Monday, March 26, 2012
Did the Civil War end?
Read The 150-Year War, Gone With the Myths, Causes and Secession and Let Reconstruction Begin. you are charged with creating a blog post about how our unit has impacted your understanding of the Civil War. There is a great deal of information that you are contending with so it will be important to identify the one or two points that are most significant to you. Feel free to incorporate your experience role-playing in Around the Horn and what you learned about your figure and others.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The unit this year has significantly impacted my understanding of the Civil War and changed my understanding of most issues surrounding it. As probably more then half of the class believed before this unit, I always thought that Lincoln had freed the slaves, and that the North won the war easily and the only cause of the war was slavery. I obviously learned a lot. Going so far back in the history of the Civil War and the history of our country, allowed me to see that it was a lot more then a race conflict to start the war. Washington was even able to see, ““the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations” (Washington Farewell). Washington’s concern about the location of the north and the south is only one reason that the war occurred and there were clearly many more. However, in my very humble opinion, I believe that if I had to pinpoint one cause of the civil war, I would in fact say it was because of the vast differences between the north and the south. Recently we read an article written by James Loewen called “Five Myths about Why the South Seceded” and in that article he wrote, “The North did not go to war to end slavery, it went to war to hold the country together and only gradually did it become anti-slavery” (Loewen). If the North did not go into the war trying to end slavery it can not be the primary cause and the differences between the two areas of land was instead the main cause. States rights, greed, communication, equality, power, and fabric of the Constitution are just some examples of what the North and South had differing opinions on, there was really no common ground and a way was needed to settle the differences, one might even say that the war was inevitable.
ReplyDeleteAnd now onto the real question, which was did the war ever actually end. This is an easy one. I can firmly say, that although you may not call it a “war” now a day, there is still a feud between the North and the South. Zinn noted that pointed out the vast differences between what money North and South states received after the war, he said, “Mississippi, was given just $136,000 for reparations compared to Maine's $3,000,000” (Zinn). This statistic still stands true while Mississippi is one of the poorest states and other poor states on the list include, Arkansas and Tennessee, both considered to be the “South”. The division from the war does not just carry over in wealth but also attitude. The documentary "Right America, Feeling Wronged" shoes how easy it is to see that the affects of the Civil War have not rubbed of in many Southerner’s eyes. There is also an extreme amount of racisim still in America which has stayed since the civil war. Once the Civil War was supposed to be over and African Americans were supposed to gain equal rights, the KKK and the black codes were born which have just separated the country even more. I think it is pretty obvious that the affects of the civil war are here. Can’t wait to hear what you guys think too,
Toph
In response to Chris, I too was under the impression that Lincoln had freed the slaves. As a matter affect I thought that all politicians in time period who were with the union were good. However when researching for around the horn I learned that almost no one who was involved in the civil war was an entirely good person. Knowing who had issues with which people and who had made what mistake during the civil war made it much easier for me to understand why certain decisions were made. For example the historian I was chosen to research, Alexander Stephens, was alarmed why Lincoln first got voted into office, but befriended him anyway in order to try and support the union, “ The election of Mr. Lincoln alarmed him as being a disturbance of the settlement and a menace to the Union, but with ardent devotion to the republic of States under the Constitution, he endeavored to avert secession, proposing' to fight the Republican administration inside the Union, and failing there to invoke concerted separation of all the Southern States” (The Confederate Military History). Alexander Stephens was very shy and afraid of confrontation so even though he was a unionist he remained loyal to the south and took part in a war he didn’t believe in, “the Secession Convention was the beginning of the Civil War, which killed some 620,000 Americans; an equivalent war today would send home more than six million body bags.” (Gone with the Myths). While I didn’t agree with his decision to go along with the war, after researching it I can understand why the decision was made. I felt that through this project I got to know the historians much better then if I had just read an article about them and knowing the main people who took part in the civil war made learning about it and its events much easier.
