Why Did The South Cause The Civil War Analysis
The civil war, which commenced in 1861, was the cause of 750,000 deaths. The war pitted the union, which was predominantly northern states, against the rebellious confederacy who refused to modernise their way of living. The confederacy consisted of South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama and Georgia. In the end, the union was able to resist the confederate rebellion. However, since the end of the civil war, many have argued about it’s primary cause. At the forefront of the argument is slavery, and how this shaped the variation of culture in the south compared to the north, creating a large divide between the two groups of people economically in addition to socially. Alternatively, it is possible other causes played a more prominent role
…show more content…
This is seen in the way he states “had the Border South been more successful in defending slavery, Lower South radicals would have had less reason to leave the Union”. In this extract, he is implying that has the southern ways of slavery had not have been threatened, the 11 southern states that seceded the union (1860-61) would have possibly not made this decision. Harrold backs his point with evidence, inferring that “military commanders diverted limited resources from its major objectives to recapture or kidnap African Americans.” This strengthens Harrold’s suggestion as it shows that in the pre-planning before the war and in the time period in question, plans must have been made to focus efforts on re-slaving the freed African …show more content…
This contributes positively to Egnal’s viewpoint as it shows he has had time to asses the war from various viewpoints, and can see how multiple other historians have viewed the causes of the war to help him devise his own opinion. It also means there are more sources to analyse, as sources from the civil war and pre will have been have been discovered, for example messages between commanders. However, once again with the book being written so recently, as his book cannot possibly provide a true reflection of the mood or attitudes of
This is seen in the way he states “had the Border South been more successful in defending slavery, Lower South radicals would have had less reason to leave the Union”. In this extract, he is implying that has the southern ways of slavery had not have been threatened, the 11 southern states that seceded the union (1860-61) would have possibly not made this decision. Harrold backs his point with evidence, inferring that “military commanders diverted limited resources from its major objectives to recapture or kidnap African Americans.” This strengthens Harrold’s suggestion as it shows that in the pre-planning before the war and in the time period in question, plans must have been made to focus efforts on re-slaving the freed African …show more content…
This contributes positively to Egnal’s viewpoint as it shows he has had time to asses the war from various viewpoints, and can see how multiple other historians have viewed the causes of the war to help him devise his own opinion. It also means there are more sources to analyse, as sources from the civil war and pre will have been have been discovered, for example messages between commanders. However, once again with the book being written so recently, as his book cannot possibly provide a true reflection of the mood or attitudes of