❤❤❤ Weapons In The Civil War Essay

Wednesday, June 09, 2021 10:33:33 PM

Weapons In The Civil War Essay



Craig, Weapons In The Civil War Essay fact, numerous studies by economic historians over the past several decades reveal that economic conflict was not an inherent condition of North-South Weapons In The Civil War Essay during the antebellum Weapons In The Civil War Essay The Brief Wondrous Life Women Analysis did not cause the Civil War. Trust in the Bible and reliance upon a Reformed, literal hermeneutic had created a crisis that only Weapons In The Civil War Essay, not Weapons In The Civil War Essay, could resolve. Allen, Weapons In The Civil War Essay. See also: Weapons In The Civil War Essay Compromise. Beville, Ella. The abolitionist north had a difficult time matching the pro-slavery south passage for passage.

Firearms Used During the Civil War: The Civil War in Four Minutes

Soldiers of both sides often engaged in recreation with musical instruments, and when the opposing armies were near each other, sometimes the bands from both sides of the conflict played against each other on the night before a battle. Each side had its particular favorite tunes, while some music was enjoyed by Northerners and Southerners alike, as exemplified by United States President Abraham Lincoln 's love of " Dixie ", the unofficial anthem of the Confederacy. To this day, many of the songs are sung when a patriotic piece is required. The war's music also inspired music artists such as Lynyrd Skynyrd and Elvis Presley.

The Civil War was an important period in the development of American music. During the Civil War, when soldiers from across the country commingled, the multifarious strands of American music began to cross-fertilize each other, a process that was aided by the burgeoning railroad industry and other technological developments that made travel and communication easier. Army units included individuals from across the country, and they rapidly traded tunes, instruments, and techniques. The songs that arose from this fusion were "the first American folk music with discernible features that can be considered unique to America". John Tasker Howard has claimed that the songs from this era "could be arranged in proper sequence to form an actual history of the conflicts: its events, its principal characters, and the ideals and principles of the opposing sides".

In addition to, and in conjunction with, popular songs with patriotic fervor, the Civil War era also produced a great body of brass band pieces, from both the North and the South, [3] as well as other military musical traditions like the bugle call " Taps ". In May , the United States War Department officially approved that every regiment of infantry and artillery could have a brass band with 24 members, while a cavalry regiment could have one of sixteen members.

The Confederate army would also have brass bands. This was followed by a Union army regulation of July requiring every infantry, artillery, or cavalry company to have two musicians and for there to be a twenty-four man band for every regiment. In July the brass bands of the Union were disassembled by the adjutant general, although the soldiers that comprised them were sometimes re-enlisted and assigned to musician roles. Union general Philip Sheridan gave his cavalry bands the best horses and special uniforms, believing "Music has done its share, and more than its share, in winning this war". Musicians on the battlefield were drummers and buglers , with an occasional fifer.

Buglers had to learn forty-nine separate calls just for infantry, with more needed for cavalry. These ranged from battle commands to calls for meal time. The most notable of these under aged musicians was John Clem , also known as "Johnny Shiloh". Union drummers wore white straps to support their drums. The drum and band majors wore baldrics to indicate their status; after the war, this style would be emulated in civilian bands. Drummers would march to the right of a marching column. Similar to buglers, drummers had to learn 39 different beats: fourteen for general use, and 24 for marching cadence. However, buglers were given greater importance than drummers. Whole songs were sometimes played during battles. Heintzelman , the commander of the III Corps , saw many of his musicians standing at the back lines at the Battle of Williamsburg , and ordered them to play anything.

It was said that music was the equivalent of "a thousand men" on one's side. Robert E. Lee himself said, "I don't think we could have an army without music. Sometimes, musicians were ordered to leave the battlefront and assist the surgeons. One notable time was the 20th Maine 's musicians at Little Round Top. As the rest of the regiment were driving back wave after wave of Confederates, the musicians of the regiment were not just performing amputations , but doing it in a very quick manner. Many soldiers brought musical instruments from home to pass the time at camp. Banjos , fiddles , and guitars were particularly popular. Aside from drums, the instruments Confederates played were either acquired before the war or imported, due to the lack of brass and the industry to make such instruments.

Musical duels between the two sides were common, as they heard each other as the music traveled across the countryside. The night before the Battle of Stones River , bands from both sides dueled with separate songs until both sides started playing " Home! Sweet Home! On a cold afternoon, a Union band started playing Northern patriotic tunes; a Southern band responded by playing Southern patriotic tunes. This back and forth continued into the night, until at the end both sides played "Home! Both sides sang " Maryland, My Maryland ", although the lyrics were slightly different. Another popular song for both was " Lorena ". George F. Root , who wrote it, is said to have produced the most songs of anyone about the war, over thirty in total.

The southern states had long lagged behind northern states in producing common literature. With the advent of war, Southern publishers were in demand. These publishers, based largely in five cities Charleston, South Carolina ; Macon, Georgia ; Mobile, Alabama ; Nashville, Tennessee ; and New Orleans , Louisiana , produced five times more printed music than they did literature. However, " Dixie " was the most popular. Lincoln said, "That tune is now Federal property The United States did not have a national anthem at this time " The Star-Spangled Banner " would not be recognized as such until the twentieth century. Union soldiers frequently sang the " Battle Cry of Freedom ", and the " Battle Hymn of the Republic " was considered the north's most popular song.