ReplyDelete- Emily Smolka
After going through three years of learning about U.S. History in middle school, I can confidently say that what I learned was inaccurate. Though we did learn about the Civil War multiple times, and studied many battles and learned about the leaders, each lesson forced a certain opinion or view in my mind, leading to extreme misconceptions. In my mind, the North was made up of patriotic citizens who worked hard to keep the Union together. The South was bad, and contained evil whites who all had slaves and mistreated them. This year, I learned the truth about the Civil War. According to James Loewen, “most white southern families had no slaves.” Well, that is certainly not what I was taught. Through researching Robert E. Lee for Around the Horn, I also learned that some slave-owners had slaves in order to protect them. Lee owned slaves, but promised them freedom by January 1, 1863, and kept them under his protection in the mean time. It had never occurred to me before that slaves might have been safer in the south than in the north. In the north, they may have had no jobs because northerners would not have wanted them to take theirs. Knowing how inaccurate my education was in middle school, I wonder if the goal was to teach the students true history, or to teach them good morals.
ReplyDeleteBy making slave owners look horrible, we learn that slavery was bad and the wrong thing to do. I understand that slavery was not right, but this year was the first time I was actually able to think about the situation the south was in. Slavery had been a way of life in the south. Free labor allowed the south to produce materials for much less money. Taking away this labor instantly would cause economic insanity not only for the south, but for the north as well. The north could not function without the materials of the south. I really don’t think that many northerners thought this through, because in a way, using the south’s materials technically meant that they were supporting slavery.
According to Edward Ball, the fright of losing this free labor so quickly left the south with “no choice left but…a dissolution of the union.” In regard to the argument of whether states rights or slavery was the cause of secession, this fact leads me to believe that the answer is states rights. After all, having states rights would have allowed for slavery. I think the south realized that asking for the abolition of slavery would result in economic downfall, while the north ignored that fact because they did not see it as such a big threat. Ball states, “Congress laid on tariffs that hurt the south.” This, in addition to the abolition of slavery would have tremendously impacted the south, leaving them with no choice other than seceding. Michael Givens thinks that the south was “only fighting to protect themselves from an invasion and for their independence,” leading southerners to celebrate the bravery of their ancestors during the 150th anniversary of the war. Personally, I do not think that the secession was an act of bravery, as much as I believe it to be an act of desperation.
Before this unit, I had a vague understanding of the civil war, much of which would prove to be incorrect. I guess it would be accurate to say that middle school was ineffective in teaching me anything that was correct that I would remember 2 years later (or 2 months later, for that matter). I knew that the north fought the south, the north won, and I believed that Lincoln freed the slaves and reconstruction was fine and dandy. Of course, like any unit in this class, I have learned a ton of information, and now I can honestly say that I have a decent understanding of the civil war.
ReplyDeleteThe most important thing that I think I learned about was the whole discussion over states rights. I never really understood the whole Republican/Democrat thing, especially since the ideals were reversed back then. I have learned that states rights were a major issue- deciding whether to interpret the constitution loosely or strictly has a profound effect on what our government, as well as our states, can and can’t do. People back then didn’t agree at all about loose v. strict interpretation, as demonstrated by the views of the different parties on issues like the national bank, and they still don’t completely agree now. This is the reason why I think that this is one of the most important things that I have learned about: it is still going on today, so clearly the whole issue is a big deal, and apparently it wasn’t truly solved by the civil war/reconstruction, like it would have been in an ideal situation.
I think that one of the things that adds to this is the whole issue of regional boundaries. I don’t really want to get into the causes of the civil war, but I will say that there is no decided cause even now, something that is evident and talked about in the first two linked articles at the top of the page. I think that it is interesting that the country is divided politically regionally—The north, now generally democratic, was then republican and vice versa with the south. If reconstruction had been more successful, maybe this wouldn’t be the case today… Either way, one of the things that I took away from Around the Horn regarding this topic was the idea that someone could support certain laws; yet personally believe the exact opposite, and therefore would not be forced to stick to the beliefs of the people in their region of the country. The character I represented, Taney, ruled pro slavery on the Dredd Scott case, yet he himself opposed slavery. Obviously Taney is a pretty unique case, but I still felt like I was learning something important- geography really does affect your opinions! (Taney was from Maryland, a border state).
