focused on the characteristics of military encounters and suggested four maxims to achieve the positive results of such conflicts. Jominis theoretical principles have tremendously impacted the military tactics used since 1815, providing the army generals with specific strategies that were successfully used during the American Civil War, securing positive outcomes.
The Jomini Theory Exemplified by American Civil War
Theoretical Grounds
The military theory suggested by Antoine Jomini is one of the well-recognized approaches to army tactics, which remained especially popular during the 19th century. Based on the systematization of Napoleons strategies that granted him numerous victories, Jominis principles perfectly aligned with the contemporary expectations regarding military tactics. The four maxims devised by the military theorist incorporated the idea that an encounter could be controlled, thus securing a necessary result for the party implementing the suggested tactic.
The First Maxim
The method of conducting military operations introduced by Jomini hinges on four succinct strategies that should be implemented during the confrontations. The first maxim advises maneuvering the army in order to deploy it on strategic points of a theater of war, attempting to compromise the enemys communications but preserve ones own lines. This idea focuses on the principles of mass and security, stating that it is essential to concentrate the military power at a specific place and time while simultaneously ensuring the safety of the controlled ground. From this perspective, it is also imperative to define the theater of war, the area where the confrontations would occur.
The approach to Bull Run led by General Irvin McDowell is an excellent representation of the first maxim, where the target locations and the decisive points were clarified during the initial planning. McDowell intended to threaten the entrenched confederate forces along the rail system connecting Manassas and Richmond, establishing the base of operations across the river at Alexandria. Therefore, the decisive points were marked, and the battleground area was created according to Jominis theoretical suggestions.
The Second Maxim
The second maxim of Jominis theory also incorporates the concepts of mass and security, additionally focusing on offense and maneuver principles. Arguing that it is crucial to quickly maneuver and engage fractions of the enemys army with the majority of ones own, Jomini proposes that swift changes of the troops locations could benefit the battle outcomes. It is necessary to attack the parts of the enemies forces in a fashion that ensures ones superiority in numbers. In this regard, while the other party remains at a disadvantage, the troops are bound to quickly perform the necessary task, maintaining flexibility and using the available initiative.
The utilization of this maxim is exceptionally evident in the battle at Chancellorsville, which consisted of the confrontation between the forces of Generals Robert Lee and Joseph Hooker. General Lee excellently executed the second maxim by maneuvering the available troops and separating them into smaller divisions. Although the commander slightly deviated from the recommendation to incorporate the majority of the army in these maneuvers, the overall idea represented the impact of Jominis teachings on the warfare methods utilized. Moreover, it should be noted that commander Hooker also attempted to use similar techniques to trap Lees troops. Nevertheless, the decision to halt the offense negatively affected the flexibility of the army, resulting in the failure of the initial plan. Altogether, it can be observed that Jominis principles of war, especially the second maxim, tremendously benefited the forces of General Lee during the battle at Chancellorsville.
The Third Maxim
The third maxim suggested by Jomini contains the previously discussed concepts of decisive points and mass, focusing on the most pertinent areas of the enemys lines. The theorist recommends throwing the mass of the forces upon the decisive point or upon on that portion of the hostile line which it is of the first importance to overthrow. While implementing this approach, it is imperative to highlight the areas that would be harmed the most by a concentrated attack, causing the opponent to suffer significant losses or even retreat from the battlefield.
An illustrative example of this technique is the battle on the Chattanooga between the forces of General William Sherman and General Joseph Johnston, who represented the Union and the Confederates, respectively. During this encounter, Sherman implemented the third maxim, directing his troops towards the established decisive points that were of tremendous importance for both the enemy and the Union, namely the Confederates right flank. By maneuvering the forces and establishing a threat for Johnstons flank, Sherman was able to force the Confederates to retreat in order to protect their communication lines. These efforts proved to be highly useful for the Union, as their enemy withdrew from the theater of war in an attempt to prevent further losses.
The Fourth Maxim
The final fourth maxim is centered around the concept of economy and proper timing, aiming to balance the maneuvers and the attacks on decisive points to accomplish maximum efficiency. Jomini argues that it is essential to arrange that these masses shall not only be thrown upon the decisive point but that they shall engage at the proper times and with energy. Therefore, rather than targeting the significant or weak locations only, the commanders should also launch supportive attacks or preserve the efforts.
A depiction of this principle can be observed in the battle at Gettysburg when the Confederate forces under the command of General Robert Lee fought Union soldiers led by General George Meade. Although the confederates attempted to advance the union positions, Meade implemented a defensive strategy focused on hindering the progress of Lees troops. Appropriate use of reinforcements that were positioned at particular locations during the battle allowed the Union to save their resources and energy, capturing initiative after Brigade General George Picketts failed assault. Securing the current locations and waiting for the appropriate attack moment became a tremendous advantage for General Meade, resulting in the Confederates retreat.
