More handpicked essays just for you.
Political causes of civil war
Political, social, economic reasons for the civil war
Political, social, economic reasons for the civil war
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Political causes of civil war
James McPherson, in his short What they Fought For, makes the argument that American and Confederate soldiers had numerous reasons for fighting in the Civil War. According to McPherson, soldiers were acutely aware of the complex political, moral, and economic reasons for the American conflict, and these reasons factored into their decision to fight for one side or the other. To come to this conclusion McPherson uses the letters from numerous soldiers on both sides of the conflict, most of which are written to their family members or significant others back at home. This is where the fault lays in McPherson’s idea that the soldiers had some type of high minded political or ethical reasons for fighting in the Civil War. The idea that soldiers would be willing to march into ferocious battle, where the possibility of death or disfigurement is appallingly high for political reasons is nonsensical. It is much more likely that they fought due to the fact that they knew that they had fellow soldiers depending on them, and they didn’t want to let them down. The idea that …show more content…
If he had asked the question as to why these soldiers had originally enlisted with the Union or Confederacy in the first place then his conclusion would be much more reasonable. The men who voluntarily enlisted almost certainly took the political causes of the war into consideration in their decision to join in the fighting(obviously draftees had entirely different reasons for fighting). If James McPherson had decided to title his book “Why They Enlisted” or “What They Joined For” than his theory of politics, morality, or religion being a major factor in the men’s decision to go fight, and face possible death or grievous injury, would have been much more apt. Yet, McPherson didn’t title his book thusly or ask why it was men initially enlisted so instead we’re left with a somewhat faulty premise for an
In Frederick Jackson Turner’s essay, he talked about how he thought the West was where true American character was formed and that the West was the birthplace of democracy. However, in my perspective I don’t only feel that Turner was inaccurate in his analysis, but also very racist and selfish. I believe that Turner wanted to justify why taking over the West would be so necessary and beneficial to Americans. He stated several things in his essay that were obviously undermined by many primary sources in Hollitz’s book. At the time Americans took on the ideology of Manifest Destiny, which basically was the belief that Americans were destined to expand from coast to coast in North America despite the fact that there was people already occupying land on
This would create a productive discussion between readers, not the sporadic, vague, non-committal suggestions the author currently included. McPherson only begins to touch upon an idea for an argument in the last two pages, where he looks into the suggestion of whether or not John Brown was a terrorist or not. However, he leaves this answer up in the air with the statement that what one person believes counts as terrorism, another believes is an act of heroism – yet another open-ended thought with no assertions as to what a firm answer may be. For me, this was the only part in which I was truly made to think deeper into the impact of an individual’s actions as a symbol beyond the Civil War. It was only after that I was able to look back and dig through the essay to find the vague assertion of the broader impact that was woven through the narratives of these individuals’ lives. I understand that these topics are incredibly subjective and sensitive, but that is why, more than any other reason, that McPherson should be writing towards a clear answer in this hotly debated topic as opposed to subtle
The book “For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought In The Civil War” by James M. McPherson examines the motivations of the soldiers who fought in the Civil War. McPherson wanted to understand why the men fought in the Civil War and why they fought so ferociously for such a large amount of time even though there was a huge possibility of death, disease and injurys.To answer the question regarding the reasons why men fought in the Civil War so viciously, and for such a long period of time, James McPherson studied countless amounts of letters, diaries and other mails that were written or sent by the soldiers who fought in the Civil War.
