Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
What conflicts led to the civil war
Economic reasons for the civil war
Civil war economic factor
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
For over a century, many writers and historians theorized that the Confederate loss during the Civil War was, in fact, inevitable, and that they were only fighting a losing war against an overwhelming invading force. This idea shows the southern gentleman, in his honor, taking up arms against what was obviously a superior foe in order to preserve their state’s rights, their families, and their homes, with no hope of coming out the victor in the contest. This is a romantic notion of a time forgotten where gentlemen fought a barbaric would-be conquering force in order that their economic tyranny be forced upon the southern gentleman. This can be countered by the fact that they were only looking for a way to soothe their own defeat, that many sought post-war political gain, and that invading the north during the war was a hope to achieve victory.
There are many myths about the American Civil War fought from 1861-1865. One such myth is that the south was forced into action by the tyranny of the north, specifically that of newly elected President Abraham Lincoln. Another was that the war was not about slavery in any way, shape or form; rather, it was a war over a state’s right to govern itself without interference from the federal government. But no other myth has permeated through the decades more than the myth of the Lost Cause, which presupposes the inevitability of defeat to the Union army. The term was first coined by journalist Edward Pollard in his 1866 book entitled “The Lost Cause” (Civil War: A Visual History). There are people today who will still argue that those men who fought for the confederacy were fighting an invading Yankee horde and were destined to lose. The north had high tariffs and an unwanted economic d...
... middle of paper ...
...d and maimed and all of the political complexities of the time. People would much rather believe in the romantic view of the honorable hero on a quest, and, in fact, the idea of those riding off to face the horde with certain defeat is a pleasant one, of sorts.
Works Cited
Charisse, M. No 'lost cause' of Civil War. The Evening Sun. Jan 01 2011.
Farwell, B. Civil War Work's Theory a Lost Cause. Washington Times.
Gallagher, Gary W. and Alan T. Nolan (ed.), The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History, Indiana University Press, 2000
Henry, S. C. How 'the lost cause' was lost. New York Times (1923-Current File). August 4 1963
Levin, K. M. William Mahone, the lost cause, and civil war history. The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 113(4), 378-412. 2005.
The Civil War: A Visual History Ed. Dunne, Jemima, Paula Regan. New York: DK Publishing. 2011.
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.
Thesis: The world today is blinded from the truth about the "Civil War" just like they are the truth of the creation vs. evolution debate. They're blinded in the same way as well, misleading text books. The truth is that the North, Lincoln, etc. weren't as great as they claimed to be, and that they went to illegal measures for an unjust cause.
McPherson, James M.; The Atlas of the Civil War. Macmillan: 15 Columbus Circle New York, NY. 1994.
In James McPherson’s novel, What They Fought For, a variety of Civil War soldier documents are examined to show the diverse personal beliefs and motives for being involved in the war. McPherson’s sample, “is biased toward genuine fighting soldiers” (McPherson, 17) meaning he discusses what the ordinary soldier fought for. The Confederacy was often viewed as the favorable side because their life style relied on the war; Confederates surrounded their lives with practices like slavery and agriculture, and these practices were at stake during the war. On the other hand, Northerners fought to keep the country together. Although the Civil War was brutal, McPherson presents his research to show the dedication and patriotism of the soldiers that fought and died for a cause.
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.
Many historians have tried to offer their ideology on the outcome of the Civil War. McPherson in his “American Victory, American Defeat” writes about what other historians have decreed their answers to why the Confederacy lost. He tells us the reasons that could not be the explanation for the loss, and explains the internal reasons but leaves the true cause of the loss untold. Freehling explains the defeat by discussing what could have been and then gives reasons to negate some of the cases that he states for the outcome of the Confederacy. Both McPherson and Freehling both agreed that there were other factors besides battles that needed to be looked at.
In the historical narrative Redemption: The Last Battle of the Civil War, Nicholas Leman gives readers an insight into the gruesome and savage acts that took place in the mid-1870s and eventually led to the end of the Reconstruction era in the southern states. Before the engaging narrative officially begins, Lemann gives a 29-page introduction to the setting and provides background information about the time period. With Republican Ulysses S. Grant as President of the United States of America and Republican Adelbert Ames, as the Governor of Mississippi, the narrative is set in a town owned by William Calhoun in the city of Colfax, Louisiana. As a formal military commander, Ames ensured a
“Why did the North win the Civil War?” is only half of a question by itself, for the other half is “Why did the South lose the Civil War?” To this day historians have tried to put their finger on the exact reason for the South losing the war. Some historians blame the head of the confederacy Jefferson Davis; however others believe that it was the shear numbers of the Union (North). The advantages and disadvantages are abundant on either sides of the argument, but the most dominate arguments on why the South lost the war would be the fact that state’s rights prevented unification of the South, Jefferson Davis' poor leadership and his failure to work together with his generals, the South failed 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.
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.
Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview, 2006. Print. "Why Was the Confederacy Defeated?"
The Myth of the Lost Cause was edited by Gary Gallagher, Alan T. Nolan, and other several editors have taken the challenge of a difficult task of trying to summarize of what happened in the end of numerous of misrepresentations of this historic event. The book has a total 9 essays, giving me a different kind of reading style and showing its precision in showing it. I think what the editors were trying to convey was that the final analysis of the book is trying to explain how the Lost Cause myth was created and how it is still in effect to our national memory of the Civil War.
Perman Michael, Amy Murrell Taylor. Major Problems in the Civil War and Reconstruction. Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2011.
The majority of speculations regarding the causes of the American Civil War are in some relation to slavery. While slavery was a factor in the disagreements that led to the Civil War, it was not the solitary or primary cause. There were three other, larger causes that contributed more directly to the beginning of the secession of the southern states and, eventually, the start of the war. Those three causes included economic and social divergence amongst the North and South, state versus national rights, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Dred Scott case. Each of these causes involved slavery in some way, but were not exclusively based upon slavery.
Heidler, David Stephen, and Jeanne T. Heidler, eds. Encyclopedia of the American Civil War: a