The Emergence of Modern America:
The Evaluation of the Civil War for the American Politics in the era up to 1900:
The emergence of the modern America is clearly based on the outcome of the Civil War. The death of President John Wilkes from a single gunshot put America in a complete condition of political and ethical chaos. Abraham Lincoln’s death also could not have come at a worse time. He was a great leader, progressive politician and is said to be the man who held an increasingly shifting American Nation together. It should be clearly noted that he was the only American leader to lead the nation ahead, leaving behind the very brutalities of the social conflict and slavery. Lincoln’s death at the Ford’s theater was seen as the death of a national hero which could actually not have shown at a worse time for America when most of its citizens needed him the most. It is through the assassination and death of Lincoln that paved and marked the way of political unrest within America’s upper sections that saw the south’s condemnation to years of isolation and to a long painful struggle of the races which still tends to remain even today. Hence all the work of one great hero was nearly undone with one bullet, with his very soul being ripped out of the American political scenes.
The country more than before needed a leader who would capitalize eventually on this great opportunity notably after the assassination of Lincoln. There was an urgent need for a man to carry the mantle for the new free America, one who would unite the people and one who would be perceived to be a great leader. This was the time that America needed a man who would make it stronger. Unfortunately the American people were largely disappointed as they never got what they expected, that is a replica of Abraham Lincoln. All they got was Andrew Johnson. Johnson was a democrat from the very borders of Tennessee, he was narrow-minded and self-centered. This was a president who seemed to never understand the intricacy of the civil war that had taken place. He was a white southerner who with great passion despised the blacks (Burns and Burns 1990).
Civil War
The United States social conflict is alleged to be one of the most dangerous and bloodiest wars in the history of United States and is thought to have claimed an incredible number of persons in the years ranging between 1861 and 1865. The social conflict was also known as the war amongst different states considering the fight was largely based on major differences amongst the Confederacy and the Union. Research suggests that both the Union and the Confederacy enjoyed remarkable recompense from within their reach and could notably handle impediments during the main activities of the war. Before the beginning of the war one of the major cherished advantages of the Union was the great number they had in population compared to their counterparts in the south. This population raged between 22 million, 3.5 million of whom were slaves. Hence the more population either side had the better chance they had to win the war.
As for the industrial economy, the North had a lot more factories than the South. The North was proud of holding 92.6% in comparison to the south who had about 7.4%. The reason behind this disparity lied on the natural resources in their lands. The North was rich mainly in iron and coal. On the other hand, the South was renowned for its silver and gold which unfortunately could not produce equipments for war. It is through this fact, that manufacturing of the main equipments that were supposed to be used during the social conflict lessened in number. Factories based in the North manufactured much more than those in the South. The biggest proportion of America’s rail equipment raged between 96% together with 98% of its firearms was largely manufactured by the North. This reason alone enabled the Union to have more advantages over the Confederacy (Davis, 1998).
The North compared to the South had almost as much twice mileage due to the fact that its rails were very efficient and integrated. It is through this efficient rail that the North found it easy to move supplies and troop materials. The rail system owned by the South was a jumble that led to military incompetence during the civil war. Although the Union had fewer navies in number, they were much well structured. The Union had already launched in advance over two hundred and fifty war ships before even the war started. There was a possibility of a navy obstruction due to the fact the South had no navy. This was seen as a significant issue as the South could no longer trade and eventually could lead to them losing their main ports if there was an occurrence of the naval obstruction. Furthermore the Union is said to have established a stable government with an excellent leader, Abraham Lincoln, which the South was deprived of (Zebrowski, 1999).