Music sung by African-Americans changed during the war. The theme of escape from bondage became especially important in spirituals sung by blacks, both by slaves singing among themselves on plantations and for free and recently freed blacks singing to white audiences. Lockwood in December based on his experience with escaped slaves in Fort Monroe, Virginia, in September of that year. In , the Continental Monthly published a sampling of spirituals from South Carolina in an article titled, "Under the Palmetto". The white colonel of the all-black First South Carolina , Thomas Wentworth Higginson , noted that when blacks knew that whites were listening, they changed the way they were sung, and historian Christian McWhiter noted that African Americans "used their music to reshape white perceptions and foster a new image of black culture as thriving and ready for freedom".

His bill provided that popular sovereignty , through the territorial legislatures, should decide "all questions pertaining to slavery", thus effectively repealing the Missouri Compromise. The ensuing public reaction against it created a firestorm of protest in the Northern states. It was seen as an effort to repeal the Missouri Compromise. However, the popular reaction in the first month after the bill's introduction failed to foreshadow the gravity of the situation. As Northern papers initially ignored the story, Republican leaders lamented the lack of a popular response. Eventually, the popular reaction did come, but the leaders had to spark it. Salmon P. Chase 's "Appeal of the Independent Democrats" did much to arouse popular opinion. In New York, William H.

Seward finally took it upon himself to organize a rally against the Nebraska bill, since none had arisen spontaneously. Press such as the National Era , the New-York Tribune , and local free-soil journals, condemned the bill. The Lincoln—Douglas debates of drew national attention to the issue of slavery expansion. The American party system had been dominated by Whigs and Democrats for decades leading up to the Civil War.

But the Whig party's increasing internal divisions had made it a party of strange bedfellows by the s. An ascendant anti-slavery wing clashed with a traditionalist and increasingly pro-slavery southern wing. These divisions came to a head in the election, where Whig candidate Winfield Scott was trounced by Franklin Pierce. Southern Whigs, who had supported the prior Whig president Zachary Taylor, had been burned by Taylor and were unwilling to support another Whig. Taylor, who despite being a slaveowner, had proved notably anti-slavery despite campaigning neutrally on the issue.

So they were, as they would never again contest a presidential election. The final nail in the Whig coffin was the Kansas-Nebraska act. It was also the spark that began the Republican Party , which would take in both Whigs and Free Soilers and create an anti-slavery party that the Whigs had always resisted becoming. Opponents of the Act were intensely motivated and began forming a new party. The first anti-Nebraska local meeting where "Republican" was suggested as a name for a new anti-slavery party was held in a Ripon, Wisconsin schoolhouse on March 20, At that convention, the party opposed the expansion of slavery into new territories and selected a statewide slate of candidates.

Louis and a few areas adjacent to free states, there were no efforts to organize the Party in the southern states. In Kansas around , the slavery issue reached a condition of intolerable tension and violence. But this was in an area where an overwhelming proportion of settlers were merely land-hungry Westerners indifferent to the public issues. The majority of the inhabitants were not concerned with sectional tensions or the issue of slavery. Instead, the tension in Kansas began as a contention between rival claimants.

During the first wave of settlement, no one held titles to the land, and settlers rushed to occupy newly open land fit for cultivation. While the tension and violence did emerge as a pattern pitting Yankee and Missourian settlers against each other, there is little evidence of any ideological divides on the questions of slavery. Instead, the Missouri claimants, thinking of Kansas as their own domain, regarded the Yankee squatters as invaders, while the Yankees accused the Missourians of grabbing the best land without honestly settling on it. However, the —56 violence in " Bleeding Kansas " did reach an ideological climax after John Brown —regarded by followers as the instrument of God's will to destroy slavery—entered the melee. His assassination of five pro-slavery settlers the so-called " Pottawatomie massacre ", during the night of May 24, resulted in some irregular, guerrilla-style strife.

Aside from John Brown's fervor, the strife in Kansas often involved only armed bands more interested in land claims or loot. His zeal in the cause of freedom was infinitely superior to mine Mine was as the taper light; his was as the burning sun. I could live for the slave; John Brown could die for him. Of greater importance than the civil strife in Kansas, however, was the reaction against it nationwide and in Congress. In both North and South, the belief was widespread that the aggressive designs of the other section were epitomized by and responsible for what was happening in Kansas.

Consequently, "Bleeding Kansas" emerged as a symbol of sectional controversy. Indignant over the developments in Kansas, the Republicans—the first entirely sectional major party in U. Their nominee, John C. The other two Republican contenders, William H. Seward and Salmon P. Chase , were seen as too radical. Nevertheless, the campaign of was waged almost exclusively on the slavery issue—pitted as a struggle between democracy and aristocracy—focusing on the question of Kansas. The Republicans condemned the Kansas—Nebraska Act and the expansion of slavery, but they advanced a program of internal improvements combining the idealism of anti-slavery with the economic aspirations of the North.

