The Primary Causes of the Civil War

The study question about what the primary causes of the Civil War were intrigued me and I decided to write just a little on it and give my opinions. The prologue to the Civil War is full of all sorts of tumult. For example, the one that everyone knows about is the disagreement on Slavery. This disagreement created very high tensions between the North and the South and led to "Bloody Kansas" and other arguments and strife. Yet other disagreements were geographical. The South was largely farming and cotton while the North had a lot more industrial infrastructure. This means that the North and South wanted different things such as tariffs vs. Cheap imports and vice versa. All these differences in views created good reason for the South to secede from the Union however the North found it important to keep the South as part of the United States so war broke out and the bloodiest battle that America has ever fought followed killing about 620,000 men total.

History and the Present

Knowing history and it's outcomes seems to give major insight into what decisions to make today. For instance, I can't understand why we keep pouring more money into all the lazies and low lifes in this Country. America is supposed to be the land of the free and a land of opportunity so why are we limiting ourselves by supporting those who don't want to work? Why give people something for nothing? I can't understand the corruption of our welfare system and all the other "benefit" programs out there today. The definition of opportunity is: "a situation or condition favorable for attainment of a goal". How can we call America a Land of Opportunity if the only opportunity is for people to sit down and do nothing and be paid by those who do work? We try so hard to end socialism in other countries yet we seem to overlook the hold that it has at home in our own country. Looking back at Rome we see that Rome was a Powerful nation much like America today. Rome remained powerful and nothing could stop it until Rome got lazy. After laziness set its foot in Rome, The economy declined and Rome grew weak. So shall America grow weak if we do not change the system and oust the standard of "something for nothing" in our country.

I do believe that programs such as welfare do have their place and I want to make a distinction between those who can't work and those who won't work. I have just as much respect for those who can't work and those who do work however those who won't work don't deserve to be given handouts. If they want handouts let them beg on the streets, then at least they'll be doing something!

Now after my huge rant regarding welfare and government support programs, back to the topic I originally wanted to address. By looking back on history we can better see what decisions to make. For instance, is welfare really for the benefit of the nation? or will it destroy us? Another example is national healthcare. Look at what a national healthcare system did in Canada. Why do people assume it will be any different in America?

Well I was just speaking my mind on the importance of history. My views are obviously different than others but I'm just exercising my first amendment rights.

Why did the North win the Civil war?

I chose to write on this topic because war is the thing that interests me most in history AND it is one of the essays that I am preparing to write on. The reason the North won the Civil War was because of a couple main reasons. The first reason was the North had better infrastructure such as railroads and canals which allowed quicker transporting of troops and supplies. The second reason was the North was far more industrial and could produce things at around 10:1 which we discussed in class. Yet another reason was the fact that the North had a navy whereas the South had few merchant ships and no navy to begin with. The North also had more people. Even though the North had a bigger population it doesn't matter if the North has no enlistment or support; Though they did.

The South is at a disadvantage in every way economically and their army is smaller. It looks like it should have been a decisive victory with the North routing the South however; The South has one thing in its favor and that is leadership. The South has General Lee and his right hand man General "Stonewall" Jackson at the head of its armies. These two Generals are the only things that keep the South in the running. Lee's and Jackson's leadership was superb and they held at the battle of Bull Run which is where Jackson got his name. Lee also stabbed up into the North with an Offensive-Defensive strategy which worked well. The South kept winning battle after battle while the North just kept slipping up. Would the South win after all?

The South may well have won the war if there had not been a change of leadership in the North. George B. McClellan was the North's first leader and he was unwilling to commit to battles and let the South escape and stand to fight again. After McClellan had lost battle after battle, Ulysses S. Grant took up the call. Grant began to turn the war around and in 1862 won the Battle of Antietam. The winning of this battle put the North back on top and in 1863 the most pivotal battle of the war was won. The battle of Gettysburg was fought over the course of three days in which the North came out on top. After this battle, the Confederacy was too crippled and would never fully recover. They would be pushed back to Richmond Virginia and on April 9th, 1865 the Lee surrendered at Appomattox Courthouse.

Martin Van Buren, Jackson's successor

After Jackson's presidency, right after he instituted the Specie Circular, Martin Van Buren took office. The Specie Circular made farmers pay for their land in gold and silver. This was a problem for banks because they couldn't loan money to farmers to then buy their land because banks needed the gold and silver to issue paper money. Since money couldn't be circulated, the economy started to make a downturn. Bankers pleaded with Van Buren to remove the act of Jackson but Van Buren refused to revoke the bill and didn't do anything else to reverse the looming depression. In fact, Van Buren pulled out the government reserve out of Jackson's banks and stored it where it couldn't be circulated and therefore slowed the nation's recovery. The Whigs exploited Van Buren's Follies and used them to promote William Henry Harrison. William Henry Harrison swept the vote for president in the next election because of what most people thought was the failure of Van Buren's presidency.

Andrew Jackson

Andrew Jackson aka Old Hickory was the seventh president of the United States. His presidency was remarkably different than other presidencies because he used his authority in ways that other presidents had not. For instance Jackson used his powers to exert power over the Indian peoples. Things started to get heated in 1802 when Georgia gave up their claims to land in the west in return for the expulsion of the Indians. When Jackson was president he did just that. Jackson was a big supporter of removing the Indians and in 1830 he pushed the Indian Removal Act through Congress. This act gave money and land in present day Oklahoma and Kansas to the Native Americans. Before this. Mr. Jackson fixed a major problem between the South and the government by reducing the tariff rates by 1842 back to the levels of 1816. Jackson's biggest challenge was the Second Bank of the United States. The second bank tried to recharter early since they had a sufficient number of seats in congress however the sneaky president during this time by vetoing the charter and convincing the electoral college to reject the bank. After this Jackson weakened the Second Bank for the rest of its four years by withdrawing the federal reserve and putting it in state banks. Jackson pretty much screwed the Second Bank over by saying no to their charter and then because they brought it up said, "screw you even more" and made a very bold and probably illegal move. I would call this bad but Jackson is the only president in history who has paid off the National debt. Interesting how the figurative abolishment of the Second Bank led us out of debt. Coincidence? I submit that it is not.

Alexander MacAllister

Alexander MacAllister moved to North Carolina from Scotland where he became a wealthy and successful land owner and mill proprietor. Upon becoming successful he sent word back to Scotland that everyone should come over to North Carolina because there was a ton of land. After saying this many people came over from Scotland so quickly that towns became overcrowded and hostile towards the immigrants. If I were Alexander MacAllister I would have kept my mouth shut and kept all the land to myself. Some might call me greedy and selfish but I wouldn't want my business disrupted by a whole bunch of people flooding in from Scotland. Now instead of having acres of unsettled land around him, he had houses and farms around him which isn't something I'd like very much.

the "patriarchal" attitude of slave owners

In chapter 12 of "America, a Concise History" it mentions that plantation owners built cabins and churches for their slaves to help influence their behavior and claimed to be "paternal" characters to their slaves however; at the bottom of the page there is a black man who's injuries are so gruesome it's disgusting. To say that a slave owner who treats his slaves like that but says he is a father is abominable. If a slave owner treated his own children in that manner then he would at least be speaking the truth in saying he is a father to his slaves because they get equal treatment. However, how can a person say that they are a  father, padre, père, Vater, or any other translation of the word without acting on it with no shame. If a slave owner wants to beat his slaves why does he hide behind a mask of "fatherly love" instead of coming straight out with it and saying "yes, I beat my slaves". A man who tells the truth has more respect than a man who doesn't no matter how terrible that person may be or how grudgingly people bestow that respect upon them.