It is absolutely clear that even if the North seemed to take over and hold most of the advantageous situations, the South also had some that were as well significant. One of the most significant one was the psychological factor that it upheld. It was seen as a very important tool as it enabled the people in the Confederacy to stay peaceful and had eradicated all the hatred characteristics that were otherwise observed in the North. This enabled the people in the South to fight for survival unlike their counterparts in the North. History also indicates that the South had a very prominent and strong military leader who was known as Robert E. Lee. They boasted of the main advantage because the Confederacy main idea was not to win the war, but to avoid greatly any defeat from the North. Hence the Union in this case had to engage significantly and conquer the South in order to emerge victorious in the said civil war. Thus necessitated the Union to travel further interior and transport their equipments, materials and supplies along with their potential armies with an aim of conquering the South. This indeed made the war more complicated and eventually difficult to pursue (Zebrowski, 1999).
One of the key political figures in the Union was Abraham Lincoln; he was a respected and outstanding political figure. During his time he was confronted with a lot of difficulties in trying to find a significant general who would lead the army during the Civil War. It is through Lincoln’s leadership that the Union was preserved and slavery was dealt with strategically. Through his keen persistence in finding a general, Lincoln settled on general Ulysses S. Grant. Grant was a significant key military leader who had fought in the Mexican-American war and led the Social Conflict to a successful end. David G. Farragut was another key military leader from the North and was accredited for leading his army down to the Mississippi with the very aim of capturing the New Orleans. On the other hand Robert E. Lee was the South’s key efficient role and had helped them emerge in quite a number of times especially the battle remembered as the Bull Rum War.
Quite a number of major events were experienced during and after the Civil War. Emancipation Proclamation, The Battle of Antietam, Vicksburg and Gettysburg were all simultaneously felt during this social conflict time. It is absolutely clear that during this time the Battle of the Antietam was the most dangerous and bloodiest battle ever to be fought in the entire history of America that asserted a terrific number of causalities. However this battle saw the retrieval of the South from the battle fields, with over one fourth of the Confederate Army losing their lives as the war was tied. The other major event that followed was the Emancipation Proclamation perceived to be an executive order that was given by Lincoln. The very significance of this order was to see to it the slaves were set free at last, conversely the order did not free the slaves as it was expected but did free a small number of them. The order henceforth was seen to have played a significant role in ensuring that African Americans could enroll and join the Union Army. The major turning point of the war that saw the South cripple was considered to be Gettysburg. It is in this battle that Robert Lee was conquered. This saw the North emerge victorious over the south since the Union had shown a position of superiority. It should be clear that the Siege of Vicksburg ought to have been the final action that was taken by the military. General Grant attacked the South which later would prevent the North from taking control of the Mississippi river that had been spotted to be a crucial site for the transportation of the supplies, materials and other necessary resources. The American Civil War was the most significant and important war throughout the American history (Zebrowski, 1999).
The war is noted to have brought about an absolute huge impact on the American soil; this included economical, political and social impacts. Civil War is argued if not the only one of the very few that saw the death of quite a huge number of persons in the war fields. The end of this war was a significant start for the Americans as slavery had been eradicated. The South and the North both had a significant number of advantages and would confront each other with great difficulty if the war continued. The very advantage of one side was taken to be the disadvantage of the other side and in the long run the Union won as its advantages surpassed those of its main opponent.
America underwent a vigorous economic change from the change of reconstruction until the end of the 19th century. This was hence facilitated by the growing of the manufacturing economy as a whole, massive development of large scale farming, the upcoming of manufacturing conflicts and national labor unions. Fortunately there was a technological outburst, development and innovation that was experienced at the end of the 19th century and saw to it the improvement of the United States economy significantly (David, 2001).
Nevertheless the resulting rise of the American company and the arrival of significantly large business, resulted in the attentiveness of the of the state’s industrious capability in less and less hands. Automation saw the rise of agriculture into an empire of huge trade making America the largest producer of food in the world. Nevertheless, the land hunger for most of the whites living in the United States continued to grow unabated. This hunger for the land resulted into conflicts that were mainly fought against the indigenous United States citizens living on the lofty plains and the documented subsequent large removal of the original individuals from their main antique homelands.
