Manfred Blum Instructor: Dr. David Haus History 205 12 December 2006 What Caused the Civil War If someone were to ask the average American citizen about the Civil War, many would probably bring up Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant, Gettysburg, Bull Run and Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. All the aforementioned people, places, and events are all important nonetheless, but if the average American citizen were then asked what caused the Civil War, they would be likely to tell you that it was slavery and the North and South’s disagreement about it. Many people do not realize that slavery was not the direct cause for the succession of the Confederate States, or the Civil War itself. Both sides had their reasons for fighting the war. The South’s
The author argues that this context and the fact that many southerners were against the Secession. “Why did the Confederacy lose the civil war?”; the book revolve on this question and the author is giving lots of information for a better comprehension. The book is also well illustrated with numbers of photos, diagrams and maps which complement the author’s writing. On the first part of the book (3), William W. Freehling is explaining the political context and the social structure of the US before the Secession, and so the Civil War, and the reasons that Civil War occurred. In the second part of the book (47), Freehling explicate the role of the white southerners who were against the Confederation and their role in the Secession Crisis.
Many of his decisions led to uproar, but one in the end set the ground for the United States as we know it today. James McPherson tries to get many points across in “As Commander-in-Chief I Have a Right to Take Any Measure Which May Best Subdue the Enemy.” It seems at times that he will go as far as calling Lincoln a man who is unconstitutional and even goes against his own morals. As his article progresses you see more of the main point that McPherson is trying to make. Early in his document, McPherson says when referring to Lincoln declaring war, “The
Once he had an idea, to him that was final and the only “right” idea. Charles as a military leader also added to the defeat. He made himself commander in chief and while this may have strengthened his position if he could provide strong leadership and bring his generals and politicians together, it also meant that he became responsible for his defeat. Good advice was never acted upon. Military failure also played a role in the defeat of the Royalist cause.
The state’s rights issue was embedded in the issue of slavery; this, would lead our nation to war. In 1850, the Fugitive Slave Act would begin to strike conflict within both the North and South (The American Mosaic). This act would constitutionally require Northerners to return runaway slaves to their slave owners. Forcing the north to put aside an issue that most felt was unjust and/or immoral and participate in it immediately. While at first Southerners were very happy with this compromise, the reaction of the north would infuriate them.
Critical Analysis of the Olive Branch Petition Because of the tone in which the 2nd Continental Congress adopted in the Olive Branch Petition, I believe if King George III would have read the document he would have acted in a different manner. The 2nd Continental Congress convened in 1775 with all the colonial leaders to talk about what their next course of action would be following the recent Battle of Lexington and the Battle of Concord. Though Congress, as whole, decided that they would try one last time at a last-ditch effort to restore peaceful, yet volatile, relations with Britain. However, many of the leaders were fed up and wanted to take action because they felt that war at this point was inevitable anyway. They were truly ready to secede from Britain and become sovereign by their own right.
It does not mean that the patriots are vicious or are terrorists. In all reality when he wrote the letter to William Smith that contained this quote Thomas Jefferson was ultimately trying to affirm the right of the people to rebel against one’s government. At the time, Jefferson was deeply concerned about some of the new proposals for the new United States Constitution; particularly the role of the executive branch, which he saw as being far too powerful. In addition, Jefferson believed that the recent rebellion in Massachusetts; which became known as Shays' Rebellion -- had heightened the fears of the American elite, causing them to throw their weight behind a stronger executive government. Shays' Rebellion was essentially an armed rebellion against taxes being levied at Massachusetts farmers.
But as time passed, people started to believe that slavery was unconstitutional. Debates were fought, muskets snapped, and cannons roared in order to secure the future of our country. After a war that separated the country for the first time in her short history, slavery was abolished; but laws and manuscript can only do so much. For the generations that were imprinted with this natural racism, it would take an equal amount of explanation and understanding to have any hope of a change in their mindset. Langston Hughes’s poem depicts this as the “Negro bearing slavery’s scars”, stating that no matter how much time has or will pass, the social and mental damage has already been done (20).
This led to a decision for the king: cope with our demands, or we fight for our independence. After the king rejected the demands of the petition, Thomas Paine released an article entitled “Common Sense”. By this time, the people thought they were fighting to make King George III listen to their demands, but Thomas Paine introduced the idea that independence was better fighting for, and that Britain has too much power over us. He stated that Britain could drag Americans into war that they had no intention of being in, which was concluded that America is much better off on its own, and that this way of thinking was common sense. This document changed the minds of thousands of Americans to now want complete independence.
There was a lot of controversy about these treaties and eventually the military had to step in. For European's this treaty meant that Africans has signed their powers away, but African's seen it as they had a sort of friendly treaty. Africa soon came to realize that this treaty was a fraudulent treaty and organized a military to fight for their land. (Iweriebor, 2011) Africa's military formed two groups one being the guerrilla warfare and the other being the direct military. Smaller decentralized places used the guerrilla warfare the most.