Top-Rated Free Essay
Preview

U.S. History 1 Reconstruction

Better Essays
2576 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
U.S. History 1 Reconstruction
Assignment 5: U.S. History to ReconstructionIn 1861 most Southerners thought that the Confederacy was favorite to win the war. The Confederacy’s sheer size – 750,000 square miles – was a major asset, making if difficult to blockade, occupy and conquer. Confederate forces did not have to invade the North: they simply needed to defend. The fire-power of the rifle-musket meant that battlefield tactics now favored the defender. The Union, having no option but to attack, was bound to suffer heavy casualties. Southerners hoped that Northern opinion might come to question high losses. If Northern will collapsed, the Confederacy would win by default. Geography gave the Confederacy an important strategic advantage. In the crucial theatre of the war – North Virginia – a series of rivers provided a barrier to Union armies intent on capturing Richmond, the Confederate capital. Slavery, which might seem to be a Confederate weakness, enabled the South to enlist more of its white manpower than the North.
The Confederacy also had important psychological advantages. Southerners were defending their own land and homes – a fact that may have encouraged them to fight that much harder than Northerners, who were fighting for the more abstract pursuit of reunion. In 1861 most Southerners were confidant that, man for man, they were better soldiers than Northerners. The ante-bellum South placed more emphasis on martial virtues than the North. In 1860 most of the military colleges in the USA were in slave states. The elite of the nation’s generals had all been Southerners. Most military experts assumed that farmers, who knew how to ride and shoot, made better soldiers than industrial workers. Confederate victory in the first major battle at Manassas seemed to confirm this assumption.
Robert Toombs compared secession with the American Revolution in 1860; “The arguments I now hear in favor of this Northern connection are identical in substance, and almost in the same words as those which were used in 1775 and 1776 to sustain the British connection. We won liberty, sovereignty, and independence by the American Revolution—We endeavored to secure and perpetuate these blessings by means of our Constitution. The very men who use these arguments admit that this Constitution, this compact, is violated, broken and trampled underfoot by the abolition party. Shall we surrender the jewels because their robbers and incendiaries have broken the casket? Is this the way to preserve liberty? I would as life surrender it back to the British crown as to the abolitionists. I will defend it from both. Our purpose is to defend those liberties.”
Toombs compared The American Revolution to the American Civil War because they were very similar in that in each, an underfunded, undermanned and under gunned underdog sought independence from what they felt was an oppressive regime. Prior to the American Revolution, the U.S. felt as if they were being robbed by Great Britain as they were not allowed to import goods except through Great Britain, and at the price (and tax level) Great Britain dictated. Likewise, prior to the Civil War, the southern states were having difficulties with the Treasury Department and bureaucrats in Washington. The southern states were allowed to import goods from foreign countries, but the tariffs on those goods (set by the federal government) made it cost-prohibitive to do so. So the southern states were forced to buy those same goods from the northern states, and since the federal government placed no onerous tariffs on the import of good that the southern states could produce (cotton, tobacco, etc.) the flow of capital was one way – out of the southern states and into the northern states. The primary difference between the two is that no other nations came to the aid of the Confederacy as France did with the colonies. As such, the Confederacy lost.
There were a variety of reasons why the north won the Civil War. The first reason is due to the fact that the North had experienced an industrial revolution, which left them with many factories to produce supplies necessary for outfitting an army. Also, with immigrants coming mostly to the North to settle (they were looking for jobs in the factories), little if any production was lost because of men leaving to fight in the war. Women and immigrants had been the main workers in the factories that now would be producing goods to be used by the Union soldiers. The North grew most of the country's food, and a fighting army can get very hungry. The South had the plantations, but mostly cash crops were grown there. The North possessed a large amount of the country's railroad and canal systems. These would be vital in the quick and easy transportation of troops and supplies. The North also possessed much more money and an in-place, working government while the South was struggling to put their government together and fight a war at the same time. The North's tactics and generals outweighed the South's tenfold. The North's Anaconda Plan was to blockade, divide, and conquer the South. They literally constricted the South into submission. The North also did not set a specific time limit for which they thought the war would end. The South, however, only planned for eighteen months of fighting. This restricted their options on war tactics. The North's superior generals were a major factor in the defeat of the South. U.S. Grant never lost a battle in the entire time frame of the Civil War, and even single handedly negotiated the surrender of General Lee's army at Appomattox courthouse on April 9, 1865.
Another major player in the victory of the north was the Emancipation Proclamation. Up until September 1862, the main focus of the war had been to preserve the Union. With the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation freedom for slaves now became a legitimate war aim. The Emancipation Proclamation helped prevent the involvement of foreign nations in the Civil War. Britain and France had considered supporting the Confederacy in order to expand their influence in the Western Hemisphere. However, many Europeans were against slavery. Although some in the United Kingdom saw the Emancipation Proclamation as overly limited and reckless, Lincoln's directive reinforced the shift of the international political mood against intervention while the Union victory at Antietam further disturbed those who didn't want to intervene on the side of a lost cause. James McPherson stresses how Abe Lincoln’s strategy and political brilliance played a major role in the Civil War in his essay titled, “The Role of Abraham Lincoln in the Abolition of Slavery”. “In essence, concluded Randall, Lincoln believed in evolution rather than revolution, in “planting, cultivating, and harvesting, not in uprooting and destroying.” Many historians have agreed with this interpretation. To cite just two of them: T. Harry Williams maintained that “Lincoln was on the slavery question, as he was on most matters, a conservative”; and Norman Graebner wrote an essay entitled “Abraham Lincoln: Conservative Statesman,” based on the premise that Lincoln was a conservative because “He accepted the need of dealing with things as they were, not as he would have wished them to be.”
These historians were correct about Abraham Lincoln, if he hadn’t played the politics like he did and if he just tried to destroy instead of dealing with things as they were and taking his time to develop a strategic plan, the north could have lost this war. Abraham Lincoln stopped the south from gaining global allies; he turned the war into a war against slavery. He gained soldiers that were previously slaves, and allowed them to fight against their owners that they had a deep seeded hatred toward. This was the South’s worst nightmare. All of these reasons brought the north to win the Civil War.
