Free Essay

Civil War and the Glorious Revolution

In: Other Topics

Submitted By supgee
Words 2571
Pages 11
After Elizabeth I died in 1603, the Tudor dynasty was ended and the Stuarts (Catholic dynasty started by James I) began to rule. * The Stuarts believed in the 'divine right of kings' - ie, the God ordained that the King is supreme, and is thus 'above the law'. This plunged England into civil war. * The civil war seen as a 3 way dispute by the lawyers. The Parliament, the King and the common law were all vying for ultimate power. * Eventually, Charles I lost the struggle and was executed in 1649. * The civil war and the ideas that rose up during it led to constitutional change in England and development of lots of ideas that influenced the colonies like Australia.

The king versus the common law
In 1598 (before he was King of England), James I wrote The Trew Law of Free Monarchies, setting out the divine right of Kings. * He was supported in this idea by the attorney-general, Francis Bacon. * Bacon argued that that according to natural law, only absolute monarchy could avoid 'confusion and dissolution'. This theory was based on the natural law theory that law is based on reason and the will of the Crown. * According to Bacon, the King could govern by prerogative alone – parliamentary powers allowed only by tolerance of the King – he could dismiss or convene Parliament as he saw fit. * The power not to be dismissed without its consent was what Parliament really wanted – and only force through the civil war gave them that. * James I: “Kings are justly called Gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of Divine power upon earth; for if you consider the Attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a King... [kings have] their wills at that time served by law.” * The disputes also had a religious component, as James I and Charles I were both Catholic rulers of a Protestant nation; the English feared they would reintroduce Catholicism. * Note: supporters of the King's view were called Royalists, or Absolutists (since the King sought absolute power).
Their main opponent was Sir Edward Coke (pronounced 'cook'). Coke was a massive political and judicial figure - during his life, he served as Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, Chief Justice of the King's Bench, and Speaker of the House of Commons.
J P Sommerville, Politics and Ideaology in England, 1603-1640
Lawyers claimed the common law was the best of all legal systems. While formally they recognised the existence of laws superior like the law of nature, they were really quite skeptical about it. * They had a tendency to reduce these higher laws to terms of such wide generality they became empty. * Some lawyers argued that the common law gave the King unlimited power, while others like Coke held that the law imposed rigid restrictions on the monarch. * 1608 – Coke offended James I by denying that the King had the ultimate right to interpret laws; he also denied that the King could stop common law proceedings with a royal writ. * Coke’s was influenced by Sir John Fortescue, who argued that the purpose of government was the protection of the persons and property of the governed. * This purpose was best served by a King who could not legislate or levy taxes without permission of his subjects – he argued that the King ruled as a constitutional monarch (bound by a constitution, rather than having absolute power). * He believed that the English system was a combination of a monarch and his people - a political and regal government. * He regarded Parliament as the institution through which subjects gave their consent, but with little real power. * Then there were people like Sir Thomas Smith, who thought that the parliament should be the ultimate power in England.
The essence of common law thinking centred around three elements, and a contradicting fourth one – the ideas of custom, the rationality of English laws, and the sacrosanctity of private property; and the absolute legislative sovereignty of parliament. 1. Ancient custom: * The common law was regarded as the best system precisely because it was derived from ancient custom – the distilled knowledge of millennia of Britons. If something was done for long enough, it must be good. Note how this precluded the development of the doctrine of precedent. * Yet, its inherent flexibility (due to its being unwritten) made it superior to other laws. While the Civil Law was bound by an ancient code, the common law evolved with the English people. * So, like a “glove fitted to the hand” (Thomas Hedley) it was in a constant state of development and refinement. The wisdom of several generations bygone was distilled into it; thus, it could be changed like a “house that’s so often repaired, (none of the original material survives), which yet… is to be accounted the same still.” (Selden)

2. Supremely Rational: * Because the Common Law was derived from ancient custom, it was argued that it was supremely rational. * Yet, it was only through 'artificial' reason of lawyers that it could be exercised (had to be acquired through training - lawyers wanted to protect their positions as interpreters of the law). * Yet, it still possessed an immutable rational core. So, the common law was not just custom, but rational custom. * Thus, the common law was a combination of reason and custom – the term used was tried reason. It was supremely rational, and had simultaneously survived the test of time.