The new party rapidly developed a powerful partisan culture, and energetic activists drove voters to the polls in unprecedented numbers. People reacted with fervor. Abraham Lincoln replied on July 23 in a speech at Galena, Illinois ; Carl Sandburg wrote that this speech probably resembled Lincoln's Lost Speech : "This Government would be very weak, indeed, if a majority, with a disciplined army and navy, and a well-filled treasury, could not preserve itself, when attacked by an unarmed, undisciplined, unorganized minority. All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug—nothing but folly.

We won't dissolve the Union, and you shan't. The Lecompton Constitution and Dred Scott v. Sanford [ sic ] the Respondent's name, Sandford, was misspelled in the reports [] were both part of the Bleeding Kansas controversy over slavery as a result of the Kansas—Nebraska Act , which was Stephen Douglas ' attempt at replacing the Missouri Compromise ban on slavery in the Kansas and Nebraska territories with popular sovereignty, which meant that the people of a territory could vote either for or against slavery.

The Lecompton Constitution, which would have allowed slavery in Kansas, was the result of massive vote fraud by the pro-slavery Border Ruffians. Douglas defeated the Lecompton Constitution because it was supported by the minority of pro-slavery people in Kansas, and Douglas believed in majority rule. Douglas hoped that both South and North would support popular sovereignty, but the opposite was true. Neither side trusted Douglas. The Supreme Court decision of in Dred Scott v. Sandford added to the controversy. Chief Justice Roger B.

Taney 's decision said that blacks were "so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect," [] and that slavery could spread into the territories even if the majority of people in the territories were anti-slavery. Lincoln warned that "the next Dred Scott decision" [] could impose slavery on Northern states. President James Buchanan decided to end the troubles in Kansas by urging Congress to admit Kansas as a slave state under the Lecompton Constitution.

Kansas voters, however, soundly rejected this constitution by a vote of 10, to As Buchanan directed his presidential authority to promoting the Lecompton Constitution, he further angered the Republicans and alienated members of his own party. Prompting their break with the administration, the Douglasites saw this scheme as an attempt to pervert the principle of popular sovereignty on which the Kansas—Nebraska Act was based. Nationwide, conservatives were incensed, feeling as though the principles of states' rights had been violated.

Crittenden key figures in the event of sectional controversies —urged the Republicans to oppose the administration's moves and take up the demand that the territories be given the power to accept or reject slavery. As the schism in the Democratic party deepened, moderate Republicans argued that an alliance with anti-administration Democrats, especially Stephen Douglas, would be a key advantage in the elections. After all, the border states had often gone for Whigs with a Northern base of support in the past without prompting threats of Southern withdrawal from the Union. Among the proponents of this strategy was The New York Times , which called on the Republicans to downplay opposition to popular sovereignty in favor of a compromise policy calling for "no more slave states" in order to quell sectional tensions.

The Times maintained that for the Republicans to be competitive in the elections, they would need to broaden their base of support to include all voters who for one reason or another were upset with the Buchanan Administration. Indeed, pressure was strong for an alliance that would unite the growing opposition to the Democratic Administration. But such an alliance was no novel idea; it would essentially entail transforming the Republicans into the national, conservative, Union party of the country.

In effect, this would be a successor to the Whig party. Republican leaders, however, staunchly opposed any attempts to modify the party position on slavery, appalled by what they considered a surrender of their principles when, for example, all the ninety-two Republican members of Congress voted for the Crittenden-Montgomery bill in Although this compromise measure blocked Kansas' entry into the union as a slave state, the fact that it called for popular sovereignty, instead of rejecting slavery altogether, was troubling to the party leaders. In the end, the Crittenden-Montgomery bill did not create a grand anti-administration coalition of Republicans, ex-Whig Southerners in the border states, and Northern Democrats.

Instead, the Democratic Party merely split along sectional lines. Anti-Lecompton Democrats complained that certain leaders had imposed a pro-slavery policy upon the party. The Douglasites, however, refused to yield to administration pressure. Like the anti-Nebraska Democrats, who were now members of the Republican Party, the Douglasites insisted that they—not the administration—commanded the support of most northern Democrats.

Extremist sentiment in the South advanced dramatically as the Southern planter class perceived its hold on the executive, legislative, and judicial apparatuses of the central government wane. It also grew increasingly difficult for Southern Democrats to manipulate power in many of the Northern states through their allies in the Democratic Party. Historians have emphasized that the sense of honor was a central concern of upper-class white Southerners. The abolitionist position held that slavery was a negative or evil phenomenon that damaged the rights of white men and the prospects of republicanism. To the white South this rhetoric made Southerners second-class citizens because it trampled what they believed was their Constitutional right to take their chattel property anywhere.

Butler of South Carolina. Abolitionists routinely accused slaveholders of maintaining slavery so that they could engage in forcible sexual relations with their slaves. Brooks , Butler's nephew. Sumner took years to recover; he became the martyr to the antislavery cause who said the episode proved the barbarism of slave society. Brooks was lauded as a hero upholding Southern honor. Although Representative Anson Burlingame managed to publicly embarrass Brooks in retaliation, the original episode further polarized North and South, strengthened the new Republican Party, and added a new element of violence on the floor of Congress.