Conclusion
To conclude, it is evident that the military theory of four maxims introduced by Antoine Jomini has remarkably influenced the methods used by military professionals over the course of the American Civil War. Since 1815 multiple generals and commanders consulted Jominis theoretical principles in order to ensure their success on the battlefield and secure victory over the opponent. The approach to Bull Run, the battles at Chancellorvillesville, Chattanooga, and Gettysburg perfectly illustrate how the incorporation of the suggested approaches into their tactics elicited positive outcomes for the commanders forces. As the theory addresses the basic ideas behind successful war encounters and provides a thorough overview of useful strategies, it can also be beneficial for the military professionals in the current age. Jominis maxims contain the most prominent elements that contribute to the success of both defensive and offensive campaigns, useful for improving the plans created by modern-day experts.
Bibliography
Barney, William L. With a Sword in One Hand & Jomini in the Other: The Problem of Military Thought in the Civil War North. Civil War Book Review 14, no. 3 (2012).
Calhoun, Mark T. Clausewitz and Jomini: Contrasting Intellectual Frameworks in Military Theory. Army History, no. 80 (2011): 2237.
Dighton, Adam. Jomini versus Clausewitz: Hamleys Operations of War and Military Thought in the British Army, 18661933. War in History 27, no. 2 (2020): 179201.
Shy, John. 6. Jomini. In Makers of Modern Strategy from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age, edited by Peter Paret, Gordon A. Craig and Felix Gilbert, 143-85. Princeton, US: Princeton University Press, 2010.
Vego, Milan. On Military Theory. Naval War Coll Newport Joint Military Operations Department, 2011.
Winton, Harold R. An Imperfect Jewel: Military Theory and the Military Profession. Journal of Strategic Studies 34, no. 6 (2011): 853877.
To begin with it is necessary to mention that King Philips War is often regarded as the armed conflict between Native Americans of present-day southern New England and English colonists jointly with their Native American allies during the period of 16751676. In accordance to the joined estimation of the losses during this conflict, More than half of New Englands ninety towns were assaulted by Native American warriors. The issues of colonialism by King Philip in this war were represented by the means of the rifles and bayonets. From this point of view, Bacons Rebellion is regarded as the huge popular growing force of the American Revolution. The rebellion started as the conflict among English inhabitants of Virginia on the issues of American policy towards Indians.
Conflict. War and Reellion
From the point of view of the Rebellion by Bacon, the views of colonialism originated the civil war, which seriously impacted antiAmerican-Indian western settlers, who confronted Governor William Berkeley and his associates who supported more pacifying policies toward native Indian Peoples. It is stated that the name of the rebellion was taken after Nathaniel Bacon, who arrived in Virginia in 1674, and was accepted by the elite society. His ideas entailed the reasons and the causes of the war, and it is emphasized that these ideas were much more deep than the ideas of leadership of a single man.
The issues of Rebellion, which Bacon represented, offered the redefinition of the domestic landscape of seventeenth-century Chesapeake. Foner (2005) emphasizes the following fact: What started as an external conflict with American Indians quickly developed into a local insurrection among predominantly western inhabitants who rejected the accommodationist regulations of the eastern inhabitants. As it developed, however, Bacons Rebellion took on a tenor of class warfare as his forces, increasingly composed of runaway servants and slaves, pillaged the possessions of Berkeleys allies in the Tidewater. Some historians have argued that class conflict and racial equality among Bacons rebels prompted tobacco planters to replace white indentured servants with African slaves, thus sowing the seeds of the racial divide that would define the South and much of America in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
It is necessary to emphasize that the Rebellion also tortured and executed the tribes, that remained in Virginia, and forced all those who survived to leave the colonial territories. The Rebellion by Bacon reveals that the racism and associated issues would spill so much American Indian blood in the following years, eventually reasoning the issues of subjection of Indians in the expanding United States. Foner (2005) writes that the central slogan of the rebellion, nonetheless was the following: No free man shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his property, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor shall we go against him or send against him, unless by legal judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land
Conclusion
The issues of Rebellion by Nathaniel Bacon and Colonialism by King Philip were similar in numerous issues. Originally, the policy towards the Indians were not favorable for them, and both personalities have proved that their attitude towards Indians mostly depends on the interests of the plantators and their own wealth.
The Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05 was fought between the Empire of Japan and the Russian Empire. It started on 10th February, 1904 and continued till 5th September, 1905. It was a direct result of the conflict that was taking shape due to the imperialistic ambitions of these two nations over Korea and Manchuria. The war originated since the Russians wanted to expand their control over eastern Asia but were faced by the Japanese who also wanted to gain their hold over the mainland of Asia. While Russia wanted to increase her acquisition over the military and commercial position in Manchuria, Japan wanted to gain control of the flourishing industry and trade of Korea. Japan also wanted to maintain her effective power over the sea waters between Korea and Japan since Korea was part of Japans vicinity.
Main body
Right from the Sino-Japanese War up to 1903 negotiations between Japan and the Czars of Russia proved to be pointless. Thus, Japan waged war in order to protect her elite domination over Korea. Another possible reason why Russia chose war was to distract the public from the various patriotic rallies and government repressions resulting from strikes. (Suyematsu, 134-7)
Right from the late 19th century and beginning of the 20th century, most of the European countries competed with each other for trading, influencing and gaining territorial control over the Far East. Although Japan struggled to be accepted as a great power, her location enabled her to focus her ambitions over northern China and especially on Korea. This put her into a competition with her neighboring country, Russia. Russia was constantly in the look out for a warm water port, which would be ice free and thus, can be used throughout the year, on the Pacific Ocean, not only for their navy but also for marine trading.
The Vladivostok seaport in Russia could only be used in the summer seasons but the harbor city of Port Arthur in China could be used year round. This was the reason Russia wanted control in China. On the other hand, due to its ever growing population, Japan required new markets, raw materials, food and territory. Thus, both of them wanted to control Korea and Manchuria. In 1895 Japan had already won the Liaodong Peninsula from China which projects between China and Korea into the Yellow Sea.
But she was forced by Russia and had to return it back to China. Also in 1898 Russia was successful in taking over the Liaodong Peninsula along with leasing Port Arthur from China. Russia installed its troops in Manchuria making her intentions of taking over the region obvious. Russia was faced with objection from Japan as she tried to extend her influence over Korea and finally when negotiations did not have any affect, and on 8th February, 1904 Japan declared war on Russia by attacking their troops at Port Arthur. (Suyematsu, 129-134)
First Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95
The long term causes of the Russo-Japanese War originated from the First Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895 which took place when Japan tried to occupy Korea. In 1868 when the Meiji Restoration took place in Japan the government encouraged Western customs, ideas and technologies which quickly industrialized Japan and also brought her out of isolation. Thereafter, Japan not only wanted to protect their sovereignty but also wanted to be accepted as equals by the Western world. On the other hand, Russia which was already a leading Imperial nation wanted control in the East and after the Trans-Siberian Railway was constructed Russia wanted to further strengthen her presence and influence in the East.
Korea was geopolitically near Japan and was regarded as an important part of Japans national security. After Japan successfully defeated the crumbling Chinese Empire in the First Sino-Japanese War China was made to sign a severe treaty due to which she even had to abandon her rule over Korea and also gave up Taiwan and the Liaodong Peninsula including Port Arthur to Japan. After the war ended Japan had effective control over the Yellow Sea like she did over the Sea of Japan.
However, the European powers did not want Japan to gain control of port Arthur since they had their own imperialistic ambitions in that area of China and in 1895 Russia, backed by France and Germany, opposed to Japans claim over Port Arthur and by applying diplomatic pressure over Japan forced her to return Port Arthur to China in return of a larger indemnity through the Triple Intervention. Japan, although reluctantly, agreed to this decision and withdrew her troops from the Liaodong Peninsula.
But to Japans dismay and astonishment after two years, in 1897, Russia occupied the Liaodong Peninsula and moved her fleets to Port Arthur. China was forced by Russia and had to lease out Port Arthur, for the next 25 years to Russia, which was instantly fortified. Since Japan was only left with the control over Pescadores and Formosa Islands which is in southeastern Asia, Japan realized that she faced the danger of Russia absorbing and taking control over Korea.
Russia started to build railways to Port Arthur and also inroads in Korea. By 1898 they had even acquired the forestry and mining grants in some areas of Korea which alarmed the Empire of Japan. Since Japan felt humiliated due to these actions of Russia and the other European nations, she decided to attack Russia before the completion of the Trans-Siberian Railway. Thus, this was one of the direct causes of the Russo-Japanese War. (Suyematsu, 176-183)
Chinese Boxer Rebellion of 1900-01
A further opportunity for expanding into the Far East came for Russia with the Chinese Boxer Rebellion of 1900-01. Throughout the late 19th century Russia expanded her holding over Manchuria. In 1891 the construction of the Trans-Siberian railways was started for connecting Moscow and Vladivostok, which was their farthest eastern seaport in the Asian part of Russia. Since Russia financed the indemnity China had to pay to Japan, she demanded that China allow the Trans-Siberian railways be permitted to be constructed through northern Manchuria.
