Download here

Name: __________________
January PBT
Date ___________
Period __________
Mounting tensions between the federal government and a
number of southern states eventually led to the Civil War. This conflict was
the result of a series of conflicts based on competing ideologies about how
America should be run. The Civil War had an undeniable impact on
America for generations to come. As you read the following three articles,
take note of the ideas, conflicts, and events that both directly and indirectly
may have led to the Civil War.
​Was
The Civil War Inevitable?
By ​Esther Elizabeth Suson​, Hankeringforhistory.com
Was the Civil War inevitable? Could the conflicts between federal government and
states, between North and South, be resolved in any other way? The answer is yes.
If the federal government allowed states to do whatever they wished, and the
Northern and the Southern states decided they did not need one another, the Civil
War would probably not have happened.
However, a bigger question was being asked and answered at this time. This
question was of the identity of the United States of America, as a single entity. The
moment this question was asked, the federal government could no longer ignore
the states, or the Northern and Southern states one another. It stopped being
simply a question of politics and economics. At that point, after all the build-up, the
Civil War was inevitable.
Was the Civil War Inevitable? Looking at Root Causes
The Conflict Between the Federal Government and Member-States
The heart of the conflict was that the States were originally independent. The 1776
American Revolution only released these independent British colonies from Imperial
rule. However, their unity in the Revolution already created a loose connection from
State to State. This connection was confirmed in the ​Articles of Confederation​, fully
ratified in 1778.
The Constitution of the United States of America
From there, a Constitutional Convention led to the Constitution of the United States
of America as we know it, ratified in 1788–exactly 10 years later. This bound all of
the member-states into a federation. Each state gave up some independence to the
federal government for mutual safety and well-being.
One of the portions of the Constitution central to state powers, before the Civil War,
was the ​Tenth Amendment​, ratified in 1791. It states:
“THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR
PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY,
OR TO THE PEOPLE.”
This placed all authority with the state governments, so long as the federal
government did not yet hold the same power. Very loosely interpreted, the
amendment could be grounds for a state leaving the Union, if the federal
government attempted to impose a law where the state had jurisdiction.
The Nullification Crisis
The strength of state powers vis-a-vis Federal powers was tested in the Nullification
Crisis, from 1832-33. The state government of South Carolina declared two tariff
acts null and void in the state: The Tariff of 1828, and the Tariff of 1832.
The first, the Tariff of 1828, protected goods produced by Northern factories by
taxing imports from Britain. Southern states were forced to buy those goods at a
more expensive price, even if the protection did not help them. The British earned
less from exports to the United States, and they could no longer pay for Southern
cotton. This directly harmed the economy of the Southern states.
On the other hand, the Tariff of 1832 tried to appease the Southern states by
lowering the tariff. South Carolina rejected both this reduced tariff and the Tariff of
1828, declaring them non-binding on the state. As a result, President Andrew
Jackson responded with a P
​ roclamation​ declaring that ordinance, in its turn, void.
“[ ] THE SAID ORDINANCE PRESCRIBES TO THE PEOPLE OF SOUTH CAROLINA A
COURSE OF CONDUCT IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THEIR DUTY AS CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES, CONTRARY TO THE LAWS OF THEIR COUNTRY, SUBVERSIVE OF ITS
CONSTITUTION, AND HAVING FOR ITS OBJECT THE DESTRUCTION OF THE UNION
[ ].”
At the time, South Carolina’s ordinance, nullifying the Federal law, was only a
threat of secession. The Southern states were not unified on a decision to secede,
and South Carolina would not secede alone. However, it set the precedent for
possible Southern secession from the Union.
At the same time, the Force Act set the precedent for possible civil war in the event
of a Southern secession. The F
​ orce Act​ allowed the United States government to
respond militarily to any resistance to those enforcing tariffs. They also legally
protected any revenue officers from resistance by parties in resisting states.
“[ ] IT SHALL AND MAY BE LAWFUL FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR
SUCH PERSON OR PERSONS AS HE SHALL HAVE EMPOWERED FOR THAT PURPOSE,
TO EMPLOY SUCH PART OF THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES, OR MILITIA OF THE UNITED
STATES, AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING THE REMOVAL
OF SUCH VESSELS OR CARGO [ ].”
In the end, the Nullification Crisis was ended by the Compromise Tariff of 1833.
This tariff structure lowered import duties slowly, over a prolonged period of time.
This gave Northern industries a chance to continue industrialization, and removed
the disadvantage of the Southern states.