Despite their significant loss in the election of , Republican leaders realized that even though they appealed only to Northern voters, they need win only two more states, such as Pennsylvania and Illinois , to win the presidency in As the Democrats were grappling with their own troubles, leaders in the Republican party fought to keep elected members focused on the issue of slavery in the West, which allowed them to mobilize popular support. Chase wrote Sumner that if the conservatives succeeded, it might be necessary to recreate the Free Soil Party. He was also particularly disturbed by the tendency of many Republicans to eschew moral attacks on slavery for political and economic arguments. The controversy over slavery in the West was still not creating a fixation on the issue of slavery.

Although the old restraints on the sectional tensions were being eroded with the rapid extension of mass politics and mass democracy in the North, the perpetuation of conflict over the issue of slavery in the West still required the efforts of radical Democrats in the South and radical Republicans in the North. They had to ensure that the sectional conflict would remain at the center of the political debate. William Seward contemplated this potential in the s, when the Democrats were the nation's majority party, usually controlling Congress, the presidency, and many state offices.

The country's institutional structure and party system allowed slaveholders to prevail in more of the nation's territories and to garner a great deal of influence over national policy. With growing popular discontent with the unwillingness of many Democratic leaders to take a stand against slavery, and growing consciousness of the party's increasingly pro-Southern stance, Seward became convinced that the only way for the Whig Party to counteract the Democrats' strong monopoly of the rhetoric of democracy and equality was for the Whigs to embrace anti-slavery as a party platform.

Once again, to increasing numbers of Northerners, the Southern labor system was increasingly seen as contrary to the ideals of American democracy. Republicans believed in the existence of "the Slave Power Conspiracy", which had seized control of the federal government and was attempting to pervert the Constitution for its own purposes. The "Slave Power" idea gave the Republicans the anti-aristocratic appeal with which men like Seward had long wished to be associated politically.

By fusing older anti-slavery arguments with the idea that slavery posed a threat to Northern free labor and democratic values, it enabled the Republicans to tap into the egalitarian outlook which lay at the heart of Northern society. In this sense, during the presidential campaign, Republican orators even cast "Honest Abe" as an embodiment of these principles, repeatedly referring to him as "the child of labor" and "son of the frontier", who had proved how "honest industry and toil" were rewarded in the North. Although Lincoln had been a Whig, the " Wide Awakes " members of the Republican clubs used replicas of rails that he had split to remind voters of his humble origins.

In almost every northern state, organizers attempted to have a Republican Party or an anti-Nebraska fusion movement on ballots in In areas where the radical Republicans controlled the new organization, the comprehensive radical program became the party policy. Just as they helped organize the Republican Party in the summer of , the radicals played an important role in the national organization of the party in Republican conventions in New York , Massachusetts , and Illinois adopted radical platforms.

These radical platforms in such states as Wisconsin , Michigan , Maine , and Vermont usually called for the divorce of the government from slavery, the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Laws , and no more slave states, as did platforms in Pennsylvania , Minnesota , and Massachusetts when radical influence was high. Conservatives at the Republican nominating convention in Chicago were able to block the nomination of William Seward , who had an earlier reputation as a radical but by had been criticized by Horace Greeley as being too moderate. Other candidates had earlier joined or formed parties opposing the Whigs and had thereby made enemies of many delegates. Lincoln was selected on the third ballot. However, conservatives were unable to bring about the resurrection of "Whiggery".

The convention's resolutions regarding slavery were roughly the same as they had been in , but the language appeared less radical. In the following months, even Republican conservatives like Thomas Ewing and Edward Baker embraced the platform language that "the normal condition of territories was freedom". All in all, the organizers had done an effective job of shaping the official policy of the Republican Party. Southern slaveholding interests now faced the prospects of a Republican president and the entry of new free states that would alter the nation's balance of power between the sections. To many Southerners, the resounding defeat of the Lecompton Constitution foreshadowed the entry of more free states into the Union.

Dating back to the Missouri Compromise, the Southern region desperately sought to maintain an equal balance of slave states and free states so as to be competitive in the Senate. Since the last slave state was admitted in , five more free states had entered. The tradition of maintaining a balance between North and South was abandoned in favor of the addition of more free soil states. The debates were mainly about slavery. Douglas defended his Kansas—Nebraska Act , which replaced the Missouri Compromise ban on slavery in the Louisiana Purchase territory north and west of Missouri with popular sovereignty , which allowed residents of territories such as the Kansas to vote either for or against slavery.

Douglas put Lincoln on the defensive by accusing him of being a Black Republican abolitionist, but Lincoln responded by asking Douglas to reconcile popular sovereignty with the Dred Scott decision. Douglas' Freeport Doctrine was that residents of a territory could keep slavery out by refusing to pass a slave code and other laws needed to protect slavery. Douglas' Freeport Doctrine, and the fact that he helped defeat the pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution , made Douglas unpopular in the South, which led to the split of the Democratic Party into Northern and Southern wings. The Democrats retained control of the Illinois legislature, and Douglas thus retained his seat in the U.

