The American Civil War and Industrialization - Essay Example

THE A MERICAN CIVIL WAR Why the confederates were defeated The confederate s, which were made up of the Southern s were at a disadvantage in terms of resources as compared to the Northern states. The Northern states had a higher population meaning more soldiers as well as a sounder railway system and were ahead in the industrial revolution (Schwab, 1901). Abraham Lincoln, as leader of the Republicans managed to garner the support of the war democrats as well as the Border States who were open to the influence of either the confederates or the unionists. Lincoln also had the support of France and England. He also had the emancipated slaves in his docket (Schwab, 1901). Another factor that worked in Lincoln’s favor was that he had able generals to make strategies for his war. War generals like Ulysses Grant pushed the advantage of numbers and artillery that they had over the Confederates to work in favor of the Unionists. Though it has been argued that the Confederates cold have won the war by fighting defensively and holding out as long as possible against the Unionists to let Lincoln know that the war was not worth the effort, it is countered by the fact that the unionists simply had resources that far outstripped those at available to the Confederates. Had the Confederates tried this approach, the Unionists would simply have redoubled the pressure until the South caved in. The unionists used their vast resources together with strategic planning to win the civil war (Schwab, 1901). Reconstruction attempts by Johnson and the radical republicans; why it did not work The only aspect of the reconstruction efforts that were started of by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863 was that it led to the reunion of the confederate states that had seceded with the rest of the country. The rest of the reconstruction effort was a sham that led to the manipulation of African Americans and the abuse of their civil and human rights (Elkins, 1976). Though the confederate states had redrawn their constitutions and accepted the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, the social structure of the South remained much the same. Once the federal troops had been withdrawn from the South in 1877, the white farmers and landowners took over. There was open discrimination practiced; there was passed the black codes and other legislations that not only hindered the blacks from voting, such as making African American pay to vote (Schwab, 1901). Another way in which the African Americans remained slaves in practice but freemen on paper was by the practice of share cropping by rich white farmers. The African Americans practically toiled on the white men’s land for nothing, barely making enough to live on. With no voices to speak for them in political cycles and no means of economical empowerment, it remained a chain of poverty (Elkins, 1976). The Johnson administration was beset with corruption scandals that involved the misappropriation of federal funds. There were also accusations of nepotism and poor management leveled against the president himself. The people lost confidence in the government’s ability to deliver. This in part contributed to the national panic of 1873 and the subsequent economic collapse (McPherson, 2001). In the end, the Reconstruction did not attain its set objectives. The African Americans were no freer than they had been at the time of their emancipation, and conditions no more improved. In this sense, the Reconstruction was a failure (McPherson, 2001). The impacts of the struggles between the Executives, Legislative and Judiciary over the control of reconstruction Too many cooks spoil the broth; too many politicians can spoil a worthy cause. What better example to give than the Reconstruction efforts that were started by Abraham Lincoln. The idea of Reconstruction in itself was sound and progressive, it is its execution that was botched and thus brought about its complete failure. In the federal government there were to be the three branches, the Executive, the legislative and the judiciary. The executive powers were to be vested in the president of the country, members of his cabinet and some officials. The judiciary had control of the Supreme Court and other legal systems while the legislature which was to be made up of the members of the senate was to work at the creation and amendment of the laws that were to be found in the constitution (Schwas, 1901). At the time of the Reconstruction, there were tensions between the different arms of government because each wanted to be seen as the most powerful and as having the authority. The ruling party of republicans had divisions amongst themselves, there were the Radical Republicans led by Johnson, who wanted full reforms such as the immediate emancipation of slaves while the moderate republicans camp led by President Abraham Lincoln wanted the reforms to come gradually (Schwas, 1901). There was also the lack of political cohesiveness between the South and the North, meaning that amendments made by the legislative were at times overlooked by the conservative courts in the South. These were mostly laws regarding the rights of African Americans. While the legislature had passed that they were to be considered full and equal American citizens, the courts in the South would often times ignore atrocities that were committed against African Americans as an act of defiance of the legislative arm of government (Elkins, 2001). The autonomy awarded to the president played a role in the aborted attempt at reconstruction. President Johnson abused his office by appointing relatives of his wife to office, not on the basis of merit but on family connections. Having ineffectual people in office had dire effects on the running of government. The decisions made were not