|
|
Tuesday, February 12th, 2008
| |
3:44 pm
|
Source Questions - End of the War
1. In Source A Lincoln means that it will be up to him to work with the President who will be elected, to save the Union inbetween the election and inauguration, as the winner has won his election on the basis that he can't save the Union after it.
2. Source B is was a speech made by a Democrat platfrom in August 1864 during the presidential elections and shows the main issues during the campaign. The source states that after four years of failing to restore the Union by the means of war, the Democrats want immediate attempts of peaceable actions to take place between the states so that peace can be restored bewteen the North and South. However, as the Presidential candidate for the Democrats was George McLellan, the party's peace platfrom was likely to take shape as McLellan did not agree with it which meant that the Democrats were deeply divided among peace and war factions. They also used the actions of Lincoln as part of their campaigne by accusing him of being a "negro-lover" who was plotting "miscegenation" to blend the white annd black races. However, Source B shows the key issues during the Republican 1864 campaign. The Source shows a ticket with the words "The Union forever" written along the sides which shows that by placing a vote for Lincoln, you were voting for the continuatin of supporting the Union. Nevertheless, Lincoln's campaign was not going very well up until September 1864, as the war was proving to be disatrous on a Northern account, making others believe that preservign the Union would not work.As events of the war were a key issue in the campaign of the 1864 elections, the turn in luck for the North showed light on Lincoln campaign when Farragut won an important naval victory at Mobile, when Atlanta had fallen and when Sheridan was successful in the Shenandoah and Grant's casualty rates began to drop. As the war turned in the North's favour, it is evident that the outcome of the war to the North, was also a key issue in the 1864 presdiental eleciton.
3. Source A shows how Lincoln won the 1864 Presidential elections as it shows him as a determined President. He states that he does not believe that he will be re-elected, but he will help whoever it is save the Union. HIs main objective over the years is still strong among his party and he still believes it to be of upmost important. Source B shows that in comparison with the Democrats his electin campaign is stronger, as they believe that after four years of the failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war they wish for immediate actions of peace to be taken between both the North and South states. However, as presidential candidate Mcllelan does not agree with their aims, the party was deeply divided between war and peace factions. To most people securing peace between the two sections, although would stop fighting, it would denounce the reasons as to why the war began and why the men have fought long and hard for. Futhermore, Mclellans poor leadership during the war and to his party don't show him as a strong Presidential candidate and as the war began to turn in favour for the North in September 1864, it was becoming clear to many Northerners that Lincoln was still a strong leader. Moreover, Source C shows an election ticket for Lincoln and shows that by voting for Lincoln you are voting to save the Union. The Republican party now went under the name of the National Union or Union League in an attempt to encourage "War" Democrats to support Lincoln giving him more support. In September 1864 the North experienced some victories in the war. As Farragut endured a naval victory, as Atlanta fell, as Sheridan was successful up the Shenandoah and as there was a drop in Grant's casualty rates, Lincoln let others do his political work and the Unionists and Republicans ridiculed McClellans military record and did their best to depict the Democrats as unpatriotic traitors. Their tactics seemed to work and Lincoln recieved 55% of the total electoral votes compared to McClellans 45%. The Republicans also contributed to their majority in Congress. Moreover, just like the 1860 election, native born, protestan Americans remained loyal to Lincoln and he recieved overwhelming support from Union soldiers and he recieved 75% of their vote. As the Alan Farmer descirbed the election to be a referendum on whether the North should continue fighting, the success in the war was an important isssue on the success of Lincolns re-election in 1864.
|
|
(me kisses)
|
| Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008
| |
9:10 pm
|
Higher French - Holidays with parents
1. Parents take care of all the organization of the trip and also take care of financial cost of the stay and we pay nothing pay nothing.
2. Nevertheless, there are sometimes tensions between the children and the parents for they don't always have the same interests. The parents pften prefer to visit castles, or monuments or excursions. For the children it is more interesting to remain with friends and go camping or children often find the attitude of their old parents game malls they must do with.
3. Sometimes, the young ones want to leave on vacation without their parents, they want itself independance out of them. But to leave have with friends this is not always the case. Of course that implies the life in community divides it domestic tasks the division of money or again the respect of the others. This is very well for this is reasons to leave for a lot.
4. But it is not necessary to forget that that wants to say to foresee vacation to save money to be responsible. In my opinion the vacation in family is necessary and it is not necessary visible that the negative aspects. The vacation with friends are very enriching and I think that they help us to ripen. All the vacation are good to take
Stage 2- Language
sometimes you do not have a choice - parfois on n'a pas le choix
what is good is that in general - ce qu'il y a de bien, c'est qu'en général
all we have to do is to get in the car - il ne nous reste plus qu'à monter dans la voiture
but they do have to put up with it - mais ils doivent faire avec
they want to get rid of them- ils veulent se débarasser d'eux
|
|
(me kisses)
|
| Monday, January 21st, 2008
| |
7:13 pm - Civil war notes
|
History Notes, Beginning of War - Gettysburg
- General Lee offered command of Union Army by Lincoln, Virginia army by Davis.
- Takes control of Virginian Army.
- Takes both Union and Confederates a long time to learn to “fight”.
- General Scott in charge of Union Army.
- Strategic Plan called the Anaconda Plan.
- Both armies have raw recruits, provided by State Militia’s.
- Beauregard took control of Confederate army that had assembled in Richmond.
- In the north, the cry is “on to Richmond!”.
- Lincoln has to act.
- Gives command to Irvine McDowell.
- 21st July, his raw troops attack Beauregard’s raw troops at Manassas Junction/Bull Run.
- Case of who was going to run away first.
- Rebels gradually steady, one of the Union commanders quoting “look at Jacksons line, they’re standing like a stonewall.”
- North stopped in their tracks.
- Panic spreads through Northern troops and they flee to Washington.
- If Southern troops had been more experienced, they could have followed and captured Washington.
- Virginia clear of Union troops.
- Lincoln promotes McClellan, Scott retires.
- New secretary of war, Edwin Stanton.
- Confederate war aim - Acknowledgement of Confederacy.
- No means to achieve this aim.
- Thought it could be achieved by “King Cotton”.
- Didn’t work, Lee came up with plan of constant attack of the North.
- North aims to take over the South.
- Norths military potential overwhelming, should have been able to achieve speedy victory.
- McClellan cautious, over impressed by the South.
- In the west, obscure west point graduate Brigadier General Ulysses S. Grant, drives his forces up the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers, capturing Forts Henry and Donelson.
- Confederate troops evacuate out of Tennessee.
- Grant chases Confederate troops into Mississippi.
- North attacked by South at Battle of Shiloh.
- Grants army nearly driven into Tennessee river, 6th April, 1862.
- 7th April, Grants troops attack again, forcing Confederate retreat.
- Casualties, 13,000 North, 10,000 South.
- Union hold their ground and the Confederates lose a huge chunk of territory.
- Spring 1862, army of the Potomac is now well armed, well clothed, and well equipped for war.
- McClellan has the affection of his troops.
- Brought professionalism to the North, but exasperated politicians.
- Eventually he was forced to act.
- Shipped the army down the Potomac to the Peninsula.
- If McClellan had advanced quickly, he would have won a crushing victory.