3. Sanctity of private property: * While natural law theorists held that the aim of governance was the welfare of the community as a whole, common lawyers held that it was the protection of private property.

4. Parliament as a supreme legislative authority: * Parliament’s supreme legislative authority overarched all of these ideas. From the dual view of reason and custom came the ideas of the fundamental liberties of every subject – that they could not judge their own case; and that they could not be deprived of their property or bound to a new law without their consent. * These ideas implied the existence of a Parliament, which represented the interests of the subjects. * Common law lawyers gave Parliament a status of near-sovereignty. Yet, they insisted that all statute was subject to unwritten custom. * Thomas Hedley wrote that the parliament derived its authority from the common law, and not the other way. * Therefore, it could not abolish the common law without abolishing itself as an institution. However, Parliament could correct deficiencies in the common law.
Eventually, the judiciary (led by Coke in 'Dr. Bonham's Case') intended to give judges definitive power to interpret and even strike out statutes made by parliament (judicial review). This idea was short-lived and eventually failed. It failed for two reasons: 1. The common law forbade legislation without consent of subject – but if the judges were supreme interpreters of the law, then by interpreting they might change it – and so legislate without the subject’s consent. 2. Secondly – judges are appointed by the government, and thus are usually under political pressure.
Dr. Bonham's case
In Thomas Bonham v College of Physicians (Dr. Bonham’s Case), Coke tried to assert the right of the judges to strike down laws which are ‘repugnant’ to the common law. * Facts: the plaintiff, Bonham, brought a case of false imprisonment against the College of Physicians. He had a degree, and, upon seeking a licence, was denied. He continued practising, and was subsequently fined and imprisoned. The College argued that they have the power to decide who can practice (and imprison those who disobey) because of a Charter given by the King. * Coke CJ: The common law has the power to adjudge Acts of Parliament to be void if they are against common right and reason. Considering Bonham had a degree and he was practising safely, it would be absurd to fine Bonham for practising. The plaintiff wins.
The implication of this case meant that the common law was above parliament. However, this part of the decision was overturned shortly afterwards, and judicial review never eventuated in England.
The common law and the royal prerogative
The Stuarts and their supporters believed the king’s power derived from God as author of nature, and that natural law prescribed there be a sovereign in every commonwealth. * Under this, the King possessed extra-legal rights (the royal prerogative) - ie, he could rule outside or even against the known law. Legal power cannot be defined or circumscribed by lawyers.
The lawyers, on the other hand, believed the King had no extra legal powers, and that the King’s prerogative was only those rights he possessed at law (which were given to him by common law). The most dangerous prerogative was that the King was granted emergency powers at times of crisis (during which he could pretty much rule as he pleased, openly disregard law etc). * This could be abused, especially given that he could define/declare war. * To prevent this, lawyers insisted it was the law that decided what wars were.
According to the lawyers, the common law was (under God) the ultimate arbiter of justice in England. Except in Parliament, the King could never abrogate the common law, and nor could he waive anyone else’s obligation to obey. He possessed a prerogative to dispense from statute but not common law. Through rejecting the idea that royal power arose by consent, Coke and his colleagues imposed stringent limitations upon the King’s authority: * Allegiance to the King bound the subject only to obey the law, not the King’s extra-legal commands. * While the King was the 'only supreme governor', he was below God and the law, rather than any man.
Other prerogatives include: * Right to choose the design of coins. * 'The King can do no wrong' - King cannot be prosecuted (although people acting on his orders can). * King's power to veto legislation.
King, parliament, and common law
As mentioned above, one of the royal prerogatives was the power to override statutes of parliament (intended to fix defective statutes because parliament convened irregularly). Whilst this was tolerated in the time of the Tudors, people worried it would be abused under the Stuarts. * The Tudors understood this prerogative as a power defined by the law. The Stuarts saw this prerogative as the rights bestowed by God. * Coke: common law was determiner of all these things.