Was the Civil War Inevitable from A Political Standpoint?
The Constitution was not even 50 years old. States were learning to live with one
another in a Federation, and learning their relationship with the Federal
government. The Southern states were justified in protesting tariffs that favored
Northern industries. However, they found they crossed a line in the nullification
ordinance.
On the other hand, the Force Act may be considered an overreaction. With these
precedents, the Civil War definitely became more probable. The Union already had
an idea the South might secede; the South discovered the Union would react
strongly.
The Economic Conflict Between North and South
Both simpler and more complicated is the economic vantage point of the Civil War.
The Nullification Crisis is an example of the wide economic differences between the
Northern and the Southern States. Slavery is discussed here because, at least prior
to the Civil War, it was more an economic concern to the Southern states than
anything else.
The Civil War happened just as the Industrial Revolution leaped across the Atlantic
from Europe into the United States. The invention of the telegraph, the steamboat,
and the sewing machine all occurred ​before the Civil War​. In the industrializing
Northeast, canals and railroads made industrial economic growth even faster.
On the other hand, in the South, Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin in 1793
turned the Southern states into a cotton-exporting powerhouse. The economic
foundation was built on the backs of large landowners, who had the fields and the
workforce necessary to sustain an economy of cotton and tobacco.
What Does Slavery Have to Do With Economics?
In the case of the American Civil War, everything. In 1800, the turn of the century,
the United States was still an agricultural nation, with the European Industrial
Revolution’s influence beginning to trickle in. The Southern states were producing
what was, by 1815, the most important export: cotton. They​ supplied over 66%​ of
the international cotton needs, and the cotton export value was worth more than
the rest of all the exports.
Because of this advantage, there was no incentive for the Southern states to
change their economic ways for any reason. Despite having only 29% of the
railroads and 13% of the banks in the States, their economy was doing well as an
agricultural society.
On the other hand, the Northern states were industrializing rapidly, growing their
factories, canals, and railroads. A full 90% of the nation’s manufactured goods were
produced in the North. By 1860, 84% of the Southern states were still wholly
agricultural; only 40% of the Northern states relied exclusively on agriculture.
The industrialization of the North coincided with a wave of immigration, mainly from
Europe. Seven-eighths of all immigrants remained in the North. The inevitable
effect on wage labor was to make Northern paid labor incredibly cheap, as supply
outstripped demand. In other words, Northern states had another workforce to
depend on, other than slaves.
On the other hand, ​slavery never had reason to die​ in the Southern states. Slaves
were the field-hands keeping the cotton and tobacco fields running. Slaves were
also the household servants, stable hands, and even held positions necessary to
running large lands: they were blacksmiths, masons, carpenters, while still slaves.
It made no economic sense for the Southern states to switch over to paid labor,
increasing business expenses and thereby lowering profits. Slavery was an
institution of life, and Southern landowners considered slaves their “property.”
Because of this, they considered an attack on slavery an economic one rather than
a moral one.
Was the Civil War Inevitable from an Economic Standpoint?
From a Southern standpoint, it was the 1828 and 1832 Tariffs happening all over
again: blatant favor given to Northern states over the Southern. However, this
time, the target was the entire economic machine on which Southern wealth and
success ran.
To abolish slavery altogether would be to weaken, if not destroy, that economic
machine of the South. The Northern states and their immigrant labor force would
only be lightly affected. South Carolina and four other states decided it was grounds
for secession, and the Civil War began.
Was the Civil War inevitable, from this point of view? Even then, perhaps not. Even
as new states were being tugged back and forth as “slave” or “free,” compromises
could still have been drawn up. Alternatively, the Union could have simply allowed
the Southern states to secede, considering it not worth the trouble.
Was the Civil War Inevitable?
Was the Civil War inevitable? Yes. Up until the Southern states seceded and formed
a Confederacy, the Civil War was not inevitable. Even with the Force Act, there was
no guarantee that the Union would decide to actually use force to bring the
Southern states back.
However, the Union decided that the United States of America was only complete
with all its current member-states, and went beyond the politics and the business
sides to what the Union stood for. In that moment, the Civil War became inevitable.
There is no better example for this than the beginning and ending sentences of
President Abraham Lincoln’s G
​ ettysburg Address​.
“FOUR SCORE AND SEVEN YEARS AGO OUR FATHERS BROUGHT FORTH ON THIS
CONTINENT A NEW NATION, CONCEIVED IN LIBERTY, AND DEDICATED TO THE
PROPOSITION THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. [ ]
[ ] WE HERE HIGHLY RESOLVE THAT THESE DEAD SHALL NOT HAVE DIED IN
VAIN–THAT THIS NATION, UNDER GOD, SHALL HAVE A NEW BIRTH OF
FREEDOM–AND THAT GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE
PEOPLE, SHALL NOT PERISH FROM THE EARTH.”
The Union realized that holding the South to the abolition of slavery was consistent
with what the Southern states had agreed to when they joined the United States of
America. It was no longer simply a question of politics or economics, but a question
of the identity of the United States. At the point that the Union decided to bring the
Southern states back into the Union, and re-forge the American identity, the Civil
War was inevitable.
Updated 01/11/2016
1. What action set the precedent for a secession by southern states? What response set the
precedent for a civil war?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
_________
2. Compare and contrast the economies of the North and South in the early 1800’s. How were
both able to be successful despite being so different?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
____________
3. Summarize Andrew Jackson’s quote in paragraph 9 in your own words.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
_________
4. Based on context clues, what does the word “secession” in paragraph 25 mean?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
_________
America's Civil War: Unnecessary But
Transformational ​-​Doug Bandow, Forbes.com
One hundred and fifty years ago the young A​merican nation suffered its greatest
failure. "The political system could not contain the passions stoked by the infusion of
evangelical Christianity into the political process," argues University of North Carolina
historian David Goldfield. Americans collectively jumped into the abyss of bloody,
destructive civil war.
Much blood was shed, especially at this time of the year. The single costliest day
in American military history was Sept. 17, when the Army of Northern Virginia
and Army of the Potomac met in battle near the town of Sharpsburg along
Antietam Creek.
By the time night fell around 26,000 men had been killed, wounded, or captured.
The fight was a stalemate, though Robert E. Lee later retreated, ending his
invasion of Maryland. On no other day in no other war have so many Americans
suffered in combat.
A year later, on Sept. 19, began the two-day battle along Chickamauga Creek
between the Confederate Army of Tennessee and the Union Army of the
Cumberland. In one of the rare clashes where the South held a numerical
advantage, the Northerners were driven from the field, though the Confederates
failed to effectively follow up their advantage. Around 35,000 men became
casualties or captives.
Deaths accumulated in many other battles, big and small. After four years
620,000 people had been killed, enormous wealth had been destroyed, and
southern states had been ravaged. America was on its way to becoming a modern
nation state closer to the strong, centralized European model, a dubious
achievement. The war's one serious benefit -- the freeing of 4 million slaves -- was
inadvertent, beginning as an incidental war measure.
The tale of American disunion is familiar to anyone conversant in U.S. history.
However, in his new history ​America Aflame: How the Civil War Created a
Nation (Bloomsbury Press), Goldfield writes more as a novelist than an academic,
making the familiar engaging.
There were many fractures in the young republic, but slavery took center stage as
the sectional gap grew. The North was determined to turn slavery into a contained
regional institution. The South insisted on preserving slavery as a protected
national system. Both sides fought over the symbolic and the abstract.
Were these differences worth mass death and destruction?
There would have been no war if either side understood the bloody deluge to
come. No one imagined battlefields covered with bloated corpses, hospitals with
mounds of amputated limbs and rows of suffering wounded, newspapers filled
with casualty lists, and families and communities with forever absent young men.
Was the conflict necessary to end slavery? Writes Goldfield: "there may have
been other means to achieve that noble end. In fact, the United States was the
only country to require a civil war in order to abolish slavery." In every other
nation except Haiti slavery was eliminated peacefully.
Why, then, civil war? Goldfield looks beyond the conventional wisdom. For
instance, he points to evangelical Christianity in stoking America's political fires.
He explains: "The elevation of political issues into moral causes poisoned the
democratic process. Just as evangelicals did not distinguish between the Catholic
Church and Catholic immigrants, so they did not separate the sin of slavery from
the slaveholder. In a crusade, the enemy is the infidel, and eventually both sides
viewed the other as apostates to God and the constitution."
Of course, other factors also radicalized the political debate. But evangelical
Christians split along sectional lines, many giving their loyalty to politics before
the Gospel.
Goldfield writes: "Americans were also children of the Second Great Awakening.
They had grown up believing in an omnipresent God who touched their lives and
guided their countries' destiny. He would take sides in the coming battle. In
protecting the Revolutionary ideals, northerners would preserve God's plan to
extend democracy and Christianity across an unbroken continent and around the
world. Southerners welcomed a war to create a nation more perfect in its fealty
to God than the one they left."
America was transformed, but not in the way either side expected. Slavery was
abolished, but "Redemption," which followed "Reconstruction," forced the
Freedmen into something akin to servitude. There was only a brief interruption
in white supremacy. It took a genuine social and political revolution nearly a
century later to free the descendants of the slaves.
More enduring was America's transformation into a modern centralized state.
Pre-war Washington was little more than a post office, argues Goldfield. In
contrast, "By the end of the Civil War, the government supported an army of a
million men, carried a national debt of $2.5 billion, distributed public lands,
printed a national currency, and collected an array of internal taxes. This
transformation in national power was not the 'new birth of freedom' Lincoln
envisioned at Gettysburg, but it overshadowed the liberation of four million
slaves in terms of its long-range impact on all Americans."
Finally, the public role of religion, especially evangelical Christianity, changed.
As the war ended "Sentiment was out; reality was in," Goldfield writes. Hundreds
of thousands of dead will do that to people.
Looking back some Americans blamed the sentimentalism of evangelicalism for
the conflict. "White Americans would not make the same mistake again. They
would not allow a cloying, feminine Christianity, tugging at the heartstrings, to
lure young men to their graves for a cause not grounded in reason," Goldfield
writes. In fact, this transformation was less enduring than the rise of the
centralized state—eventually evangelicals reemerged politically, even pushing for
costly wars abroad. Nevertheless, the Civil War changed America's religious as
well as political and economic landscape.
The Civil War ended 146 years ago, but the "battle of memory" continues. Ever
fewer Americans, even in the South, fixate on the conflict's meaning for America,
but important disagreements persist. In ​America Aflame David Goldfield offers a
wonderful portrait of a nation scarred yet transformed by a war that in retrospect
seems as unnecessary as it was destructive.
1. What does the author mean in paragraph 7 when he says “​Both sides fought
over the symbolic and the abstract”?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
2. What might the term “sentimentalism” in paragraph 16 mean based on context clues?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
3. The author of the article mentions that David Goldfield portrayed America as a
“nation scarred yet transformed by war”. What does he mean by that?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
4. Summarize the author’s stance on if the Civil War should have happened or not.
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
5. Which of the following statements best summarizes paragraph 17?
A.
B.
C.
D.
The Civil War solved a lot of critical problems in America.
The Civil War created tension between America and other countries.
The Civil War is over but ideological difference still plague America.
The Civil War should have lasted longer to solve more problems.
Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural
Address
MARCH 4, 1865
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
At this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an
extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course
to be pursued, seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which
public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great
contest which still absorbs the attention, and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is
new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as
well known to the public as to myself; and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging
to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.
On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an
impending civil-war. All dreaded it -- all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was
being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to ​saving​ the Union without war, insurgent
agents were in the city seeking to ​destroy​ it without war -- seeking to dissolve the Union, and
divide effects, by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would ​make​ war
rather than let the nation survive; and the other would ​accept​ war rather than let it perish. And
the war came.
One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the
Union, but localized in the Southern ​half​ part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and
powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To
strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would
rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict
the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the
duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the ​cause​ of the conflict might
cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph,
and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same
God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare
to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but
let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of
neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world
because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the
offence cometh!" If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in
the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed
time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as
the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from
those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we
hope -- fervently do we pray -- that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if
God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty
years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be
paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said ​f[our]​ three thousand years ago, so still it
must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether"
With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see
the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for
him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan -- t​ o achieve and cherish
a lasting peace among ourselves and with the world.​ to do all which may achieve and cherish a
just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with ​the world.​ all nations.
1. In paragraph 2, what does the word “deprecated” most likely mean based on
context clues?
A.
B.
C.
D.
Valued
Disapproved of
Was confused by
Gave praise to
2. In paragraph 2, Abraham Lincoln says that one group would “make war rather
than let the nation survive” while the other group would “accept war rather than
let the nation perish”. Based on Abraham Lincoln's’ perspective, which group
would be the North, and which would be the South? Explain.
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
__________
3. In paragraph 3, Abraham Lincoln refers to men “wringing their bread from the
sweat of other men’s faces”. This most likely refers to:
A.
B.
C.
D.
The slaves stealing from the slaveowners
The poor fighting a war on behalf of the rich
The slave owners making their living off of the slaves’ work
The North benefitting from the tariffs that affected the South
Essay: Based upon the three articles, answer the following
question. **No minimum or maximum number of paragraphs.
Was the Civil War necessary for America? Was it avoidable?
Please include text references and quotes where you believe they
strengthen your argument.