Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
As a result of industrialization
Antebellum southern exceptionalism
Industrialization and its effects
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The American Civil War was the result of the divergence between the North and South to the extent where they appeared to be strangers to one another. However, decades after the Revolutionary War and creation and ratification of the Constitution, the states were no longer able to agree on the principles the United States of America would want to live by. These few decades took both regions on vastly different paths. In the North, immigration and industrialization began a new era of progress, while the South maintained its agrarian culture. American Civil War historian James McPherson, in his essay, “Antebellum Southern Exceptionalism,” argues that that the different cultures, values, and economic interests held by the North and South were the
cause of the war.
In “Antebellum Southern Exceptionalism: A New Look at an Old Question” James McPherson argues that the North and the South are two very different parts of the country in which have different ideologies, interests, and values. Mcpherson writes this to show the differences between the north and the south. He gives perspectives from other historians to show how the differently the differences were viewed. These differences included the north being more industrialized while the south was more agricultural. He gives evidence to how the differences between the north and south came together as the south produced tobacoo, rice, sugar and cotton, which was then sent to the north to be made into clothing or other fabrics. Mcpherson analyzes the differences
Reconstruction was a nasty period in History. Reconstruction took place after the civil war. In the civil war there was lots of devastation. Buildings and houses were being destroyed so people needed something called Reconstruction. Reconstruction was something people really needed after the civil war because they needed to rebuild a community. Some people didn't want reconstruction because they liked destruction. Then also after the civil war slavery was abolished, as well some people don't like that either. South killed Reconstruction because South resistance had KKK, and South was murdering people.
John Shelton Reed says that the South embodies three different regions. Do all of these regions still exist? Or have they become incorporated into what is considered the South today? “The Three Souths,” by Reed, divides the South into three categories: Dixie, Southeast, and Cultural South. Southern agriculture and the growth of cotton established Dixie. The Southeast region is a metropolitan region that relies on commerce and communication to grow. The valued qualities, such as religion, sports, and manners are characteristic ways that set apart the Cultural South. According to Reed, Atlanta is the only place one can be in all three “Souths” at once. The daily life of a person in the South is very similar to the daily life of a person in another part of the country. Each work a normal workday but their use of free time sets them apart (Reed 17-27). The South of the past still exists today through traditional Southern values passed down in families and carried throughout the nation, yet the division of the South no longer exists as a three part entity, but as a growing, changing region.
The Differences between the North and South on the Eve of the Civil War On the eve of the Civil war, both the North and the South had differences, both minor and large. The main difference was Slavery where both sides had a completely dissimilar view point on how the treat black people an example of this is the Missouri compromise in 1820. There were also differences in the rate of industrialisation and Education. The largest difference between the North and the South was the number of free black people. The North had hardly any slaves; however the South had around 4 million slaves.
The economies of the North and South were vastly different leading up to the Civil War. Money was equivalent to power in both regions. For the North, the economy was based on industry as they were more modern and self-aware. They realized that industrialization was progress and it could help rid the country of slave labor as it was wrong. The North’s population had a class system but citizens could move within the system, provided they made the money that would allow them to move up in class. The class system was not as rigid as it was in the South. By comparison, the South wanted to hold on to its economic policy. In doing so, the practice of slavery kept the social order firmly in place. The economic factors, social issues and a growing animosity between the two regions helped to induce the Civil War.
The decades leading up to the American Civil War showed a great divide in the economic, political, and regional attitudes between the North and South. These divisions still plague the country today. However, there is a divide on whether economic anxieties or political differences were the major factor in the run up to the Civil War.
Imagine a historian, author of an award-winning dissertation and several books. He is an experienced lecturer and respected scholar; he is at the forefront of his field. His research methodology sets the bar for other academicians. He is so highly esteemed, in fact, that an article he has prepared is to be presented to and discussed by the United States’ oldest and largest society of professional historians. These are precisely the circumstances in which Ulrich B. Phillips wrote his 1928 essay, “The Central Theme of Southern History.” In this treatise he set forth a thesis which on its face is not revolutionary: that the cause behind which the South stood unified was not slavery, as such, but white supremacy. Over the course of fourteen elegantly written pages, Phillips advances his thesis with evidence from a variety of primary sources gleaned from his years of research. All of his reasoning and experience add weight to his distillation of Southern history into this one fairly simple idea, an idea so deceptively simple that it invites further study.
