Good evening, I have this midterm essay I need help with. I have two options to do one essay for 100 or two essays 50 each. I have decide to do option two and I did one but still need to do the second
The American Civil War was undoubtedly the most significant conflict in the country's history. Although the War of Independence enabled America to become its own country, the Civil War brought about something much more significant: the abolition of slavery in the southern states. Slavery was at the root of all of the concerns that led to the Civil War, such as states' rights, which concerned how enslavement would be treated in each state, and preserving the Union after the south seceded from the north owing to their desire for slavery.
The success of the North in the fight preserved the United States together and ended slavery, which had split the country from its inception. These victories, however, meant a loss of 625,000 lives, about equal to the total number of American soldiers killed in all previous conflicts combined. Between the end of the Civil War in 1815 and the outbreak of World War I in 1914, the American Civil War was the longest and most destructive conflict in Western history.
The regional struggle that contributed to the American Civil War may and should be viewed as a clash of political philosophies of both a Northern, pro-manufacturing, free-labor party - the Republicans - and Southern slaveholders, represented by the Democratic Party's Southern branch.
The Republican perspective of the 1850s was so diametrically opposed to the aspirations of the Southern planter, the so-called Slave Power, that it is no wonder that the "Irrepressible Conflict," as William Seward dubbed it, erupted when it did. Though officially contrasted to the development of slavery into western new, the Republican Party advocated the ultimate abolition of slavery, whilst Southern slave owners intended to retain and extend the system.
The principle of free labor was fundamental to the Republican Party's worldview. Free labor constituted an ideal community, one which was preferable to all others, and one that reflected, at least in Republicans' minds, the future course of the United States. In comparison to the South, the North's free labor, capitalist culture was a dynamic civilization that gave compensation for one's effort; yet, the working class (slaves) did not benefit from their labor and had no possibility of rising up the social pyramid. According to Republican ideology, this was an insult to the integrity of work and an impediment to economic growth. A system like this did not promote industry, invention, or innovation. This Republican vision of labor, however, predates the party's founding in 1854. It had been brewing for a while.
Not only was slave-based civilization in the South viewed backward in comparison to that evolving in the North, but it was also considered detrimental to the South and the nation's economic progress as a whole. As bad as slavery was in the South, Republicans worried that its extension westward into the colonies would be much worse. Slavery's spread to the territories, already a scourge in its current position, would be destructive to the country and herald the demise of the free labor philosophy.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 aroused anti-slavery movements, uniting them into a single formidable group capable of challenging the planter-dominated Democrats. Till then, anti-slavery activists were dispersed among numerous political parties. A few Northern Democrats were likewise opposed to the institution's expansion. The party lines were not formed until the founding of the Republican Party, and they were mostly cross-sectional: the Republicans in the North and the split Democratic Party headed by the Southern ruling classes.
Since the second decade of the nineteenth century, pro and anti-slavery factions had reached an agreement on the topic of slavery. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 permitted Slave state and Maine as a free state to join the Union. This settlement held the question of slavery at bay until the 1840s, when the United States and Mexico went to war. Of course, the United States claimed victory, and triumph brought new regions and fresh fights over slavery. Southern Democrats compelled Douglas to renounce the Missouri Compromise in favor of popular sovereignty. The overturning of the Missouri Compromise infuriated anti-slavery activists. They were persuaded that the Slave Power, which had long been a major factor in American government, had once again used its influence inside the Democratic Party to ensure the survival of the unusual institution. Slavery appeared to them to be on the rise, rather than on the fall. In this environment, the Republican Party was founded in 1854.
The issues that had developed on a regular basis since the Missouri Compromise ultimately came to a climax in 1860 with Abraham Lincoln's campaign, and then election. The Democratic Party had been divided by the civil war over slavery, and none of the Democratic candidates obtained as many votes, either ordinary or parliamentary, as the Republican nominee. The South's radicals, who had earlier favored secession, finally had their way. In December 1861, South Carolina becomes first territory in the Deep South to secede.
When one considers the motives why the South finally chose secession over reconciliation or negotiation, it is not surprising that they chose to separate from the United States at this key juncture. Simply put, the aims of the Southern planter class were completely contradictory to the Republican Party's worldview. Whereas advocates of slavery extolled the virtues of slavery, Republicans extolled the virtues of free labor. Each side cast the blame at the other's systemic flaws. Republicans would argue that slave work slowed economic progress, while planters would argue that wage slavery was no different from "wage slavery." The Republican Party maintained that Congress had a legislative authority to prohibit slavery from being practiced in the areas. The Republicans were in favor of a homestead legislation, but the planters were against it. Both parties recognized that in the territories, free labor and enslavement could not coexist.
On the surface, it appeared to be an ideological war, but it was actually a clash of societies, or, in today's terminology, a battle of civilizations. For the past four decades, Americans have prioritized the interests of the public over the interests of the party or sector, and they have found methods to compromise. However, by the 1850s, agreement was becoming less common. Republicans would not make concessions to the "Slave Power," and the "Slave Power" would not accept a Republican administration. Their opposing views on what American society should be like rendered agreement nearly impossible. That is why the Civil War broke out.
Southern politicians throughout the Civil War blamed Lincoln directly for the commencement of conflict. They charged the President of behaving aggressively toward the South and intentionally igniting war in order to weaken the Confederacy For its part, the Confederacy desired a peaceful settlement to its legitimate claims to freedom, turning to consciousness only when confronted with Lincoln's forceful approach. Thus, Alexander H. Stephens, the Confederate vice president, said that the war was "inaugurated by Mr. Lincoln." The commencement of the war, according to Stephens, was Lincoln's decision to dispatch a "hostile fleet, branded the 'Relief Squadron,'" to fortify Fort Sumter.