- Too slow, giving Confederates time to plan and organise.
- Confederate General, Joe Johnson, retreats skilfully to Lee.
- Retreat not Lee’s style.
- Lee attacked McClellan at the flanks.
- Seven Day Battles (25/06/1862-01/07/1862) Lee victorious.
- Lincoln and Stanton send an army against Lee under General Pope.
- Defeated by Lee at 2nd Bull Run, 30th August, 1862.
- Lee desires to win a battle in the North.
- First week after September, he marches into Maryland.
- Lincoln recalls McClellan, who quickly reorganises the army of the Potomac.
- McClellan somehow gets a hold of Lee’s battle orders.
- Brings Lee to battle at Antietam, 07/09/1862.
- Bloodiest battle of the war.
- Union troops attack uphill, suffering 12,000 dead.
- Saved by superior numbers, this enables them to inflict 12,000 on the South.
- North better off.
- Lee is left in possession of the field.
- Army of Potomac still there.
- Confederate forces so badly off, retreat into Virginia.
- McClellan pursues, but not fast enough.
- Relieved of his command on 7th November.
- Little progress has been made militarily.
- In the west, Union forces held up at Vicksburg, a strongpoint in the Mississippi.
- Prevents Union from splitting the Confederacy in two.
- East, December 1862, well intentioned but not clever General Burnside leads an attack at Fredericksburg.
- Union lose 12,500, dead or wounded.
- Inconclusive battle at Murfreesboro, rebels retreat.
- First industrialised conflict.
- No one wanted to volunteer.
- Bring in conscription, causes trouble in North.
- Davis problems worse than Lincolns.
- West + East theatres squabble over men.
- Davis partly to blame, too late when deciding to have an overall military commander.
- Lee in a position to make him see sense, but fought as a Virginian, not Southerner.
- Didn’t see importance of the west.
- Could see the South was getting weaker.
- Goes on offensive.
- Late spring, 1863, moves North.
- Army of North Virginia as fine an army as any in the world.
- Mistake of relying on army of Potomac being poorly led.
- Drives Unionists out of Virginia, by attacking at Chancellorsville, (02/05/1863).
- Lincoln looks for new Commander.
- In the aftermath of battle, Stonewall Jackson mistakenly shot by his own troops.
- Lee presses on.
- Command of Union army given to General George Meade.
- Lee lost some control of army.
- JEB Stuart in charge of Confederate cavalry.
- Both armies meet at Gettysburg.
- Confederates led by General Longstreet.
- 3rd + 4th July 1863, most important dates of the war.
|
|
(me kisses)
|
| Tuesday, December 11th, 2007
| |
9:04 pm
|
Past Paper 2003 Question 1
1. Source A throws a shed of light on Lincoln's attitude towards slavery as the source containing Lincoln's speech was spoken in 1858 a few years after an attempt to resolve dispute on slavery. The source is informing the public of the impact in which the policy to settle the arguments of slavery has left and how he believs they should deal with the situation. Lincoln states that it has been five years since the attempt of stopping the conflict between the North and the South about slavery. However, Lincoln states that the policy initiated has only heightned the conflict and that Congress and the Senate can not work alongside each other as long as one side supports the continuation of slavery, and the other opposes it. Lincoln then states that he does not expect the Union to divide, or for both government houses to collapse but he does expect that it will always be divided on the issue of slavery and it will eventually become all slave or all free. The fact that Lincoln is saying that the policy which was introduced has not solved the slavery quesiton but only heightened it, throws some light on his views on slavery as he does not want the spread of slavery and that seems to be what the policy is initiating. Lincoln is referring to the policy adopted by Stephen Douglass a politician from the western state of Illinois who was the Democratic Party nominee for President in 1860. He was nicknamed the "Little Giant" because he although he was short, he was considered by many a "giant" in politics. In 1854 Douglas introduced his Kansas/Nebraska bill to the Senate. These states could now enter the Union with or without slavery. Frederick Douglass warned that the bill was "an open invitation to a fierce and bitter strife". His bill consisted of the policy of popular sovereignty- the idea that the state itself will decide on whether it will be a free or slave state. The bill was introduced to solve the disputes in slavery in the territories of Kansas/Nebraska but it did nothing but heighten tension between the sections. According to historian Alan Farmer, the Kansas/ Nebraska Act made Northerns realise the extent of Southern wishes to gain more land for slavery. It is here were a ray of light falls upon Lincoln's attidue towards slavery at the time of this bill as he announced that "if slavery is not wrong then nothing is wrong" and although he did not believe in racial equality he did believe that blacks and whites shared a common humanity and although he did not expect slavery to wither away and die, he did believe that "ultimate exctintion" should be the main objective. As source A shows the dislike towards the policy by Lincoln it sheds light on his views towards slavery as he does not wish for this policy to allow the spread of slavery. However, by his private thoughts away from publicity it is evident that Lincoln was against slavery belieiving it was a moral wrong and supported the ultimate extination. Therefore, Source A throws a rather bright light on Lincoln's attitude towards slavery.
|
|
(me kisses)
|
| Monday, December 10th, 2007
| |
9:48 pm
|
Past Paper Questions 2001 Q.1
1. Source A reveals a fundamental issue for Southern Secession, as it was written by a governor of South Carolina who was informing the Southern States on the action he believes to be the best solution to act upon if Abraham Lincoln became president. As the Source was written in 1860 when the presidential election was taking place, the source gives a vital reason for secession that was commonly running through most Southern states. The governor states that the likelyhood of Abraham Lincoln becoming president was great and he suggests that the Southern states should start discussing on what their actions will be if he does. The governor gives his opinion on the subject by stating that it is South Carolina's wish to seceede from the Union and for every other state to follow her, if not, South Carolina will call a convention as soon as it becomes certain that the majority of the Union will vote of Lincoln in the election. He then states that if no other states seceedes first then South Carolina will seceede alone as long as other states agree to seceede with her otherwise it will remain in the Union. Historian Kenneth Stampp also believed that the reasons for secession were not because of slavery but simply to defend states rights as in 1860 Southern states had been made to believe that the election of Lincoln as president would mean that he would put a definite end to slavery and destroy their states rights, by the likes of Stephen Douglass who tired to capture the Southern vote in the election. Despite the fact that Lincoln promised no such acts, Southern states feared his appointment to office and believed that secession would allow them to keep their states rights from being abolished. However, civil war historian James Ford Rhodes believes that "there was a single cause, slavery." The issue of territorial expansion plagued both Northern and Southern states and arguably led to secession aslo as the Southern states were becoming increasingly fustrated with Northern attempts to prevent the spread of slavery. The Kansa/Nebraska Act contributed to Southern wishes for secession as Stephen Douglass invented his policy of "popular sovereingty" which allowed the new states of Kansas/Nebraska to decide as to whether if it would permit slavery or not up to the state itself. This policy was further evidence of Southern wishes for the spread of slavery and when Kansas became a free state, the South believed that within the Union they could not further the spread of slavery. Futhermore, in 1861 South Carolina held