However, there is still a lot to learn. As Tony Horwitz from the New York Times said in his article The 150 Year War, “It’s a bottomless treasure, this Civil War, much of it encrusted in myth or still unexplored.” As Charlie said in class a few days ago, we will never know everything about history. I know that there is a lot more to learn, but I truly believe that my knowledge and understanding of this war has come a long, long way from where we started at the beginning of the unit!
As my classmates have said above, many people have grown up believing Lincoln freed the slaves, or that he went to war to end slavery; after all, the Civil War ended slavery and he was the president of the Union. During this unit, however, I learned that this was not the case. As mentioned in the Washington Post article, "Five myths about why the South seceded", "Since the Civil War did end slavery, many Americans think abolition was the Union's goal. But the North initially went to war to hold the nation together. Abolition came later." This is justified by Abraham Lincoln himself, who wrote (to the New York Tribune) in August of 1862, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it...What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." Although Lincoln was anti-slavery, he refused to allow his personal beliefs to influence his decisions in regards to slavery, and the equivocally-named Emancipation Proclamation was created to preserve the union, not to end slavery. This becomes clear once the specificities of the proclamation are observed, as it states, "All persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free," meaning all slaves in a state IN REBELLION against the Union will be freed, implying that those in states who had remained loyal to the Union were not to be freed.
ReplyDeleteI had learned the Civil War was not fought over ending slavery during the course of the unit, but it was not until the Around the Horn that I learned it was not started over states' rights, but rather slavery. As Alexander Stephens, I had to support the argument of the Civil War being started over states' rights, but found overwhelming evidence against it - the Tariff of Abominations, an economic threat to the South was repealed, so the states did have necessary power; the previous attempt at secession by New England to avoid the War of 1812 was suppressed, so they had did not rebel completely - and still had to argue it as the truth. The New York Times article "Gone with the Myths" excerpts the declarations of causes of several states and reveals that "the declaration of causes written by South Carolina and four of the 10 states that followed it out of the Union...From Georgia to Texas, each state said the reason it was getting out was that the awful Northern states were threatening to do away with slavery." So, not only was the Civil War not fought to end slavery, but states' rights were not even the reason the South seceded - although many will argue vehemently that it was. To quote the article "Celebrating Secession Without the Slaves", "The North did not go to war to end slavery, it went to war to hold the country together and only gradually did it become anti-slavery — but slavery is why the South seceded.” The Civil War was not fought to abolish slavery, nor was it fought to preserve states' rights, it was fought by the Union to uphold the nation and by the Confederacy to maintain its slaves.
Side note: Come on, Dancz, the "Let Reconstruction Begin" article was so incredibly biased - it's an opinion piece. Just saying. "It probably took a once-in-a-century economic crisis to get enough white people to vote for a black man." ; "Electing McCain now would have, in some way, meant rewarding incompetence." ; the "The Civil War is over. Let reconstruction begin." is even more sappy than the end of Inside Job.
I started of this unit thinking that the Civil war was all because of slavery. Then new ideas were introduced; like how the Civil war was really fought for states rights. Then we are given more recent opinions on how slavery really was the cause of the Civil War. So… which one to believe? In my opinion, if I had to choose one, it would be that slavery really was the cause of the Civil War… But that's not the whole story. Instead of the vague premonition that I had before we started this unit I now have a more concrete view point. Now I know that it wasn't JUST slavery. There were a whole bunch of other stuff that pushed the south over the edge, but the most important one was slavery. (Well at least my teachers didn't lie about that one…)
ReplyDeleteIn the Gone With the Myths article the author says, "the only state right the Confederate founders were interested in was the rich man’s “right” to own slaves". Also, almost all of the states in the Declaration of Causes mentioned slavery as a cause to their secession. It seems that only after the war did people begin to realize that supporting slavery wasn't going to cut it anymore. In Around the Horn, our group researched Alexander Stephens who was from the South had the opinion that slavery, although a cause of the civil war, was not the "main exiting proximate cause" of it. Now it may just be favoritism, but I believe him.
