More handpicked essays just for you.
The north south dichotomy of american civil war
The north and south on the eve of the civil war
Sectional antagonism american civil war
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The north south dichotomy of american civil war
1. The Purpose of the article, Some Reflections on the South in the American Revolution, is to look at the role of the southern colonies in the American Revolution. Don Higginbotham, the author of this academic essay, is trying to say that the focus of the American Revolution mostly has been on the northern colonies while the South has been overlooked. This article starts with ‘The subject of the south in the American Revolution was once freighted with emotion and controversy’ and ‘Were northemers and southemers of the Revolutionary era also very sensitive to sectional matters and to their respective contributions to the war's outcome?’, the brief of the article, which gives the main idea of what Don Higginbotham is trying to say and to prove …show more content…
The key concepts that are needed to understand the material in this article are the American Revolution and the relationship between the north and the south in the American Revolution. During his article, he provides some sentences summarized to explain, which helps me to understand some of the materials. Even though he gives me a simple brief, it’s not enough to explain other historical events that are mentioned in this article. I had to look some people and events. In order to understand the material of the article, I’m expected to have the knowledge of political events, relationships, parties, and people. I needed to know about, for instance, what Constitutional Convention was and who Charles Pinckney was, and what he did in order to understand what the author wanted to say. 4. If Don Higginbotham’s argument or line of reasoning is true, it means that South Carolinians and Georgians believed that the preservation of slavery would be completed and they could find out about independence later. “Perhaps Pinckney was close to the truth about free white males in the late eighteenth century. If so, it was a condition worth preserving and enlarging”, the last paragraph of this article, explains what he is trying to prove in the article. Furthermore, this paragraph supports his idea, if his argument is
In Woody Holton's Forced Founders, that most revered segment of the revolutionary generation, the elitist gentry class of Virginia, comes across very much as a group of self-serving reactionaries, rather then the idealized revolutionaries of the great patriotic myth of popular history. He sets about disassembling a central portion of the myth created by earlier generations of Consensus historians, by asserting that rather then gallantly leading the charge for independence, Virginia's elitist gentry resorted to independence as their last and only means of saving their elite ruling status, their economic futures, and even their very lives many feared. While this is very much an example of revisionist history, Holton has not so much rewritten history, as he has provided the back story of the complexity and diversity of the Virginia colony on the eve of the American Revolution. For while the book's title may insinuate otherwise, lowly groups like slaves and Indians discussed here are afforded only the status of “founders” by pressing those traditionally thought of in this role to take the plunge for independence. Still the papers and correspondence of the iconic figureheads of the revolutionary generation like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison make up the bulk of primary sources.
In, “Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War,” Charles B. Dew analyzes the public letters and speeches of white, southern commissioners in order to successfully prove that the Civil War was fought over slavery. By analyzing the public letters and speeches, Dew offers a compelling argument proving that slavery along with the ideology of white supremacy were primary causes of the Civil War. Dew is not only the Ephraim Williams Professor of American History at Williams College, but he is also a successful author who has received various awards including the Elloit Rudwick Prize and the Fletcher Pratt Award. In fact, two of Dew’s books, Tredegar Iron Works and Apostles of Disunion and Ironmaker to
In James Oakes, the Ruling Race, the author tackles many of the toughest questions that arose in southern history. In the Ruling Race, Oakes argues against Eugene Genovese ' American slavery 's ideology of paternalism. The author believes that paternalism died by the end of the colonial era and as a result, there came new slaveholders who were diverse, and influenced by the materialistic buildup in the South due to their search for economic opportunity. Oakes views most slave owners as greedy capitalists who embraced the marketplace. When Oakes says “the ideology and culture of slaveholding were not fully developed when Americans declared their independence from Great Britain” (p.34)
The American Revolution has too often been dominated by the narrative of the founding fathers and has since been remembered as a “glorified cause.” However, the American Revolution was not a unified war but a civil war with many internal disputes that wreaked havoc and chaos throughout America. In his book, The Unknown American Resvolution, Gary B. Nash attempts to unveil the chaos that the American Revolution really was through the eyes of the people not in power, including women, African American slaves, and Native Americans. In his book, Gary B. Nash emphasizes their significance in history to recount the tale of the American Revolution not through the eyes of the privileged elite but through the eyes of the people who sacrificed and struggled the most, but were left forgotten, in their endeavors to reinvent America.