Senate at that time senators were elected by the state legislatures, not by popular vote ; however, Lincoln's national profile was greatly raised, paving the way for his election as president of the United States two years later. In The Rise of American Civilization , Charles and Mary Beard argue that slavery was not so much a social or cultural institution as an economic one a labor system. The Beards cited inherent conflicts between Northeastern finance, manufacturing, and commerce and Southern plantations, which competed to control the federal government so as to protect their own interests.

According to the economic determinists of the era, both groups used arguments over slavery and states' rights as a cover. Recent historians have rejected the Beardian thesis. But their economic determinism has influenced subsequent historians in important ways. Engerman , wrote that slavery was profitable and that the price of slaves would have continued to rise. Modernization theorists, such as Raimondo Luraghi , have argued that as the Industrial Revolution was expanding on a worldwide scale, the days of wrath were coming for a series of agrarian, pre-capitalistic, "backward" societies throughout the world, from the Italian and American South to India.

But most American historians point out the South was highly developed and on average about as prosperous as the North. A few historians [ who? Before the panic, strong economic growth was being achieved under relatively low tariffs. Hence much of the nation concentrated on growth and prosperity. The iron and textile industries were facing acute, worsening trouble each year after By , stocks of iron were accumulating in each world market. Iron prices fell, forcing many American iron mills to shut down. Republicans urged western farmers and northern manufacturers to blame the depression on the domination of the low-tariff economic policies of southern-controlled Democratic administrations.

However, the depression revived suspicion of Northeastern banking interests in both the South and the West. Eastern demand for western farm products shifted the West closer to the North. As the "transportation revolution" canals and railroads went forward, an increasingly large share and absolute amount of wheat , corn , and other staples of western producers—once difficult to haul across the Appalachians —went to markets in the Northeast. The depression emphasized the value of the western markets for eastern goods and homesteaders who would furnish markets and respectable profits.

Aside from the land issue, economic difficulties strengthened the Republican case for higher tariffs for industries in response to the depression. This issue was important in Pennsylvania and perhaps New Jersey. Meanwhile, many Southerners grumbled over "radical" notions of giving land away to farmers that would "abolitionize" the area. While the ideology of Southern sectionalism was well-developed before the Panic of by figures like J. De Bow, the panic helped convince even more cotton barons that they had grown too reliant on Eastern financial interests.

Thomas Prentice Kettell , former editor of the Democratic Review , was another commentator popular in the South to enjoy a great degree of prominence between and Kettell gathered an array of statistics in his book on Southern Wealth and Northern Profits , to show that the South produced vast wealth, while the North, with its dependence on raw materials, siphoned off the wealth of the South. Such Southern hostility to the free farmers gave the North an opportunity for an alliance with Western farmers. After the political realignments of —58—manifested by the emerging strength of the Republican Party and their networks of local support nationwide—almost every issue was entangled with the controversy over the expansion of slavery in the West.

While questions of tariffs, banking policy, public land, and subsidies to railroads did not always unite all elements in the North and the Northwest against the interests of slaveholders in the South under the pre party system, they were translated in terms of sectional conflict—with the expansion of slavery in the West involved. As the depression strengthened the Republican Party, slaveholding interests were becoming convinced that the North had aggressive and hostile designs on the Southern way of life. The South was thus increasingly fertile ground for secessionism. The Republicans' Whig-style personality-driven "hurrah" campaign helped stir hysteria in the slave states upon the emergence of Lincoln and intensify divisive tendencies, while Southern "fire eaters" gave credence to notions of the slave power conspiracy among Republican constituencies in the North and West.

New Southern demands to re-open the African slave trade further fueled sectional tensions. From the early s until the outbreak of the Civil War, the cost of slaves had been rising steadily. Meanwhile, the price of cotton was experiencing market fluctuations typical of raw commodities. After the Panic of , the price of cotton fell while the price of slaves continued its steep rise. At the Southern commercial convention, William L. Yancey of Alabama called for the reopening of the African slave trade. Only the delegates from the states of the Upper South, who profited from the domestic trade, opposed the reopening of the slave trade since they saw it as a potential form of competition.

The convention in wound up voting to recommend the repeal of all laws against slave imports, despite some reservations. On October 16, , radical abolitionist John Brown led an attempt to start an armed slave revolt by seizing the U. Brown and twenty-one followers, both whites including three of Brown's sons and blacks three free Blacks, one freedman, and one fugitive slave , planned to seize the armory and use weapons stored there to arm Black slaves in order to spark a general uprising by the slave population. Although the raiders were initially successful in cutting the telegraph line and capturing the Armory, they allowed a passing train to continue, and at the next station with a working telegraph the conductor alerted authorities to the attack. The raiders were forced by the militia and other locals to barricade themselves in the Armory, in a sturdy building later known as John Brown's Fort.

Robert E. Lee then a colonel in the U. Army led a company of U. Marines in storming the armory on October Ten of the raiders were killed, including two of Brown's sons; Brown himself along with a half dozen of his followers were captured; five of the raiders escaped immediate capture. Six locals were killed and nine injured; the Marines suffered one dead and one injured.