In the political, social, and economic causes of the Civil War packet it lists 7 or so different causes to the war, some examples being "a complete breakdown of the democratic process," majority vs. minority, Northern imperialism, tariffs, and the importance of "family, land, agreeable maunders, and political power" in the south. Before this class I thought that slavery was the whole thing… But now that I really think about it I can really see how all of this stuff contributed to making the South angry, frustrated, or fed-up. It's hard to imagine, us Northerners that is, having our culture challenged, our livelihood taken away in the form of valued workers, being taxed by a group of people who are not only the majority but the richer majority at that. It only seems fair that the South should have the right to make some of their own laws. (By saying this it doesn't mean that I warrant what they did or approve of slavery.) Unfortunately the laws they wanted to make didn't work towards protecting their culture but prolonged slavery… So in conclusion… not only did I come out of this learning how the Civil war actually began but I also became somewhat of a Confederate sympathizer...
I feel like asking when the Civil war ended would be heavily based on what you think the Civil war was fought over. In my opinon, as I have covered in my two other blog posts, I highly believe that the Civil war was fought over the right to slavery, not states rights as some believe. Being said, if the war was fought over ending slavery, countrywide it may seem like slavery has disappeared, but there are still many instances where things almost as bad as slavery are happening. A prime example of this would be how companies and such are finding a loophole to the law and using incredibly cheap child labor over in different countries such as Asia, Mexico, and Africa. Is it legal? The answer would be yes, but is it right? I would completely say no to that. If these companies live in a country with certain laws, they should abide by these laws and not just get around it by using slave labor in other countries. So while I think that in this country for the most part the effects and the reasons for the Civil War have mostly dissipated, we still see cases of things like this being done overseas by our citizens. In one of the articles that was linked, it talked about how “And so it came to pass that on Nov. 4, 2008, shortly after 11 p.m. Eastern time, the American Civil War ended, as a black man — Barack Hussein Obama — won enough electoral votes to become president of the United States”. I do agree that this is a major milestone for the fight for equal rights, but when I think about how many people hate the way Obama is running the country, they seem to be blaming it on his race, and not his policies. In conclusion, the actual civil war has ended, but I believe we are facing something new that in turn can end up being almost as bad as the reasons over the civil war.
ReplyDeleteThis Unit has really impacted my understanding of the Civil War. To be honest, I did not really know much about the Civil War, only the fact that it was the war between the North and the South and how slavery existed in the South. Aside from that, I did not really know much. I had only general view of the Civil War. However, this unit consisting of reading primary documents, having discussions, writing reflections, researching about Henry Clay and having Around the Horn deepened my understanding of the Civil War and what was really going on during it. Just like everyone mentioned in their posts about Abraham Lincoln and him not truly abolishing the slaves. I did not know that until I learned otherwise. Actually I have been talking to one of the mom’s friends, who is lawyer and we talked about Civil War and she said, “Abraham Lincoln ended slavery” and I was shocked. And I said that that he did not actually, that Emancipation Proclamation only promised freedom to those who returned to Union. Therefore, this unit helped me understand and argue points that I would not have been able to if it was not for this unit. Also, I want to bring up one point about Civil War. Even though it was fun to learn about Henry Clay and his role and vision for the United States and multiple compromises that he proposed to prevent the war, the one point that is significant to me that women participated in the Civil War. Tony Horwitz said in “150-year war” article, “Sgt. Frank Mayne; deserted August 24, 1862; subsequently killed in battle in another regiment, and discovered to be a woman; real name, Frances Day.”I find these women like Frances Day and Deborah Sampson very admiring. I think that women were undermined and underestimated, I mean, even to this day. According to Women Soldiers and Nurses of the American Civil War, there were about 250 women in the Confederate army. Therefore, the fact that women dressed up as men to participate in wars is really and truly one of the significant points that I am going to take from this unit.
