8262267__History_of_the_U-1.S._Civil_War_ - History of the...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
History of the U.S. Civil War 1 Running head: HISTORY OF THE U.S. CIVIL WAR History of the U.S. Civil War [Author’s Name] [Institution’s Name]
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
History of the U.S. Civil War 2 History of the U.S. Civil War Under the editorship of David Donald, Why the North Won the Civil War is based on conferences held at Gettysburg College, in 1958 and 1991, respectively. The earlier historians looked at various facets of the war such as economics, politics, and so on. David Donald focuses on military matters and thus we do not so much replace as supplement the earlier book. That it was time to take another look at the question of Why is clear enough. Unlike the earlier scholars, we all agree with McPherson concerning the contingent nature of history. In the Civil War either side might have won. In philosophical terms then we lean against determinism. We agree, too, that the battlefield cannot be separated from society and politics. The surprising degree of harmony these essays display, however, is not perfect. If we hope to be true to life, and to history, it cannot be. 1- No one can deny the relationship between the Mexican-American War and the coming of the American Civil War. And the very purpose can be well identified by exploring the historical significance of the Wilmot Proviso, the Free Soil Party, and the Compromise of 1850. Much historical writing on the 1846–48 war has focused on political debate over the expansion of slavery and the stirring up of sectional conflict. Although these issues are vital, in hindsight the stupendous catastrophe of the American Civil War has obscured some of the more important national and international struggles that were aggravated by the Mexican-American conflict. Republicans were ideologically driven by a free labor philosophy, yet he credits this critical interpretation when he deals with the 'Barnburners' or Democratic defectors to the Free Soil Party in New York state. He writes that "they made it clear that their support of the [Wilmot] Proviso was based as much on repugnance to the prospect of a Negro population, free or slave, in the territories, as on an opposition to the spread of the institution of slavery." 1 Now as per Wilmot Proviso, the policies of containing slavery in the Southern states, perhaps best exemplified by the Wilmot Proviso, or of colonizing the black man out of the country, were in part predicated on the theory that black people represented an inferior race, not fit to associate and, in particular, copulate or intermarry with the superior Caucasian race, lest they dilute the purity and therefore the superior qualities of the latter race. When writing about the Wilmot Proviso, Blue notes that it "was. ..devised as a means to shift the issue from opposition to slavery per se, to the more practical . ..matter of opposition to the expansion of slavery." Blue concludes that "on the issue of race, almost all Free Soilers demonstrated how similar they were to Democrats and Whigs." By "sharing the racism of
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 11/29/2010 for the course MANAGEMENT EM-14793 taught by Professor Lindaryaan during the Spring '08 term at Windsor.

Page1 / 8

8262267__History_of_the_U-1.S._Civil_War_ - History of the...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online