If I were to summarize my experiences reading Confederates in the Attic by Tony Horwitz, I’d say that they challenged by basic understanding of history. The author and narrator, Tony Horwitz, recounts his time researching the American Civil War through a his witty experiences. The book follows Horwitz’s journey across much of the South and traditionally Confederate areas. Horwitz’s initial goal was to explore the resounding Southern interest in a war from the 19th Century. As he ventures on his quest for answers, Horwitz meets Robert Lee Hodge, a Confederate “hardcore” reenactor, whom Horwitz befriends and joins on a journey visiting historical monuments and battlefields across eastern America. The book’s fifteen chapters are divided by Horwitz’s
“It isn’t so sweet to secede, as [they] thought it would be,” a union soldier wrote a letter to home and this is explaining the Sherman’s march to the sea. There is many conversely about Sherman’s march to the sea, some people say that his march was blown out of proportion and others say that it was needed for the Union to defeat the confederates in the what seems never ending war. Sherman’s March to the sea started on November 15, 1864 in Atlanta, Georgia and went all the way to Savannah, Georgia which ended on December 21, 1864. In those few weeks Sherman’s army marched with totaled war on their mind. Total war means total destruction of enemies territory; as 62,000 union soldiers marched to Savannah, they destroyed everything in their path. After December 21, Sherman’s army continued to march on to North and South Carolina. William T. Sherman tactic to
The book ‘For Cause and Comrades’ is a journey to comprehend why the soldiers in the Civil War fought, why they fought so passionately, and why they fought for the long period of time. Men were pulling guns against other men who they had known their whole lives. McPherson’s main source of evidence was the many letters from the soldiers writing to home. One of the many significant influences was how the men fought to prove their masculinity and courage. To fight would prove they were a man to their community and country. Fighting also had to do with a duty to their family. Ideology was also a major motivating factor; each side thought they were fighting for their liberty. The soldier’s reputations were created and demolished on the battlefield, where men who showed the most courage were the most honored. Religion also played an important role because the second Great Awakening had just occurred. Their religion caused the men who thought of themselves as saved to be fearless of death, “Religion was the only thing that kept this soldier going; even in the trenches…” (McPherson, p. 76) R...
In James McPherson’s novel, What They Fought For, a variety of Civil War soldier documents are examined to show the diverse personal beliefs and motives for being involved in the war. McPherson’s sample, “is biased toward genuine fighting soldiers” (McPherson, 17) meaning he discusses what the ordinary soldier fought for. The Confederacy was often viewed as the favorable side because their life style relied on the war; Confederates surrounded their lives with practices like slavery and agriculture, and these practices were at stake during the war. On the other hand, Northerners fought to keep the country together. Although the Civil War was brutal, McPherson presents his research to show the dedication and patriotism of the soldiers that fought and died for a cause.
Each author agreed that the battles were not the only reason for the fall and death of the Confederacy. While battles were being fought on the battlefields, the home fronts were had their own battles to fight. McPherson discusses what he calls as the “internal conflict” thesis, which blames the uneasiness among the southerners. The government was being blamed. Southerners were opposing conscription, taxes, and habeus corpus. McPherson points out that these could not have been reasons for the loss. The same thing was happening in the North. Therefore this internal conflict with the home front government does not have a plausible role in why the South lost the war. If the North was fighting the same type of opposition at home, then shouldn’t the war have ended in a stalemate? Also, the non-slaveholding whites and the slaves were feeling alienated. Rich slaveholders who wanted to keep slave labor alive were fighting the war. The two alienated groups were fighting a war on the wrong side. The non-slaveholders opposed sec...
Thousands of men died in November 1863. Within in a couple of days bodies laid scattered across the battle fields while tens of thousands men sat in a hospital. All of these men participated in one thing, the Civil War. Fighting for the rights of the people and what our constitution stood for. Families and friends had to pick a side, South or the North. Each had their reasoning for why they stood to fight, but surprisingly their reasoning was similar. Each state was proud they live in a country that had broken away from British. They marveled at the idea that all men are created and equal and have certain rights. Americans were proud. Proud to the point that they never stopped pay attention to all that they did. Proud because they put laws on humans and threw them into bondage. In 1861 people started to take sides. In some ways it was unconstitutional, but in others they were fighting for the people. The Civil War had begun. The fate of our country was in the hands of the people. On opposite sides of the war, Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee wrote The Gettysburg Address and Letter to His Son there were three astonishingly similarities and differences in the two works: the people are one, acts were unconstitutional and the nation is on shaky ground.
The nation and people were separated and each man fought for what they believed to be right for them. Whether the men sided with the north or south it really did not matter. Whether they believed slavery should be abolished or not, it was not too prevalent in this book. Some men fought for themselves, for their families, to protect their land, and some because it was the morally right and loyal thing to do. Whatever reasons the soldiers decided to fight that day and days subsequently, I am sure they could not have dreamed of the legacy that their heroism and bravery that The Battle of Gettysburg has left in American History. With over 50,000 casualties occurred that occurred over three days of aggressive fighting, the battle was vital turning point in the civil war.