Between 1800 and 1860 slavery in the American South had become a ‘peculiar institution’ during these times. Although it may have seemed that the worst was over when it came to slavery, it had just begun. The time gap within 1800 and 1860 had slavery at an all time high from what it looks like. As soon as the cotton production had become a long staple trade source it gave more reason for slavery to exist. Varieties of slavery were instituted as well, especially once international slave trading was banned in America after 1808, they had to think of a way to keep it going – which they did. Nonetheless, slavery in the American South had never declined; it may have just come to a halt for a long while, but during this time between 1800 and 1860, it shows it could have been at an all time high.
The turmoil between the North and South about slavery brought many issues to light. People from their respective regions would argue whether it was a moral institution and that no matter what, a decision on the topic had to be made that would bring the country to an agreement once and for all. This paper discusses the irrepressible conflict William H. Seward mentions, several politician’s different views on why they could or could not co-exist, and also discusses the possible war as a result.
North and South The United States of America, the great democratic experiment, was just that. Not since the great Greek culture had a government of, for, and by the people existed. The entire world felt, that on a large scale, democracy would inevitably lead to anarchy; our founding fathers were determined to prove them wrong. But as the political stand off with the British became a secession issue, a great issue split the future nation. Slavery, a southern necessity, both social and economic, threatened the unity of our nation. A nation that would one day be the greatest the world had ever known. During the development of the thirteen colonies, diversity set in early. In the south the temperate climate made the growth of tobacco a suitable and very profitable business. Cultivation of this crop required a lot of land, and therefore settlers lived far apart. Northern Colonies, though, were much more dependent on small farms, with closely knit communities. These differences were the seed of a sectional division that would plague the nation for a century. During the late seventeenth century, this fissure in the ideals of the colonies became apparent. Following the constant political irreverence from Britain, a majority of colonial representatives felt the need for independence. The Declaration of Independence was the document written to do this. It called for an abolition of slavery as well as freedom from British rule. Unfortunately, the South would hear nothing of it. Being strong defenders of states rights, most of the Southern states adhered to their believe in a government less like a supreme authority and more like a dominion of independent states. They would rather stay loyal to their oppressive government than participate in one that shunned their way of life. In order to keep their dreams of independence, they North was forced to make the one cession they did not wish to make. In order to keep a unified nation, the slavery issue was deliberately absent from the Declaration. Some of the Northern delegates were outraged, but none more than John Adams. A renowned proponent of equal rights, he was one of few that saw the irony in establishing a free society without freeing those in bondage. John Adams seems now more like Nostrodamus when he voiced his concern about the slavery issue for future generations. He did not know it, but the couldn’t have been more right.
The American Revolution and the Civil War have numerous similarities and differences even though they occurred almost 100 years apart. The American Revolution was a political upheaval during 1760’s and 1770’s, while the Civil War was a fight between a divided nation during the 1860’s regarding the subject of slavery. As Southerners held slaves captive and forced them to work against their will, the Colonists were held captive and forced to pay ridiculous taxes put in place by Britain. Similarities and differences from both the American Revolution and the Civil War can be seen through the cause of both wars, specific battles from each war, and the results of each war.