Brown was subsequently hanged for treason, murder, and inciting a slave insurrection, as were six of his followers. See John Brown's raiders. The raid, trial, and execution were covered in great detail by the press, which sent reporters and sketch artists to the scene on the next train. Initially, William H. Seward of New York, Salmon P. Chase of Ohio, and Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania were the leading contenders for the Republican presidential nomination. But Abraham Lincoln , a former one-term House member who gained fame amid the Lincoln—Douglas debates of , had fewer political opponents within the party and outmaneuvered the other contenders.

On May 16, , he received the Republican nomination at their convention in Chicago. Douglas ' bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. Douglas defeated the pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution for Kansas because the majority of Kansans were antislavery, and Douglas' popular sovereignty doctrine would allow the majority to vote slavery up or down as they chose. Douglas' Freeport Doctrine alleged that the antislavery majority of Kansans could thwart the Dred Scott decision that allowed slavery by withholding legislation for a slave code and other laws needed to protect slavery.

As a result, Southern extremists demanded a slave code for the territories, and used this issue to divide the northern and southern wings of the Democratic Party. Southerners left the party and in June nominated John C. Breckinridge , while Northern Democrats supported Douglas. As a result, the Southern planter class lost a considerable measure of sway in national politics. Because of the Democrats' division, the Republican nominee faced a divided opposition. Bell for president. Thus, party nominees waged regional campaigns. Lincoln handily won the electoral votes: []. Voting [on November 6, ] split sharply along sectional lines. Lincoln was elected by carrying the electoral votes of the North; he had a sweeping majority of electoral votes.

Given the vote count in each state, he would still have won the electoral college even if all three opponents had somehow been able to merge their tickets. The Alabama extremist William Lowndes Yancey 's demand for a federal slave code for the territories split the Democratic Party between North and South, which made the election of Lincoln possible. Yancey tried to make his demand for a slave code moderate enough to get Southern support and yet extreme enough to enrage Northerners and split the party. He demanded that the party support a slave code for the territories if later necessary , so that the demand would be conditional enough to win Southern support.

The South Carolina extremist Robert Barnwell Rhett hoped that the lower South would completely break with the Northern Democrats and attend a separate convention at Richmond, Virginia , but lower South delegates gave the national Democrats one last chance at unification by going to the convention at Baltimore, Maryland , before the split became permanent. The result was that John C. Breckinridge became the candidate of the Southern Democrats, and Stephen Douglas became the candidate of the Northern Democrats.

Yancey's previous attempt at demanding a slave code for the territories was his Alabama Platform , which was in response to the Northern Wilmot Proviso attempt at banning slavery in territories conquered from Mexico. Justice Peter V. Daniel wrote a letter about the Proviso to former President Martin Van Buren : "It is that view of the case which pretends to an insulting exclusiveness or superiority on the one hand, and denounces a degrading inequality or inferiority on the other; which says in effect to the Southern man, 'Avaunt! Southerners thought they were merely demanding equality, in that they wanted Southern property in slaves to get the same or more protection as Northern forms of property.

With the emergence of the Republicans as the nation's first major sectional party by the mids, politics became the stage on which sectional tensions were played out. Although much of the West—the focal point of sectional tensions—was unfit for cotton cultivation, Southern secessionists read the political fallout as a sign that their power in national politics was rapidly weakening. Before, the slave system had been buttressed to an extent by the Democratic Party, which was increasingly seen as representing a more pro-Southern position that unfairly permitted Southerners to prevail in the nation's territories and to dominate national policy before the Civil War.

But Democrats suffered a significant reverse in the electoral realignment of the mids. Immediately after finding out the election results, a special South Carolina convention declared "that the Union now subsisting between South Carolina and other states under the name of the 'United States of America' is hereby dissolved;" by February six more cotton states would follow Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas , forming the Confederate States of America.

In , Lipset examined the secessionist vote in each Southern state in — In each state he divided the counties by the proportion of slaves, low, medium and high. After Lincoln called for troops, four border states that lacked cotton seceded Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee. By staying in the Union the Upper Southern states felt that their slave rights would continue to be recognized by the Union. The tariff issue was and is sometimes cited—long after the war—by Lost Cause historians and neo-Confederate apologists.

In —61 none of the groups that proposed compromises to head off secession brought up the tariff issue as a major issue. The tariff in effect prior to the enactment of the Morrill Tariff of had been written and approved by the South for the benefit of the South. Complaints came from the Northeast especially Pennsylvania and regarded the rates as too low. Some Southerners feared that eventually the North would grow so big that it would control Congress and could raise the tariff at will.

As for states' rights, while a state's right of revolution mentioned in the Declaration of Independence was based on the inalienable equal rights of man, secessionists believed in a modified version of states' rights that was safe for slavery. These issues were especially important in the lower South, where 47 percent of the population were slaves. The upper South, where 32 percent of the population were slaves, considered the Fort Sumter crisis —especially Lincoln's call for troops to march south to recapture it—a cause for secession.

The northernmost border slave states, where 13 percent of the population were slaves, did not secede. Acting upon orders from the War Department to hold and defend the U. South Carolina leaders cried betrayal, while the North celebrated with enormous excitement at this show of defiance against secessionism. In February the Confederate States of America were formed and took charge. Jefferson Davis, the Confederate president, ordered the fort be captured. The artillery attack was commanded by Brig. Beauregard , who had been Anderson's student at West Point. The attack began April 12, , and continued until Anderson, badly outnumbered and outgunned, surrendered the fort on April The battle began the American Civil War, as an overwhelming demand for war swept both the North and South, with only Kentucky attempting to remain neutral.