ReplyDeleteI have noticed throughout the year that a common theme in our units is incorporating new perspectives into the events we already have learned about. First there was Thanksgiving. We learned the true nature of the first celebration of the holiday, which was nothing like the “harvest festival and friends and giving thanks” – which we learned about in elementary school. Next, I discovered the French impact on our revolution. With that new information in my mind, I’m not even sure if it was us who won Revolutionary War. Our current unit is another example of this “Social History” which we have learned about. It is implanted into the mind of every elementary schooler that Lincoln freed the slaves, and the war was fought regarding slavery. Neither of these is true, and the latter is exemplified best by a quote from Robert E Lee, who states frankly, “This war is not about slavery.” (Lee) This is striking to me, because “Once a historical event has taken place, it becomes very hard to imagine that you could have achieved a result some other way.” (Zinn) Howard Zinn raises this point in an online article. Multiple times have I referenced this quote, because it demonstrates the fundamental principle of this class; new perspectives.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that was striking to me during this whole unit was the bias that we were fed in middle school. In my mind, I saw all southerners as either A.) Cruel white men who owned slaves and viciously beat them, or B.) Basically Kunta Kinte from “Roots”. I know, terrible generalizations, right? A quote used by Gabbie in her post also applies to mine, that according to James Loewen, “most white southern families had no slaves.” This was striking, because southerners were always generalized to be the antagonists of the war and all of them were at fault, while the northerners worked diligently to keep the unity of the nation. I guess it was naïve of me to believe this, because it is ridiculous to make such a distinction.
In conclusion, I have learned a lot from this unit, and rediscovered the Civil War. My prior opinions were created from bias, and I hope to recognize other sources of this same bias in other units as we progress through the rest of the year.
Like many of my classmates, I fell under the common misconception that slavery was the sole cause of the Civil War, and like Toph said, I had believed that Lincoln was responsible for freeing the slaves. Playing Andrew Johnson in Around the Horn really helped me to understand how this was not the case, as I spent a lot of time exploring Lincoln’s policies and the Election of 1860, which I believe was one of the most prominent short term causes of the war.
ReplyDeleteIn retrospect, I still believe that slavery was the primary cause of the war, because despite the fact that there are many other “factors” they all seem to have something to do with slavery. In the Gone with the Myths article, it says “The North wouldn’t let us govern ourselves, they say, and Congress laid on tariffs that hurt the South. So we rebelled. Secession and the Civil War, in other words, were about small government, limited federal powers and states’ rights.” States rights were a very important factor. But then again, it all seems to tie back to slavery, as the article also says “In other words, the only state right the Confederate founders were interested in was the rich man’s “right” to own slaves.” It seems that despite all of the other reasons for secession, the idea of the right to “buy and sell human beings” being taken away from them appears to be the main reason the South called it quits.
Another thing that I think impacted the south seceding was the economic differences between the two sides. Like Gabbie said, we were taught all throughout middle school to believe that southern slave owners were bad people and that slavery was wrong. But as I researched to portray Andrew Johnson in the “Around the Horn” activity, I came to realize that the South’s economy needed free labor as their economic success depended on cotton. Zinn writes, “In 1790, a thousand tons of cotton were being produced every year... By 1860, it was a million tons. In the same period, 500,000 slaves grew to 4 million.” This cash crop was the reason that the South did not have to rely on the north. The south could not afford to pay white workers of the lower classes to do this kind of work, therefore slavery had to exist.
Overall, my knowledge and understanding of the Civil War has come a long way from the beginning of the unit. In response to the question of whether or not the Civil War ended, I think that there are some tensions that exist between the North and South today that while we don’t consider them to be “war” that survive because of the past. But Thomas L. Friedman says in his article, “And so it came to pass that on Nov. 4, 2008, shortly after 11 p.m. Eastern time, the American Civil War ended, as a black man — Barack Hussein Obama — won enough electoral votes to become president of the United States.” I think this is an interesting point, and while there are many different opinions, I remain undecided. In Celebrating the Secession Without Slaves Andrew Young said “The easy answer for black folk is that it set us free, but it really didn’t…we had another 100 years of segregation. We’ve never had our complete reconciliation of the forces that divide us.” There is definitely still racism that exists in our world today, and this makes it hard to determine whether or not the Civil War is actually over.