The question naturally arose, who decides on what the common law was? And given that the King appointed judges, could the king judge matters or direct the judges? This question was the topic of the prolific case, Prohibitions del Roy (Case of Prohibitions): * “the King in his own person cannot adjudge any case…this ought it be determined and adjudged in some Court of Justice” * Cases are not determined by natural reason but artificial reason, which is achieved through much study of the law and experience as a judge. In other words, the King is not qualified to determine the law.
This meant that the King can no longer sit as a judge in the courts. He was, however, still the 'Chief Justice' because appeals from the King's Bench went up to the Upper House of Parliament, where the King sits. There, he can reverse the decision with the approval of the other members.
Coke also made a big ruling in the Case of Proclamations: * “the King by his proclamation of other ways cannot change any part of the common law, or statute law, or the customs of the realm…The king by his proclamation cannot create any offence that was not an offence before” * The King is no longer empowered to make laws without Parliament. * “The law of the land is divided into three parts: common law, statute law, and custom. But the King’s proclamation is none of them…the king hath no prerogative but that which the law of England allows him”. * The King’s power is derived from the common law and Parliament. The King is only sovereign with Parliament.
Parliament and civil war
Tension escalated during James I’s reign (all of the above) but grew into violence under his successor Charles I, who attempted to reign without parliament from 1629-40, until he ran out of money. * He was forced to accept the Petition of Right, which restricted him from imposing taxes without the consent of parliament, as well as to ensure the king could not imprison subjects without cause, compulsorily billet soldiers with civilians, or unilaterally impose martial law. * Parliament won the civil war and put Charles on trial from 20-27 January 1649. * First time a European monarch was tried by own subjects without being deposed first. * King argued that as a lawful King, Parliament had no right to try him and challenged their jurisdiction. * He was convicted on the 27th, and executed on the 30th.
What followed was the Interregnum – England was ruled by Parliament (headed by Oliver Cromwell) for 11 years (1649-60). * England had its only written constitution at this time, and there was much reform that went on. * Parliament asserted its right to legislate on anything, and attempted to codify the law. * However, this method of government didn't really work, and things really deteriorated especially with the death of Cromwell.
The Restoration and the Glorious Revolution
The Parliament eventually invited Charles II (successor of Charles I) back to rule in 1660 – but on the limited basis of 1641. * Charles ruled well but his successor James II (his brother) was a failure. * He aggravated both legal and tensions – he was very catholic and appointed Catholics to the Church, army, universities and royal household, and tried to use the dispensing prerogative power to allow Catholics not to take the Test Act oath which excluded them from many positions. * All of this (and other events) created tension which was begrudgingly tolerated because James had no Catholic heir, and 2 Protestant daughters to succeed him. * However, in 1688 James II finally had a son, who was instantly baptised as a Catholic.
The Child represented the continuance of Catholic rule over England and danger to the Protestant power. * Parliament invited Mary (James II's eldest daughter) and her husband William of Orange (ruler of Orange in the Netherlands) to assume the throne in 1688. * William’s accession to the throne was conditional upon his assent to the Bill of Rights (1688), which further limited the power of the monarch and effectively placed him below the Parliament and the common-law. * James II knew he was beaten and fled London. Thus the Glorious (bloodless) revolution.
Bill of Rights
William became king under the restrictions of the Bill of Rights. The right of suspension of legislation was declared illegal and many royal prerogatives severely trimmed, although it still included the right to choose/dismiss ministers at will, to summon/dissolve parliament at will (provided it met every three years) and complete authority over foreign affairs. In detail, the Bill of Rights: * Mentions problems of James II, abdication, assumption of throne by William of Orange. * The King must seek Parliament’s consent when suspending/dispensing laws. * Levying taxes without consent of Parliament is illegal. * The right of the subjects to petition the king(king is no longer a judge). * The king cannot keep a standing army in peacetime. * Election of MPs should be free. * Parliament’s mechanism should not be questioned in any court. * Excessive bail/fines/imprisonments/punishments are illegal. * Jurors ought to be freeholders. * Fines/forfeitures before conviction are illegal. * Parliament ought to be held frequently.…...