Abraham Lincoln issued the Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction in 1863. The proclamation addressed three main areas of concern. First, it allowed for a full pardon for and restoration of property to all engaged in the rebellion with the exception of the highest Confederate officials and military leaders. Second, it allowed for a new state government to be formed when 10 percent of the eligible voters had taken an oath of allegiance to the United States. Third, the Southern states admitted in this fashion were encouraged to enact plans to deal with the freed slaves so long as their freedom was not compromised. This was to be carried out after the Civil War ended; however, Lincoln was assassinated in 1865 and Andrew Johnson was elected president. President Johnson ran into conflict with congress, which drove moderate republicans into an alliance against him with Radical Republicans. Emancipation reshaped black communities and sharecropping replaced slavery. “Begun as a compromise between freedmen and landowners, sharecropping soon trapped African-Americans and other tenant farmers in a cycle of debt; black political rights waned as well as Republicans lost control of the Southern states”. Blacks also had to deal with a lot of hatred and terrorizing by the groups that were formed in the South as retaliation against freed black including the Klu Klux Klan. “Antagonism toward free blacks, long a motif in Southern life, resurged after the war. In 1865, Freedmen’s Bureau agents itemized outrages against blacks, including shooting, murder, rape, arson, and “inhuman beating.”” This created a lot of conflict between the Republicans and blacks, and the Southern ex-confederates/Klu Klux Klan.
At the same time the north was sidetracked by a political scandals of the Grant administration and the impact of the depression after the panic of 1873. “By the mid 1870’s, northern politicians were ready to discard the Reconstruction policies that congress had imposed a decade before”. Reconstruction came to an end in 1877, the northern resolve crumbled and an ex-confederate campaign of violence, daunting and rioting that started in the 1860’s prevailed. Sited by historians, there are two main causes of the Reconstruction failure. “First, Congress did not promote freedmen’s independence through land reform; without property of their own, southern blacks lacked the economic power to defend their interest as free citizens. Property ownership, however, does not necessarily ensure political rights nor invariably provide economic security. Considering the depressed state of postwar southern agriculture, the freedmen’s fate as independent farmers would likely have been perilous. Thus the land-reform question remains a subject of debate. A second cause of the Reconstruction’s collapse evokes fewer disputes: the federal government neglected to back congressional Reconstruction with military force. Given the choice between protecting blacks’ rights at whatever cost and promoting reunion, the government opted for reunion. As a result, the nation’s adjustment to the consequences of emancipation would continue into the twentieth century”.
When the government withdrew federal troops from the statehouses of South Carolina and Louisiana in 1877, “it marked the end of their role, at least for nearly another century, in protecting the rights and property of African Americans and other working people…” This was the final straw that paved the way to the loss of virtually all rights of African Americans until the nearly 100 years later.
In the century between the creation of the USA and the end of Reconstruction, not all individuals were treated equally. In the beginning the Indian were treated of lower class than the white men. As discussed in the first assignment, “It would not be accurate to say that the Native American nations remained powerful or significant economic, political and military entities until the late 1700’s because they were coexisting with the Europeans. They became dependent on the Europeans and thus, the Europeans gained power early on. Eventually, the entire Western Hemisphere came under the control of European governments, leading to profound changes to its landscape, population, and plant and animal life.” Next, Blacks were shipped to the USA to serve as slaves, which was mentioned in the first assignment. “After Bacon’s Rebellion, one of the major influences that played a role in the reshaping of Chesapeake society was race. The development of racial slavery took place in three-fold.” The difference between blacks and whites was actually written on paper, “colonists distinguished between blacks and whites in official documents”.
In assignment two, The American Revolution was addressed. The American Revolution was started because of the unfair treatment that the Anglo Americans were receiving from Britain, “The government wanted to control Anglo-American expansion proclaiming its rule over the various colonies claiming western lands.” After the war, it was said that, “Native Americans suffered the worst in response to the war. “In an overwhelmingly agrarian society like the United States, the Revolution’s implicit promise of equal economic opportunity for all male citizens set the stage for territorial expansion onto Native American landholdings. Even where Indians retained their land, newly arrived whites posed dangers in the form of deadly diseases, farming practices inimical to Indian subsistence, and alcohol.”” During this time Blacks were still treated as second class citizens.
Assignment three gave an idea of how the Industrial Revolution changed America. Durring this time period women were not treated as equals to men, “Men earned money for their families. Women took care of the home and saw their economic role decline. While many factory workers were initially women, most of them were young women who would quit working when they married.” Immigrants were not treated equally either, “The newcomers found themselves jammed into tenements, crowded apartments and shoddy houses with few sanitary facilities. The worst slums in the world were supposed to have existed in Chicago, a situation exacerbated by the stockyards that supplied the meat-packing industry.” “As immigrants from Ireland began to fill up some of the poorer districts of Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, they found their children abused, and their churches attacked.”
Assignment four was based on the antebellum America. Indians were still treated as second class citizens; however, the men and women of the tribes were also treated differently from one another. “known as Jeffersonian Indian policy, the third president proposed to lead Indians from savagery to civilization by instructing men in agriculture and women in the domestic arts (house-hold tasks such as spinning and weaving cloth).” African Americans were treated as property, “Though slavery had such a wide variety of faces, the underlying concepts were always the same. Slaves were considered property, and they were property because they were black. Their status as property was enforced by violence -- actual or threatened. People, black and white, lived together within these parameters, and their lives together took many forms.”
In assignment five the Civil War was discussed. As a result of the war, African Americans were supposed to be “free”. In all actuality they were far from “free”. For a short period of time the blacks were taking advantage of their new rights. They were trying to educate themselves, vote, and work for compensation. “Emancipation reshaped black communities and sharecropping replaced slavery. “Begun as a compromise between freedmen and landowners, sharecropping soon trapped African-Americans and other tenant farmers in a cycle of debt;” “Antagonism toward free blacks, long a motif in Southern life, resurged after the war. In 1865, Freedmen’s Bureau agents itemized outrages against blacks, including shooting, murder, rape, arson, and “inhuman beating.”
All of these statements and documentation about the time period from 1775-1877, confirm that all people were not treated equally as the declaration of independence promised. People of color and women were also not allowed to vote at the end of this time period.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    There are constant debates on why did the South lose the Civil War. The Civil War ended 150 years ago but that has not affected historians to question the outcome of the war for the Confederacy. According to Gary Gallagher, many historians work backward starting from Appomattox to explain the failure of the war. He continues by stating that those historians claim the reasoning for the failure was caused by the lack will to win the war by the Confederates. Gary Gallagher disagrees with these methods historians use. Gary Gallagher believes that the best way to understand why the Confederates lost the Civil War takes a different approach. This is Gary W. Gallagher’s thesis in his The Confederate War is “Why did so many Confederates fight for so long? Until this question receives the detailed attention long accorded the first, the history of the Confederacy will remain imperfectly understood” (17).…