According to Adam Goodheart , the modern meaning of the American flag was also forged in the defense of Fort Sumter. Thereafter, the flag was used throughout the North to symbolize American nationalism and rejection of secessionism. Before that day, the flag had served mostly as a military ensign or a convenient marking of American territory, flown from forts, embassies, and ships, and displayed on special occasions like the Fourth of July. But in the weeks after Major Anderson's surprising stand, it became something different.

Suddenly the Stars and Stripes flew—as it does today, and especially as it did after September 11 —from houses, from storefronts, from churches; above the village greens and college quads. For the first time American flags were mass-produced rather than individually stitched and even so, manufacturers could not keep up with demand. As the long winter of turned into spring, that old flag meant something new. The abstraction of the Union cause was transfigured into a physical thing: strips of cloth that millions of people would fight for, and many thousands die for. Abraham Lincoln's rejection of the Crittenden Compromise , the failure to secure the ratification of the Corwin Amendment in , and the inability of the Washington Peace Conference of to provide an effective alternative to Crittenden and Corwin came together to prevent a compromise that is still debated by Civil War historians.

Even as the war was going on, William Seward and James Buchanan were outlining a debate over the question of inevitability that would continue among historians. Two competing explanations of the sectional tensions inflaming the nation emerged even before the war. The first was the "Needless War" argument. He also singled out the "fanaticism" of the Republican Party. Seward, on the other hand, believed there to be an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces. Shelden argues that, "Few scholars in the twenty-first century would call the Civil War 'needless,' as the emancipation of 4 million slaves hinged on Union victory. The "Irrepressible Conflict" argument was the first to dominate historical discussion. The war appeared to be a stark moral conflict in which the South was to blame, a conflict that arose as a result of the designs of slave power.

Henry Wilson 's History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America — is the foremost representative of this moral interpretation, which argued that Northerners had fought to preserve the union against the aggressive designs of "slave power". Later, in his seven-volume History of the United States from the Compromise of to the Civil War — , James Ford Rhodes identified slavery as the central—and virtually only—cause of the Civil War. The North and South had reached positions on the issue of slavery that were both irreconcilable and unalterable.

The conflict had become inevitable. But the idea that the war was avoidable became central among historians in the s, s and s. Revisionist historians, led by James G. Randall — at the University of Illinois, Woodrow Wilson at Princeton University and Avery Craven — at the University of Chicago, saw in the social and economic systems of the South no differences so fundamental as to require a war. Historian Mark Neely explains their position:. Revisionism challenged the view that fundamental and irreconcilable sectional differences made the outbreak of war inevitable. It scorned a previous generation's easy identification of the Northern cause with abolition, but it continued a tradition of hostility to the Reconstruction measures that followed the war.

The Civil War became a needless conflict brought on by a blundering generation that exaggerated sectional differences between North and South. Revisionists revived the reputation of the Democratic party as great nationalists before the war and as dependable loyalists during it. Revisionism gave Lincoln's Presidency a tragic beginning at Fort Sumter, a rancorous political setting of bitter factional conflicts between radicals and moderates within Lincoln's own party, and an even more tragic ending.

The benevolent Lincoln died at the moment when benevolence was most needed to blunt radical designs for revenge on the South. Randall blamed the ineptitude of a "blundering generation" of leaders. He also saw slavery as essentially a benign institution, crumbling in the presence of 19th century tendencies. In The Coming of the Civil War , Craven argued that slave laborers were not much worse off than Northern workers, that the institution was already on the road to ultimate extinction, and that the war could have been averted by skillful and responsible leaders in the tradition of Congressional statesmen Henry Clay and Daniel Webster.

Two of the key leaders in antebellum politics, Clay and Webster, in contrast to the s generation of leaders, shared a predisposition to compromises marked by a passionate patriotic devotion to the Union. But it is possible that the politicians of the s were not inept. More recent studies have kept elements of the revisionist interpretation alive, emphasizing the role of political agitation the efforts of Democratic politicians of the South and Republican politicians in the North to keep the sectional conflict at the center of the political debate.

David Herbert Donald — , a student of Randall, argued in that the politicians of the s were not unusually inept but that they were operating in a society in which traditional restraints were being eroded in the face of the rapid extension of democracy. The stability of the two-party system kept the union together, but would collapse in the s, thus reinforcing, rather than suppressing, sectional conflict. The union, Donald said, died of democracy. In December , amid the secession crisis, president-elect Abraham Lincoln wrote a letter to Alexander Stephens , in which he summarized the cause of the crisis:.

You think slavery is right and should be extended; while we think slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us. Several months later, on March 21, , Alexander Stephens, now the Confederate vice president, delivered his " Cornerstone Speech " in Savannah, Georgia. In the speech, he states that slavery was the cause of the secession crisis, and outlines the principal differences between Confederate ideology and U.