2. Source A is a a letter written by Abraham Lincoln in response to write of the New York Tribune, Horace Greelys,comments on his views of slavery . Horace Greely would often write letters in his paper to try and get Lincoln to admit his true views on slavery, however, Lincoln would never admit to what he truly thought to the general public, in fear of striking anger in either sections. The source informs the readers of the newspaper only very slighty sheds light on Lincolns attidue to slavery as he tended to keep his opinion private. However, in the source Lincoln states that he would save the Union in the shortest way under the Constitution and the sooner that authority between the two sections can be restored, then the sooner it will be until the Union is back to the way it was before. He states that the people who would save the Union if only slavery would be also be saved, he does not agree with them. He also states that he disagrees with people that would only save the Union if they could destory slavery all together. This shows that Lincoln is very careful in showing his views of slavery and it is evident from the source that he neither wishes the continuation of slavery nor the extinction of slavery. Lincolns main objective is to save the Union and restore peace instead of save or destroy slavery and his decisions on slavery and the "coloured race" would only be made in an attempt to save the Union. The Source does not show Lincolns full attitude towards slavery as it does not show whether he opposes slavery or supports it. However, it appears that in private Lincoln had different views on slavery. Just before the summer in 1862 Lincoln had begun to take action against slavery, an action which he would not have been had he not opposed slavery. In March 1862 he sent a request to Congress that financial compensation was to be given to any state which adopted the principle of the gradual abolition of slavery which would give any owner $400 for every slave freed. Lincoln hoped that the border states would adopt their own emancipation laws meaning that if the Union slave states began the process, some of the rebel states might conceivably be persuaded to follow suit. This act to gradually cause the emancipitation of slavery, shows Lincolns attitude towards slavery as he would not go to lengths to offer slave owners money to free their slaves, if he thought it was wrong. Abraham Lincoln said he had "always hated slavery" and although he never made it clear to the public as he always said he did not wish to fully abolish slavery in Souther states, he did believe it was the "cause of the civil war." However, Northerners became increasingly fustrated by Lincolns failure to act on the slavery front and infulential people such as Horace Greely and the British Prime Minister Palmerstorn, were disappointed that Lincoln hadn't attempted to put an end to slavery. Aware that he should so something, Lincoln issued the Emancipitation Proclamation which consisted of two executive orders issued by Lincoln directly during the civil war. The first order delcared the freedom of any slave in the Confederate Slave States and the second one enumerated the specific states where it applied. This act was an attempt to put a temporialy end to slavery by gradually allowing the freedom of slaves as more southern states became under Union control.
3.
|
|
(me kisses)
|
| Tuesday, December 4th, 2007
| |
10:34 pm
|
Source Questions Chapter 1
Source C is a comparison of resources in the Union and Confederate states which shows how the Norths greatest railway mileage was an advantage during the civil war. According to Source C the Norths greater railway mileage of 2.4 to 1 was a great advantage to the North over the South as they were able to transport their manufactured good to their army soldiers. The fact that the North had twice as many miles of railway track as the South and plenty of skilled workers and engineers to maintain its railway network, meant that they were always able to connect with different parts of the two section. Source C shows that the North was more industrial than the South during the civil war as the wealth it produced was 3 to 1. This was largely due to the number of more manufactured goods that the North produced than the South such as the firearms production at 32 to 1 which meant that the North was better equipped in weaponary in the North than the South. Also, the production of livestock, wheat and farm acreage was more than the South, meaning that by the help of the railway tracks the North would have no difficulty feeding, clothing and arming it's troops unlike the confedarcy.
Source A was published by a British newspaper which is useful in terms of explaining the strengths and weaknesses of both sides, as the article is in favour of a Southern victory and highlights Southern strengths and Northern weakenesses. The Source states that large Southern area of 750,000 square miles is a great advantage to the South as it would be difficult for the North to capture and hold down a piece of territory permantely. Source C states that despite the fact that the North may be able to caputure and hold Potomac or Richmond, they could not keep hold of that territory for long due to the force it would recieve from the people in the territories. The article states that like before America, Britain could not keep hold of it's colonies because of the rebellion it recieved from their populations, and with a land so large the North should withdraw and stop invading the South. As the war was fought on Southern land the immediate response from the section was defense of it's nation and the main battle faced by the North was Southern geography. Futhermore, the series of rivers west to east running rivers provided an effective barrier to the South and a weakness to the North as the main Shenandoah Valley ran from the north east to the south west and although the North felt it would provide a great entry to the South, they were infact wrong and by marhcing down the valley they were led away from the heart of the South. For the Confederates on the otherhand, they could use the valleys for striking into the heart of the North, proving that as highlighted by the London Newspaper in Source C, geography was a main weakness for the North and strength for the South. Futhermore, Source B was written by a Confederate Diplomat, John Spidell, who in favour of the South helps indicate the Southern advantages and Northern disadvantages. He states that the main advantage of the South was due to the fact that they were fighting in their own territories and for their very existence. He believes that by right the one million fighters of the South was stronger than the five million fighters of the North as it was fighting to defend themselves against invasion, in which makes them a stronger side than a section that was invading. This was a strength for Southerners as their willingness to fight to defend their country made them fight harder and stronger. However, despite the fact that the South were fighting against an invasion, the North did outnumber them and which meant they also outgunned them. The manpower from the North was a strength that meant that they could attack the South with much force highlighting strength in Northern forces. However, Source C is very useful in letting us see the differences in weaknesses and strengths between the North and the South as it helps show that the North was stronger than the South. According to the comparative study of resources in the Union and Confederate states the North produced more wealth due to the fact that it manufactured more goods. Iron, coal, firearms,wheat and livestock were all products that were essential to help economic growth and to help ensure that Northern soldiers were fed and clothed through-out the war. The source shows that the only resource in which the South produced more of was cotton which eventually led to the fact that Southern soliders became starved and their clothes became tattered as they could not produce any new goods. Therefore, all three sources are very usefull in helping to identify the weaknesses and strength between the Union states and the Confederate states.
