The Ideal Of Inequality During The Civil War

The ideal of equality is one upon which the United States of America was built. Americans have long since asked themselves what exactly that means. During the Civil War, to the average Northerner, equality did not quite mean what most interpret it to mean today. To many, it meant only the emancipation of black slaves, not the rejection of segregation and prejudice against their dark skinned counterparts. The extent of prejudice of course did not end at race, but included looking down upon the poor man, thinking a woman was not capable of what a man was, calling Native Americans barbarians, and often valued lighter skinned slaves more than those with dark skin. While abolitionists were crucial in the act of liberating slaves, they had their
Not only was there ethnic and racial prejudice against immigrant and black soldiers, but classism played a major role in the treatment of soldiers. A combination of privilege including secure economic status influenced who got promoted; to those less economically endowed, the option of desertion seemed more appealing. The delay of payment for service in the war was a major source of desertion among poorer men. The clear distinction between the rich and poor in society was apparent in the political stances of the soldiers and how they regarded their black colleagues, although there is little variation between the number of rich men and the poor men who enlisted to fight in the Civil War, thus disproving the statement that the Civil War was a “rich man's war, but a poor man’s fight”. Men of lower socioeconomic status were no more inclined to willingly enlist than men of higher socioeconomic status. Unskilled laborers were more likely to serve in the war, but not by much. The rate of enlistment among different social classes was not disproportionate, though social class, among other things, influenced the experiences of each specific
Susan B. Anthony was a crucial element to the suffragist movement, and was held in contempt for voting in a presidential election without having the “constitutional right” to do so. In her speech on women’s rights, she brought to light the blatant inequality of the sexes. She argued that there is no way for her to not have the constitutional right to vote, for the right to vote is secured under the Constitution. The preamble clearly indicates the people of the United States, not the white men of the United States. The blessings of liberty are to be secured, they are not to be given to those the government deems worthy of human rights. Anthony stated that to have talk of the blessings of liberty bestowed upon women is a joke; if women are not guaranteed the right to vote, the blessings of liberty mean nothing. If states are to prohibit women from voting, it serves as a basic violation of human rights and constitutional law. She boldly proclaimed that to women the United States is hypocritical and hardly a democracy. The Union had long boasted the exercise of inalienable rights and operating under the power of the people, but to those not permitted to vote, the United States is nothing but an oppressive aristocracy. To the black man or woman, it was much the same. She called all men who govern in the name of equality but oppose the extension of voting rights ignorant and foolish.