Civil war history discussion post
Phillips3717
51036529-858b-426b-88d0-99e204a22d16week_14.docxDiscussion 13 – Topic; the Civil War
The Civil War was the bloodiest conflict in American history. To this day, historians write and debate what caused it and why the North won.
Make an historical argument in response to this statement:
“From the beginning, it was clear that the North’s advantages would allow it to win over the South.” Agree? Disagree?
First, (50 words or more)
Source: (can be hyperlink or Author)
Second, (50 words or more)
Source: (can be hyperlink or Author)
Third, (50 words or more)
Source: (can be hyperlink or Author)
Fourth, (50 words or more)
Source: (can be hyperlink or Author)
Background:
America’s Civil War (or War Between the States) erupted in 1861 and lasted for four long years and, without question, was the mostly costly in terms of human lives at the time. The odds of a soldier dying or being seriously wounded were higher than any other war, and there were untold numbers of inhuman acts committed both on and off the battlefield. Military leaders of both sides stubbornly adhered to the “frontal assault” tactic which proved to be a slaughterhouse for the attacking side. I visited the Petersburg battlefield and gazed with astonishment at the infamous “crater” in which attacking Union troops were picked off as fish in a fishbowl. Many fought bravely and with honor and perished. Some, on both sides, became disillusioned and lost enthusiasm.
Was it worth it? Traditional historians have always maintained that it was because it saved the Union and forged a new stronger nation, as well as ending slavery and the sectional gap. They have seen it as an unfortunate but morally justifiable struggle against the Southern evil. Revisionists aren't so sure. Some liberal historians like Howard Zinn argue that it was really a titanic struggle between the elites of each section to protect and expand their wealth and control of the country but fought by the common man who was used as cannon fodder. Some conservative revisionists like DiLorenzo claim it was a diabolic plot by Lincoln and his friends to expand the power of the national government and the wealth of the Eastern rich.
