Ordeal by Fire The Civil War and Reconstruction by James McPherson and James Hogue - Essay Example

 Question # 1 The Mexican-American War apparently led to the American Civil War. The availability of an expansive territory brought ripples about whether the new area would be slave or free. The developing "free soil" movement, which later turned into a political party – the Free Soil Party, vehemently refused the expansion of slavery to any new territories. Southerners were alarmed, especially by the fact that the North had a bigger population and so were better represented in the legislature. They were also worried about losing political influence, which could weaken slavery and their culture in general (Gallagher, 2003). The Free Soil Party argued that unlike in slavery, a free society provided greater moral and economic gains. In light of the clearly cut agenda, the party worked to press for a repeal of existing slavery laws in Ohio, and New York among other states (Byrne, 2006). The Wilmot Proviso is one of the key historic developments that led to the American Civil War. The proviso would have outlawed slavery in all the new areas annexed from Mexico or from any other place later on. However, conservatism elements were eventually pitted against the advocates for a freer society during the American Civil War. The Compromise of 1850 comprised a set of legislations endorsed by Congress in an effort to resolve slavery, which threatened to divide the country (Byrne, 2006). Despite the incorporation of controversial clauses in it, it was successfully passed by Congress and immediately united the country on slavery (Mitchell, 2001). The law kept the Union stronger by stemming cases of imminent split, thus delaying the eruption of the Civil War by a decade. Question # 2 The Kansas–Nebraska Act, enacted in 1854 established Kansas and Nebraska states. This expanded the American territory for civilian occupation, and effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise, which had been adopted three decades earlier. The new law granted people the authority to decide slavery issues. As a result, pro-slavery settlers came from Missouri to Kansas to exercise this right. Their political clout in territorial polls was usually boosted by Missourians who made their way into Kansas mainly to take part in the polls. They created strong movements such as the Blue Lodges. Eventually, abolitionist settlers arrived in Kansas from the East with sole aim of freeing the state of slavery. A violent confrontation was eminent between the two communities. Successive territorial leaders, usually supportive of slavery tried in vain to quell the tension. Kansas’ biggest city Lecompton was soon turned into the platform for much confrontation. The city became a hostile ground for advocates of Free State. Killings started, with John Brown gaining notoriety for eliminating five pro-slavery agents in Osawatomie (Mitchell, 2001). According to Mitchell (2001), hostilities pitting the warring factions worsened to a state of a civil war in the process, but which had not yet been full-blown. The newly formed Republican Party attempted to base their campaigns on the blood-letting situation in Kansas. Common election malpractices practiced by both advocates for and against slavery failed to prevent the influx of pro-Free State settlers, whose population surpassed their rivals in the state. In general, the Kansas–Nebraska Act split the country and set it on the path to Civil War. The law repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the Compromise of 1850, the two main Acts which ensured peace and stability by providing for consensus. Question #3 Senator Stephen A. Douglas’ debates were mainly based on the need for democracy in settling the issue of slavery (Gallagher, 2003). Douglas hoped that popular will would lead to the creation of a people-oriented approach to slavery, so he would not carry the blame for taking sides on the national issue. The Douglas-led Kansas-Nebraska Act led to widespread discontent across the North as pro-Free State agents reading betrayal in it, especially because Kansas had been a free state for three decades (Mitchell, 2001). The law heightened tension across the country, especially in the affected states and prompted anti-slavery agents and movements to rise up for their rights during the Civil War. Dred Scott Decision delivered by the Supreme Court in March of 1857, upheld that slaves and their descendants could not claim the citizenship of the United States. As an alien, the judges ruled that Scott lacked the authority to file a petition in the Federal Court and had to continue being a slave. In the aftermath of the decision, the country was divided between North and South: unlike the Northerners who believed that Scott’s rights, like any other African American had been violated, the Southern pro-slave settlers