It is absolutely noted that crucial to this intensification and progress, was an exceptional gush in urbanization and migration after the social conflict. The American country was in fastened transition and rapid change. The different immigrants that were setting foot on the American soil most of them arriving from eastern and southern Europe, Mexico, Central America and Asia helped in the development and creation of a modern American mosaic. This development saw the fading away of the power of the Anglo-Saxon Protestants that were once very dominant in the United States (Davis, 1998).
Progress as it was thought of by most of the Americans was regarded as apprehension by others who did not want to embrace change. For example the automation of the agricultural sector disrupted most of the skills and norms that most families had embraced before, to an extent where the nation’s farmers organized protest movements that had never happened before. The rise and emergence of labor unions and unplanned clashes between labor and capital were fueled by the communal problems that went hand in hand with the country’s manufacturing growth and development. This kind of dissatisfaction captured the awareness of most politicians and reformers who began to question the ancient party politics through created third party movements (David, 2001).
In the late 19th century the problems that were facing the nation gave birth to the Progressive movement. The members behind the movement were believed to be people of a diverse group who had various and at times contradicting agenda. Nevertheless most of the members in the movement focused largely on the problems that arose from the speedy industrialization, escalating migration, sleaze in the worlds of politics and business and urbanization.
Analysts have argued that two of the main problems that were brazen out by the members of the movement are still very significant and essential today. The very first of the two problems was the quandary of how to preserve the material benefit that was generated from the manufacturing revolution and while bringing up the strong forces generating those profits under an independent control and the organization of the monetary opportunity. The other major issue was based on how to maintain national identity and democracy in the perspective of mounting immigration and a political ecosystem in which there was absorption of supremacy and extensive corruption (David, 2001).
The agenda of the Progressive movement was not particular in progressiveness as people thought. The groups’ fight for reform was tainted by animosity to fundamental labor activities and unresponsiveness to the predicament of black Americans and other simple minorities. It is during this period that the foreign policy remained an important issue. America boldly stepped onto the global stage in the American-Spanish war at the end of 19th century. Eventually through its collaboration with its Allies in World War 1, America emerged as a world superpower.
Republican politics and gigantic business took over control during the new prosperity of the 1920’s. However the cultural and social tensions persisted. There was a continued struggle for equality from women. Essential labor actions and fundamental principles aggravated extensive fear and even panic. Black Nationalism emerged due to the chronic ethnic, the Harlem rebirth, and the initial immense northward relocation of Black Americans and on the supplementary the revival of the Ku Klux Klan. It was hence absolutely clear the movement that was set up to Americanize a whole cohort of the said immigrants who acquired extra strength and power. Hence seeing the significant shutting down of the country’s gates through a thorough cutback of the open-door immigration policies. This hence led to a hyped tension increase amongst the nation’s various and strategic religious groups (David, 2001).
Arguably, the American politics appeared to be dynamic and vital. Voter registration and participation was on the rise. Between the years 1876 and 1896, on average about 78% of America’s eligible voters participated in voting. All these contests were duly decided by very thin margins and were all won and celebrated by less than 1% in the elections of 1880, 1884 and 1888. It was during this time that the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives while the Republican Party controlled and dominated the presidency (David, 2001).
This phase of political dominance and superiority yet again saw a numerical portrait of a lively and eagerly challenging political culture. Thus the political parties were largely differentiated from one another mainly on matters that concerned policy strategizing and an eligible electorate which choose sides depending on the culture, policy, religion nor ethnicity. Hence American life in other words during these years was participatory and dynamic, analyst also suggest that there was less substance to this kind of life after all. The anticipated difference in the 19th Century is that moving from one place to another was an economic decision young people or married couples undertook in return for a better life for their families and themselves.