The new [Confederate] Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. In July , as decisive campaigns were fought at Gettysburg and Vicksburg , Republican senator Charles Sumner re-dedicated his speech The Barbarism of Slavery and said that desire to preserve slavery was the sole cause of the war:.

One is Slavery and the other is State Rights. But the latter is only a cover for the former. If Slavery were out of the way there would be no trouble from State Rights. The war, then, is for Slavery, and nothing else. It is an insane attempt to vindicate by arms the lordship which had been already asserted in debate. With mad-cap audacity it seeks to install this Barbarism as the truest Civilization. Slavery is declared to be the "corner-stone" of the new edifice. Lincoln's war goals were reactions to the war, as opposed to causes. Abraham Lincoln explained the nationalist goal as the preservation of the Union on August 22, , one month before his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation:. I would save the Union.

I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free. On March 4, , Lincoln said in his second inaugural address that slavery was the cause of the War:. One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.

Most historians Beard oversimplified the controversies relating to federal economic policy, for neither section unanimously supported or opposed measures such as the protective tariff, appropriations for internal improvements, or the creation of a national banking system. During the s, Federal economic policy gave no substantial cause for southern disaffection, for policy was largely determined by pro-Southern Congresses and administrations. Finally, the characteristic posture of the conservative northeastern business community was far from anti-Southern. Most merchants, bankers, and manufacturers were outspoken in their hostility to antislavery agitation and eager for sectional compromise in order to maintain their profitable business connections with the South.

The conclusion seems inescapable that if economic differences, real though they were, had been all that troubled relations between North and South, there would be no substantial basis for the idea of an irrepressible conflict. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Overview of the origins of the American Civil War. See also: Historiographic issues about the American Civil War. States that seceded before April 15, States that seceded after April 15, States that permitted slavery, but did not secede. States of the Union that banned slavery. See also: Three-fifths Compromise. Main article: Missouri Compromise. Main article: Nullification crisis. See also: Slavery in the United States.

Union states. Union territories not permitting slavery. Border Union states, permitting slavery. Confederate states. Union territories permitting slavery claimed by Confederacy. Main article: Abolitionism in the United States. See also: Free Soil Party. This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. May Learn how and when to remove this template message. Main article: States' rights. Main article: Compromise of Main article: Kansas—Nebraska Act. Main articles: United States presidential election and Bleeding Kansas. See also: Dred Scott v. President James Buchanan. See also: Lecompton Constitution , Stephen A.

Douglas , and James Buchanan. Main article: Caning of Charles Sumner. Main article: Lincoln—Douglas debates. Main article: John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry. Main article: United States presidential election. Wikisource has the original text of " The Barbarism of Slavery ". American Civil War portal. Atlas of World History. Oxford University Press. ISBN Archived from the original on September 5, Retrieved October 25, Cengage Learning.

Archived from the original on May 14, Retrieved December 11, Fehrenbacher wrote, "As a racial caste system, slavery was the most distinctive element in the southern social order. The slave production of staple crops dominated southern agriculture and eminently suited the development of a national market economy. In the House the votes for the Tallmadge amendments in the North were 86—10 and 80—14 in favor, while in the South the vote to oppose was 66—1 and 64—2.

Archived from the original on November 29, Retrieved January 28, Glaser, "United States Expansion, — " ". Archived from the original on December 31, Retrieved May 21, Ericson, William and Mary Quarterly , Vol. Pease, William H. Niven pp. Freehling, Prelude to Civil War p. Ellis further notes that "Calhoun and the nullifiers were not the first southerners to link slavery with states' rights. At various points in their careers, John Taylor , John Randolph , and Nathaniel Macon had warned that giving too much power to the federal government, especially on such an open-ended issue as internal improvement, could ultimately provide it with the power to emancipate slaves against their owners' wishes.

Wilentz p. Huston writes, " First, slaves were property. Second, the sanctity of Southerners' property rights in slaves was beyond the questioning of anyone inside or outside of the South. Third, slavery was the only means of adjusting social relations properly between Europeans and Africans. Regnery Publishing p. Archived PDF from the original on August 17, Retrieved January 11, American History: A Survey. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. New York: Beacon Press. The Economic Growth of the United States — Englewood Cliffs. Look Away! New York: The Free Press. Retrieved March 19, Inextricably intertwined in the question was slavery, and it only became the more so in the years that followed. Socially and culturally the North and South were not much different. For all the myths they would create to the contrary, the only significant and defining difference between them was slavery, where it existed and where it did not, for by it had virtually ceased to exist north of Maryland. Slavery demarked not just their labor and economic situations, but power itself in the new republic The Abolitionists and the South, — University Press of Kentucky.

Athens: University of Georgia Press. Retrieved August 24, Hinks; John R. McKivigan Encyclopedia of Antislavery and Abolition. McPherson wrote in referring to the Progressive historians, the Vanderbilt agrarians, and revisionists writing in the s, "While one or more of these interpretations remain popular among the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other Southern heritage groups, few historians now subscribe to them.

Chief Justice Roger B. Ames b. Allen b. Weapons In The Civil War Essay contains Weapons In The Civil War Essay on lectures given by hospital dr. henry jekyll on various Weapons In The Civil War Essay and wounds, and their treatment.

Current Viewers: