Coming of the American Civil War - Essay Example

Running Head: The Coming.... Topic: Coming of the American Civil War. Order#: 397532 Topic: Coming of the American Civil War. 1.Discuss the relationship between the Mexican-American War and the Coming of the American Civil War by identifying and explaining the historical significance of the Wilmot Proviso, the Free Soil Party, and the Compromise of 1850. The U.S.-Mexican War—(1846-1848) resulted in enormous suffering to Mexicans, Native Americans and the citizens of the United States. The causes of conflict between America and Mexico were the result of territorial aggrandizement of the United States to expand across the North American Continent to the Pacific Ocean. Americans in large numbers migrated westward in lands that did not belong to America. The idea of “Manifest Destiny” made American leadership ardent worshipers of expansion. Texas decided to join with the United States, and on July 4, 1845, the annexation gained approval from the U.S. Congress. This was the reason for beginning of the war between Mexico and United States. Whereas the Mexican-American War resulted in great territorial gains for America, its implications on the history of America turned out to be interesting and it created another history. It hastened the process of the American Civil War. From the point of view of the expansion of the geographical boundaries of USA, the present-day states of California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico, were part of the former Nation of Mexico. The far reaching implication of this war that resulted in the addition of the states is, the swing in the delicate balance between the slave states and free states. None was willing to lose the political power to the other and hence the threats of accession began to gain ground. This war was the training ground for the military men and officers and some of the individuals later led the American Civil War. The prominent generals amongst them were Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee. “The 1846 Wilmot Proviso was a bold attempt by opponents of slavery to prevent its introduction in the territories purchased from Mexico following the Mexican War.” (Wilmot....) Wilmot Proviso led to major political upheavals in USA and to the creation of the Republican Party in 1854 based on anti-slavery platform. The prohibition of slavery from the newly acquired territories from Mexico was the sum and substance of Wilmot Proviso. For the opponents of slavery it provided a great platform. The evolution of the Free Soil Party is an important development of the 1840s resulting from the intense ideological difference between pro and anti-slavery movements in the United States. Though national politics was controlled by two major parties, Democratic and Whig, there were supporters and opponents of slavery within both the parties. In the newly acquired territories in US, the issue became more heated. In the Democratic Party in New York, two groups emerged. The "Barnburners," who opposed slavery, and the "Hunkers," who were for slavery or were neutral on the question. On January 29, 1850, the 70-year-old Henry Clay, U.S. senator from Kentucky, tendered a compromise. For eight months members of Congress, led by Clay, Daniel Webster, Senator from Massachusetts, and John C. Calhoun, senator from South Carolina, debated it. With the help of Stephen Douglas, a young Democrat from Illinois, a series of bills that would make up the compromise were introduced through Congress. According to the compromise, “1.California was entered as a free state. 2.New Mexico and Utah were each allowed to use popular sovereignty to decide the issue of slavery. In other words, the people would pick whether the states would be free or slave. 3.The Republic of Texas gave up lands that it claimed in present day New Mexico and received $10 million to pay its debt to Mexico. 4.The slave trade was abolished in the District of Columbia. 5.The Fugitive Slave Act made any federal official who did not arrest a runaway slave liable to pay a fine. This was the most controversial part of the Compromise of 1850 and caused many abolitionists to increase their efforts against slavery.” (The Compromise....) The Fugitive Slaved Act added insult to the injury of the blacks. It required citizens to assist in the recovery of fugitive slaves. Federal officials were responsible for implementing the law. This resulted in confusion and great injustice to the blacks. With no legal right to defend themselves, they were at the mercy of slave-catchers. 2. Discuss the relationship between the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the coming of the American Civil War. If one turns the pages of history, one comes across may efforts by the political leaders of the day, to solve burning issues, by passing laws and creating legislation. Such efforts have mostly failed, or have aggravated the prevailing situation. Law gives power to the law-enforcing stick; but it can not control the hearts of the aggrieved people. The Kansas Nebraska Act was one such piece of legislation. It contributed to the North and Souths hatred for each other and the disagreement between the two hardened. “The Kansas Nebraska Act angered the South as it introduced popular sovereignty and repealed the Missouri Compromise, which the South liked.”(How did....)Many other issues/events contributed for the escalation of the tension and beginning of the Civil War, like Dred Scott decision, Abraham Lincolns election, rights of the states, abolitionists movement, fugitive slave act, Charles Sumners attack, Lecompton Constitution rejection, Uncle Toms Cabin etc. The Kansas-Nebraska sabotaged the Souths chances of annexing more slave states for their ideology. This was an opportunity for the North and South to show their strength through the ballot. Since popular sovereignty was proposed, both North and South sent people for the express purpose of voting, whether they favored slavery or not. The Northerners won the day, Kansas became a free state, Nebraska was also a free state, as North had sent many people to vote against slavery. The outcome of the referendum resulted in bitter fight between the Northerners and Southerners. The existing animosity between the peoples of two ares further intensified and thus the Kansas Nebraska Act greatly contributed to the beginning of the Civil War. The Act led to many, recurring fights and the senators of the state also fought each other. The situation in America between 1800-1861 was peculiar. Both North and the South could not be appeased simultaneously, and the government was not strong enough to support both. The differences of opinions and beliefs was unbridgeable. 3. Discuss the relationship between the Dred Scott decision, the Lincoln Douglas Debates, the Freeport Doctrine, and the coming of the American Civil War. The United States Civil War is often mentioned as a war about slavery. Absolutely correct. If slavery of the worst type was not practiced by the South, and inhuman atrocities were not committed on the blacks, America would not have faced the prospect of Civil War. Slavery was not a major component, it was the sole issue. The strong political disagreement between the South and the North was on the issue of slavery. For minor differences, people will not risk Civil War. They can be sorted by negotiations, sitting across the table. The politicians, historians and the think-tanks who try to sweep the grave issue of slavery under the carpet, are doing injustice to correct interpretation of human history. The treatment meted out to the blacks by the whites during that period of American History, was absolutely wrong—how about admitting it instead of trying to make an effort to whitewash the gravest of sins committed against black men, womenfolk and their children? Imagine the mind-set of the Southerners—they not only wanted slavery should be retained in the South, but wished for its extension for whole of America. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 was the primary instigating cause of the deepening crisis in the halls of the federal government and in the mindset of the public, both North and South, regarding the slavery issue (McPherson 2000). The ruling of the Supreme Court was complex and had far reaching implications. In the case the Court decided that slave ownership fell under the federal protection and no state can deny to anyone their personal property without due process. Don Edward Fehrenbacher writes, “Rightly or not, permanently or not, the Supreme Court had written two new rules into the fundamental law of the nation. First no Negro could be a United States citizen or even a state citizen “within the meaning of the constitution”.; and second, that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories, and that accordingly all legislation embodying such prohibition, including the Missouri Compromise, was unconstitutional.(4) This meant according to some, that the territories that did not yet have statehood would have to be pro-slavery, while others simply abhorred the decision on face value and saw it as an attempt to make slavery nationally protected. This was the issue of contention between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas. Lincoln opposed tooth and nail appeasement in any form offered by Douglas, who stood behind the protected rights of the state either to allow or disallow slavery. Lincoln opposed slavery passionately. He declared, “"The difference between the Republican and the Democratic parties . . . [in] this contest is, that the former consider slavery a moral, social and political wrong, while the latter do not consider it either a moral, social or political wrong. . . . The Republican party . . . hold that this government was instituted to secure the blessings of freedom, and that slavery is an unqualified evil to the negro, to the white man, to the soil, and to the State.”(The Lincoln....)The attempt to maintain the status quo is also known as Freeport doctrine., that made Douglas unpopular on all counts. The fallout of the Dred Scott decision followed by the Lincoln-Douglas debates, was on the expected lines. The ideological moorings was only the camouflage for political differences. The basic issue was slavery. There was no meeting ground for those above and below the Mason-Dixon line. The demand for secession of the Southern states was open and Civil War was round the corner. The tangible outcome of the Lincoln-Douglas debate was, it intensified rift in the democratic party; and Abraham Lincoln emerged as the new leader of the Republican party. He achieved a national prominence that soon took him to the candidature for the presidency. What he did as the President, for the abolition of slavery, is fit to be recorded in golden letters in the American History. 4. Write a comprehensive and detailed essay analyzing the military campaign in the Western theater of the war from January through June of 1862. The causes of the Civil War was mainly slavery and other related complications. The culmination of the war was not the end of the problem. Many ancillary issues began to crop up. Notwithstanding the final Union victory, the Confederacy managed to retain the hold on several Union territories for some substantial periods and effectively maintained hold on their home territories. The uncertain nature of the war continued, losses and gains happened haphazardly. With war erupting in several major theaters, both the forces employed different strategies to win the war. In the Western front, in the first half of 1862, the Union made rapid thrust in Confederate territory because the enemy there was under-funded and lacked adequate man-power. The blow by blow account of some of the important theaters of war in the west are listed below: “Jan 31, 1862 - President Lincoln issues General War Order No. 1 calling for all United States naval and land forces to begin a general advance by Feb 22, George Washingtons birthday. Feb 6, 1862 - Victory for Gen. Ulysses S. Grant in Tennessee, capturing Fort Henry, and ten days later Fort Donelson. In March - The Peninsular Campaign begins as McClellans Army of the Potomac advances from Washington down the Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay to the peninsular south of the Confederate Capital of Richmond, Virginia then begins an advance toward Richmond. April 6/7, 1862 - Confederate surprise attack on Gen. Ulysses S. Grants unprepared troops at Shiloh on the Tennessee River results in a bitter struggle with 13,000 Union killed and wounded and 10,000 Confederates, more men than in all previous American wars combined. April 24, 1862 - 17 Union ships under the command of Flag Officer David Farragut move up the Mississippi River then take New Orleans, the Souths greatest seaport.”(The History....) The momentum of victory for the Union and losses for the Confederacy continued in the battle locations of this period on account of the strategic importance of Mississippi River in the war theater for both the parties. The Union was in an advantageous position as by the end of January it had taken mot of Kentucky in the battles of Middle Creek and Mill Springs.(Concord 2008) This allowed for a Union push into Tennessee, where they began attempts to open the Mississippi River to Union supply lines while removing stretches of the river from Confederate use (McPherson 2000; Concord 2008). The problems of the Confederacy multiplied as it faced a shortage of men and supplies and they were unable to use the Mississippi for transportation and the result of successive battles was damaging for them. Losses and more loses followed. The position was encouraging at the fronts of the Union, with reinforcements of men and material and they were able to overwhelm the Confederate army at several important positions. By June 1862 a decisive phase had arrived and the Union victory was in sight in the Western theater. The war that seemed would prolong for some more years, was mercifully coming to a close. With the fall of New Orleans and the northern stretches of the Mississippi River, the mobility of the Confederate forces was crippled. It was not possible for them to continue with the war in this region, anymore. The Union was augmenting its forces as well as other resources speedily and were able to score successive victories in the battles that ensued. The Western Theater played an important role in achieving the objectives of the Civil War. Battles that occurred during the first half of 1862 strengthened the position of the Union. The Union stronghold in the Western region and also along the Mississippi was a settled issue and the Confederate forces faced the rout in this region. 5.Write a comprehensive and detailed essay that analyzes and assesses the Generalship of Robert E. Lee and George B. McClellan during the period of the war from August 1862 through November of 1862. Important battles in the time line of Civil War -1862 “September 1862 -- Harpers Ferry. Union General McClellan defeated Confederate General Lee at South Mountain and Cramptons Gap in September, but did not move quickly enough to save Harpers Ferry, which fell to Confederate General Jackson on September 15, along with a great number of men and a large body of supplies. September 1862 -- Antietam. On September 17, Confederate forces under General Lee were caught by General McClellan near Sharpsburg, Maryland. This battle proved to be the bloodiest day of the war; 2,108 Union soldiers were killed and 9,549 wounded -- 2,700 Confederates were killed and 9,029 wounded. The battle had no clear winner, but because General Lee withdrew to Virginia, McClellan was considered the victor.”(Time Line....) In November 1861, George B. McClellan was appointed commander in chief of the Union Army. He designed a strategy to defeat the Confederate Army with a strength of 273,000 men. His action plan was do invade Virginia from the sea and to capture Richmond and other important cities of the South. But his leadership of the Army was always under cloud and the Union political leadership failed to grasp the worth of his strategies. He was even found guilty of “infernal, unmitigated cowardice". McClellan lost the confidence of Lincoln and was removed from the post of supreme commander of the Union Army. Robert E. Lees loyalty was to the State, not the Union. He declined the offer to lead the union army. His services were utilized at Virginia in the April of 1861.As a General of the Confederate Army, he failed to stop the invasion of Virginia, by the Union forces. He was next into the command of the Confederates strongest army. In the Seven Days Battle in June 1862, he drove the Union Army. Next was the second Battle of Bull Run, when the northern army was driven back to Washington D.C. On September 17, 1862 his encounter was with the army of McClellan against whom he won the costly battle. He won another costly battle on the Union at Fredericksburg in December. During the war it is difficult to say, whose decisions are right-whether those of the politicians of of the Generals. Both are right from their points of view. If the war is won, the sagacity of the political leadership is hailed. If the war is lost, the alleged miscalculations of the Generals are criticized. Somewhat similar incidents happened with McClellan and to some extent with Robert E. Lee. But the convictions of the two generals as for the issue of slavery are also worth noting. Robert E. Lee openly declared his loyalty to the south, which means he was against the abolition of slavery. McClellans position was not very clear. Though he was the Commander of the Union Army, he often mentioned that his fight was not against slavery, but with the army of the South. Thus his credentials as for the issue of slavery were not above board, because the Civil War was fought mainly on the issue slavery. It is difficult to assess whose Generalship was better. Robert E. Lee was a military general in the true sense of the term. The same is not true with McClellan. He often crossed swords with the political leadership and at times, disobeyed the commands and often complained about the lack of resources. When Abraham Lincoln “ wanted McClellan to go on the offensive against the Confederate Army....McClellan refused to move, complaining that he needed fresh horses. Radical Republicans now began to openly question McClellans loyalty. "Could the commander be loyal who had opposed all previous forward movements, and only made this advance after the enemy had been evacuated" wrote George W. Julian. Whereas William P. Fessenden came to the conclusion that McClellan was "utterly unfit for his position".(George...) On 7th November Lincoln removed McClellan from all commands and replaced him with Ambrose Burnside. ******************* References: Concord Learning Systems. (2008). “Civil war battles: Theaters of war.” Retrteived on February 24, 2010 Fehrenbacher, Don Edward. Slavery,law,and politics...Google Books,1981. George McClellan – Retrieved on February 24, 2010. How Did the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott Decision ... -Retrieved on February 24, 2010 McPherson, J. (2000). Ordeal by fire. New York: McGraw Hill. The Compromise of 1850 was a group of five bills that were intended to ... – Retrieved on February 24,2010. The History Place - U.S. Civil War 1861-1865 – Retrieved on February 24,2010 The Lincoln Douglas Debates.... – Retrieved on February 24,2010 Time Line of The Civil War - 1862 – Retrieved on February 24, 2010 Wilmot Proviso The 1846 Wilmot Proviso was a bold attempt by opponents of slavery.... – Retrieved on February 24,2010 Read More