In 1861 Confederate leaders were so confident of success because in theory it looked as though they would win the war. However, confederate leaders only had slight optimism to believe that their theory would in fact become true, as highlighted by the three sources, both sections has strengths and weakenesses which could help them in the war effort. As indicated by Source A, geographical factors were a main force in favour of Southern victory. The newspaper article stated that the sheer size of the Confederacy alone at 750,000 square miles, would prove a difficult battle for the North as it would be hard for them to capture and hold down territory without population resitance. Source B, which is written by a Confedrate diplomat John Slidell, makes similiar remarks by stating that the South would be fighting on it's own territory and defending it's population and existence which contributes to the diffuculty that the North would have in caputring territoy, as the civilians would fight back and try and drive them out. This would prove a weakness for the North as the issue of geography created more problems for them, making the Confederates feel more optimistic that they would be victorious in the war. Futhermore, the series of west to east running rivers provided an effective barrier to the South and a weakness to the North as the main Shenandoah Valley ran from the north east to the south west and although the North felt it would provide a great entry to the South, they were infact wrong and by marching down the valley they were led away from the South. For the Confederates on the otherhand, they could use the valleys for entering straight into the heart of the North and capturing the capital, proving that as highlighted by the London Newspaper in Source C, geography was a main weakness for the North and strength for the South which made the Confederacy hopefuly of victory in the civil war. Futhermore, the South also had the advantage of interior lines communication which meant that the Confederate commanders were in a position to concentrate their dispersed forces, first against one enemy and then against another, using their maximun manpower. To the Southern states, this made them look stronger in forces contributing to the theory that they could win the war. Moreover, as shown in Source C, cotton producition in Southern states was higher than that of the North at 24 to 1 showing that "King Cotton" was still in full swing and a majoy part of the Southern economy. To Confederate leaders this gave them reason to be optimisic as they could use their production of cotton to trade with Britain and other European countries in order to get weapons and such, in which to them gave them a greater advantage. This also meant that to Southerners, slavery became extra important as slaves could maintain work on the plantations as well as supply soliders in battle with supplies. However, when weighing the strength of the North to the South, the Confederate leaders had little less reasons to be optimistic. As shown in Source B, the Confederate supporter John Snidell believes that one million men defending themselves is stronger than five million men invading their section. However, in practice the manpower of the North proved to be a major asset in favour of them winning the civil war. Overall, Union states had 22 million men that would fight for them against 9 million in the South. This was aided by evidence in Source C to show that firearms production in the North was far greater than in the South showing that the North would always outnumber and outgun the South, giving less reason to be optimistic by Southern leaders. Futhermore, one of the greatest strengths of the North which should have made Southerners more aware of the fact that they could loose the war is due to the border states between the two sections which mainly proved to be loyal to the Union. Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri contributed to the 22 million men and added 430,000 slaves to their manpower. Moreover, 80% of these slaves contributed to their manufacturing capacity which gave the North more advatanges and strengths to win the more. Moreover, the navy proved a strong force in the North as the Union navy ruled the waves and could easily lead blockades on stock getting into the South. Overall, in the Confederate leaders had little to be optimistic about. Despite the fact that in theory they felt as though they could achieve victory simply by fighting on their section and defending their section, was not a realistic view as they would always be outnumbered and outgunned by a strong and powerful North.
|
|
(me kisses)
|
| Tuesday, November 27th, 2007
| |
7:48 am
|
To what extent was slavey the cause of the American Civil War?
In 1913 the Civil War historian James Ford Rhodes declared that " of the American Civil War it may be asserted safely that there was a single cause, slavery". Slavery was a taboo issue that was rarely discussed by neither Southern and Northern politicians causing it to become an underlying issue in American society for a long period of time. The majority of the Northern population saw slavery as a moral wrong and condemned the right of slave ownership. The common criticism in the North was the harsh treatment of the slaves by their masters such as malnutrition, psychological and physical abuse. These common beliefs caused outrage in Northern states and led to the rise of the Abolitionist movement with prominent figures such as William Lloyd Garrison and Fredrick Douglass. Abolitionists felt that slavery was both a sin and a crime and attacked Southern way of living wherever slavery was concerned. Southern states felt that the constant attack from Abolitionists and many Northerners alike on their way of living was an affront to Southern honour. This caused a feeling of anger and victimisation among many Southerners, slave holding and non slave holding, which increased sectional strife between the North and South. This heightened conflict between the two sections suggests that civil war was inevitable, as long as slavery survived the Union could not due to everlasting disagreements on the issue of slavery.
Slavery was not the only issue identified with the origins of the American Civil War as economic between the two sections also contributed to the increasing tension between the North and South. According to Alan Farmer in his book, The Origins of the American Civil War, Marxist historians once claimed that the civil war was a conflict between a feudal South that was still dependant on plantation agriculture and a capitalist, industrial North. The progessive historian Charles Beard agrees with this statement in the book "The Progessive Historians: Tuner,Beard and Parrington" that economic differences lead to sectional conflict as the South needed slaves to further economic advantages and the North was very industrial. As conditions in the North were not suitable for agricultural means, it relied on industries such as boot and shoe manufacturing. Furthermore, the production of cotton from the South largely helped create Northern wealth as they would manufacture the cotton into clothing and make a profit selling the items back to the South. The South, however, had always had a strong economy due to the cost of slaves and the constant demand for cotton. Nevertheless, this left it vulnerable as it had not diversified and it solely depended on an agricultural economy. This heightened sectional strife as it was impossible for two economies to survive under one Union without conflict.
Territorial expansion was a majoy factor in the cause of the civil war as it brought slavery to the fore once again showing that slavery was a key cause of sectionalism. In 1820 at an attempt to resolve conflict between the North and South the Missouri Compromise was introduced. This compromise allowed the admittance of Missouri as a slave state to the Union and in return the state of Maine was created in the North East and admitted to the Union as a free state. This compormise allowed there to be a balance of power between free states and slave states in Congress. An agreement was reached that any territory created North of the Missouri Compromise line was to be a free state and any territoy below the line was allowed to permit slavery. However, although this compromise had managed to settle Northern fears of a Slave Power Conspiracy - the beleif that Southeners were trying to gain more land for slavery by territorial expansion- for thirty years, Stephen Douglas' idea of Popular Sovereignty in 1850 was an issue that would further sectionalise the country and heighten fears of a Slave Power Conspiracy. This idea was put into use with the arrival of the Kansas/Nebraska bill in January 1854 which would effectively negate the 1820 Missouri Compromise. Despite being North of the Missouri Compromise Line, Kansas/Nebraska was given the chance to decide whether it would be a free or slave state. This greatly angered Northeners as they seen this as proof that the Slave Power Conspiracy was still fast at work. Alan Farmer in his book, The Origins of the Civil War, stated that the Kansas/Nebraska Act had made Northerners realise the extent of the Slave Power Conspiracy. Futhermore, the attempts to heal the North/South rift actually widened.
The Whig Party was no longer a strong force in American politics and this was due to a number of reasons. Firstly, the Kansa/Nebraska Act had set Northern Whigs against Southern Whigs, weakening the party .As an important issue in the North was that of immigration in the 1853 state and local elections, the Whigs attempt to appeal to Irish and German Catholics did not prove popular among their traditional voters as they refused to vote for a party that supported Catholics. According to historian Micheal Holt, Northerners became increasingly annoyed with the Whigs failure to represent their views. This led to the downfall of the Whig Party and the rise of a new party named the Know-Nothings. As a new party had risen it became apparent of the break down of the Two Party System had taken place as a new third party had risen. The party was popular with many Northerners due to it's policies on immigration, it's anti-Catholic stance and because of it's negative outlook on the Kansas/Nebraska Act. However, after the death of the Whig Party rose the Republican Party. They became the rivals for the Know Nothings due to it's "Slave Power Conspiracy" and to the fact it was an anti-slavery coalition.Nevertheless, eventually the Know Nothings died out and the dominant Northern Republican Party became rivals with the dominant Southern Democrat Party. The fact that both North and South began to associate themselves with a particular political party showed the tension and conflict between the two sections and shows that the failure to politically connect with one another may have lead to civil war.
