Public opinion in the United States on the eve of the Civil war (1850-1861), was

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tat'yana Alent'eva

The monograph first examines American public opinion as a major factor of social and political life in the period of the maturing of the Civil war (1861-1865 gg.). Special value it is given by the study of the struggle in the South and in the North, consideration of the process of formation of two socio-cultural models. On the wide canvas of the socio-economic and political history in the monograph analyses the state and development of public opinion in the United States, sequentially from the compromise of 1850, a small civil war in Kansas, the uprising of John brown, of the maturing of "inevitable conflict," the secession of the southern States to the formation of the southern Confederacy and the Civil war. Reveals a fierce struggle, which was accompanied by the adoption of the compromise Kansas-Nebraska and the Supreme court decision in the Dred Scott case of 1857, which annulled the action of the famous Missouri compromise. Special attention is paid to the formation of the Republican party and the presidential elections of 1856 and 1860 Shown, as were incitement to hatred between citizens of the same country, which were used propaganda and manipulative techniques. The totality of facts gleaned from primary sources, especially the materials about these manipulations give an opportunity to look behind the scenes politics that led to the outbreak of the Civil war in the United States, a deeper understanding of its causes. For students of historical faculties and departments of sociology and political Sciences, and anyone interested in American history.

Author(s):  
James R. Watson

On June 2, 1862, William A. Hammond, Surgeon General of the United States Army, announced the intention of his office to collect material for the publication of a “Medical and Surgical History of the War of the Rebellion (1861–1865)” (1), usually called the Civil War of the United States of America, or the War Between the Union (the North; the Federal Government) and the Confederacy of the Southern States. Forms for the monthly “Returns of Sick and Wounded” were reviewed, corrected and useful data compiled from these “Returns” and from statistics of the offices of the Adjutant General (payroll) and Quartermaster General (burial of decreased soldiers).


Author(s):  
Ryan W. Keating

In April 1861, newly elected president Abraham Lincoln found himself in a precarious situation. Although he had won the presidency in the November elections, his victory was by no means a mandate from the people for the Republican Party platform. The nation was perilously divided. Winning less than half the popular vote in 1860, the tall, gaunt lawyer from Illinois looked on as his nation teetered on the brink of civil war. To keep the nation together, the new commander in chief drew support from a rather tenuous alliance of political rivals openly divided in their opinions about the actions of their southern brethren. The attack on Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina, however, galvanized public opinion throughout the north and fostered, at least momentarily, a powerful wartime alliance between Republicans and Democrats that allowed Lincoln to carry out a war to preserve the Union. As Federal troops lowered the Stars and Stripes in surrender from the ramparts of the bastion in Charleston Harbor, banners were hoisted in towns and cities across the North as men of all ages, ethnicities, classes, and backgrounds rushed to the defense of their flag and their nation....


Author(s):  
Justus D. Doenecke

For the United States, isolationism is best defined as avoidance of wars outside the Western Hemisphere, particularly in Europe; opposition to binding military alliances; and the unilateral freedom to act politically and commercially unrestrained by mandatory commitments to other nations. Until the controversy over American entry into the League of Nations, isolationism was never subject to debate. The United States could expand its territory, protect its commerce, and even fight foreign powers without violating its traditional tenets. Once President Woodrow Wilson sought membership in the League, however, Americans saw isolationism as a foreign policy option, not simply something taken for granted. A fundamental foreign policy tenet now became a faction, limited to a group of people branded as “isolationists.” Its high point came during the years 1934–1937, when Congress, noting the challenge of the totalitarian nations to the international status quo, passed the neutrality acts to insulate the country from global entanglements. Once World War II broke out in Europe, President Franklin D. Roosevelt increasingly sought American participation on the side of the Allies. Isolationists unsuccessfully fought FDR’s legislative proposals, beginning with repeal of the arms embargo and ending with the convoying of supplies to Britain. The America First Committee (1940–1941), however, so effectively mobilized anti-interventionist opinion as to make the president more cautious in his diplomacy. If the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor permanently ended classic isolationism, by 1945 a “new isolationism” voiced suspicion of the United Nations, the Truman Doctrine, aid to Greece and Turkey, the Marshall Plan, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and U.S. participation in the Korean War. Yet, because the “new isolationists” increasingly advocated militant unilateral measures to confront Communist Russia and China, often doing so to advance the fortunes of the Republican party, they exposed themselves to charges of inconsistency and generally faded away in the 1950s. Since the 1950s, many Americans have opposed various military involvements— including the ones in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan— but few envision returning to an era when the United States avoids all commitments.