    • 1205 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In the essay “God and the Strongest Battalions,” Richard Current stated that the North won because they had so much more than the South. The North had an advantage over population; near five to two. They had more wealth, manpower, manufactured goods, agriculture, transportation, finances, and the economic stability to fight and win a war. Current stated that “If wars are won by riches, there can be no question why the North eventually prevailed” (Current 15). Current then talked about the Southern advantages. “If statistics were on the side of the North, history seemed to be on the side of the South” (Current 17). The South had the internal spirit because they were fighting for their freedom. The South had the advantage on the geographical side because of the rivers and swamps and because most of the fighting was done on their home front. The last and most important reason that Current wrote about was cotton. He talked about how the South could have used the cotton as a major advantage, but because of bad management and human errors, the South lost all of their hope of winning. Instead of making the best use of the cotton, the South stopped their planting, burned some of the bales and discouraged the foreign trade associated with it. Current then brought up the point that a new light was thrown on the question of whether the Confederacy was more handicapped by human or by material shortcomings. That question was brought up again when Current wrote more about the Confederate leader’s failures when it came to the transportation, manufacturing, and finances of the South. The North had a better economy to start with, and the South would have had to do an immense amount of work to even come close to the North’s resources. Another point that Current brought up next was that the Confederacy faced problems of politics and government along with military and naval problems. Overall, the South could not compete with the amount…

    • 386 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The main issue relating to Reconstruction that divided Republicans at the end of the Civil War was that some of the republicans wanted to punish the south and did not want them to return to pre-Civil war ways. The people that wanted this punishment for the South were known as Radical Republicans. The Radical Republicans wanted to punish the South because they caused severe destruction and the loss of many lives. Other Republicans believed that it should have been made simpler for the South to rejoin the Union. If I had been a member of Congress at the time, I would choose Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson’s Reconstruction plan. The whole idea for their Reconstruction plan was to reunite the nation. It would have just been simpler to let the…

    • 171 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The period of the Civil War and Reconstruction, lasting from 1860-1877, the nation underwent a multitude of powerful changes, physically and emotionally. A school of thought today exists that, “The North won the war, bur the South won reconstruction.” What does this mean exactly? When the Union defeated the Confederacy, Northerners, freemen, and existing slaves imagined a political and social revolution in which their dreams of abolition and government power would manifest itself. However, the civil rights movement within the constitution, specifically the additions of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, brought to life the desires of the Union, but in the South such hostility and racism still existed that there was…

    • 858 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Ruins of lives and buildings, shattered by the process of war and what it came from, held together by the promise of victory. Hope, however, did not affect the South’s fate. Confederates lost the battle and the government did not affirm the rights they so desired. War has left every life decimated. Newly freed men and white plantation owners, alike, find it difficult to adapt to a world without slavery. The Civil War left no man unscathed.…

    • 1316 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Civil War Reconstruction

    • 1364 Words
    • 6 Pages

    The period of Reconstruction began immediately after the Civil War and ended in 1877. This era is known for the advancements made in favor of racial equality. These improvements included the fourteenth amendment, "this law guaranteed that federal and state laws would apply equally and unequivocally to both African Americans and whites" (civil-war.ws), and the fifteenth amendment, which granted freedmen to vote. With the end of Reconstruction in 1877, the Republican Party lost control of the southern governments and the Democratic Party took over. This shift in power was supposed to mark the beginning of the "New South" in which the virtues of thrift, industry, and progress would become the model characteristics of the South. Confederates at the time saw Reconstruction as both benefiting and hurting them. They did not want northern culture to be pressured on to there society but they greatly appreciated the help in rebuilding their homes and cities in hope of a better future. Their plans and ideas for the better south looked as if to be perfect at the time but as the government would soon find out they had many flaws. The changes in the South from 1877-1900 reflected traditional attitudes and policies, such as power in the hands of a conservative oligarchy, the maintaining of agriculture over industry as the primary source of economics, and the return of white supremacy, rather than the vision of the New South.…

    • 1364 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    After much trial and tribulation that our exasperated country has faced, we all still gather here today in order to follow a long tradition of George Washington, a founding father and cherished president who gave and set precedent to all the new leaders who soon will follow the same path of presidency. A path followed by great accomplishments of the Grant administration, has helped to set a rolling future for the United States and now we will improve upon the Grant administration using it as a stepping stone to once again unite the country.…

    • 734 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Civil War Homefront

    • 1573 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Davis, Kenneth C. Don 't Know Much about the Civil War: Everything You Need to Know about America 's Greatest Conflict but Never Learned. New York: William Morrow, 1996.…

    • 1573 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    3.Due to the substantial differences between the North’s industrial economy and the South’s agricultural economy they both had distinct advantages and disadvantages during the war. To begin with, the North’s economy was far superior to the South’s because the North had two-thirds of the nation’s population, two-thirds of the railroad mileage, and almost 90% of the nation’s industrial output. Also, many of the North’s arm factories were equipped with mass production which allowed them to compete with the gun manufacturing centers and armories of the South. The Northern economy helped them have much greater supply of resources compared to the South. On the other hand, the Confederacy had slaves which helped provide food for the army and provide the most important good of all, cotton. The South was able to use cotton as diplomatic weapon which they thought they could use to persuade France or Britain to assist or side with the Confederacy. We can also see this as a disadvantage to the Northern economy because they had no such tool or weapon to use to obtain foreign assistance or aid. Unfortunately this same advantage for the South also led to a severe disadvantage. Because the majority of the people living in the South did not own slaves, they were not the ones producing cotton. This meant that the majority of the…

    • 831 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The romanticized version of the Civil War creates a picture of the North versus the South with the North imposing on the South. However, after reading “The Making of a Confederate” by William L. Barney, one can see that subdivisions existed before the war was declared. The documents analyzed by Barney primarily focus on the experiences of Walter Lenoir, a southern confederate and a member of the planter elite. His experiences tell a vivid story of a passionate and strongly opinioned participant of the Civil War as well as demonstrate a noticeably different view involving his reasoning when choosing a side. Between analyzing this fantastic piece of literature and other resourceful documents from “Voices of Freedom” by Eric Foner, one can get a better idea of what the conflict was about, where the Confederacy originated from, the cause for the secession, and how Americans experienced the war and understood its meaning.…

    • 1719 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    The purpose of the Reconstruction was to reintegrate the North and the South. Between 1865 and 1877, the federal government under President’s Johnson and Grant, along with congress which consisted of Radical Republicans attempted to solve political, social, and economic issues in the 11 confederate states.…

    • 579 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The challenges that the Union and the Confederacy faced during the Civil War were very different. Critical weaknesses that seemed unfit for war, plagued the opposing American forces, and would serve to be a continuous obstacle that would need to be conquered by patriotism of the people, for their opposing views. To allow for both sides to be competitive, the efforts put forth had to mold to the varied needs of the armies by both the civilian population and their militaries. To the people in the south the similarity to the colonists in the Revolutionary War, was assimilated to their separatist cause in the Civil War and would be their drive to compete with the dominating Northern states. This mindset started the Confederacy in the Civil War, despite many disadvantages, with the confidence in defeating Union forces, before becoming overwhelmed and being defeated after four well fought years.…

    • 1651 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    This book follows differing social structures within The Confederate States of America and how those clashing cultures led to multiple changes of strategy in the mountain regions of the Confederacy. All of these combined factors led to multiple tragic events within the Confederacy. The main social groups that are discussed in the book are Rural and Urban Confederates, Confederate Mountaineers, and Unionist. It is important to understand each of the different social groups before a full social analysis can be conducted. Once the social aspect of the mountain regions is understood, the specific strategies used by both the Union and the Confederacy can be discussed.…

    • 1897 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Historians have argued inconclusively for years over the prime reason for Confederate defeat in the Civil War. The book Why the North Won the Civil War outlines five of the most agreed upon causes of Southern defeat, each written by a highly esteemed American historian. The author of each essay does acknowledge and discuss the views of the other authors. However, each author also goes on to explain their botheration and disagreement with their opposition. The purpose of this essay is to summarize each of the five arguments presented by Richard N. Current, T. Harry Williams, Norman A. Graebner, David Herbert Donald, and David M. Potter. Each author gives his insight on one of the following five reasons: economic, military, diplomatic, social, and political, respectively.…

    • 1300 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    James McPherson’s writings have been geared towards advancing the arguments that the North was justified in crushing the rebellion in the South. He sees the civil war in the lens of not a war against the North and the South, but a war against slavery and against their emancipation; a war between progressive forces against conservative ideologies in the south. In his writings, he is quick to indicate that the North’s win was inevitable, because of the relatively more polished military organizational capabilities and a vindication by history. McPherson downplays the factual successes that the Confederate forces had on the different war fronts throughout his book as either mere short term lapses in the organization of the Union forces rather than the actual inabilities to withstand the South’s firepower (McPherson, 2009).…

    • 1876 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays