For PhD doctorate

Our group developed several problems in order to attain its study. In our question, we wanted to discuss the meaning of writing civil war on an environmental history of the Central American. Must this study incorporate all graphic descriptions of landscape that is devastated, forests ripped asunder by rifle and cannon rifle fire, pastoral scenes that have been marred by the blackened remains of mills, barns, mills, cattle, horses and cities fully bombarded and in ruins? (Robbins, 89) Should it expound on the water and air pollution caused by soldiers’ campfires? What of the group’s reorganization of ecosystems, for example, those of the plains and prairies? All answers to the questions could be no. I hope that many will try reducing this in future because these studies are much far from complete. In this environmental history, it is much more of studying Civil War‑era than just a catalog of the physical destruction that was caused by the war and its activities (Callicott, 91).

The main implication in these conversations was to find and establish the origin of the war and how it was reconstructed in Central America. Following posting that real life matters, our group came to the attention that they have historical agency (Robbins, 89). They also claimed that the environmental history can provide an insight and new language into the debates about the origin of the war. It also explains why and how it was fought, and its meaning within the American’s larger context and global history. Scholars like Ted Steinberg, Jack Temple Kirby, and others have already begun the conversation on this matter. According to them, they argued that the work has elucidated the role the nature in such aspects that are diverse of the war. It was to serve as the best strategic and an operational decision-making by soldier regarding their health physical and psychological effects and the implications of the battlefield commemoration in the longer term. What follows is not our group’s prediction for what is to be done, but is a collection of suggestions by scientists and group’s questions to those critical areas in need of this conversation. Our group chose to address each and every significant period separately within the Civil War era.

In our group discussion, most scholars claim that the origins of the civil war American have yet to capture the whole attention of historians on environmental issues beyond a glancing mention. However, this has not been all the same. One notable exception scholar in this context is John Majewski (Robbins, 89). In his book, he has a different position in this discussion. He based his claims on Modernization of Slave Economy. In his case, the author suggested and recommended that the poor quality of soil in southern parts, impaired by high intensive of labor on cash crop monoculture, facilitated the development of a political ideology. According to him, this is what ultimately sundered the nation. He further argued that the “link between the state activism and secession was, rooted land issues, or at least in how farmers and southern planters used their land.” (Richard, 65) The study of Majewski stands by itself in making this assertion, and a great deal must be done to flesh out this argument.

Another important aspect of the origin of this war was that, most environmental historians have claimed on, is the westward expansion. Our group encountered two students to discuss this story who are Steinberg and Fiege. What is the primary source of civil war in Central America? (Callicott, 99) Both scholars responded and argued to our question that the war resulted as competing visions for the nation’s physical and social landscapes. According to them, the war came about when both sides terribly clashed over access to the resources of the West and political squabbling that erupted into civil war. In each of the above examples, the matter of how the war was originated is framed.

Some questions that our group might ask: How did the race to control land in western parts, motivated in part by ideological and political fervor? How did it change the physical aspect that region? How did the western migration affect the areas migrated, socially, politically and physically? A major motivation for farms’ abandonment and moving to the west was declining the fertility soil; did the so called fire-eating politics correlates with those areas where soil was fully depleted? (Robbins, 99) Did this create any sense of vulnerability in environmental aspects that could have led to radical entrenched and political views on slavery? Did the physical landscape shape’ change the social and social culture of the South? For that matter, did the perceptions of the South relate to that of the north? Did all that material resulted in turn and lead to war? That is, can the group find the roots cause of war in the land, as per Fiege, and Steinberg contended or as per Majewski suggestion? (Robbins, 59)Rather than in the constitutional debates and racial ideologies on which scholar of Civil War have fully focused for so long? Likely, our group answered the questions as a combination of both, plus several factors that are not identified in the discussion. Our group has set an open forum to new scholars to turn all their attention to these issues.

In this conversation, most scholars claim that the military conflict is the center of environmental forays for most historians into Civil War‑era conversation. This is perhaps not very surprising as our group argued that an armed conflict is associated with high destruction of the environment and likely become the subject of environmental analysis. On the other hand, the literature produced by several scholars has not been stereotypically or narrowly construed. The group noted that the majority of scholar’s work has mainly focused instead on the active role of nature in shaping the civil war rather than on the impact of the war on nature. Andrew Bell has based his claims that show how mosquitoes formed a sort of the third army; the mosquitoes carried disease instead of deadly weapons (Robbins, 109). The group interview Kathryn Meier in the conversation regarding this war. She explained that the nature’s physical state during, after and before battle influenced mental health of the soldiers and morale. This either inspired or diminished their campaign effectiveness (Richard, 45). However, Mark Fiege tried to suggest that southern environment's limitations were due to either human activities or ecological process, impelled Lee fatefully towards Gettysburg.

Apparently, we noted in this interview that, there is many more military’s aspects conflict to be examined (Robbins, 89). Irregular warfare, for instance, in both the Eastern and western theaters provides an ample opportunity to elucidate not only the nature’s role in the battle but also how critical ideas.. In Every campaign and even battles at individual levels, could do much with environmental interpretation (Callicott, 101). Most Skeptics might try to suggest that such conversations would only confirm what they already know. Most of them know that the War was fought outside and as one colleague good-naturedly pointed out recently.

In this conversation, we also base it on the military theorist in nineteenth-century (Richard, 65). Carl von Clausewitz argued that the role of the nature in warfare, clearly pointing to it as the primary cause of uncertainty or friction in the battle. However, some studies have a different position on this issue. The studies analyze that military’s element of conflict and completely explore what its meaning, rather than accepting it prima facie, as it is required.

Furthermore, most scholars argued that the Civil War took place during transition time in the environment of the nation history. This occurred with implications for both the range of options and physical environment by which most Americans operated within the same environment (Robbins, 79). This means, for instance that the War was the first modern war and employed a wide range of tools of industry. From a logistical view, how did the processes of mass production used to supply millions of soldiers with clothes, arms and food affect ecological systems in the region? How did the attempt to mobilize civilians to support the battle affect the home front?

Finally, our group comes across another wartime developments that must be explicitly addressed. War and Secession enabled the Republicans and Lincoln to pass some of the relevant environmental legislation in the history of the country: the Yosemite Act of 1864, the Railroad and Homestead Acts of 1862(Richard, 115). Most scholars argued that the first two entirely divested public resources and their lands to individual, corporate and private investors. The third one established the first and only national nature reserve; which would become part of the larger Yosemite National Park at later times. Environmental historians have acknowledged each of these only within the war’s context (Callicott, 203). A comprehensive study by several researchers on these and other policies of wartime, both confederate and Union, would reveal, we believe, the War to be a watershed in the environmental history of the country.

Environmental scholars have explored a several variety of events existed between 1877 and 1865. Up to date none of the students has published any analysis of the formal period of Reconstruction. During the years, the only massive amount of sociopolitical and legislation changes those years’ merits in a deeper look (Richard, 101). This gave rise to several questions: Did these programs fail due to the political reasons often as argued by Johnson? Did the environmental factors actually contribute to its demise as well? Did the demand of the North’s for raw materials— turpentine, timber and cotton—override any an actual support for genuine reform of the land? Or did the failure and misfortunes as factor of internal pressures based on social conservatism and economic needs? Did even southern views of the nature’s role act in the best indent of the area and survival? (Richard, 95) Other questions in the conversation might be: How did changes in demographic after the war affects the approaches of the southerners to management of the environment in their region? Did they actually differ from the Northerners’ views that moved to the south to capitalize on markets that were burgeoning? In which ways did the industrial’s expansion models affect the particular ecologies across the whole of former Confederacy? How reconstruction policies as a whole affected the West and the North?

Another avenue in this conversation would be to examine how nature’s ideas changed after the civil war in response to the changes of the material wrought by the war conflict. Our group tried to commemorates the efforts that had begun at Appomattox even before Lee surrendered, for example; we tried to implement the significant environmental implications in America. Our argument was supported by Brian Black, who has demonstrated his innovative work on the park of Gettysburg National Military (Callicott, 98). Such parks had several challenges, then only become federal landholdings after his the end of Reconstruction. He claimed that the only underlying reasons in their culture and overarching effect of the environment of such as a commemoration movement deserve high and greater attention.

The ultimate benefit of applying this conversation, we encourage that it should be used as an analytical tool in the framework of environmental history. This will enhance the study of the War era through such research that we gained (Richard, 65). We can, therefore, contribute to this conversation that the civil war was pivotal in that history of America, much as it was in the social and political development of the nation. Furthermore, we can prove to this conversation that such studies are poised to remind the current generation that we only live in constant negotiation with natures. We also argued that most Americans who lived during the War era witnessed every tremendous change to physical environments especially during these conflicts. Therefore, we recommend and warn that ignorance to the peoples’ past elements, will fail to understand part of American history.

Works Cited

Callicott, J. Baird. Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy. Farmington Hills, MI: Macmillan Reference USA/Gale Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.

Robbins, Paul. Encyclopedia of Environment and Society. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2007. Print.

Samuels, Richard J. Encyclopedia of United States National Security. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 2006. Print.