An analysis of the consequences of the civil war

This was sometimes as a result of battles and sometimes, as in the case of General Sherman's march through Georgia, the result of deliberate policy meant to break the will of the rebels.

An analysis of the consequences of the civil war

This international conflict is perhaps the most written about and studied piece of United States history. So exactly what caused the civil war?

The war was a result of conflicting ideological, cultural and economic ideas between both regions. Slavery Arguably the general consensus is that slavery was the primary cause of the civil war. Even though there were differences of opinion on slavery within Union states at the time and not all the states that held slaves were part of The Confederacy, it was generally clear that The North and The South held opposing views to slavery, leading to political causes of the civil war.

From a philosophical perspective, slave ownership was not consistent with republicanism, a philosophy which held unalienable individual rights and liberty as its key central values.

As republicanism was the core philosophy of the United States, The Union longed to bring slavery to a gradual end by containing its spread throughout the nation. The South believed that this idea went against their Constitutional rights and that they should be allowed to own slaves if they so desired.

The majority of slavery was illegal in The North as it had been outlawed in the 19th century, yet its expansion was rife in southern states. The rise of chattel slavery meant that slaves could be bought and sold as property and any children the slaves had could become property too.

People were owned outright, unlike in The North. The culture of abolitionists in the Union vs. As Lincoln stated in his inaugural address, one-eighth of the American population were coloured slaves that were localised in The South which had particular and powerful interests.

All knew that these interests were somehow the cause of the war. The Economy New England states and the climate of The North were largely not suited for farming and so this industry was not embraced.

New civil war already upon us - Washington Times

Instead, manufacturing was the booming industry in this region and goods were made with machines instead of being grown. The booming manufacturing industry and exports overseas meant that cities were able to grow in northern states and city life becoming the norm of northern society.

In contrast, The South was a much better region for growing, with a lot of fertile soil, especially along the mineral-rich river basins. The agricultural industry meant that unlike cities, owners could have large farms with enormous open fields. Cotton, rice, tobacco and the indigo plant were key products grown in largely monoculture farms that required labour from numerous slaves.

To put it simply, The North liked producing products and The South liked growing, and so this produced the economic causes of the Civil War. Because of the larger population in the northern region, greater technological advances and economic success lead to greater quantities of manufactured goods, therefore slavery was gradually phased out.

This was in contrast to The South which depended on slavery for its predominant agricultural economy. Southern states had little desire to embrace manufacturing as businesses were based on low cost labour and so supported the right to sell cotton and purchase manufactured items from any country.

In contrast, Northern states had heavily invested in manufacturing and could not compete with advanced European industries to offer high prices from southern cotton imports and lower prices for manufactured good exports in return. This difference in economic interests meant that The North supported tariffs on goods whereas The South demanded a free trade.

Some historians debate whether differences in economy between northern and southern regions did help propel the war. A number of academic sources seem to suggest that both regions economies were complementary, i. The North and The South did trade a significant amount with each other which brought about mutual benefits.

Expert Answers

However, it is clear that the interweaving of the slave culture into the southern economy meant that Confederate states would have lost a lot if slavery was taken away from them, and this would have been a great source of tension. If the livelihoods of the majority of southern businessmen were at stake, it is no wonder they would have gone to extraordinary lengths to defend their interests.

Sectionalism and Nationalism Tensions were unsurprisingly high and loyalty began to brew within regions right before the time of the war, leading to widespread sectionalism.

At the time it felt like two separate parts of the world and because each region thought of themselves as different, it was more easy for animosity and conflict to brew between these regions. Key questions were posed: What rights do states have over the central government?

Should states have more power than central government? Should the central government have all the power in making decisions?

The South argued that each state had rights to secede and leave the Union whenever they wanted — they claimed that states should decide whether they want to pass laws or not, as the states were themselves important individual regions.

South Carolina ignored a tax on cotton passed by The North because The South was cotton rich and so South Carolina wondered why they had to listen to such laws that would not affect The North to the same degree, The North hardly growing cotton at all.

The South saw Abraham Lincoln as a threat and so argued that they should have the right to secede or leave the United States.

An analysis of the consequences of the civil war

It was argued that each state has its own separate identity and so each state should be able to walk away if they want to.

In effect, the issue of states rights caused many states to do just that and to form their own group called The Confederacy or The Confederate States of America.Economically, the war was a boon for the North and a disaster for the South.

The North began the war with several advantages: more men, more money, more industrial power, and . Measuring the Economic Impact of Civil War Jeremy M.

Weinstein and Kosuke Imai Abstract 4 Empirical Analysis 8 set used in the existing literature on the economic consequences of civil war contains a number of.

Related Questions

Causes of the Civil War Summary & Analysis. BACK; NEXT ; And The War Came. America's Civil War was a looong time coming. With long-simmering tensions over slavery, state rights versus federal control, and geographical expansion, violent attack seemed like the last resort to .

An Analysis of the Effects of Civil War and Prospects for Development in Mozambique: The Case of Frelimo-Renamo in war had negative consequences towards development. It is the purpose of this paper to analyse the impact of Civil War, Development, Chokwe District, Mozambique.

Tell students that they will learn about seven effects of the Civil War - how war affected women, freed slaves, the wounded and those who cared for the sick and the wounded, e destruction th of property, new technology, death and the growth of the federal government.

- Civil War and the not used advantages of the South The civil war was the deadliest war in American history, taking the lives of approximately , soldiers; so many people had to die just for a conflict over a particular style of life of some individuals.

Causes and Effects of the Civil War «