The Myth of the Lost Cause was edited by Gary Gallagher, Alan T. Nolan, and other several editors have taken the challenge of a difficult task of trying to summarize of what happened in the end of numerous of misrepresentations of this historic event. The book has a total 9 essays, giving me a different kind of reading style and showing its precision in showing it. I think what the editors were trying to convey was that the final analysis of the book is trying to explain how the Lost Cause myth was created and how it is still in effect to our national memory of the Civil War.
The Conscription Act delivered the final straw in the long list of discrepancies, the catalyst that turned that small forest fire into a raging inferno of hate and fear. The white working class (mostly Irish immigrants) were infuriated, they couldn’t understand how they, white, hard-working voters were being punished. The government was forcing them to fight a war they didn’t support and the only way they could avoid it was to pay 300 dollars (a years wages for most), yet they would pay African Americans 1,000 dollars for volunteering. The new federal draft conditions also expanded to include a wider age range of men it would take. “The conscription law targeted men between the ages of 20 and 35, and all unmarried men up to age 45.” Adding to the already high tensions of laborers, since the enactment of the Emancipation Proclamation they ...
War is a battle not only between people but also between the ideas and reasons they carry with them like a flag.. The Civil War is a perfect example of this a war among people who might have, before the war, shared the same ideas or princples and called each other friend, neighbor, cousin, uncle, or even brother. Now because of a war against oppression and to preserve a country they called the other tyrants or traitors each believing that they had a cause worth dying for and that they would stay true to it until they saw it through. The affects the war had on the people in the war is another reason that makes their cause and how they stuck with it till the end even more honorable. The union fought to preserve a country that their ancestors fought to create and the confederacy seceded and fought to protect their personal rights, the idea the South fought for was to govern themselves and escape the mistreatment they recieved from the North. The Souths loyalty to the North had faded away because they felt they had not been treate equally, loyalty is not something that comes easily. The Civil War itself was a clear example of how far loyalty something could affect people and even a country.
David McCullough author of 1776 puts faces and feelings to the events of the Revolutionary war making this an exciting novel even when the ending is known. Acting as a companion to an earlier work of McCullough’s, John Adams, 1776 is a strictly military view of the era versus political. Although the reader may have to get accustomed to the vast amount of characters introduced McCullough makes sure that those you are supposed to remember you will. Every character introduced is described incredibly well and throughout the novel you begin to feel as if you know the character and are going through the battle with them, specifically General George Washington with whom the reader emphasizes constantly with throughout the war. With the great description of the characters and events we feel as if we are there and in doing this the author creates understanding, the reader by knowing all sides and characters’ personalities the feels they know why the Revolution happened the way it did.
The American Civil war is considered to be one of the most defining moments in American history. It is the war that shaped the social, political and economic structure with a broader prospect of unifying the states and hence leading to this ideal nation of unified states as it is today. In the book “Confederates in the Attic”, the author Tony Horwitz gives an account of his year long exploration through the places where the U.S. Civil War was fought. He took his childhood interest in the Civil War to a new level by traveling around the South in search of Civil War relics, battle fields, and most importantly stories. The title “Confederates in the Attic”: Dispatches from the Unfinished Civil War carries two meanings in Tony Horwitz’s thoughtful and entertaining exploration of the role of the American Civil War in the modern world of the South. The first meaning alludes to Horwitz’s personal interest in the war. As the grandson of a Russian Jew, Horwitz was raised in the North but early in his childhood developed a fascination with the South’s myth and history. He tells readers that as a child he wrote about the war and even constructed a mural of significant battles in the attic of his own home. The second meaning refers to regional memory, the importance or lack thereof yet attached to this momentous national event. As Horwitz visits the sites throughout the South, he encounters unreconstructed rebels who still hold to outdated beliefs. He also meets groups of “re-enactors,” devotees who attempt to relive the experience of the soldier’s life and death. One of his most disheartening and yet unsurprising realizations is that attitudes towards the war divide along racial lines. Too many whites wrap the memory in nostalgia, refusing...