The origins of the American Civil War show that issue such as slavery, economic differences and the break down of the political party are all factors which had been building up over the years just waiting to explode into a civil war. However, the result of the 1860 Presidential Election can be seen as an immediate factor which lead to civil war. Abraham Lincoln joined the Republican Party in 1854 and was put forward as a presidential candidate in the 1860 election alongside Douglas, Breckinridge and Bell. Lincoln had no intention of destroying the Southern way of living but Southerners were made to believe differently. Southerners felt that by the election of Lincoln as president disunion was inevitable and he warned the Southerners of the dangers of disunion and eventually he united with three anti-republican parties against Lincoln. However, as Northerners overwhelmingly supported Lincoln the result ended up as Lincoln winnign the highest number of popular votes at 1,866,000 and the majority in the electoral college of 180-123. Abraham Lincoln had become president which had an immedite effect on Southern states. South Carolina's state legislature called a special state election which would decide whether it would seceede or not which caused a chain reaction and Alabama, Mississippi, Geogia, Louisianna and Florida all followed similiar acts. Eventually these states voted in favour of secession showing that the result of the 1860 Presidential Election, although not as on going as the issue of slavery, was just as important a cause in the civil war as it sparked an immediate reaction.
In conclusion it can therefore be seen that despite the fact that slavery had been an issue which caused sectional conflict and tension through-out the nineteenth century, it took for other problems to arise for the civil war to begin showing that slavery itself was not the main reason for the outbreak of war. The different attitudes towards slavery in both the North and South had contributed greatly to sectional strife as the South felt that their honour was always being attacked by Northern Abolitionists such as William Llyod Garrison. The inability for both sections to come to an agreement on a compromise to solve the issue of slavery meant that there was always a problem which would remain between the two sections. The economic differences between both the North and South would eventually lead to war as the the two developing economies in both the North and South were increasing in different ways. The industrialising North relied on boot and shoe manufacturing and the profits they made from buying cotton from the South. However, the South relied on agricultural ways to keep their economy expanding by the buying and selling of slaves and the production of cotton. It is clear that two economies could not survive under one Union as one would always be stronger than the other heightening sectional strife. As this was an issue which had been ongoing for many years it arguably contributed with slavery as being an issue that was just waiting for the right time to be adressed, further causing the possibilty of war. Nevertheless, the fears of a Slave Power Conspiracy which were worsened by the negation of the 1820 Compromise by Stephen Douglas in 1850 in his soltution to solve the Kansas/Nebraska Act, arguably contributed to the civil war as the North became more agressive towards the South at their attempts to gain more land for slavery.
|
|
(me kisses)
|
| Monday, November 26th, 2007
| |
10:39 pm
|
Source based questions on Outbreak of Civil War
1. J.J Crittenden a Kentucky Senator (and slave-holder) delivered a speech on the 2nd of March 1861 which states that “remedies have been proposed and resolutions have been offered, proposing for adoption measures which was thought would satisfy the country.” Crittenden is referring to the number of recent attempts to try and resolve the disputes between Northern and Southern states which failed to resolve the conflict and unite both sections. The source is in reference to both the Crittenden Compromise and the Virginia Peace Conference which were final attempts to try and resolve sectional strife. The Crittenden Compromise was a proposal put forward to Congress by J.J Crittenden in 18th December 1860 proposing Congressional resolutions. The Compromise consisted of six steps which would end dispute between the North and South. However, as Crittenden was in favour of the continuation of slavery in the Southern states his Compromise failed to be agreed, Lincoln in particular rejected the proposal, as he suggested that slavery should be allowed to remain below the Missouri Compromise Line agreed in 1820. The Compromise also suggested that Congress should not interfere with slavery but both the House of Representatives and the Senate rejected it in 1861 as they believed it was widely perceived as making large concessions to the South. Therefore, in February 1861 the Virginia Peace Convention met in Washington to see if it could find further measures to try and bring the seceded states back to the Union. However, the Confederate States did not send delegates and the proposals made were similar to those of Crittenden and the Congress ignored them.
2. Jefferson Davis, President of the Southern Confederacy, said in his inaugural speech in February 1861 that the decision to secede something which should be pursued by all Southern states as their states rights to allow slavery has long be attacked by the North. He believes that if the North don’t agree to allow the continuation of slavery in the South, then the only way to resolve conflict is by civil war. His feelings were born out of the Abolitionist movement in the North were influential people, such as William Lloyd Garrison, who launched attacks on the “peculiar institution”. Abraham Lincoln, however, believes that the union of the two sections is of vital importance. He believes that no state should legally be allowed to leave the Union as it goes against the Constitution and the decision to secede from the Union and resort to violence, in the form of the civil war, makes the South the aggressors while he tries to “preserve, protect and defend it”. Davis’ speech is very useful in representing the views of Southern states in February-March 1861, as proposals such as the Crittenden Compromise showed that the general opinion in the South was to keep slavery alive in Southern states and allow no government interference on states rights. Moreover, Davis’ belief to pursue secession among all Southern states represented the view that the South should detach itself from the North, as South Carolina’s decision in 1860 to secede was followed by seven states such as Florida and Mississippi. Therefore, Davis’ wish to pursue secession was a common belief in the South. Nevertheless, Lincoln’s speech represented Northern opinion as the majority of the Northern population felt that the preservation of the Union was a matter of great importance and that the South’s decision to secede showed that Southern states felt that civil war was inevitable. This feeling was heightened in 4th February 1861 when fifty delegates of the seceded states met at Montgomery where they formed their own Confederacy. Therefore, Davis’ and Lincoln’s speeches are very useful in portraying Northern and Southern opinion in February-March 1861.
3. Jefferson Davis, President of the Southern Confederacy, suggests in source A that war broke out in April 1861 because of Northern attacks on slavery in the South. He states that for many years of division with the North, the South has unsuccessfully tried to secure peace with the North and to maintain states rights. This feeling amongst Southerners was heightened by the growing Abolitionist movement in the North which was led by influential figures such as William Lloyd Garrison who stated that slavery was a sin and a crime. This attack on Southern rights contributed to sectional strife and arguably caused civil war, as Southerners took it as an affront to Southern honour and questioned as to whether two different sections could live peacefully alongside each other. However, according to J.J Crittenden the outbreak of war was due to the failure of both sections to come to a compromise to resolve the conflict. He states that recent attempts at resolving sectional strife failed to have any effect as the Crittenden Proposals failed to go through both the House of Representatives and the Senate, as the proposals seemed as though they aimed at appeasing the South. Moreover, the Virginia Peace Convention also failed to resolve conflict as it’s proposals were very similar to that of Crittenden and were ignored by Congress. The failure to reach a compromise between both the North and South can be seen as a reason for the outbreak of war as both sections failed to agree on a method to restore peace to the Union. However, in Source C Abraham Lincoln states that the reason for the outbreak of war was due to the South’s refusal to comply to the Constitution as he believed it was illegal for states to leave the Union. He believed that the South were the aggressors as they believed they only way to restore peace between the North and South was by civil war. This theory was proved in 11th of April when the Confederate forces demanded the immediate surrender of Fort Sumter from Union forces. Negotiations to try and persuade Union forces to surrender dragged on for many hours but amounted to nothing leading to the first shots of the civil war being fired on the 12th of April by Southern forces. This made Southern look like the aggressors and showed that civil war was caused in order to defend Southern honour. However, the sources fail to mention other factors which led to civil war such as economic reasons. According to progressive historian, Charles Beard, economic differences between the industrial North and agricultural South led to civil war. As both sections relied on different ways to boost their economy, such as the use of slavery on cotton plantation in the South and boot and shoe manufacturing in the North , it was impossible for two economies to survive under the one Union. This inevitably caused civil war as there cannot be two economies in one country as this guarantees a sectional rift. Furthermore, the issue of territorial expansion began to cause more conflict between North and South as the North were plagued by the feeling of a Slave Power Conspiracy were they believed that the South were forever trying to gain new land for slavery. There fears were heightened by the negation of the 1820 Missouri Compromise by the 1850 Compromise. According to the 1820 Compromise slavery could not be spread North of latitude 36 degrees 30’. However, Stephen Douglas’ idea of popular sovereignty where the state could decide whether or not it would permit slavery was introduced and made it seem to the North that the South were once again gaining more land for slavery. This arguably caused civil war as slavery in itself was seen as a moral wrong and the expansion of it was seen as the Slave Power Conspiracy fast at work. In conclusion the views of Davis, Crittenden and Lincoln all contributed to the American Civil War. However, other factors such as economic differences and territorial expansion also led to the increasing tension which would soon erupt into war.
