why america fought the civil w
Many call it the War Between the States, and while it is known more commonly as the Civil War, there was nothing civil about it. It tore a nation apart, and forever changed the course of the United States. It wrecked countless homes, and only slightly fewer lives were lost in this war than in World War I and II, the Korean Conflict, and Vietnam combined (Leidner). This war devastated the South, and forever changed it. While the popularly held belief is that this war was fought over slavery, many who joined the ranks of the Union or the Confederacy would have disagreed with this statement (Leidner). However, in his book, Sydney Ahlstrome voices the opinion of many when he says "Had there been no slavery, there would have been no war" (649). Today we see slavery as a moral issue, one that is socially unacceptable in our culture. But in the early nineteenth century, slavery was an economic issue first, then a moral issue. The Southern political leaders recognized that without slavery the South's economy, which was based on agriculture, would collapse. They knew that there was no way that the big plantation owners could survive if they were forced to pay slaves the same wages they paid the
The second reason he gives for the war is simply that the North resented the idea that their southern countrymen had 200 slaves at their disposal, and they possessed none. The North, on the other hand, desired to hinder the spread of slavery for purposes of both controlling the South's political power and abolishing the degrading institution of slavery. The North and the South are going to hurl themselves upon each other like two locomotives driven at full steam and meeting on the same track. Consequently, the Tallmadge Amendment was passed and sent to the Senate. The Northern leaders were much more divided on the issue of slavery. However, many contend that it was just an excuse, for both the North and the South, to fight a war. Because the South seemed to need more justification than high tariffs to seek their independence, states rights became the rallying cry. The North, having the majority of the factories in the U. The Senate, however, after a lengthy debate, defeated the bill. For the North, the issue of slavery provided a more noble cause upon which to wage a war than looking out for its own economic interestsRothschild painted a grotesque picture of his vision of the war that he realized was about to take place: In order to save a few pennies for those arrogant manufacturers, members of one and the same family are going to find themselves opposed to each other, old friends will cut each other's throats, and rivers of blood will be shed. This brought up the question of the "color" of the state. (Rothschild)Is it not astonishing that, if someone could so accurately predict the devastation of this war, others did nothing to hinder it, and even urged it onward?. The South, however, had only a few factories, and consequently, had to either purchase all of its goods from the North's factories or had to import them from European countries. When the two sides have exhausted all their resources, when they have seen the flower of their youth perish, when they have squandered millions in that bottomless abyss, the Civil War, they will find themselves right back where they started and, furthermore, with a gulf between them.
Common topics in this essay:
Civil War,
North South,
Sydney Ahlstrome,
Naturally South,
Missouri Compromise,
Missouri Union,
Conflict Vietnam,
Senate Senate,
Tallmadge York,
Leidner Northern,
civil war,
south's political,
spread slavery,
issue slavery,
european countries,
north south,
slave owners,
slavery territories,
forever changed,
moral issue,
|
Acceptance Essays