lauded the court’s decision (Gallagher, 2003). Overall, the verdict hugely widened the political and social rift between Northerners and Southerners and pushed the country set the nation on the path of Civil War. The Freeport Doctrine was the response that Stephen Douglas gave to Lincoln's question about the existence of slavery in America. Douglas opined that slavery thrived in states where there were laws in support of such events. If a state did not pass the necessary laws to protect slavery, then they could not have slavery within their borders. The Freeport Doctrine pitted pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces against each other, splitting the country for Civil War. Question # 4 The military campaign in the Western theater of the war during the first half of 1862 was full of setbacks and disorganization, even as the Union military firepower propelled it to significant gains (Mitchell, 2001). The Union command in the region lacked a solid unified command. There were three departments; the Department of Kansas, Department of Ohio, and Department of Missouri led by Major General David Hunter, Brigadier General Don Carlos and Major General Henry W. Halleck respectively. In January 1862, this lack of unified command was manifested in the lack of a common strategy for military campaigns in the Western theater, a development that resulted in modest gains in Middle Creek, and Mill Springs. In February 1862, Halleck allowed Grant to go on the offensive against Fort Henry in Tennessee following several requests by the latter. What was expected was a free incursion by the Union forces into the Southern region. In March 1862, the elusive but important unity of the forces was achieved when President Lincoln appointed Halleck the chief commander of all troops in the Missouri River, Knoxville, and Tennessee sectors. Halleck ordered the incorporation of Buell’s troops into Grant's forces at Pittsburg Landing near the Tennessee (Mitchell, 2001). In early April, the joint Confederate army under Beauregard and Johnston made surprise attacks against Grant's troops with a devastating early morning raid at Pittsburg Landing in the Battle of Shiloh. Grant’s forces received reinforcements and launched a successful counter attack by the end of the first week of April, but paid the price of heavy casualties due to the General’s lack of tact. Halleck shifted the focus from Grant, advancing slowly and strategically against the entrenched Confederate enemy. The war of attrition adopted by Halleck prompted Beauregard to withdraw from Corinth in humiliation in late May 1862. In June 1862, Union troops defended Corinth as part of Halleck's mission to control the eastern part of Tennessee and safeguard the Union interests in the region. Question # 5 George B. McClellan was celebrated a Major General during the American Civil War. He served in the Union army during the first half of 1860s. McClellan was famously known as Young Napoleon by the media. His actions caused storms, especially with regard to his relationship with senior political leaders in the country. On his part, General Lee was a descendant of a first family in Virginia, and was a highly respected commander of the United States Army prior to the Civil War. In August 1862 McClellan’s troops were overwhelmed in the Seven Days' Battles, by General Robert Lee’s, prompting McClellan’s transfer back to Washington, D.C. Most of his soldiers were incorporated into troops led by John Pope. On September 2, 1862 the defeat of the Union forces in the Second Battle of Manassas, led President Abraham Lincoln to order the transfer of George B. McClellan from the frontline to Washington, D.C. Meanwhile, his main challenger, General Robert Lee, enjoyed the victory. On September 5, 1862 McClellan was reinstated as the commander of the Army of the Potomac following an attack on the North by the Confederates led by the tactical Robert Lee. Two weeks later, George B. McClellan invaded Confederate positions at Antietam in Maryland. However, the General failed to secure a straight victory against General Lee’s troops. Meanwhile, Confederate army under General Robert E. Lee made a tactical retreat to Virginia. In November 5, 1862, George McClellan was transferred to Trenton, New Jersey following a dismal performance in the Battle of Antietam. Overall, unlike George McClellan’s inconsistent career as General, Robert Lee’s was better, considering the fact that he won almost all of the wars that his army faced, including the Seven Day’s Battles, Manassas, and in Fredericksburg. References Byrne, F.J. (2006). Becoming Bourgeois: Merchant Culture in the South, 1820-1865. New York: University of Kentucky. Gallagher, G. (2003). The American Civil War: This Mighty Scourge of War. New York: Osprey Publishing. Mitchell, R. (2001). The American Civil War, 1861-1865. Washington, DC: Longman. Read More