|
|
(me kisses)
|
| |
7:44 am
|
Jade Mason
4 Hillend Crescent
Glasgow
G81 6HN
Ecosse
Glasgow, le vingt cinq novembre 2007
Madame, Monsieur,
Arrivant actuallement au terme de mes etudes de <>, l'equivalent du baccalaureatet suite a la parution de cette annonce sur votre site Internet, je me permets de poser ma candidature pour le poste de telephoniste bilinque que vous proposez pour perfectioner mes connaissances de la langue et de la culture francsaise. Ayant deja de l'experience en matiere de contact avec la clientele; je vous propose donc, par la presente l'aide de ventes dans le secteur de detail. Je dirais egalement que j'ai un bon sens du contact et mes professeurs me disent regulierement que je suis organisee et travailleuse. Je desire poursuivre mes etudes de francais a l'universite en atuomne prochain, mais je suis a le recherche d'une approche different de la langue, d'un point de vue plus concret et pratique. Vous trouvez ci-joint mon Cirriculum Vitae et la copie de mes resultas scolaires.
En esperant recevoir rapidement une reponse de votre part, veuillez recevoir,
Madame, Monsieur, mes salutation le plus distinguees.
Jade Mason
|
|
(me kisses)
|
| Tuesday, November 6th, 2007
| |
9:48 pm
|
To what extent are disputes over slavery the main cause of the Civil War?
For decades the main cause of the Civil War has been debated and historians have yet to agree on the soul reason for the outbreak of war. As Abraham Lincoln had pointed out, "Somehow, slavey was the cause of the war" but there are other reasons, long term factors,short term factors and immediate factors which arguably contributed to one of the bloodiest wars in history. Although, slavery had been an issue which was swept under the carpet by many politicans for many years, it is arguable as to whether it was the main reason for the Civil War. The Northern feelings towards slavey was that of disagreement and hatred and in the SOuth it was of econimic important and necessary. These two different views on the matters caused the two different sections to ever have differing views on the nature of slavery andcreated an underlying conflict which would always arouse in the time of sectional strife, appearing as though slavery was the main argument which caused the war. However, the econmic and cultural differences between the North and South are issues which also lay between the two secionts for many years as the South always resented the North feeling as though all their profits went into Northern pockets by the American Trading System. The short term factors where brought about by the new territories gained from the Mexican War such as California and New Mexico and whether they wouldbe free or slave states. The same problem arose during the Kansas/Nebraska Situation where both sections battled it out to decide which states wouldbe free or not. Inevitably these territorial fights led to the breakdown of the two party system which arguably caused the Civil War as both sections had now a party each to represent them the Republicans forthe North and the Democrats forthe South. The split division between political parties disabled sections from coming to terms of agreement and compromise showing that perhaps the break down of the party system led to the Civil War. Neverhtless, events in 1860 are seen as immediate causes to the civil war where the Republican Party where successful in the Presidential Election and Abraham Lincoln became president. This caused an uproar in the South eventually leading to secession for seven SOuthern SLave States. It therefore remains debatable as to whether slavery was the main cause of the civil war.
|
|
(me kisses)
|
| Monday, November 5th, 2007
| |
7:57 am
|
Jade Mason
4 Hillend Crescent
Duntocher
Scotland
G81 6HN
Née: é Ipswich, en Angleterre, le 14 Mae, 1990
Nationalité: anglais
Etat civil: célibataire
COMPÉTENCES CLÉS:
Dynamisme- Précision-Motivation-Curiosité-Responsabilté
ETUDES
juillet 2006 :- Obtention du -Standard Grade- équivalent du certificat de fin d'études secondaires.
juillet 2007 :- Obtention du - Higher Grade- équivalente du certificat du baccalauréat
EXPÉRIENCE PROFESSIONNELLE
novembre 2007 - L'aide de ventes dans le secteur de détail
LANGUES
Anglais: langue maternelle
Français : parler et écrire un petit
Espagnol : parler et écrire un petit
INFORMATIQUE
Word, Excel
CENTRES D'INTÉRÊT
Cinéma, visiter les châteaux, visitant des monuments historiques.
RÉFÉRENCES:
Mr.William Coyle, Head of Language Department, ST Andrews High School.
Mrs. Marie Coll , St Margarets Hospice.
|
|
(me kisses)
|
| Tuesday, October 23rd, 2007
| |
8:09 am
|
Explain the reasons for the break-up of the two party systems by 1855?
The American Political System was dominated by two main political parties up until 1855: the Whigs and the Democrats. Within the two different parties lay a mixture of Northern and Southern politicians that disagreed over a number of matters and who highlighted that there was a clear sectional divide. The rising “Nativist“ issues which began to arouse surrounding Temperance, Anti-immigrant and Anti Catholic contributed to the break down of the Two Party System as parties began to separate on what was the correct thing to support.. The bitter division among the Whig Party itself, which eventually lead to their decline, contributed towards the break up of the two party system as the party could not decide on what matters it was best to oppose or support. Furthermore, it is arguable as to whether the rise of the Know Nothing Party contributed to the break up of the two party system as their political agenda consisted of supporting many of the things in which the Whig Party did, such as its anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic stance, which influenced many Whigs into leaving their party and joining the Know Nothings. Moreover, the rise of the new Republican Party became strong amongst the North and began to be seen as the Northern party which were anti-Democrat and heightened the sectional divide amongst the parties. However, the Kansas/Nebraska situation of 1854-55 can be seen as greatly contributing to a two party break up as the parties became more divided on what they should do to resolve the issue which was forever causing controversy between the parties.
Recent Historians such as William Gienapp in his book, The Origins of the Republican Party, state that the decline of the Whig Party was not because of the slavery question but was because of the “ethno cultural” issues which began to arouse. These issues were Temperance, Anti-Immigration and Anti- Catholicism and politicians felt that by addressing these issues then they could solve many issues of the day. However, the Whig Party were bitterly divided on what they wished to support as they had always been popular in both the North and South gathering support from both sides. Nevertheless, when Maine became the first state to ban the sale of alcohol in 1851 the Whigs became divided as many of its Irish and German Catholics supporters opposed the ban of alcohol and the other half of it’s supporters where native born Americans who supported prohibition. The Whig Party was the only party that was predicted to take a stance on “ethno cultural” issues, however, the party was divided. Most Whigs were afraid of alienating “wet” voters and the other half felt as though the party should go out their way and capture immigrants vote. It wasn’t until 1852 Presidential Election that the division of the Whig party was evident. The party began to be actively pro-Catholic at a time when there was an anti-Catholic rising which made it’s Northerners supporters angry as they felt the Catholics threatened the traditional American way of life. According to historian Michael Holt, Northerners had become increasingly annoyed with the Whigs failure to represent their views which caused them to look towards new parties which would militantly represent their views. The lack of support from its former voters, made the Whig party becoming increasingly unpopular and eventually the party withered away making way for the rise of a new party.
Alan Farmer described the reasons for the break up of the two party system in his book, The Origins of the American Civil War. He states that because of the failed attempts to deal with the “ethno cultural” issues the concern about temperance, immigration and expanding Catholicism resulted in the rise of the Know Nothing party, which introduced a third party to American politics threading the two party system. The Know Nothing order was born out of a secret Nativist society that had pledged to vote for no-one else except native born Americans. The Know Nothings were not associated with anything like the Whig and the Democrat parties and could therefore appear as a genuine People’s Party. Most Know Nothings wanted immigration laws checked and legislation preventing the dumping of European paupers and criminals in America. Although attracted by it’s anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic stance, Northerners joined the Know Nothing party because of it’s promise to return power to the people. This promise was proved very popular among most Northerners which in turn aided in the unpopularity of the Whigs and Democrats contributing to the break down of the two party system. Many people joined the party because of their hatred towards the Democrat party and in many states they became the Know Nothings opponents. By 1854 the Know Nothings probably had over one million members and began to wield real political power and in 1855 the party had control of over three New England states. Their effort to represent Northern working class voters and make advancements on social and economic measures, caused their support to rise and showed that the two party system no longer existed as a third more popular party had risen.
In January 1854, Senator Stephen Douglas, introduced the Kansas/Nebraska Bill to Congress declaring that the decision as to whether Kansas/Nebraska would be a free or slave state should be left to “popular sovereignty”-the idea that the decision was made among the state itself. James M. McPherson states in his book, Battle Cry of Freedom, that Southerners views this as a matter crucial to their future. The North, however, viewed “popular sovereignty” as a way for the South to gain more territories for slavery and that it was part of the Slave Power Conspiracy. Senator Seward from New York declared that the North are willing to “engage in competition for the virgin soil of Kansas” and settlers began to move into Kansas from the North and the South. Both sections thought that if they had more of their settlers in the territory then they could influence the decision made on the state. Pro-slavers were in the best position as Kansas was right beside Missouri which allowed pro-slavers to move into Kansas vote for slavery and move back out. However, only 1000 Northerners moved into Kansas and inevitably the state became a slave state. The new state legislature met at Lecompton in June 1855 and was completely dominated by pro-slavers. Meanwhile, the anti-slavers set up their own government in Topeka and drafted their own constitution. The newly established different governments in Kansas, further caused sectional tension between the two states and further pulled apart the two party system, as the divide between pro-slavers and anti-slavers became evident.
According to Alan Farmer in, The Origins of the American Civil War, the Northern electorate was not just concerned about “ethno cultural” issues. The Kansas/Nebraska Act had made the Northerners realise the extent of the Slave Power Conspiracy and they wanted to give support to those parties who opposed slavery. In 1854 a number of anti- slavery coalitions were formed, most commonly known, as the Republicans. It was unclear as to whether which party the Northerners would take to, the Know Nothings or the Republicans. Despite the fact that both parties had similar interests they were by no means ready to work with each other. The Know Nothings were more Nativist in their approach and Abraham Lincoln, an ex Whig who joined the Republicans, commented on the constitution “ when the Know Nothings get control, it will read, “all men are created equal, except Negroes, and foreigners and Catholics.” The rise of this new party highlighted the break up of the two party system as now there was another party which threatened to become a main opponent of the Democrats and take over the Know Nothings. However, the 1854 elections showed some surpassing results and despite the anti-Nativist feelings the Know Nothings still have political strength. However, the growing Southern expansion would prove to be a problem for the Know Nothings, making the Republican party the Democrats main opponents.
Therefore, it can be concluded that there are a number of explanations for the break down of the two party system. The rising “ethno cultural” issues which began to arouse such as Temperance, Anti-Immigration and Anti Catholicism contributed to the break down of the party system as the Whigs became bitterly divided as to how to meet the wishes of their supporters. Despite the fact that the Whig party was predicted to be the party most likely to take a stance on the “ethno cultural” issues, they failed to meet the needs of their electorate and their voters began to look to other parties for support. The rise of the Know Nothing Party is another explanation for the break up of the two party system as now there was three parties, and the Know Nothings were becoming increasing popular. In 1854 the Know Nothing Party had become increasingly popular having admitted one million members and by 1855 had a hold of three New England states. The new popularity of the Know Nothings led to the decline of the Whigs as many members were leaving to join their party, heightening the break up of the two party political system. Furthermore, the Kansas/Nebraska Situation of 1854-55 caused further sectional tension as the competition for the admittance of Kansas to the Union as a free or slave state, divided both the North and South causing more splits between the parties. Moreover, the rise of the new Republican party was arguably strictly Northern and they had a less Nativist approach than the Know Nothings causing a further break up between the political parties as ex Whigs were joining the Republican Party and threatened to be the Democrats main opponents. Overall, there were many reasons for the break up of the two party systems, however, the two new parties known as the Know Nothings and the Republicans allowed the voters to have more choice and were arguably the main reason as to why the two party system broke apart.
|
|
(me kisses)
|
| Monday, September 24th, 2007
| |
2:44 pm
|
Jade Mason
4 Hillend Crescent
Duntocher
Clydebank
G81 6HN
Phone: 01389 890 609
Email: jintyjo@talktalk.net
OBJECTIVE: To attend university and study History and French.
I’m currently in sixth year at St. Andrews High School and I’m looking for part time work at weekends and holidays. I am a hardworking, reliable and trustworthy person which makes me suitable for this position. I enjoy working with others and I work well within a team and currently joined the Buddy Group in school where I assist the younger years. I live locally which means my time keeping and attendance will not be a problem.
EDUCATION:
Higher Qualifications: English: B
Spanish: B
Modern Studies: A
History: C
French: currently sitting
Advanced Higher Qualification: History: currently sitting.
EMPLOYMENT: Angel Sanctuary Beauty Salon - June 2006
Short Term contract which involved working with the general public, handling money and using the till ensuring customer satisfaction.
|
|
(me kisses)
|
| Tuesday, September 18th, 2007
| |
7:46 am
|
Was slavery profitable?
For many decades historians have continued the debate as to whether slavery was economically profitable for the South of America during the nineteenth century. There are many ways in which the profitability of slavery can be defined and that depends on the extent to which it had on the Southern economy as a whole, for the slave himself and for the slave owners. Historians became divided when debating the outcome of slavery on the Southern economy and relatively few historians believe that it wasn’t profitable such as Hilton Rowan Helper who in his book ,The Impending Crisis of the South ,argued that it was responsible for slowing down the South’s economic growth. Other historians such as Ulrich B Phillips argued that slavery was a means of racial control and was in no way used to benefit the Southern economy or the slave owners. However, other historians such as, Kenneth Stampp, argued that slavery was indeed profitable otherwise they wouldn’t have invested money into buying them. There are no doubts that slavery made a large majority of white plantation owners very wealthy and enabled them to increase their cotton acreage and raise their profits. Furthermore, the rising prices of the slaves during the mid nineteenth century suggests the slaves were a good investment and were very profitable for the Southern economy. Therefore, the question as to whether slavery was profitable remains open to debate.