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Civil War

...US Hist. to 1876 Was the Civil War worth it? I believe that the civil war was worth it. Even though a lot of negative consequences came out of it, the positive outweighed the negative. The largest cause of the war was slavery. The North and South had contained their differences over slavery for sixty years after the Constitutional Convention. Compromise in 1787 had resolved the questions of slave trade and how to count slaves for congressional representation. The Compromise of 1850 was the last attempt to keep slavery out of politics, but the compromise only delayed more serious conflict. Lincoln’s election of 1860 was possibly the greatest sectional divider. The American nation, he said, was in a crisis and building toward a worse one. “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free,” Lincoln said he did not expect the Union to be dissolved or the house to fall but rather that it will become all one thing or all the other. He believed in white superiority, opposed granting specific equal civil rights to free blacks and said that differences between whites and blacks would forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality, colonization was the best solution. He also believed that blacks were entitled to the natural rights in the Declaration of Independence. These statements enraged differing ideas of slavery and the rights of blacks. John Brown, unlike......

Words: 1063 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Civil War

...Civil War - Pink |What was the economy of the Southern states based on? |1. Agriculture and it relied on slave labor | |What was the economy of the Northern states based on? |2. Industry | |What is agriculture? |3. Growing of crops and livestock | |What is industry? |4. The commercial production and sale of goods and services | |What is a free state? |5. One where slavery is not allowed | |What is a slave state? |6. One where slavery is allowed | |What did the Northern states want new states to become? |7. Free states | |What did the Southern states want the new states to become? |8. Slave states | |Where were the new states coming from? |9. They were being created out of the western territories | |What conflicts developed between the northern and southern states|10. | |in the years following the American Revolution and led to the |North was industrialized and the South was agricultural and ......

Words: 651 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Civil War

...The Civil War Past civil wars during 1861 and 1865 have claimed the lives of many individuals who fought for freedom and against. Team B will express views of four wars through each member’s diversified backgrounds. The Battle of Shiloh, The Battle of Stones River both fought in Tennessee, and The Battle of Bull Run in Virginia as well as The Battle of Gettysburg in Pennsylvania. According to "Africans In America" (1998), “On April 18, 1865, the Civil War ended with the surrender of the Confederate army. 617,000 Americans had died in the war, approximately the same number as in all of America's other wars combined” (Para. 18). In fact, theses wars with others have seemed to position a lasting stance on freedom for Americans no matter what color individuals appeared. Team B’s review of the civil wars may express what is unknown to some individuals, and what others family member fought for years ago. Even though civil wars caused death, if changes had not happen many Americans may still be slaves. Civil war was needed to stop the opposing thoughts of diversity in America. Because, of the foundation set in America for everyone, which appeared to outcast some chosen groups normally in the southern states. North and south states viewed certain individuals as unequal to other humans rendering freedom to those entities. Why the South lost the Civil War “If the Southern generals like Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were so brilliant, and if the South lost fewer men......

Words: 1501 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Difference Between Revolution and Civil War

...The word revolution is derived from the Latin ‘revolutio’, meaning ‘a turn around’. Revolution results in a mutational change in organizational structure quite amazingly in a short period of time. Revolution brings about a change in the power too. Revolutions took place through history. It is interesting to note that apart from the change in power, revolution brings about change in cultural and economical situations as well of a country or a region. Socio-political scenario gets completely changed by a revolution. Some of the important revolutions that took place around the world at different times include the Glorious Revolution in 1688, the French Revolution (1789-1799), the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the Chinese Revolution (1927-1949). It is interesting to note that the term revolution is used to indicate changes that take place outside the political arena. Culture, philosophy, society and technology have undergone marked transformations by these revolutions. A civil war is defined as a war that takes place between two organized groups within the same nation state. In short it can be described as a war between factions in the same country. One of the best examples of a civil war is the American Civil War (1861-1865). It is otherwise called as the War Between the States that took place as a civil war in the United States of America. It is important to know that the two organized groups that take part in the civil war are normally bent upon creating their own......