...ong the various sections of the United States increased. The country, similarly to the democratic party, shattered along sectional lines due to the individual interests of the sections. The south, above all, was bonded in an effort to preserve and spread slavery through the usage of popular sovereignty. New England was bonded together with the conviction that slavery was immoral and that the spread of slavery should be hindered. The west was bonded together over a mutual appreciation of democratic principles such as popular sovereignty as well as an understanding that slavery was undesirable within their own states because it would add additional competition. As the nation turned upon itself there was no other alternative but war which would ultimately pit one section of the nation against the other in a battle of slavery, moral conviction, and personal liberties.
As proclaimed in the “Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms,” we agreed that the British government had left the people with only two options, “unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers or resistance by force.” Thus, in the early months of the dreadfully long year of 1775, we began our resistance. As the war progressed, the Americans, the underdogs, shockingly began winning battles against the greatly superior mother country of England. Actually, as seen in the battle of Bunker Hill, not only were they winning, they were annihilating hundreds of their resilient opponents. Countless questions arose before and during the War of Independence. Problems like: social equality, slavery, women’s rights, and the struggle of land claims against Native Americans were suddenly being presented in new and influencing ways to our pristine leaders. Some historians believe that while the Revolutionary War was crucial for our independence, these causes were not affected; thus, the war was not truly a revolution. Still, being specified in the Background Essay, several see the war as more radical, claiming it produced major changes above and beyond our independence.
The American Revolution marked the divorce of the British Empire and its one of the most valued colonies. Behind the independence that America had fought so hard for, there emerged a diverging society that was eager to embrace new doctrines. The ideals in the revolution that motivated the people to fight for freedom continued to influence American society well beyond the colonial period. For example, the ideas borrowed from John Locke about the natural rights of man was extended in an unsuccessful effort to include women and slaves. The creation of state governments and the search for a national government were the first steps that Americans took to experiment with their own system. Expansion, postwar depression as well as the new distribution of land were all evidence that pointed to the gradual maturing of the economic system. Although America was fast on its way to becoming a strong and powerful nation, the underlying issues brought about by the Revolution remained an important part in the social, political and economical developments that in some instances contradicted revolutionary principles in the period from 1775-1800.
When one explains his or her ingenious yet, enterprising interpretation, one views the nature of history from a single standpoint: motivation. In The American Revolution: A History, Gordon Wood, the author, explains the complexities and motivations of the people who partook in the American Revolution, and he shows the significance of numerous themes, that emerge during the American Revolution, such as democracy, discontent, tyranny, and independence. Wood’s interpretation, throughout his literary work, shows that the true nature of the American Revolution leads to the development of United State’s current government: a federal republic. Wood, the author, views the treatment of the American Revolution in the early twentieth century as scholastic yet, innovative and views the American Revolution’s true nature as
The American Revolution was a “light at the end of the tunnel” for slaves, or at least some. African Americans played a huge part in the war for both sides. Lord Dunmore, a governor of Virginia, promised freedom to any slave that enlisted into the British army. Colonists’ previously denied enlistment to African American’s because of the response of the South, but hesitantly changed their minds in fear of slaves rebelling against them. The north had become to despise slavery and wanted it gone. On the contrary, the booming cash crops of the south were making huge profits for landowners, making slavery widely popular. After the war, slaves began to petition the government for their freedom using the ideas of the Declaration of Independence,” including the idea of natural rights and the notion that government rested on the consent of the governed.” (Keene 122). The north began to fr...
Gordon S. Wood, in The Radicalism of the American Revolution, discusses what it means to be truly revolutionary. In this work, Wood shares his thoughts on the Revolutionary War and whether or not it was a movement radical enough to be considered an honest revolution. Wood discusses the reasoning behind the views of those in favor of the war being considered radical, as well as the views of those who believe the American Revolution to be unfortunately misnamed. He claims that “the Revolution was the most radical and most far- reaching event in American history.” Wood’s work is a valuable source for those studying the revolution because it redefines what it means to be radical, but the piece is also limited by the lack of primary information
1. Given what you already knew about the era of the American Revolution, what specifically did you find surprising or unexpected in this chapter? (In other words, what did you learn the most from the chapter?)