In all “more than fifty thousand separate books or pamphlets” have appeared “since the guns ceased firing.” The fact that Americans will read insatiably about that awful, transforming conflict is well established.
Why then do so many academic historians continue to write just for one another? He teaches at Princeton; his books (including , and “Who Freed the Slaves?
While current belief subjugates the causes of the war to factors other than slavery and race relations, it cannot be dismissed that the issue still played a critical role.
Two factors that strongly contributed to the outbreak of war include the division of regional populations (egocentric sectionalism), and the development of a “Southern Revolutionary Nationalist Party” that used regional fears about a strong presidency to further incite hostility and division between the North and South. Owsley and Lee Benson, combined with reference to primary sources from Abraham Lincoln and Alexander Stephens, I will argue that a strong sense of regionalism among southerners created favorable political conditions for the rise of an aggressive nationalism. Check out our post on the IRA, we think you'll enjoy it.
At the time, the nation was composed of (Owsley 54).
Egocentric sectionalism resulted in the Union’s dominant section (the North) constructing a narrative where the minority (the South) was labeled as “un-American, unworthy of friendly consideration, and even the object of attack” (Owsley 55). 507) speak of the two regions’ respective “labor systems,” which in the eyes of both contemporaries were the most salient evidence of two irreconcilable worldviews.The collision course that led to the Civil War did not have its basis in pure economics as much as in the perceptions of Northerners and Southerners of the economies Finally, despite the enshrinement via the Constitution of an essentially conservative form of government intended to ensure a peaceful political process, the history of the United States leading up to the Civil War was a violent one.As a result, as the gap in understandings of political legitimacy and personhood between the North and the South grew, so did the Southern Nationalist movement – and thus the risk for conflict.Egocentric sectionalism and the rise of Southern Nationalism, compounded by increasingly poor race relations, were key factors in creating the conditions whereby a civil war could occur – a notion supported by evidence from key political figures at the time, such as Lincoln and Stephens.,” Mc Pherson takes the latest professional thinking on the war and gives it clear and popular shape, a deceptively hard accomplishment.He continues to walk a path between Civil War amateurs, who know their tactical history, and scholars of the “new history,” who focus on the period’s social and industrial forces.The Civil War broke America in two groups and, at the time, was the war with the most casualties and injured men.As the fight to preserve the Union progressed, so did a number of other areas, such as weaponry and artillery.This attitude toward southerners can even be found in the presidency of Abraham Lincoln evidenced in his inaugural address: That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events, and are glad of any pretext to do it, I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them.To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?