Words: 325 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Reavolution and Civil War

...The word revolution is derived from the Latin ‘revolutio’, meaning ‘a turn around’. Revolution results in a mutational change in organizational structure quite amazingly in a short period of time. Revolution brings about a change in the power too. Revolutions took place through history. It is interesting to note that apart from the change in power, revolution brings about change in cultural and economical situations as well of a country or a region. Socio-political scenario gets completely changed by a revolution. Some of the important revolutions that took place around the world at different times include the Glorious Revolution in 1688, the French Revolution (1789-1799), the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the Chinese Revolution (1927-1949). It is interesting to note that the term revolution is used to indicate changes that take place outside the political arena. Culture, philosophy, society and technology have undergone marked transformations by these revolutions. A civil war is defined as a war that takes place between two organized groups within the same nation state. In short it can be described as a war between factions in the same country. One of the best examples of a civil war is the American Civil War (1861-1865). It is otherwise called as the War Between the States that took place as a civil war in the United States of America. It is important to know that the two organized groups that take part in the civil war are normally bent upon creating their own......

Words: 325 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Civil War

...Civil War and Slavery January 30, 2011 HIS 325: African American History Civil War and Slavery The decade of 1850s was a very fateful and turbulent time in the US history. This is when the seeds of the US Civil War began due to the North and the South disagreeing on the status of the slaves and the idea of slavery. The South had many plantations that were run by the slaves and the North was in favor of abolishing slavery. The South knew that if slavery was abolished, they would stand to lose a lot as they would have to pay their farmers instead of them being their slaves. The North was more industrialized and it really did not have much need for slaves and slavery. It is perhaps most interesting to note that slavery had a very direct relation with the Civil War as one of the root causes for the start of the war was because of slavery. Slavery was introduced in the America during the early colonial times and the American Revolution had established that all men should be equal. There was a lot of debate amongst the Americans and the North and the South came across a rift when it came to the ideas regarding slavery. The South had more plantations and needed more workers and this is why they favored slavery. The North had different ideas and they wanted the freedom of the slaves. This caused a rift and was the cause of the Civil War between the North and the South. The South really needed the slaves to work on...

Words: 1089 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Civil War

...Colleen Anderson The Civil War HIST 415 Essay One Why did the South Secede? At the beginning of the American Revolution in 1775 all of the colonies allowed slavery. Between Independence and 1820, all states in the North had either banned slavery and were choosing to base their economies on free labor instead. The Free states remained agricultural, but went through a process of industrialization, creating a diversified economy as they invested in cities, factories, and new forms of transportation. The South invested more in agriculture and was extremely reliant on slave labor for its cotton production. The economic, political and cultural life was shaped by a need to maintain slavery. The South was wealthy and its wealth was invested in land and slaves. (McPherson 77) They were worth a lot more than the land which they worked. The South had a society and an economy that revolved around the institution of slavery, and it was being threatened. Abolition was causing the South to bleed money by slaves escaping and the slaves were not being returned to their owners. In my opinion the John Brown raid was a strong factor that pushed the south to secede. Around the time of the Mexican War, both the Northerners and Southerners were concerned over whether or not the new territories should be free of slavery or not. This promoted the development of free soil, in which people mostly Northerners opposed the expansion of slavery into Western territories. The southerners opposed this new......

Words: 553 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Civil War

...Before the outbreak of war in April 1861, the American republic had survived diplomatic and military crises and internal stresses. It weathered tensions with France in the late 1790s, a second war with Britain in 1812–1815, and disputes regarding international boundaries. Political wrangling over economic issues such as the tariff, a national bank, and government-supported public works (called internal improvements in the nineteenth century) proved divisive but posed no serious threat to the integrity of the Union. Despite fissures along ethnic and class lines, the majority of Americans had much in common. They were white, Christian, spoke English, and shared a heritage forged in the crucible of the Revolutionary War. Questions relating to the institution of slavery set the stage for secession and war. Most men and women at the time would have agreed with Abraham Lincoln’s assertion in his Second Inaugural Address that slavery “was, somehow, the cause of the war.” Alexander H. Stephens, the Confederacy’s vice president, minced no words when he proclaimed in March 1861 that slavery “was the immediate cause of the late rupture and the present revolution” to establish southern independence.[1] The framers of the United States Constitution had compromised regarding slavery, creating a democratic republic that sought to ensure its citizenry’s freedoms while also reassuring the South that individual states would have the power to maintain and regulate slavery within their......