The first rail link to the pacific was completed in early 1869. This was seen as the foundation of America’s Manifest destiny that was now physically being assured. This was a great start that had been made moreover in obtaining territories that had been far removed from the central segment of the continent which today forms the country. This era of the civil war was then deemed to be the union of a sequence of the idealistic, demographic, and chronological factors that facilitated the birth of the lackluster political customs of the Gilded Age. Flouting knots with the reputable parties was frequently a sore procedure in an age when party association was a vital part of individual uniqueness. But reducing this disconnection was the scrupulous nature of the farmers’ examination of their situations. This duly took a turn through the development of a third party that paid keen attention on the needs of the American Farmers. This was seen as the entrance into the political scenes by a group of outsiders determined to heavily shake up the system and point the United States political development into a new direction (Burns and Burns 1990).
Conclusion:
Research shows that most of the analysts believed that the reformist domineering beliefs of the 1840s and 1850s had been terminated duly in the massacre of the Social Conflict. It is should be noted clearly that according to this well thought scrutiny, the renown antislavery advocates , who had actually declined to admit the assuaging, negotiation approach structured by the Constitution’s framers, had with no doubt facilitated a noxious, disparaging war on the citizens of the United States. It is through their sanctimonious, edgy zeal that caused still more harm during the era of restoration that was branded ‘fundamental’. Like most of the antislavery advocates, a good number of these fundamental reformers had declined to permit history to seize its added enduring path; hence they persisted on demanding change from an unready country.
Works cited:
Africans in America. (1998). Retrieved from
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2967.html
BOYER, P & CLARK,JR, C.E. & KETT, J.E. & SALISBURY, N. & SITKOFF, H. & WOLOCH, N. (2004) The Enduring Vision, A History of the American People Vol. I to 1877, 5th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
BURNS, K. & BURNS, R. (1990). Episode I: The cause (1861). In K. Burns, The Civil War. Arlington, VA: Public Broadcasting Service.
DAVIS, B. (1988). The Civil War: Strange and fascinating facts. [Kindle edition]. New York City, NY: Random House.
SCHULTZ, M. (2012). HIST2, Volume 1 (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
ZEBROWSKI, C. (1999) Why the South lost the Civil War. American History Magazine [Online edition]. Retrieved from http://www.historynet.com/why-the-south-lost-the-civil- war-cover-page-february-99-american-history-feature.htm
DAVID W. (2001) Race & Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
COHEN, L. (1990). Making a New Deal: Industrial Workers in Chicago, 1919-1939, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
GILMORE, G. (2002). Who Were the Progressives;Readings. Historians at Work, Boston: Bedford St. Martin’s.
JOHNSON, P. Sam Patch: (2003) The Famous Jumper. New York: Hill & Wang.
GLENN, P. (1973) The Rise of Big Business, 1860-1900.
GEORGE, S. (1947) Prosperity Decade: From War to Depression.
DEWEY, G. (1983) Southern Progressivism.
ZIEGLER, D. (1996). War, Peace, and International Politics. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman & Co; 7th edition.
GOOD, G. GLAUBE, HOFFNUNG, and LIEBE. (1996) Faith, Hope, and Love. Morgantown: Masthof Press, 143-144.
MCCLURE, R. (1862) A Union Soldier’s Opinion of the War, as cited in JAMES J. Enduring Voices, Vol. I, 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
THOMAS. W, (1870) Assesses the Black Soldier, as cited in JAMES J. Enduring Voices, Vol. I, 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
ELIZABETH, S. (1999) Roots of Reform: Farmers, Workers, and the American State, 1877-
GOOD, G. GLAUBE, HOFFNUNG, and LIEBE. (1996) Faith, Hope, and Love. Morgantown: Masthof Press, 143-144.
MCCLURE, R. (1862) A Union Soldier’s Opinion of the War, as cited in JAMES J. Enduring Voices, Vol. I, 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
THOMAS. W, (1870) Assesses the Black Soldier, as cited in JAMES J. Enduring Voices, Vol. I, 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]