Civil War Propaganda

America’s transformation into the country we live in today has been formed through numerous events during its short history but the event that will split the United States into North versus South is truly one of the most defining events in American history. Through numerous events leading up to the start of the Civil War, I will attempt to show how the United States was destined for conflict and that the Civil War was inevitable. The first way I will show how the war could not be avoided will deal with the issue of slavery. Slavery should be the first mentioned because many conflicts within the United States leading up to the Civil War and the division of the United States dealt with slavery. The Missouri Compromise should also be talked

Abraham Lincoln is one of the most well known presidents in the history of the United States of America. He as thought to be the man who led this great country through the toughest times it had to encounter. His determination to get the United States through the Civil War is one of the best things that have ever happened for this country. Lincoln’s argument about the relationship between slavery, the Constitution, and the Union changed throughout the Civil War. Lincoln’s view of the purpose of the war was to save the Union because of the southern states seceding from the Union. However, the argument changed to the war being about slavery because of Fredrick Douglass’s speeches and the Confederates surrendering at

The first major reason of the civil war stems from Lincoln’s “House Divided” speech. Lincoln gives warning to the growing rift between the North and the South, the Anti-Slavery and the Pro-Slavery groups, as evidence in ‘I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.’ Although the antagonism and eagerness of protecting the Union is not shown as prominently as future speeches, we can find a hint of caution in his tone. He goes on to support his claims through the hodgepodge of legislation that is the ‘Nebraska Doctrine’ and the legal crisis of the Dred Scott court case. He politely refers to this as ‘squabble’ and speak of the controversy and moral implication that they have caused. For his part, it is easy to see the insinuation of the speech- he believed slavery was immoral and was wholly incompatible with the principles of the Declaration of Independence embodied in the phrase

“Lincoln vehemently opposed the expansion of slavery into new western territories and served as one of the most influential advocates of ‘free soil’” (Shmoop Editorial Team). Although Lincoln stayed neutral on the topic of the abolitionist movement during his campaign, he was against the expansion of slavery. Because of this, the South saw him as a threat and seven southern states seceded from the Union.

labor” (Foner, 393). Cotton not only became the most profitable crop for the Southern farmers,

The bloodiest war in American history, led by Abraham Lincoln for the north, and Jefferson Davis for the south, both presidents, but two different sides. Both garner for peace, yet one is willing to start a war, while the other is willing to accept it. This essay will compare and contrast the political, economical, and social outlooks on Lincoln’s and Davis’ Inaugural addresses throughout the civil war between the North and South. Slavery, laws, and state rights drove the South to start a war, and Lincoln received the war with open arms. Both sides wanted peace, but their means of achieving it and their leaders’ choices and beliefs differed greatly while still holding similarities.

Lincoln has different to eliminate slavery but that would be impossible. He also speaks about the education slaves had perspectives on slavery. He expresses his feelings and views on slavery in every speech he gives but in each speech he has different points of view. On some of the speeches he talks about how fast he wants in the southern states and how men preferred to have slaves instead of common men. He also talks of how they worked and were treated horribly. But then his opinions were also indecisive, he wants to satisfy the majority of states by stating his opinions in a way that satisfies the ideas pertain to slavery just to gain political power over his presidential election.

Although James McPherson presents Lincoln as having numerous qualities that defined him as a brilliant leader, he wastes no time in revealing what he believes to be Lincoln’s greatest strength. In his Introduction, McPherson states regarding Lincoln’s political leadership: “In a civil war whose origins lay in a political conflict over the future of slavery and a political decision by certain states to secede, policy could never be separated from national strategy…. And neither policy nor national strategy could be separated from military strategy” (McPherson, p.6). Lincoln could not approach the war from a purely martial standpoint—instead, he needed to focus on the issues that caused it. For the catalyst of the war was also the tool for its solution; a war started by differing ideologies could only be resolved through the military application of ideology. This non-objective approach to the waging of the war almost resembles the inspired approach McPherson brings to his examination of Lincoln himself.

Due to this, the economy of America at this period of time was centred around cotton and as Clement Eaton stated, 'After the invention of the cotton gin in 1793, the tempo of life in the South quickened.' The industry was able to achieve large profits through the use of slaves-the cheapest labour of all-and eventually 'Three-fourths of the world's supply of cotton came from the southern states.'

With the economic system, the south had a very hard time producing their main source “cotton and tobacco”. “Cotton became commercially significant in the 1790’s after the invention of a new cotton gin by Eli Whitney. (PG 314)” Let

To what extent was the Civil War fought over African American freedom ? What were political issues that dominated U.S. politics in the 1850’s ? What factors led to the split of political parties leading up to the war ? What major events heightened sectional conflicts ? What political wartime strategies did both sides use to win the war ? These are some points and questions that will be discussed in this paper. These questions will be answered to find out why the civil war was fought

In the later half of nineteenth century America, the new nation’s original ability to resolve conflict through means of peaceful compromise had vanished. Various spans of conflict such as Westward Expansion, the Market Revolution, Sectionalism, Mexican American War, the succession of the southern states and ultimately the failure of the Compromise of 1850 that made compromise between the North and the South unattainable. It was the uncompromising differences amongst the free and slave states over the power of the national government that created a divide that would result in divisional violence. From the industrialized North, the agricultural South, Jackson’s Presidency to Lincoln’s and the rise in America 's involvement in politics that followed, slavery was merely one pawn on the board during America’s transforming years that would later reveal itself to have been the vehicle for the Civil War.

The Manipulation of the Public by a Small Group of Southern Fanatics as the Cause of the Civil War

As a Republican President, Abraham Lincoln opposed slavery. He believed it was unnecessary to everyone-including Negros and Whites. However, with his stand on slavery, he held back by declaring that he had no reason to disrupt slavery where it existed. The constitution had protected states where citizens wanted slavery to exist. Lincoln knew he would not get enough support and that the four slave-holding states in the North would turn against him. As a result, the Civil War began in 1861 with more of a political purpose in keeping the union together rather than a battle for human freedom. Slaveholders could not turn to the Union’s side because slaves were valuable and played a vital role to

Hurst wrote about Civil War battles he was in and mentions the propaganda he witnessed over a four-year span. He remarked how outlandish the Southern newspapers were. It is unusual for a general, who is amongst the chaos of the war, to notice something seemingly trivial. “We are daily in receipt of newspapers of Augusta and Savannah, and of the rural districts, which our foragers bring in; and we laugh ourselves to tears sometimes at their ‘last ditch’ literature. Half-scared to death, and yet boastful and defiant, they exhibit a rich combination of the coward and the braggart” (Hurst, 2012, p. 159). While being in the middle of the war, Hurst had a unique viewpoint that most other journalists missed, ignored, or failed to write about. It is unusual to look at the Civil War as a propagandist war, yet multiple current sources allude to that. Hurst’s realization was quite telling; now historians whom examined the press after the war are able to see the blatant transparency. “To modern readers, the acerbic tone of the era’s reporting seems more akin to partisan propaganda than objective journalism” (Davis & Robertson, 2009, p. 35). This further reiterates what Hurst picked up on and shows how both the North and South journalists wrote in a propagandist tone.