In 1857 a Southerner, Hilton Rowan Helper, published his book The Impending Crisis of the South in which he argued that slavery was responsible for the economic decline of the South. He believed that although it benefited some slave owners it :
“retarded the progress and prosperity of our portion of the Union.”
This is arguably due to the fact that up until the 1860’s that there was a sudden increase in slave prices from high demand which meant that planters had to borrow money in order to invest in slaves as well as pay high interest rates. Some historians such as Ulrich B Phillips argued that this caused a capital drain out of the Southern economy to Northern banks and to slave traders in the upper south, which in turn did not cause the economy to expand but to decline. Phillips estimated that despite the fact that the invention of the cotton gin allowed the production of cotton to increase rapidly, net prices fell. He calculated that in 1860 a field hand had cost $1800 but the cotton produced only fetched 11 cents a pound. His findings show that cotton production did not expand the economy as it had claimed and merely forced planters into a trapped lifestyle of using declining profits to buy more cotton and more land. A study in plantation records by CS Sydor in his book, Slavery In Mississippi, used evidence from Plantation records and calculated that profit on turnover was low and profit as a percentage of the total investment in slaves was also low. For example, on a Plantation with an annual turnover of $38,000 profit was a mere $880 or 2% of the investment in slaves.CS Sydor then claimed that on the likes on that kind of Plantation, free labour would have been more cheaper and more profitable.
Alongside, H.R Helper, Ulrich B Phillips was another historian that took a different view on the impact of slavery on the Southern economy. He too believed that it only hindered the sections growth but for different reasons. Phillips believed slavery was “benevolent racism” and was only put in place to secure racial order. In his book Life and Labour in the old South he claimed that:
“Slaves are also persons presumably dangerous to social order, as they were deprived of privileges and ambitions which commonly kept freemen self restrained.”
He argued that slavery prevented the full development of a slaves skills and talents in the work force and allowed them only to work in basic jobs that had required no skill. This meant that the work done by slaves was low due to their inability to do high quality work and could have been a reason why Phillips argued that slavery did not help the economy. Furthermore, the cost of food, clothing ,shelter and medical care for a slave in childhood and adulthood were very high costing for the slave owner, which meant it was a very expensive to keep a slave and drained the Southern economy rather than contribute to it. Moreover, by keeping the slaves in a restraining hold they could preserve racial order and prevent slave revolts. To continue being the master race many historians believed that slavery did not help the Southern economy because it wasn’t put in place to as it was merely a way to control a inferior and supposedly dangerous race.
As opposed to the view that slavery was not profitable, the praised historian Kenneth Stampp was among those who believed it was. Such historians claimed that, according to Alan Farmer, The Origins of the American Civil War, slavery was a “necessary evil” that was:
“An efficient and vibrant form of economic organisation which did not deter the growth of the Southern economy.”
He claimed that investment in slaves in no way a waste of money as the rising prices of slaves was an indicator of the demanding supply for the profitable slaves and was a sure sign that the Southern economy was expanding. It has been estimated that from 1851 to 1860 slave prices rose from $1,050 to $1,800 in the state of Georgia as estimated in Willett & White. This was due to the demand for cotton and therefore proves that if planters were investing so much money into buying slaves, then they must be economically profitable. The investments in slaves for slave owners was in comparison the work in the North, a better investment. Northerners who were investing in banks, railway stocks received a 6-8% in investments. However, in the South, planets could earn up to 4% from poor land, 5% from average land whilst those on the best land could receive over 12%on their investment in slaves. It can be seen that slavery was the single most profitable investment in the South which helped shaped and expand the Southern economy and was often described by Govan as:
“Slavery in the immediate ante-bellum years was an economically viable institution in virtually all areas of the South as long as slaves could be expeditiously and economically transferred from one sector to another.”
The South was seen as one of the only place by many historians that could meet its slave labour needs when other countries such as Brazil and Cuba could not and the demand for slaves and cotton were high right up until 1860 and prices had no intention of falling. There so far, has been no evidence to suggest that the success of slavery on the Southern economy was weak and about to deteriorate and has, in fact, shown that in 1860 the slave prices and economy was continuing to do well and was far from declining. The economic growth of the South made them more in favour of secession from the North, However, the North preferred unity and it can be agued that the reaction from the North was in no way “aggression” but simply a reaction to keep the country together. It can be seen that slavery had a great impact on the economy of the South was very profitable.
In conclusion it can be seen that the debate on the profitability of slavery is one that will remain open which much controversy. Historians such as Hilton Rowan Helper argue that the fact that slavery hindered the prosperous growth of the Southern economy did not allow any economic growth. Ulrich B Phillips also believes that slavery only deterred the growth of the South and was only in place to ensure racial control. He believed that by keeping the Black’s in an inferior position they would be preventing danger and harm to society as the Black were a very barbaric race. He also claimed that in order to supply planters with slaves , slaveholders had to borrow money in order to invest in slaves and pay high interest rates back. This in turn drained out the South to Northern Banks and only decreased the Southern economy. However, despite these historians claims, the more believe approach to the profitability of slavery was made by historians such as Kenneth Stampp who believed that slavery was very profitable for the Southern economy. He argues that planters would not have invested so much money into slaves had they not been profitable and the double in slave prices from $1,050 to $1,800 is enough evidence to suggest that slaves were very profitable. Furthermore, the fact that Southern plantation owners could earn up to 12% on their investments in slaves compared with the 6-8% investments that the Northerners made in investing banks and railways stocks, is strong evidence that slavery was profitable. Therefore, it is evident that slavery was very profitable for the Southern economy in the mid nineteenth century as the rising prices in slaves and high investments rates show that that economy was not declining, but simply expanding.
|
|
(me kisses)
|
| Monday, September 3rd, 2007
| |
7:56 am
|
Qu’est-ce que c’est une bonne lycee?
Mon ecole est un lycee mixte que se trouve dans le centre ville de Clydebank et je crois que c'est une bonne lycee. Je pense qu'une bonne école doit avoir beaucoup de qualités excellentes par exemple l’ambiance entre les eleves serait excellente. En plus, si le discipline ne pas bonne les enseignants ne peauvant pas faire ce pour quoi ils ont ete formes donc je trouve que un bon lycee il n’ya pas de probleme de discipline parce que les profs seraient strictes. Aussi, en un bonne lycee il y a d’importance attachee aux examens parce-que la vie ne doit pas starrier aux portes de lycee pour les étudiants. A mon avis, c'est très important pour une bonne lycee d'avoir de bons enseignants comme ca dans mon ecole. Je crois que un bon prof aurait un bon sens d’humor et un bonne connaissance de sa matiere. En plus, je trouve que un bon prof saurait comment motiver ses eleves y serait tumours disponible le sens du contact mais un bon prof ne serait pas crier et fâché. Finalement, une bonne lycee Une bonne école soutiendrait les étudiants.
|
|
(me kisses)
|
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
prettyxvague's journal