President Abraham Lincoln envisioned a conservative plan for the reconstruction of the south. Under Lincoln’s plan, as soon as ten percent of the voters in a southern state whom have voted in 1860 and had taken an oath of loyalty to the United States, they could then elect constitutional conventions. These conventions, upon adopting new state constitutions and abolishing slavery they would then be readmitted to the union. The assassination of Abraham Lincoln would change polices towards reconstruction of the south.
During the American Revolution and the civil war, the North and the South experienced development of different socio-political and cultural environmental conditions. The North became an industrial and manufacturing powerhouse as a result of rise of movements like abolitionism and women’s right while the South became a cotton kingdom whose labor was sourced from slavery (Spark notes, 2011).
...iled to gain the recognition of the European nations, North's superior resources made the outcome inevitable, and moral of the South towards the end of the war. The Civil War was a trying time for both the North and the South alike, but the question of its outcome was obvious from the start. The North was guaranteed a decisive victory over the ill-equipped South. Northerners, prepared to endure the deficit of war, were startled to find that they were experiencing an enormous industrial boom even after the first year of war. To the South, however, the war was a draining and debilitating leech, sucking the land dry of any appearance of economical formidability. The debate continues whether or not the South could have won the Civil war. It’s always going to be a bunch of “what ifs?”
America has gone through many hardships and struggles since coming together as a nation involving war and changes in the political system. Many highly regarded leaders in America have come bestowing their own ideas and foundation to provide a better life for “Americans”, but no other war or political change is more infamous than the civil war and reconstruction. Reconstruction started in 1865 and ended in 1877 and still to date one of the most debated issues in American history on whether reconstruction was a failure or success as well as a contest over the memory, meaning, and ending of the war. According to, “Major Problems in American History” David W. Blight of Yale University and Steven Hahn of the University of Pennsylvania take different stances on the meaning of reconstruction, and what caused its demise. David W. Blight argues that reconstruction was a conflict between two solely significant, but incompatible objectives that “vied” for attention both reconciliation and emancipation. On the other hand Steven Hahn argues that former slaves and confederates were willing and prepared to fight for what they believed in “reflecting a long tradition of southern violence that had previously undergirded slavery” Hahn also believes that reconstruction ended when the North grew tired of the 16 year freedom conflict. Although many people are unsure, Hahn’s arguments presents a more favorable appeal from support from his argument oppose to Blight. The inevitable end of reconstruction was the North pulling federal troops from the south allowing white rule to reign again and proving time travel exist as freed Africans in the south again had their civil, political, and economical position oppressed.
Connelly and Burrows provide a valuable perspective which highlights the paradox and irony which essentially defined the southern mindset before, during, and after the Civil War. This text offers the reader with an in depth look into the mindset of southerners throughout the Civil War and beyond, which enables one to better understand the actions of these rebels within such a decisive period in our Nation's history.
The Reconstruction-era offered numerous opportunities to African-Americans, by attempting to secure the rights for ex-slaves, but the opportunities presented even more obstacles to them. The thought of freedom intrigued the African-Americans at first, but many of them quickly changed their minds after experiencing it. Henry William Ravenel, a slaveowner, proclaimed, "When they were told they were free, some said they did not wish to be free, and they were silenced with threats of being shot (Firsthand 24)." The Reconstruction-era effected the white settlers and their crops, as well, posing yet more obstacles for the already-struggling African-Americans. The hardships endured throughout this period of history were very immense and the struggle toward freedom and equality held a heavy price for all.
The American Civil War was the bloodiest military conflict in American history leaving over 500 thousand dead and over 300 thousand wounded (Roark 543-543). One might ask, what caused such internal tension within the most powerful nation in the world? During the nineteenth century, America was an infant nation, but toppling the entire world with its social, political, and economic innovations. In addition, immigrants were migrating from their native land to live the American dream (Roark 405-407). Meanwhile, hundreds of thousand African slaves were being traded in the domestic slave trade throughout the American south. Separated from their family, living in inhumane conditions, and working countless hours for days straight, the issue of slavery was the core of the Civil War (Roark 493-494). The North’s growing dissent for slavery and the South’s dependence on slavery is the reason why the Civil War was an inevitable conflict. Throughout this essay we will discuss the issue of slavery, states’ rights, American expansion into western territories, economic differences and its effect on the inevitable Civil War.
American exceptionalism is a term suggesting that America was the best or superior; it was a term saying that it was different than any other place. Winthrop talks about the city upon the hill, which suggests America being a model or setting an example for other countries. We were supposed to be a beacon of liberty and freedom. During the founding of America, America was different than any other place. At its founding America was exceptional because it was different in the way people interacted with each other, different in the way the government worked, and different in its aspirations. The ideology of America has changed making it where America is no longer exceptional.