A border state, Kentucky attempted to remain neutral during the Civil War but was unsuccessful because of its strategic location and the divided loyalties of its citizens. Farmers who used the Ohio and Mississippi rivers for transporting their produce wanted access to both waterways and the international port of New Orleans. If the South separated itself from the North, this free access would be impeded. On the other hand, influential plantation owners and state rights advocates sided with the Confederacy. As a result, Kentuckians could be found in both Union and Confederate armies. What side was the State of Kentucky on and was she truly neutral in the beginning. Lowell H. Harrison's argued in his book that for the Union to be successful it had to keep Kentucky was crucial to federal strategy, both military and psychological. He made it very clear, for Kentucky it was truly a "brother's war," where loyalties to section or nation ran deep, where issues of states' rights, secession, slavery, abolition, and federal centralization roused strong passions. While Kentucky remained in the Union during the war, despite a rump Confederate government, over 30,000 Kentuckians served in southern ranks, and Lincoln lost in both presidential elections, getting only 1,300 of 146,000 votes cast in 1860, only 26,000 to McClellan's 61,000 in 1861. In her study, Miss Mary Scrugham, showed that upon the threatened outbreak of hostilities between the North and the South, the overwhelming majority of Kentuckians inclined toward peace and that Kentucky statesman made frantic efforts to find some compromise whereby the sectional differences might again be composed and the disaster of civil strife averted. Which side was Kentucky to cho... ... middle of paper ... ...History. New York: The Maple-Vail Book Manufacturing Group, 1992. Collins, Lewis H. History of Kentucky. Covington: Southern Historical Pr, 1874. Coleman, Anne M., Life of John J. Crittenden. Philadelphia, 1872. Dowdey, Clifford. The Land they Fought For: The Story of the South as the Confederacy, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1955. Harrison, Lowell H. The Civil War in Kentucky. Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky, 1975. Harrison, Lowell H. and Klotter James C. A New History of Kentucky. Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky, 1997. Isserman, Maurice and Kazin, Michael. America Divided: The Civil War of the 1960's, New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Perman, Michael, Emancipation and Reconstruction, 2d ed. Illinois: Harlan Davidson, Inc., 1987. Scrugham, Mary. The Peaceable Americans of 1860-1861. New York, 1921.
Davis, W. (2002). Look away! A history of the Confederate States of America. New York:
The archives show how Augusta, Virginia and Franklin, Pennsylvania, and the South and North, shared many characteristics before the war, which Ayers points out well. One main point he makes when writing about their similarities is noting that both counties had people who supported slavery. Augusta, in the South, had slavery as their main economic system, and Franklin, in the North, had whites who believed in and supported slavery. There was also an abundance of racial discrimination still in the Franklin. These similarities didn’t matter much when it came to the issue of secession.
The American Civil War is one of the biggest turning points in American history. It marks a point of major separation in beliefs from the North and the South and yet somehow ends in a major unification that is now called the United States of America. It still to date remains the bloodiest war in American history. The book “This Republic of Suffering, Death and the American Civil War” by Drew Gilpin Faust better explains the change in thought from the American people that developed from the unexpected mass loss of soldiers that devastated the American people. Throughout this review, the reader will better understand the methods and theory of this book, the sources used, the main argument of the book, the major supporting arguments, and what the author did well and what the author didn’t do well.
Turner, Thomas R. 101 Things You Didn’t Know about the Civil War. Avon: Adams, 2007.
Heidler, David Stephen, and Jeanne T. Heidler, eds. Encyclopedia of the American Civil War: a
McPherson, James M.; The Atlas of the Civil War. Macmillan: 15 Columbus Circle New York, NY. 1994.
The Missouri Compromise acted as a balancing act among the anti-slave states and the slave states. Since states generally entered the union in pairs, it stat...
...iduals plotting conspiracy and selling out their promises for a considerable length of time before 1860, and that they were not going to stop short of their objectives. The main thing that might have avoided war might be the acknowledgement of bondage by the United States or the surrender of the United States of every last one of states and regions it held that called itself the Confederacy. Since that might not have finished subjugation, then the response is that there was no elective however to have a clash, a war. Subjugation was the issue, it was the reason. It was an ascertained arrangement by the individuals who decided to ensure servitude by selling out their kinsmen and turning rebellious--to secure subjugation, and not a legendary thought of "state's rights" on the grounds that the main right they thought about was the right to subjugate an alternate race.
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.
A survey of the civil war history from around 1970 to the present provides a very extensive context in terms of historical attention to the civil war and religion. These days, modern historians have taken the approach to this topic of religion and the civil war in many distinct categories and sub-categories, which follow, in the next order:
...ld not protect the interest of the Southern states. Coupled with the hostilities, lack of votes for Lincoln from the South and disregard for the constitutional protection of slavery is a justifiable reason from the Southern leaders to secede from the Union.
Nullification is a precursor to secession in the United States as it is also for civil wars. However, in contrast, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions did not suggest that states should secede from the union. Under the direct vigilance and radical views of Calhoun, he suggested that states should and could secede from the union if they deem a law was unconstitutional. Calhoun’s reputation as a “Cast Iron” proved fittingly as compromises were reached for the proposed Tariffs. The southern states contribution to the financial welfare of the union as a result of slavery was undoubtedly substantial, but as history unfolded, it was not a just means to financial stability. His views of constitutional propriety was for the “privileges of minority” rather than for the “rights of the minority.” [2]
...War and the Civil Rights Movements in order to illustrate how the 1960s was a time of “tumult and change.” To Anderson, it is these events, which sparked the demand for recognition of social and economic fairness. He makes prominent the idea that the 1960s served as the origin of activism and the birth of the civil rights movement, forever changing ideals that embody America. The book overall is comprehensive and a definite attention grabber. It shows how the decade had the effect of drastically transforming life in America and challenging the unequal status quo that has characterized most of the nation's history. Despite the violence and conflict that was provoked by these changes, the activism and the liberation movements that took place have left a permanent imprint upon the country.
Roark, J.L., Johnson, M.P., Cohen, P.C., Stage, S., Lawson, A., Hartmann, S.M. (2009). The american promise: A history of the united states (4th ed.), The New West and Free North 1840-1860, The slave south, 1820-1860, The house divided 1846-1861 (Vol. 1, pp. 279-354).
A chain of feuds flew through the hills of eastern Kentucky ten years before and fifty years after the Civil War. Local governments called it quits and law enforcement was nearly impossible. State troopers were frequently called in to save and protect the lives. It was said that interactions with nearby West Virginia became so hostile that it was feared the two states would fight. Everyone has tried to explain why the feuds were restricted to such a small part of Eastern Kentucky. Some say it was the Civil War and the fact that many families were slip and fought against each other. I believe these