Jefferson Davis, who published his autobiography after the Civil War, adopted a similar stance to Stephens. After separation, Fort Sumter was undeniably South Carolina's property, and the Confederate administration had shown incredible "forbearance" in seeking to negotiate a peaceful settlement with the government. The Lincoln administration, on the other hand, thwarted these efforts by mobilizing "a hostile fleet" to Sumter. "The attempt to portray us as aggressors," Davis observed, "is as unjustified as the wolf's complaint against the lamb in the well-known story." He who initiates the assault is not always the one who delivers the very first hit or fires the opening shot."
This critique of Lincoln's behavior received a significant audience in the twentieth century because to the works of Charles W. Ramsdell and others. The situation at Sumter, according to Ramsdell, presented Lincoln with a number of challenges. He would alienate the adjacent south as well as a large section of northern opinion if he took action to maintain the fort. He would be jeopardizing the Union by sustaining the Confederacy if he surrendered the fort. Lincoln also ran the danger of alienating a large segment of his own Republican Party by presenting himself as a poor and inadequate president.
However, if Lincoln could persuade people in the south to attack Sumter, "to take the offensive and thereby position themselves in the wrong in the eyes of the North and the world," he might be able to circumvent these obstacles. Lincoln forced the Confederates to choose between allowing the fort to be reinforced or attacking by deploying a relief operation, reportedly to deliver grain to a starving garrison. Lincoln used this "shrewd technique" to trick the South into launching the artillery.
Whenever almost any conflict is discussed, one of the important questions is whether war was inevitable or could have been prevented. The American Civil War was no exception.
Ideological disputes had a significant role in making the civil war necessary. The bloody struggle, on the other hand, was not the consequence of a philosophical disagreement about whether slavery was good or immoral. The vast majority of Northerners were moderate republicans indifferent with the morality of slavery. In reality, the North's attitude toward white supremacy differed little from the South's. The fundamental difference between the North and the South was differences in economic ideology, which forced each side to resort to physical fighting.
Northern abolitionists pushed the South into a defensive stance on slavery. As a result, slavery was redefined in Southern thought. Slavery began as a "necessary evil" but gradually evolved into a "ultimate good." The 'magnolia myth' arose as a result of this transition. The two factions created unique ideas that were diametrically opposed to one another.
By the 18th century, the industrialized North had economic dominance; the South was facing rising questions about the feasibility of cotton cultivation. Slave imports had decreased, and the southern economy had suffered a severe collapse. Slave work would have died out on its own if the economy had continued to deteriorate; there was no need for slave labor. With the introduction of Eli Whitney's cotton gin in 1793, all of that changed. Slavery was reestablished when cotton farming became profitable again. The South would protect it militarily if necessary since it is so lucrative. Historian James M. McPherson described the South's decision to secede from the union as a "counterrevolution" carried out to protect their economic system from a "revolution" signified by Lincoln's election, which they thought would be destroyed. Southern secession, in my opinion, was an unavoidable reaction to what the South perceived as the final danger to their way of life. However, the North's underlying assumption that national survival and majority desire trumped the South's right to free democracy and pride necessitated the very upheaval that the South desired to avoid.
Senator Stephen Douglas' economic plan for a transcontinental railroad in 1854 set the ground for a confrontation that marked the end of negotiated settlement. The Kansas-Nebraska law, which was a direct outcome of the economic strife, invalidated the Missouri accord. The economic basis of the North and South were fundamentally different, making conflict inevitable. The South was adamantly anti-tariff, making it inconsistent with the North, which need tariffs to preserve its fledgling industries. The failure to negotiate a tariff agreement in 1828, as well as the problem of imperialism, were important elements in the growth of sectionalism, which necessitated war.
Because of a lack of political compromise, the fundamental problems between the North and the South were finally exposed. Key events from 1846 to 1861, such as Senator Douglas' Kansas Nebraska Act of 1854 and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision of 1857, highlighted America's inability to lead.
The conflict may have been cancelled, but not entirely avoided, if compromise had been used more regularly. Since the formation of the bicameral legislature, the North and South have enjoyed an uncomfortable balance of power in the House of Representatives. Tensions have increased since then, up to the commencement of the conflict, about whether the new lands would be slave or free. Nevertheless, as scholars Charles and Marry Beard noted out, the system included intrinsic antagonisms, and so one side would unavoidably have to proclaim its side triumphant in some fashion — conflict was unavoidable.
References
American Civil War | Causes & Effects | Britannica. (n.d.). Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved February 27, 2022, from https://www.britannica.com/summary/Causes-and-Effects-of-the-American-Civil-War
Halleck, H. W., & Davis, J. (n.d.). Civil War - Causes, Dates & Battles - HISTORY. History.com. Retrieved February 27, 2022, from https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/american-civil-war-history
Kubic, M. (n.d.). Causes of the American Civil War by Mike Kubic. CommonLit. Retrieved February 27, 2022, from https://www.commonlit.org/texts/causes-of-the-american-civil-war
Suson, E. E. (n.d.). Was The Civil War Inevitable? Hankering for History. Retrieved February 27, 2022, from https://hankeringforhistory.com/was-the-civil-war-inevitable/