Words: 2066 - Pages: 9

Free Essay

India’s Glorious Past War for Wealth & Wealth for War

...India’s Glorious Past – War for wealth & wealth for war India is country known for a rich history of wealth and many small and diverse kingdoms before the British came and stole what was rightfully ours. They who came to trade left with almost all of our money, all our knowledge and left us with a poor understanding of society and new and upcoming inventions and innovations which occurred in the world during that time. India, once called a land of paradise, a land which had wealth not only of monetary value but also in terms of our vast knowledge on science, medicine, mathematics, astronomy, trade, architecture, arts and sculpture and many other areas. Indian Kings should the world their wealth by building great many structures, acquiring rare diamonds, breeding white horses and gifting them to all the foreign dignitaries. Although it doesn’t feel like one, India was one of the richest nations in the world up to the 17th Century. In fact most of our country was attacked because of huge amounts of wealth and money that people had here. If history proves anything, it proves that in ancient times, India was the richest country in the world. The fact that she has always been the cynosure of all eyes, Asiatic or European, that people of less favored climes have always cast longing looks on her glittering treasures, and that the ambition of all conquerors has been to possess India, prove that she has been reputed to be the richest country in the world. Her sunny climate,......

Words: 3016 - Pages: 13

Premium Essay

Civil War

...Civil War Trista Kolb HIS/110 August 18th, 2014 Thomas Ward Civil War Shelby Foote’s passage means that the Civil War paved a path for the United States and what we have become. The events that occurred during the civil war proved that the United States would allow all men to be created equal. The Civil War shows the pain and suffering that some Americans went through to fight for freedom and what they thought was right. The Civil War was a major battle that helped push to the end of slavery. The Civil War brought the country together, we live as one country and not individual states. The Civil War is what made the United States into what it was. The Civil War made the United States into an indivisible nation with a sovereign national government. The Civil War also paved the way for all men to be created with an equal right to liberty. For the first time, the federal government started to tax a person's income. This came to light as an effort to pay for the cost of war. The federal government ended wildcat banking and consolidated the nation's money supply. The federal governments budget was also expanded to over one billion dollars (Schultz, 2014). Congress passed the Homestead Act in order to stimulate growth in the west. This Act offered 160 acres of free land to anyone including slaves to anyone that never took up arms against the federal government. The federal government also gave 100 million acres to the Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroad (Schultz,......

Words: 718 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Industrial Revolution and the Civil War

...for a series of technological innovations developed during the Industrial Revolution that changed warfare after the Napoleonic Wars through to the American Civil War. Steam engine technology led to the development of factory-based assembly line production of materials, the development of the steamship and locomotive, and to innovations in the production of steel from pig iron. These series of innovations created the means for military power to mass quickly and continuously throughout the Civil War. * As steam engine technology continued to improve1 during the early 1800’s, commercial entrepreneurial ventures morphed into a new industrial system that could generate and project large military forces over greater distances faster than ever before. The steam engine lead to the development of steamships and railroad systems funded by investors and constructed by the Army Engineer Corps to support commerce. Navigable waterways and land rail systems, initially developed for commerce, quickly became the means by which forces could quickly deploy over long distances. The forces were logistically supported from factories located safely away from areas of conflict. Waterways and railroad systems became the framework for strategy throughout the Civil War by moving personnel and supplies along arteries of commerce and transportation from which combat power could mass. With the exception of the Mexican-American War, 1846 – 1848, America enjoyed several years of relative peace......