Since the Japanese army was still occupying Korea and some parts of Manchuria, Russia feared that they would be able to threaten the Port of Vladivostok which was geographically and tactically poorly positioned. China and Russia later signed a treaty in 1896 enabling Russia to complete the extension of Trans-Siberian railways into Chinese Eastern Railway across Manchuria which meant that they gained partial control over the area.
When the Russians started building the Trans-Siberian Railway the Chinese angered by their decision, led to the Boxer Rebellion. To completely crush the rebels of the Boxer Rebellion, Japan and Russia also became a part of the Eight Nation Alliance. Due to this involvement Russia again found an opportunity for making its control strong in the East and with the aim of protecting the interests of Manchuria she sent her troops there.
Russia had promised the other nations of the Alliance, including Japan that she would leave Manchuria after the crisis died out. But years passed and by 1903 after the fighting got over it became clear that Russia would not set any proper time for withdrawing its troops from Manchuria. Thus, it became evident that with the excuse of suppressing the Boxer Rebellion, Russia was actually fortifying her place in Manchuria so that she could use Manchuria as a catalyst to further expand her interest and influence over the Far East. This was also one of the reasons Japan attacked Russia as they too had an eye on Manchuria.
But Japan was already busy with Korea and was successfully spreading her interest over Korea. Just like Japan wanted Manchuria, Russia also wanted to control Korea. But, Russia, while leasing the Liaodong Peninsula from the Chinese, was able to build their naval base at Port Arthur and also at the commercial port in Dalny. This enabled her to further expand her influence over Korea. These Russian moves completely threatened and alarmed the Japanese Empire since she wanted to ensure that her military and commercial access into Korea was secure by controlling the adjoining water areas.
Till now the two nations had somehow managed to coexist peacefully but within a couple of years tensions grew on both the sides and this led to further aggression. The Japanese even agreed to negotiate with the Russians in 1902 since they thought that they were weak and thus, would not be able to force the Russian troops out of Manchuria. They agreed to have Russias control in Manchuria if in return they were given the control of northern Korea. Again on 13th January, 1904 a similar proposal was made but Russia did not respond to either of the offers. Instead on 6th February, 1904 Count Lamsdorf, the Russian Foreign Minister, was directly asked to leave by Japan, which severed all diplomatic relations among Russia and Japan.
Russia along with the other European powers had once already tried to prevent Japan from gaining control of Korea. But when after the Boxer Rebellion, Russia did not keep her promise of leaving the Chinese territory of Manchuria Japan once again had to face humiliation. When Japan was unable to reach to a favorable agreement after a number of negotiations with Russia, which even included a staged withdrawal by the Russians from Manchuria, they decided to go with a military action.
Thus, on 8th February, 1904 a surprise attack was launched by the Japanese navy upon Port Arthur and they later completely blocked the Russian naval fleet. War was formally declared by Japan on 10th February, 1904. The Russo-Japanese war resulted in a shocking victory for the Japanese and established them as one of the major powers of the world in the beginning of the 20th century.
During the negotiations between Russia and Japan, Russia least expected Japan to go to war with her since she was a developing country and was thought to be weak. But Japan had reinforced her position through an alliance with Britain and according to the Anglo-Japanese Alliance of 1902 between Japan and Britain if Japan went to war with Russia and any nation formed an alliance with Russia then Britain would side with the Japanese. (Figes, 89-102)
When the Japanese Imperial Navy struck the Russian Far East Fleet on 8th, February, 1904, positioned at Port Arthur, the Czar could not accept that a weak country like Japan would risk going to war with a strong nation like Russia. But Japan knew that although they would not be able to fight a long war and face the entire Russian forces, they were surely capable of winning a localized war since most of the Russian troops were stationed in Europe. After eight days Russia also declared war on Japan. The following are the list of events that took place during the Russo-Japanese War:
Campaign of 1904
Battle at Port Arthur Japan first aimed at neutralizing Russian naval fleet at Port Arthur to gain control over the sea and thus, on 8th February the war was opened by Japan by a torpedo attack which severely damaged the heavy battleships and cruisers of Russia. Since the Russians could not leave the harbor into the seas on 13th April it resulted into the death of their Admiral Stepan Osipovich Makarov. The Japanese were able to land near Incheon, Korea and from there they were successful in occupying Seoul and other areas in Korea. By the end of that month, the Japanese Imperial army was all set to cross over Yalu River and enter Manchuria which was occupied by the Russians.