based on sound advice but on the basis of how beneficial it was to the individual. Johnson also appointed his old wartime cronies to office, another wrong move (McPherson, 2001). The impact that the civil war had on the American economy Wars are costly not only in terms of the money poured into weaponry, but also in terms of human life and the long term repercussions. The civil war was no exception to this rule; it took a heavy toll in direct costs, those that were applied to fund the war, and in indirect costs. The government spent over $33 million to fund the war while property worth $14 million was destroyed. The indirect costs that arose from loss of human capital, destabilization of cotton prices and the emancipation of slaves amounted to more than $37 million (McPherson, 2001). As the government tried to recover from the war, it was forced to borrow heavily to see to domestic needs. There was also the introduction of taxes such as the income tax to help the government recover the blow off war. Taxes which had been there before such as the excise tax were raised and there were higher tariffs (Hummel, 1996). After the war, there was a period of economic destabilization. This was because the government was experiencing a deficit that resulted from the cost of the war. The dollar was given to tremendous inflation and the prices of commodities on the market would rise sharply over short periods It all came to a head in the financial crisis of 1877 which was followed by an economic depression that upset the country’s economic growth (Hummel, 1996). The civil war reshaped and redefined America’s economy. It is unanimously agreed that the cause of the war was the conflicts that arose the North and the West regarding slave trade and slavery. The South relied heavily on slave labor for the large amounts of work that had to be done on cotton firms, jobs that were highly labor intensive. By 1860, the value put on slaves in the South was at about $3 billion. At the same time, cotton was a very commodity on the international market; the fact that America was one of the largest exporters of market was because of its slave labor (McPherson, 2001). With the abolition of slavery, there had to be a shift from reliance on slave labor and this redefined the economy. The country had to inject more effort into stimulating its industrial sector so as to sustain the economy. Impact of the American civil war on her industrialization On of the universal impacts of wars is that they disrupt the running of social and economic systems; they tend to throw things out of joint. This is because wars divert resources that are allocated to other projects in a society as well as causing destruction that regresses economic development. The American Civil War happened at a time when the industrial revolution was sweeping across nation. Since the North was ahead in terms of industrialization, it won the war. It was to be expected that the war would slow down America’s industrialization but quite the contrary happened (Hummel, 1996). In the war years, American industries, more so those in the north were put hard to work churning artillery. There were also railways built to facilitate the transportation of soldiers to battle fields (McPherson, 2001). When the war came to an end, the infrastructure was thus in place for industrialization to take over. America had all the contrivances to stimulate industrial growth; there was the availability of labor for the industries in the form of the emancipated African Americans, the North had the infrastructure to facilitate transportation of finished manufactured goods, the raw materials needed in industries such as cotton and iron ores, and ready markets both at home and abroad (McPherson, 2001). The impact of the generalship of General Ulysses Grant on the outcome of the war General Grant was a key factor in turning the war around to give victory to the Unionists. Before the famous battle of Vicksburg, he had won other minor battles for the Unionists. Between 1861 and 1863 he actively participated in the recruitment and organization of volunteer militia in Illinois before proceeding to Missouri as part of the team that was to defend the Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad. He fought victoriously at Belmont, Henry, Donelson and Shiloh (McPherson, 2001). However his most memorable victory was at the battle of Vicksburg, one that has been celebrated as being amongst the history of American military conquests and which marked the beginning of the end of the war. The strategy that Grant used was crossing the Mississippi River in navy ships and in defiance of standard war strategy, moving away from his supplies and into the interior. He never once granted the Confederates a chance to regroup and after cutting the railway line that sent supplies to Vicksburg, set a siege on the garrison. At the same time, the remaining part of his troop had captured the town of Jackson in Mississippi. Having no supplies, the confederates had no option but to surrender after a six week siege that ended on the on the fourth of July 1963. Grant went on to win the battle at Chattanooga, Appotamox and Petersburg. All his victories were instrumental to the final victory of the Unionists in the Civil War (McPherson, 2001). Bibliography Hummel, J.R, (1996). Emancipating slaves, enslaving free men: a history of the American Civil War Open Court Publishing McPherson, J. M., (2001). Ordeal by Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction. New York: McGraw-Hill. Elkins, S. M., (1976). Slavery: A Problem in American Institutional and Intellectual Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Schwab C. J, (1901). The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865: a financial and industrial history of the South during the Civil War New York: C. Scribners Sons, 1901 Read More