Words: 1598 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Civil War

...The Effects of the Civil War on Americans Sophia Taylor HIS/110 November 3, 2014 Frank Bird The Effects of the Civil War on Americans The Civil War had a major effect on the United States and where we are today. Historian Shelby Foote said, Any understanding of this nation has to be based…on an understanding of the Civil War . . . The Civil War defined us as what we are, and it opened us to being what we became, good and bad things. It is very necessary if you’re going to understand the American character in the 20th century to learn about this enormous catastrophe of the mid-19th century. It was the crossroads of our being. Burns, K. & Burns, R. (Writers). (1990). Episode 1: The cause (1861). In K. Burns (Producer), The Civil War. Arlington, VA: Public Broadcasting Service. What I think Foote meant in this quote was that we are free today because of the Civil War. If it had not been for the north and south fighting we would not be free today. Indivisible Union The north and the south wanted control of the states. The states wanted to relinquish control to the federal government. I think that Foote was saying that with the Civil War we were able to gain control. If it had not been for all the fighting with the north and the south we would not have came to any agreement. So one thing that had a lot to do with the Civil War was slavery. Northerners felt slavery was essentially against what America stood for, Southerners depended on slavery to maintain......

Words: 899 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Civil War

...Industrial Revolution Zeno Crooks Dr. Goldstein HIS105 May 17, 2017 Industrial Revolution After the Civil War, the United States became a much more industrialized society. Between 1865 and 1920, industrialization improved American life in many ways. However, industrialization also created problems for the American society. Industrialization lead to the development of the middle-class. Immigrants from all over the world arrived in the United States in large numbers. Several Americans migrated from rural areas to the urban areas. The advancement in transportation brought international markets for the US society (Meyer, 2003). The industrial revolution saw vital turning points in the history of the United States such as equal rights for women, advancements in technology, rights for African Americans and many others. On the other hand, industrialization also resulted in several problems such as child labor, unsafe working conditions, low wages and no proper government regulations. The country inclined towards industries and had less focus on the agricultural lands. The systemic organization of labor and the division of work increased the production of goods, thus increasing the economy of the country. An increase in the economy due to the industrial activities increased the standard of living of the people. People started migrating from the South to the North in search of employment as there were enormous factories in the North (Rees). The geography of America......

Words: 649 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

The Civil War

...Civil War Paper The Civil War was fought between Americans from the North and the South. Many factors led to the eventual conflict, but none was more important than the issue of slavery. While Northerners felt slavery was essentially against what America stood for, Southerners depended on slavery to maintain their economy. The conflict resulted in the South wanting to secede from the Union and exist as a collection of Confederate states acting as their own country. The North (Union) insisted on keeping the United States in-tact and abolishing slavery from the South. After four to five years and a collection of bloody battles, the North won the war despite having military leaders who were not as experienced as the South’s and sustaining more casualties. In the documentary The Civil War, historian Shelby Foote stated, “Any understanding of this nation has to be based…on an understanding of the Civil War . . . The Civil War defined us as what we are, and it opened us to being what we became, good and bad things. It is very necessary if you’re going to understand the American character in the 20th century to learn about this enormous catastrophe of the mid-19th century. It was the crossroads of our being.” (Burns & Burns, Episode 1: the cause, 1990) What Foote was referring to in this quote was how the Civil War shaped the United States into the great power it has been known for since the end of the war. After the war ended, America began a period of tremendous growth, led......

Words: 1382 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Civil War

...The Civil War More Americans died during the Civil War from 1861-1865 than in any other war, ever. While these dates may define the period of war action, in fact the Civil War was the result of a long, history of complex issues of such things as Constitutional interpretation, economics, and the ethics of slavery. Below are brief sketches of only a few of the memorable names from that era of U.S. history. Also online at the Smithsonian is a collection of Civil War photographs by Mathew Brady. Henry Clay (1777-1852) George Peter Alexander Healy (1813-1894) Oil on canvas, circa 1845, NPG.65.44 National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Transfer from the National Gallery of Art; gift of Andew W. Mellon, 1942 Henry Clay was one of the most influential congressmen of the early 1800s, with a political career that spanned nearly fifty years. Born in the midst of the American Revolution, he devoted his professional energy to the preservation of the union of the states in the stormy years preceding the Civil War. To that end, he crafted several key compromises between the North and the South, for which he became known as "The Great Pacificator." But even his legendary statesmanship could not keep war from erupting nine years after his death. Differing interpretations of the Constitution were at the heart of the Civil War. Clay and other supporters of the Union insisted that states were subject to federal authority, while others, most......

Words: 1639 - Pages: 7