Battle at Yalu River The Russians were delaying their military actions as they were waiting for reinforcements which were scheduled to arrive via the Trans-Siberian Railways. Battle at Yalu River marked the beginning of the land battle in the Russo-Japanese War and began on 1st May, 1904. The Russians had to retreat and the Russian Eastern Detachment was completely destroyed. Japanese troops were able to drive the Russians to Port Arthur through number of battles, like the Battle of Nanshan fought on 25th May. While the Russians focused on defending, the Japanese focused on attacking.
Blocking of Port Arthur the Japanese tried to restrict the Russians from using Port Arthur. On 13th and 14th February they blocked the opening of Port Arthur and sunk a number of cement-filled steamers. Another attempt was also made in May but both failed. Even the Russians failed at their attempts to break out of Port Arthur when two of their battleships were heavily damaged. The Japanese battleships also suffered losses since they were also damaged by Russian mine fields. In June another attempt to breakout was made by Russians and then the Japanese started to fire shells onto Port Arthur.
Siege of Port Arthur In order to isolate Port Arthur, when the Russians attempted to breakout a fourth time they were met with the battleships of admiral Togo. The Battle of the Yellow Sea or the Battle of 28 July took place where the battleships of both sides fired at each other. But when the Russian flagship was directly hit and her fleet commander, Admiral Vitgeft, was killed they had to turn around. The Russians were again blockaded at Port Arthur and the Japanese navy was ready to face new Russian fleets.
Fall of Port Arthur The Russian combat ships at Port Arthur were completely destroyed by the surrounding Japanese army and Russia was also unable to defeat the Japanese army on land. The Battle of Liaoyang was fought in the end of August which forced the Russians to retreat to Mukden in China. On 2nd January, 1905, Port Arthur fell as the Russians surrendered to the Japanese.
Campaign of 1905
Final battles After Port Arthur fell, the Japanese army continued to move northwards so as to strengthen their position in the southern areas of Mukden which was under the Russians. Between 25th and 29th January the Russian army attacked Japan by surprise in Sandepu but since the Russians did not have much support from other units the attack was stalled. On 20th February the Battle of Mukden ended and the Japanese realized that they had to destroy the Russian forces before reinforcements reached Manchuria. Japan for many days continued to attack the Russian army wings. Realizing that they would be encircled by the Japanese, the Russians began to pull back and fought a number of detached battles resulting in confusion and their deterioration. The Russian army soon collapsed and after 3 weeks of fierce battles the Russian General Kuropatkin retreated towards northern Mukden.
Victory at the Battle at Tsushima Although the Russians retreated they were not completely defeated. In order for the Russian naval reinforcements to arrive at Manchuria they had to pass through the Tsushima Straits which was very near to Japan. The Japanese understood this and started repairing their battleships to stop the Russians. Although the Russians tried to pass through the Tsushima Straits at night, they were discovered by the Japanese who re-located their own fleets so that they could intercept the Russians. Between 27th and 28th May the Japanese attacked the Russian Baltic fleet and almost annihilated them.
Treaty of Portsmouth
The Treaty of Portsmouth signed on 5th September, 1905 ended the Russo-Japanese War. United States mediation was accepted both by Japan and Russia, and Russia agreed to leave Manchuria. She also had to cede southern part of the Sakhalin Islands and give up her lease of Port Arthur. Russia agreed to acknowledge Japan as the superior power in Korea and both the nations agreed to restore Manchuria to the Chinese Empire. (Guy, 119-126)
Conclusion
Although the Russo-Japanese War mainly resulted out of the long time rivalry between the nations of Russia and Japan, it was also due to the economic and political influence of neutral nations, which are Britain, France, Germany and China. Thus, from the above it is quiet clear that although the immediate cause of the Russo-Japanese War during 1904-05 was the attack by the Japanese navy on Russia at Port Arthur, its major long term cause is the concurrent decision of both the nations of Russia and Japan to expand their individual sphere of power and influence over the Asian mainland largely at the cost of the Chinese government.
Works Cited
Figes, Orlando. A Peoples Tragedy: The Russian Revolution, 1891-1924. LA: Penguin Books, 1998.
Guy, Leopold and Francis Maynard. An Eye-witness in Manchuria. London: E. Nash, 1988.
The Spanish American War started in 1898, and the reason of this conflict was the liberation of Cuba. The war started after Spains rejection of the American request for the resolution of the Cuban struggle for independence. The expansionist sentiment within the US government, and the imperialistic moods of American political tradition motivated the government to work out the plan for separating Cuba from Spain (The annexation plan also included Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam).
The starting point of the conflict was the revolution in Cuba. After that events the US government sent in the warship USS Maine, which revealed the immense political interest of the United States in that region. The American tabloids accused Spain of the oppression in the Spanish colonies.
Originally, the Spanish-American War was started for a great deal of reasons. It is emphasized that the most important reasons are treatment of the Cuban people by the Spanish government, yellow journalism, business interests and the fact that the United States government wished to flex its muscles as a world power (Post, 1999). The starting point of the conflict was the sinking of US battleship Maine in Havana harbor February 15, 1898. The US claimed that Spanish government is guilty for this sinking, however, it has not been proven. The United States were not prepared for this war, and according to logic the war should be lost by US troops. There was shortage in everything except volunteers, as the agitation, held by yellow journalism, was immense.
While congress was convening and accepting the resolutions which supported Cuban independence, Senator Henry M. Teller of Colorado offered the amendment which was aimed at ensuring that the United States is not wishing to set up the permanent control over Cuba after the cessation of hostilities from Spain. The Amendment was accepted, however, the resolution required immediate Spanish withdrawal, and it included the point, that the US president is capable to use the military forces in the volumes, he considers sufficient to help Cuba achieve independence from Spain. President McKinley signed this resolution, and ultimatum was sent by diplomatic mail to Spain on April 20, 1898. Spanish government decided to terminate the diplomatic relations with the USA, and announced war in three days after sending the ultimatum.
Consequences
This war is regarded as the starting point of American entry on the world political and diplomatic arena as the independent State. Since that the United States has entered numerous treaties, conventions and agreements, and participated in the great deal of conflicts. Spain was no longer the imperial power. This defeat was the reason of national disaster because of the kinship of peninsular Spaniards with Cuba, which was considered as another province of Spain, but not a colony (Rosenfeld, 2000). Few territories stayed under Spanish overseas control.
From cultural and social perspective, the war originated the appearing of new generation, which was the basis of the renaissance of the Spanish culture. The financial benefits for Spain were enormous. The capitals, which were held by Cuban capitalists was brought back to Spain, and invested into Spanish industry.
The political consequences were serious. It reasoned the weakening of kings power of Alfonso XII.
References
Post, C. J. (1999). The Little War of Private Post: The Spanish-American War Seen up Close. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Rosenfeld, H. (2000). Diary of a Dirty Little War: The Spanish-American War of 1898. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Fought on 19th of April 1775, the Battle of Lexington is significant because it kicked off the American Revolution. On the day before the battle, hundreds of British troops descended on Concord to Boston as they sought to capture arms from local militias. Horse riders from the local militiamen, led by Paul Revere, sounded the alarm, prompting other groups to mobilize in an attempt to intercept the army. A confrontation between the two sides occurred at Lexington, forcing the British troops to retreat under heavy fire. This, together with the Battle of Concord, marked the start of a series of battles that eventually led to the independence of the first 13 American states from Britain.
Battle of Concord
When the horse men identified the British troops moving from Boston to Concord to seize arms cheches there, confrontations also took place at Concord between the colonists militiamen and the British troops. When the troops arrived at Concord, they separated into different companies as they searched for supplies. Approximately 400 local militiamen engaged about 100 British troops at the North Bridge, Concord. The British troops were regulars and were overpowered, forcing them to retreat below the bridge and joining the rest of the forces back at Concord. This Battle, like the Lexington confrontation, marked the start of the series of battles over the next few years that eventually led to the independence of the new nation.
Battle of Yorktown
This battle was fought between September 28 and October 19, 1781 in Yorktown. The conflict marked the first time that the French joined forces with American colonists to fight the British Crown. It is worth noting that the French and the British were fighting over the control of the New World. When the American colonists rebelled against the Crown, the French found it necessary to help the colonists fight their competitors. In fact, the involvement of the French and the Spanish on the side of the colonists contributed to the eventual defeat of the British and independence of the first thirteen states.
Siege of Boston
The Siege o9f Boston is considered the opening phase of the revolution as it involved large scale confrontation between the British troops and the American colonists forces. Lasting between April 19, 1775 and March 17, 1776, the siege took almost a year and ended when the British, after running out of supplies, decided to abandon Boston. After the British left for Nova Scotia in Canada, the Colonists army claimed victory after fighting for 11 months. This battle is significant as it was the first time the local militias were organized into a force, thus marking the birth of the Continental Army that henceforth fought the British in the remaining period during the revolutionary years.
Battle of Bunker Hill
The Battle of Bunker Hill was fought for a single day on 17th June, 1775 when Boston was still under siege. After the local militiamen who were besieging Boston realized that the British were sending more troops to attack them in the surrounding hills, they sent about 1,200 of their troops in response. Under the command of William Prescott, the colonists troops occupied the nearby Breeds and Bunker hills. When the British realized this, they mounted heavy attacks. The colonists suffered massive losses, forcing them to retreat as the British captured Charlestown Peninsula. This battle was significant to both sides as the British realized that they were now dealing with an organized army and resulted to adopt more cautious and planned execution of power. On their side, the colonists became aware of the British potential and became even more organized into an army rather than separated militias.
Battle of Quebec
This was a one-day battle on December 31, 1775 and became the first major loss for the colonists. The American colonists had invaded Quebec City hoping to drive the British away and capture artillery and supplies there. However, the British defenders had an advantage as they had better trained troops and a large arms cache. In the battle, the colonists lost more than 400 militiamen who were taken prisoner. In addition, their leader Gen Richard Montgomery was killed and Benedict Arnold seriously wounded. Moreover, Daniel Morgan was taken prisoner along with the 400 of his men.
Battle of Long Island
The Battle of Long Island occurred on August 27 1776 at Long Islands western edge in Brooklyn, New York. Here, the British defeated the colonists, gaining access to the Port of New York. This was the first major confrontation between the two side following the declaration of independence on July 4, 1776. It is the largest battle in the Revolutionary War and involved massive loses on both sides. The British had a large force of about 20,000 troops while the Americans brought about 10,000 men to fight the Crown out of the port. The confrontation was violent and Gen Washington had to evacuate his troops overnight. For the coming months, the Americans suffered massive defeat as the British forced them backwards towards Pennsylvania, where they remained for the rest of the war period.
Battle of Trenton
This battle was relatively small but very important in the revolutionary period as it boosted the waning morale of the Continental forces. It took place on December 26, 1776 in Trenton, New Jersey. When Washing and his army crossed the Delaware River near Trenton, he advanced towards Hessian garrisons at Trenton. After a short battle, he captured more than third of the troops there and only suffered negligible losses.
Battle of Princeton
This battle took place on January 3, 1777 near Princeton, New Jersey. General George Washington made a plan to attack the British troops in New Jersey in a surprise attack before they could attack him. He crossed the Delaware River before entering the NJ area. At Princeton, he met a small British force which he defeated. However, the he realized that General Cornwallis was sending a large number of troops and so he retreated back to Delaware. But this small victory motivated and inspired many colonists. In the coming months, many young colonists joined the Continental Army and the revolutionary cause, thus boosting the morale of the revolutionaries.
Battle of Fort Ticonderoga
On July 2nd, 1777 General John Burgoyne and his British troops planned an attack on Fort Ticonderoga, a fortification that the revolutionary Army had captured several months before as the war was starting. This fort was under the command of Ethan Allen and was situated an the confluence of Lake Champlain and Lake George. Therefore, it acted as a control site to access Hudson Valley and Canada. When Burgoyne realized that he could no longer defend the fort, he surrendered to the British forces, who destroyed the fortifications and the artillery there before they relocated to Canada.
Reference
Allison, A. K., & Ferreiro, L. D. (2018). The American Revolution: A world war. Smithsonian Institute.
Independence is the main desire of most of the citizens. Most wars and rebellions start because one of the states or nations wants to influence the other and to cut her independence in this or that manner. People are ready to struggle for their independence, to fight for their rights, and to win their liberty.
The topic we are going to discuss in the essay is how Bacons rebellion and king Philips war revealed strains both within colonial society and between colonists and Indians. For the start, let us analyze the causes and background of Bacons rebellion and King Philips war.
Bacons rebellion was immersed in 1676 in Virginia Colony and was led by Nathaniel Bacon. Nathaniel Bacon was a rich planter. He was chosen to protest against Native Americans. The rebellion also had its aim to get read by Royal Governor of Virginia, William Berkeley, who refused to retaliate against the Native Americans. There were many other problems that created tension between natives and colonists for some time. There were economical problems, the rise of prices, the restricted markets, and many others which created prerequisites for the future rebellion.
The rebellion did not succeed, but it had a great value. Bacons rebellion was the first time when the white poor and black poor were united in their aim to struggle for their liberty, without taking into consideration the racial prejudices, which caused many problems in that society.
King Philips War lasted for about one year (16751676). The problem, which caused the war, was land possession. Native American citizens of modern southern New England fought against English colonists and their Native American allies. The number of colonists increased all the time. First, it was not a problem, but then began conflicts on the territory subjects. The tension was also created by different cultures and ways of life. Metacom (Metacomet or Pometacom) was the protector of Native Americans. He was also known as Philip. The war is named after him as it was Philip who wanted to struggle for his rights.