All of my life since I’ve been in this class, I believed in misleading information about the Civil War. I always thought Lincoln stopped slavery. We all know this isn’t true, but for many of us, we only knew until this unit. If this unit was not to be taught, these kinds of myths would still be held in belief. This ignorance is observed by Katherine Q. Seelye, when she writes in her news article, Celebrating Secession Without the Slaves, “That some [states]— even now — are honoring secession, with barely a nod to the role of slavery, underscores how divisive a topic the war remains” (Seelye). Almost everyone knows that slavery played an enormous role in the Civil War and the near split of the Union. Not only are people still affected by it today, but they are misled. If they are going to celebrate the Civil War, they should at least be more knowledgeable about it. I believe that the Civil War is a divisive topic, but by educating people of both perspectives, they can make a less biased opinion of it. At least they won’t be making criticizing comments seen as those in the new article, Gone With the Myths, when it says “several states single out a special culprit, Abraham Lincoln, “an obscure and illiterate man” whose “opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery” (Edward Ball). This, of course, is not true. Lincoln never intended to destroy slavery, but only did so to preserve the Union. People will always be biased because of where they live (geographically) and what popular belief they were raised with. Since I’ve learned about the Civil War and the events leading up to it in depth, I feel that I gained a better understanding of why our country is the way it is, specifically the relationship between the North and the South (Right America, Feeling Wronged). In the very least, a war in which the enemy was ourselves should be taught to everyone.
ReplyDeleteUpon tackling the Civil War, I was unsure of what to expect. It was to be the people, places, and economy that was sure to be covered, however, I was still left at a loss as to what the “x factor” was going to be. As it has proved evident in every single unit covered in U.S. this year, I learn what I call an X factor. Whether it be the fact that it could be argued that the Revolutionary War was not even a revolution at all. Or that, as said in Newsweek’s Creativity Crisis, creativity in America is being shot down by public schooling. The X factor is something that I learn that I had never considered previously. After portraying Henry Clay in a simulation, and more, I was still left wondering what it would be.
ReplyDeleteWhile thinking back to a previous reflection I had wrote titled, “Me…Feeling Wrong” I remembered the strong and palpable opinions of those from the South about our country today. This was the moment that I realized the X factor. What I realized is that 1861 to 1865 only is used as a benchmark for what is really a timeless issue. As it is expressed The Washington Post’s Five Myths about why the South seceded, “One hundred and fifty years after the Civil Way began, we’re still fighting it…(Loewen 1). Author James Loewen agrees with my thesis that the Civil War is a timeless fight that will continue to split this country of ours. The documentary “Right America: Feeling Wronged” directed by Alexandra Pilosi captures the raw and blunt opinions of those from the South. Southerners opinions on African Americans, women, and economics are shown in flying colors in this film and opened up a door in my mind that made me understand that this tension still exists. This tension is evident every day of our lives and we don’t even see it. Turn on the news at night and listen to any broadcast about the presidential primaries, the differences between the North and South are shining on your TV in the form of red and blue.
Before we had our unit i thought that the civil war was just that the North just got upset with the south one day and decided to start a war over slavery and that was it. I don't think i even need to say that I was wrong. The civil war was a complicated affair that involved not only slavery but countless other issues which were affecting our country at the time. These issues included but were not limited to the state and structure of our economy. It was a simple system in which the North manufactured the raw materials which were provided by the south. Now on paper this plan sounds damn near perfect but when you take into consideration the fact that the north was screwing the south out of profits with taxes and exclusivity within their trade the south's motives for starting a war begin to look a little bit more rational. The south provided something the north did not have, without the south the north's economy would crumble, however had the south been able to advance industrially the way the north had with it's raw materials they would have been able to succeed and prosper. With the unfair taxes and exclusivity the north put on the south it became a lot more clear to me that while slavery is considered a blanket cause for the war it goes a lot deeper than that.
ReplyDeleteAs my fellow students have written, this unit has had a profound impact on my understanding not only of the Civil War, but also of the present state of this country. The most obvious way that this unit has helped me is that I now understand that slavery was more of a front for the war, and that there were more complicated reasons for the state’s secession. And I also now know that North started the war to preserve the Union, not to abolish slavery. As liberal sociologist James W. Loweon said, “The North did not go to war to end slavery, it went to war to hold the country together and only gradually did it become anti-slavery.” Lincoln was not as anti-slave as I was lead to believe through my years of schooling, in fact he was originally against ending slavery in the South, and only resorted to it as means to end the war.
