Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This blog is an open forum for CCHS AP US History students. There will be an official posting each week for each student to respond. However, you may also post other information and questions you have concerning AP US History or CCHS.
Blog Archive
About Me
- Mrs. Vince
- This is my 7th year teaching AP US History and our third year to blog. Please put forth your best effort and hopefully it will be beneficial for everyone!!!
16 comments:
Towards the beginning of the war, the war was to save the Union. As the war progressed though, it became a war to free the slaves. (This was only from the North's perspective though. The South was always fighting for what they deemed as 'Southern Rights'.) The turning point for the motive of the North was the Emancipation Proclamation. This was the public declaration that this war had become a war over slavery.
As far as a name for the conflict goes, there are many. It could be called The Brother's War since family members fought against each other. It could be called The Splitting War because it split the nation in two. It also could be called The Test War because this conflict tested the American values set out in the Constitution.
At the beginning it was seen as a war to save the union like cathy said but i think it is more seen as a war to free slaves. I think either way to save slaves or the union the nation was first going to split regardless because of the slave issue. i think the Civil war isn't a correct name for this war, it wasn't Civil it was full of violence and the way blacks were treated was also not civil. I think it should be called the Freedom War for the slaves finally being free or the Lost Cause War because the North had tried so long to free the slaves, that it seemed to be a lost cause. One other name of the war could be the Splitting of the Nation because the south and North were very split on the issue. But Civil War deffinatley does not fit this war.
The Civil War should be seen as a war to free the slaves. The Northern abolitionists pushed and pushed the South on the issue of slavery, always trying to limit their constitutional right to own slaves. The abolitionists then tried to make Kansas a free state by unjustly paying people to vote, and encouraging them to sway the vote to their side by voting multiple times. This undermined the idea of rule by the people, because the rich politicians could just pay for their side to win and make our government more like an aristocracy, the richest will rule.
The abolitionists started this war by treating the Southern states in unconstitutional ways, thinking that the ends would justify the means, which not only including their unconstitutional actions, but also all the people who died fighting in the Civil War.
I would call the war, The War of Constitutional Interpretation, for two reasons, one because the issue of state's rights had to be interpreted from the Constitution, and two, because the abolitionists interpreted that the Constitution and its ideals did not apply to them while they were fighting to free the slaves.
For the North in the beginnig the war was fought to preserve the union, to keep the Southern states from seceeding. Then with the victory at Anteitam Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation and turned the focus of the war to freeing the slaves. For the South though their focus all along was for State's rights and to seperate from the Union and start thier own country. As Cathy pointed out their are many names that could describe this war, I think it could be called 'Freedom for All' representing the fight for black emancipation, 'Fight for the Union' symbolizing the fight to save America or like Cathy said 'The Brothers War' showing how families split over differing views.
MAYNARD
it mainly has to do on perspective. the north wanted to free the slaves the south wanted southern rights but the war should of focused at how the war was efecting the nation as a whole. i personally think that the war should of focused on saving the union. if they would of focused on keeping the union together through compromise then there would of been less blood shed and tension. in the beggingin of te war the north was simply working to keep the union together but later other things were agonized over and the idea of keeping a nation to gether was forgotten. i would probably call this conflict "the perspective" because the war and what was fought over veried from place to place and person to person.
I would have to agree with Cathy. At the beggining it was to save the union. But for the south it was about slaves. So both sides were fighting for different reasons. The south wanted to keep things the same, with slaves and farms. But when they decided to break off is when the north wanted to save the union.
And the name, I think "civil war" fits because thats what it was. Or the "family war". That war tore so many families apart because some were for different sides and they couldn't compromise on anything.
Casey:)
In the very beginning it was due to the abolitionists pushing for the emancipation of slaves in the southern states. The south believed that it was unconstitutional to take their slaves away, and thus they left the Union leading to the war. The beginning of the Civil War, was to save the Union and bring the Southern States back in. The leaders knew at the beginning that the border states would leave if the war was only fought for emancipation. Later as the battles raged, they found out that if the issue of slavery was not defeated during this war, it would once again reoccur later in an additional war. It was at this time that the War became something more than reuniting the Union, it became a war fought for the freedom of a human race. But primarly it was fought to free the slaves, and thus it has gone in history for.
I believe that the name "civil war", fits this war in many ways. I wouldn't give it another name because it was over the civil rights of the people and what they believed in.
I think that the Civil War can primarily be seen as a war that was intended to save the Union. The breaking apart of the Union and states rights were the real main reasons that the war even took place. Lincoln later turned it into an issue of slavery i think just so that he could gain more support for the Union in order to help put the nation back together and not stay split. I think this war could be called the States War becouse it was focused so much on the states and the Union coming back together and staying split into two parts. Lincoln believed more in saving the union than he did than freeing the slaves. He once said that if could save the union without freeing any slaves he would do it and if he could save the union by freeing all the slaves he would. I think this statement proves that he isn't really concerned about the slaves but more and firstly about protecting the Union and not destroying it. Slavery was just a support and a way of achieving his real goal.
This question is difficult to answer because really it was meant to do both.However,like Cathy said, the war was originally meant to try to save the Union and to bring everyone together. As time went by another issue kept popping up...abolition of slavery. This issue became the main concern because if they were going to save the union, they had to destroy the issue that was causing them to be divided. If I had to choose a name for this war it would be The War Of Conflicting Opinions. Even thought it isn't very creative it sums up the war fairly well. The war was over the conflicting opinion of slavery, the union, and the confederacy.
It depends on how you look at it. The North was trying to preserve the union and keep everyone together, so in that aspect it was fought to save the North. But if you were a slave or a slaveholder, you were fighting for your way of life and your freedom.
Lincoln used his Emancipation Proclomation to give meaning to alot of the nonsense he pulled during this time. Slavery was both a cause and a ruse, but still something to fight for.
For the north it was more of saving the union but for the south it was about the slaves. The NOrth also wanted to free the slaves though. I believe that The primary reason was the slavery issue because this was why the union was going to divide. I would probably have named the conflict War against slavery becaue thats mainly what it was about.
I think the main thing the war was over was interpetaing the constitution. That was the issue with the states and the slavery issue. The states thougth they should have more rights than they did, which goes back to interpretating the constitution. Some thougth suceding was illegal, some thougth they had every right to. Also, the constitution didn't clearly define what rights the blacsk had. This meant there were disputes over whether or not blacks were peopel or property and stuff like that. I would name this something about interpreting the constitution.
I think that the Civil War was a war to save the union. Our country was in such distress, and there was no unity. In the effort to unify the people, slavery had to be abolished. That was the root of all the problems and until it was gone our country would be in total chaos. If I had to name the conflict i would name it, Unification War, because in reality, that's what it brought about. Unity.
Non mauvais topic [url=http://runfr.com/acheter-cialis]cialis forum[/url] http://runfr.com/cialis cialis generique generique cialis efficace a quel moment prendre cialis
Vous vous trompez. Nous examinerons. [url=http://runfr.com/acheter-cialis]acheter viagra[/url] http://runfr.com/cialis ou se procurer du cialis sans ordonnance achat de cialis en suisse sur internet prix du cialis en belgique
Vous doit dire cela — la voie fausse. http://runfr.com acheter viagra en ligne achat cialis en ligne
Post a Comment