The Philips war was the bloodiest in the history of America, as too many people were killed from both sides. It gave some topics for discussion to the government, but nothing more. The colonists won in that struggle and natives just aggravated their condition. Men were sent for slavery abroad and women and children were made to stay there but as servants.
These two rebellions did not have success in the turn of the winery, but they had a great social value. Both leaders made a great contribution to the political and social life of America in the last years of the XVII century. The rebellions were the signals to the government about their wrong policy in the colonies. Yes, the colonists won in those struggles but they still made some conclusions and understood what power had their opponents.
The Native Americans understood that they have the power to protect themselves only with the help of unity of their powers and desires. The one-time appearance of both these rebellions says that the problem existed not only in one separate colony but in all colonies, which were suffering from expansion. And there were no other ways to do that but to take the weapon and to fight with colonists in a bloody struggle.
Workers, semiskilled, skilled and unskilled workers
Leaders
William H. Sylvis and Andrew Cameron
Terence V. Powderly, Alley Thomas
Samuel Gompers, John McBride, William Green, George Meany
Goals
Improving work conditions via legislative reforms; to reduce 10-hour working day to 8-hour
Inclusivity in work, promoting social and cultural uplift of workers, including Black Americans and women.
Better working conditions, such as shorter working hours, higher wages; To convince companies to recognize unions and agree to collective bargaining
Tactics
Forming a party called National Labor Reform Party; bringing all labor organizations together
Forming mass organization; use of strikes and elections
Use of strikes to implement policies and reforms
Outcomes
The congress reached the establishment of an eight-hour working day but employers also cut the wages. So the outcomes were not practical. In 1873, it disappeared due to failure in 1872 elections.
It campaigned an eight-hour working day, the abolition of child labor, improved safety conditions at workplace, and equal pay for men and women; The campaigns were mostly unsuccessful due to the lack of support form legislature.
Overall, the organization was successful as they completed various acts, such as Social Security Act and Fair Labor Standards Act; but it failed due to its Chinese exclusion policy in
The National Labor Union was the first national labor federation that aimed to address the problems of working class. It gave a start to future labor organizations that are the Knights of Labor and the American Federation of Labor ( Labor Movement, 2020). It can be said that those three organizations had the same origins. Moreover, these three organizations had the same main goal which is to improve working conditions of working class. However, the National Labor Union had political aims as opposed to the American Federation of Labor since it created a party, while the latter was not intended to have a political goal but simply to reduce working hours and increase wages.
At some levels the organizations also seek for equal rights. For example, for both the Knights of Labor and the American Federation of Labor equal rights for women and men was one of their main objectives ( Knights of Labor, n.d.). Moreover, members of those three organizations were different skilled workers. Yet they differed in terms of gender and race. The National Labor Union did not welcome Black Americans and women as its members, while two other organizations welcomed them. The Knights of Labor and the American Federation of Labor also accepted the membership of immigrants. One more similarity of those organizations is in their use of strikes to achieve their goals. The National Labor Union formed a party to influence legislative decisions, while other two organizations were providing reforms and polices to solve the issues ( Labor Movement, 2020). There were numerous strikes from those labor unions but only few of them were accepted and had practical implication. For example, the National Labor Union achieved an eight-hour working day in some industries but in practice, employers cut the wages of employees, causing more dissatisfaction rather than solving the problems of working class.
With regards to the success of the national labor organizations, it can be said that only the American Federation of Labor was successful in its purposes. At the earlier stages, both the National Labor and the Knights of Labor were doing great regarding their membership as their members increased sharply, yet they experienced a decline whenever their strikes were not passed. The National Labor Union failed in its mission and transformed into the Knights of Labor after the elections in 1872 where it lost its political chances to enter the legislative body. Additionally, the labor union did not solve the problem of working hours, as such, it was an unsuccessful project (Labor Movement, 2020). The Knights of Labor started to fail in 1886 when its members joined the American Federation of Labor because the former was not adaptive and supported the old norms of industrial capitalism ( American Federation of Labor, n.d.). The American Federation of Labor that was emerged after two previous organizations was the most successful of labor movements at the national level. Yet, it failed due to its problems related to racism and sexism as it supported the Chinese Exclusion Act ( Labor Movement, 2020). Although it never had a strong gender exclusion policy, it excluded women from workforce and prevented them from joining the labor unions ( American Federation of Labor, 2020). Therefore, the American Federation of Labor had been unsuccessful in its way of treating workers with different backgrounds.
References
American Federation of Labor- Ohio History Central. (n.d.). Ohio History Central. Web.
Knights of Labor Ohio History Central. (n.d.). Ohio History Central. Web.