Author(s):  
James P. Byrd

This epilogue examines the central themes of the Bible in the Civil War, including confidence in clear analogies between biblical texts and the war; faith in the war’s redemptive outcome, which, for many in the North, charged the United States with a divine mission in the world; and above all, reverence for the sacred sacrifice of the dead, whose blood had “consecrated” the nation. Through all the death and injury, endless debates over slavery, defenses of secession, and patriotism, the Bible was a constant reference. The American Civil War may not have been “a war of religion,” James McPherson wrote, but we should not forget “the degree to which it was a religious war.” In a similar way, the American Civil War was not primarily a war over the Bible, but it was a biblical war for many Americans.


Author(s):  
Amanda L. Tyler

This chapter details the American Civil War and President Abraham Lincoln’s role in acting quickly—and controversially—to protect critical areas in the North by claiming the unilateral power to suspend habeas. As is explored in the chapter, Lincoln proclaimed suspensions on his own and without congressional approval for some two years until the US Congress finally enacted suspension legislation. Along the way, Lincoln’s actions provoked a rebuke from the Chief Justice of the United States in Ex parte Merryman and raised important separation of powers questions. The chapter also explores how after the war, the Supreme Court held in Ex parte Milligan that the laws of war could not be applied to “citizens in states which have upheld the authority of the government, and where the courts are open and their process unobstructed.” Finally, the chapter discusses the precedent established by Lincoln’s actions.


Author(s):  
Elizabeth R. Varon

Perhaps no other American leader has experienced so precipitous a fall from grace as Andrew Johnson, seventeenth president of the United States (1865–1869). During the Civil War, Johnson was the preeminent symbol of Southern Unionism—and thus, the ideal running mate for Abraham Lincoln in the 1864 election, on the Union Party ticket. Four years later, as president, he was widely viewed as a traitor to his political allies and even to the Union, and barely escaped impeachment. In modern scholarship, the image persists of Johnson as politically inept, and willfully self-destructive—driven by visceral emotions, particularly by implacable racism, and lacking in Lincoln’s skill for reading and molding public opinion. But such an image fails to capture fully the scope of his political influence. As President, Johnson staked claims that shaped the course of Reconstruction—that emancipation signified nothing but freedom; that the immediate aftermath of the Civil War was a golden moment of reconciliation, which Radicals squandered by pushing for black suffrage; that the Congressional program of Reconstruction inaugurated a period of so-called “black rule,” during which former Confederates were victimized and disfranchised. Such propaganda was designed to deem the Republican experiment in black citizenship a failure before it even began. Johnson’s term offers an example as striking as any in U.S. history of the power of presidents to set the terms of political debates—and of the power of their words to do lasting harm.


Author(s):  
A.V. Taigildin ◽  

The impact of the industrial revolution in the United States on the relationship between its two economic and political regions – the North and the South – was discussed. In the first half of the 19th century, the interests of some regions diverged as the country proceeded with its economic development. This turned out to be a primary cause of contradictions between the North and the South that led to the Civil War of 1861–1865. The development of trade, industry, and transport system during the period under consideration was analyzed. Their role in the conflict was revealed. Special attention was paid to the land question, around which the disputes among industrialists of the North, farmers, and plantation owners of the South revolved. The problem of slavery as a reason for the disagreement between the two regions was emphasized. Based on the literature data, it was shown that the issue of slavery was a minor one. It was used to merely provide cover for the actual economic problems. The conclusion was made that the industrial revolution in the United States triggered political changes, which resulted in the formation of the Republican Party and in the split within the Democratic Party.


2011 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 193-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Ashworth

Abstract This paper introduces arguments from Slavery, Capitalism, and Politics in the Antebellum Republic1 to suggest that the Civil War arose ultimately because of class-conflict between on the one hand, Southern slaves and their masters and, on the other, Northern workers and their employers. It does not, however, suggest that either in the North or the South these conflicts were on the point of erupting into revolution. On the contrary, they were relatively easily containable. However, harmony within each section (North and South) could be secured only at the cost of intersectional conflict, conflict which would finally erupt into civil war. The Civil War was a ‘bourgeois revolution’ not only because it destroyed slavery, an essentially precapitalist system of production, in the United States but also because it resulted in the enthronement of Northern values, with the normalisation of wage-labour at their core.


2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (72) ◽  
Author(s):  
Luz Carregha Lamadrid

En el artículo se aborda el conflicto surgido en 1885, cuando el general Justo Rufino Barrios, presidente de Guatemala, proclamó de manera unilateral la Unión de Repúblicas Centroamericanas, y aseguró que la establecería aun por la vía armada. También se examina la postura del gobierno mexicano ante el conflicto que estalló y obligó a mirar a la frontera sur, a partir de las notas de los periódicos principales que circulaban entonces en la Ciudad de México, lo que permite también conocer la respuesta de la opinión pública de la época. El objetivo es explorar la política exterior del gobierno mexicano frente a un evento, que adquirió mayor relevancia cuando se extendió el temor de una posible intervención de Estados Unidos en el territorio nacional. Los hallazgos muestran que la reacción del general Porfirio Díaz ante el conflicto centroamericano contribuyó al fortalecimiento de su figura como “héroe de la paz”, que lo caracterizó.Looking at the South without losing sight of the North. Mexico vis-à-vis the Union of Central American Republics, 1885this article deals with the conflict arising in 1885, when General Justo Rufino Barrios, president of Guatemala, proclaimed unilaterally the Union of Central American Republics, assuring its establishment even by armed means. Also, based on news items from the main newspapers circulating in Mexico City, which allows to know the response of public opinion of the time, it examines the Mexican government’s position on the conflict that broke out and was an imperative to have a look at the southern border. The aim is to explore Mexican government’s foreign policy vis-à-vis an event that became more relevant when fears of a possible intervention of the United States in the national territory spread. The findings show that General Porfirio Diaz’s reaction to the Central American conflict contributed to the enhancement of his reputation as “a peace hero”.


Author(s):  
Tim Grass

Presbyterians and Congregationalists arrived in colonial America as Dissenters; however, they soon exercised a religious and cultural dominance that extended well into the first half of the nineteenth century. The multi-faceted Second Great Awakening led within the Reformed camp by the Presbyterian James McGready in Kentucky, a host of New Divinity ministers in New England, and Congregationalist Charles Finney in New York energized Christians to improve society (Congregational and Presbyterian women were crucial to the three most important reform movements of the nineteenth century—antislavery, temperance, and missions) and extend the evangelical message around the world. Although outnumbered by other Protestant denominations by mid-century, Presbyterians and Congregationalists nevertheless expanded geographically, increased in absolute numbers, spread the Gospel at home and abroad, created enduring institutions, and continued to dominate formal religious thought. The overall trajectory of nineteenth-century Presbyterianism and Congregationalism in the United States is one that tracks from convergence to divergence, from cooperative endeavours and mutual interests in the first half the nineteenth century to an increasingly self-conscious denominational awareness that became firmly established in both denominations by the 1850s. With regional distribution of Congregationalists in the North and Presbyterians in the mid-Atlantic region and South, the Civil War intensified their differences (and also divided Presbyterians into antislavery northern and pro-slavery southern parties). By the post-Civil War period these denominations had for the most part gone their separate ways. However, apart from the southern Presbyterians, who remained consciously committed to conservatism, they faced a similar host of social and intellectual challenges, including higher criticism of the Bible and Darwinian evolutionary theory, to which they responded in varying ways. In general, Presbyterians maintained a conservative theological posture whereas Congregationalists accommodated to the challenges of modernity. At the turn of the century Congregationalists and Presbyterians continued to influence sectors of American life but their days of cultural hegemony were long past. In contrast to the nineteenth-century history of Presbyterian and Congregational churches in the United States, the Canadian story witnessed divergence evolving towards convergence and self-conscious denominationalism to ecclesiastical cooperation. During the very years when American Presbyterians were fragmenting over first theology, then slavery, and finally sectional conflict, political leaders in all regions of Canada entered negotiations aimed at establishing the Dominion of Canada, which were finalized in 1867. The new Dominion enjoyed the strong support of leading Canadian Presbyterians who saw in political confederation a model for uniting the many Presbyterian churches that Scotland’s fractious history had bequeathed to British North America. In 1875, the four largest Presbyterian denominations joined together as the Presbyterian Church in Canada. The unifying and mediating instincts of nineteenth-century Canadian Presbyterianism contributed to forces that in 1925 led two-thirds of Canadian Presbyterians (and almost 90 per cent of their ministers) into the United Church, Canada’s grand experiment in institutional ecumenism. By the end of the nineteenth century, Congregationalism had only a slight presence, whereas Presbyterians, by contrast, became increasingly more important until they stood at the centre of Canada’s Protestant history.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document