ReplyDeleteThat leads nicely to my next point, which is that the Civil War never really ended. It has become a cold war. The definition of cold war is “a state of political hostility between countries characterized by propaganda, and other measures short of open warfare.” This is a definition that I firmly believe can be applied to the current state of the government. Especially now, so close to a presidential election – those commercials are certainly a form of propaganda. The political hostility that exists in congress has gotten to the point where legislators don’t make politically neutral statements anymore. This, according to Avery Craven, is similar to the state of congress right before the actual Civil War, when “conflicts between interests simplified to basic levels where men feel more than they reason.” Senators, governors, congress-people, they all seem to simply be siding with their party, not working for the betterment of the country. This even reflects in the voter’s booth, when “the country splits along political and cultural lines that still separate white Southern voters from balloters in blue Union states” (Horowitz). The Civil War hasn’t really ended – and this unit has helped me see that. Which is why I think that it is so important that this unit continues to be taught throughout the state. Because one cannot hope to become an educated voter when one doesn’t even understand the political system it is voting for.
As everyone has previously stated, this chapter completely changed my views on the civil war. this unit also made me better understand the current state of our country and the possible future outcome that basically could be a repeat of the civil war. To be completely honest I had no idea about the fact that the north started the civil war over preserving the union. I always thought the CIvil war was about the north not wanting slavery and the south wanting slavery. Now that I know the actual reason or purpose of the war, everything is making a lot more sense. Also another thing I was very happy I learned about was the fact that Lincoln didn't really free the slaves... In fact he was very two-faced about the situation. Which makes me wonder how the term "honest Abe" came about... I personally don't think the civil war actually ever ended. As we saw in the movie "Right America, Feeling Wronged" the north and the south are basically polar opposites when it comes down to opinions on controversial subjects. These differences are what leads me to believe that the civil war isn't exactly over. Even though the violence has diminished, you can see these fights on topics through politicians and other things or people who have a lot of media surrounding them. I think for now the civil war is at rest, but it may erupt at anytime. I think the best way to prevent another war from happening is to educate kids and everyone about the real reason for the civil war and most of the wars that have happened, which are basically caused by contrasting viewpoints.
ReplyDeletePrior to this unit, I had learned in my eighth-grade history course (that focused heavily on the civil war) that states’ rights was the main reason for the civil war. During this unit however, I learned that the civil war was caused by tensions between the North and South over actual conflicts between economic and moral needs on both sides and perceived differences that set the North and South against each other.
ReplyDeleteLet’s start at where I was before this class though. In eighth grade I had Mr. Lewis for my second year of US history in which we learned about the Civil War to as close to modern times as we could get. We finished at the Great Depression. We learned about the battles of the civil war, even reading an entire book about the battle of Gettysburg, in which I only remembered that some crazy guy from Maine led a charge on the extreme edge of the Union line at Little Round Top. We also learned that states’ rights were the thing that really forced the South to secede.
Anyways, none of that is right. (except for the guy from Maine part)
In this class, we’ve examined the long-standing divisions between the North and the South, and the tensions created by abolition, slavery, and the balance of power that the free and slave states had. Slavery had been an issue between the North and South since the writing of the Constitution, with many Southern states refusing to ratify the Constitution until Article one, Section nine was included, which stated that “the Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.” You made note of this in the “Roots of the Civil War Tree,” which had a link to this quote. Then, there was the three fifths rule which counted the slave population as three fifths of its total number, which was another Constitutional compromise between the North and South to preserve a balance of power between the Northern free states and the Southern slave states. The North and South also disagreed over the creation of the National bank, which happened, as Hamilton’s PBS page that was linked to on “The Roots of the Civil War,” “Hamilton's bank plan had a relative easy time in Congress. The Senate passed it handily on January 20, 1791, and the House followed in early February. But support for the Bank fell largely along sectional lines, with Northern endorsement and Southern opposition.” Division between the North and South then continued through today, where we have the Southerners from “Right America, Feeling Wronged” literally crying about how they feel they have been treated unfairly.
I have learned that division in America is really more of a tradition than a circumstance. I have also learned that this is something that has seriously hurt America. There’s a preponderance of evidence of this theory of mine, ranging from the partisanship of congress to the partisanship in the supreme court, that really has proven itself to be harmful.