Why the South Lost the War Essay Example for Free

Why the South Lost the War Essay â€Å"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. † These words, spoken by Abraham Lincoln during his campaign to be a senator from Illinois, ring eerily true with the truth about the country’s uncertain future. Only three short years after Lincoln gave this speech, civil war would break out between the northern and southern states, and it would end four years later with the South running away with its tail between its legs. Why did the South lose the war? The South entered into the Civil War unprepared to fight and, ultimately, was starting a fight it was destined to lose. In the end, there were five factors that led to the defeat of the South: The fundamental economic superiority of the North, a basic lack of sound military strategy strategy in the way the South fought the war, the inept Southern performance in foreign affairs, lack of a dominating civilian leader in the South, and President Abraham Lincoln (Hersch, 2002). The first contributing factor to the South’s loss of the war is the fact that the North had a fundamentally sturdier and superior economy. Economically, the Civil War was not a contest between equals. The South had no factories to produce guns or ammunition, and its railroads were small and not interconnected, meaning that it was hard for the South to move food, weapons, and men quickly over long distances. In addition, though agriculture thrived in the South, planters focused on cash crops like tobacco and cotton and did not produce enough food crops to feed the southern population (â€Å"Economy† 2004). The North, on the other hand, had enough food and enough factories to make weapons for all of its soldiers. It also had an extensive rail network that could transport men and weapons rapidly and cheaply. At first, this superiority of the North didnt seem to make much of a difference. Like many wars in history, those involved thought it would be over quickly. However, northern logistical capabilities would prove crucial as the war dragged on (â€Å"Economy† 2004). The second reason for Southern defeat was the fact that the South simply lacked any sort of coherent strategy, military of otherwise. Inferior strategies employed by the South included: the defense of Richmond, the defense of the coastal areas, gaining the Border States into the Confederacy, the offensive defense of taking the war into Maryland and Pennsylvania, blockade running and privateers, as well as efforts to gain diplomatic recognition (or assistance) from Britain and/or France (Resch, 2005). The South utilized the few resources it had effectively, but the Southern railroads could not keep up to the demands placed on it, unlike the Northern railroads, which grew during the war. These several problems hindered the South greatly in winning the war. One might stop and wonder why the South was not more proactive in finding solutions to these problems, but the answer is obvious: the South simply did not have the centralized power structure and decision makers necessary to remedy its struggling economy (Resch, 2005). Thirdly, the South struggled greatly in the area of foreign affairs. The South constantly attempted to become recognized by other nations as its own independent power, but over the course of the war not a single foreign nation would formally recognize the Confederacy. One such country was Britain. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was officially neutral throughout the American Civil War, 1861-65 (Harrison, 2005). The Confederate strategy for securing independence was largely based on British and French military intervention, which never happened; however intervention would have meant war with the United States. A serious conflict between Britain and the United States erupted over the Trent Affair in 1861; it was resolved in a few months (Harrison, 2005). The quandary of the South in the area of foreign affairs was caused by the fact that Jefferson Davis believed that the British dependence on textiles would force the British into an alliance with the South due to its abundant cotton resources. As president of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, left foreign policy to others in government and, rather than developing an aggressive diplomatic effort, tended to expect events to accomplish diplomatic objectives (Harrison, 2005). The new president was committed to the notion that cotton would secure recognition and legitimacy from the powers of Europe. The men Davis selected as secretary of state and emissaries to Europe were chosen for political and personal reasons – not for their diplomatic potential (Hersch, 2002). This was due, in part, to the belief that the demand for cotton could accomplish the Confederate objectives with little help from Confederate diplomats. One positive in the Confederacy’s foreign affairs was its ability to employ the British shipyard (John Laird nd Sons) to build two warships for the Confederacy, including the CSS Alabama, causing vehement protests from the United States (Harrison, 2005). The controversy continued after the Civil War in the form of the Alabama Claims, in which the United States finally was given $15. 5 million in arbitration by an international tribunal for damages caused by British-built warships (Harrison, 2005). The British built and operated most of the blockade runners, spending hundreds of millions of pounds on them; but that was legal and not the cause of serious tension. In the end, these instances of British involvement neither shifted the outcome of the war nor provoked the U. S. into declaring war against Britain. The United States diplomatic mission headed by Minister Charles Francis Adams, Sr. proved much more successful than the Confederate missions, which were never officially recognized (Harrison, 2005). Fourthly, is the fact that the South did not possess a dominating civilian leader. The Confederacy was also not as unified as is commonly thought. Parts of the Confederacy were extremely loyal while others such as East Tennessee were hotbeds of Unionist activity (Resch, 2005). These citizens resisted Confederate drafts, and refused to pay Confederate taxes. Many of these Unionists formed groups of activists to resist the Confederate government. Confederate loyalists persecuted unionists in East Tennessee and in other areas (Resch, 2005). Nevertheless, internal opposition to the Confederacy hurt the stability of a region as well as undermined the war effort. These shortcomings in civilian leadership lead to the downfall of the Confederacy, because without the people supporting the cause or stepping up to participate in the war effort, there could be no hope of ever winning the war (Resch, 2005). Finally, the success of the South was ultimately doomed as soon as Abraham Lincoln took office as President. With the election of Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln on November 6, 1860, South Carolina, followed by six other states, seceded from the Union (Kelly, 2009). Even though his views about slavery were considered moderate during the nomination and election, South Carolina had warned it would secede if he won. This attitude was encouraged by the confederate leaders in the South, and it was this bigoted resentment that was a contributing factor to the start of the Civil War (Kelly, 2009). Lincoln agreed with the majority of the Republican Party that the South was becoming too powerful, and made it part of their platform that slavery would not be extended to any new territories or states added to the union. One could imagine how this would anger the South and cause them to feel threatened by the North. Here was a republican President from the North taking the side of the North in not allowing the South to expand its lucrative business of slavery. Lincoln perhaps single handedly started and ended the Civil War, whether implicitly or not. However, Lincoln was not the only reason the war started, he was only the final push the South needed to break away from the Union. More clear, however, is the fact that he did indeed the end the Civil War through his well-founded and composed politics and strategies. There were two major moves made by Lincoln that heavily influenced the outcome of the war, these were the Gettysburg Address and the Emancipation Proclamation (Kelly, 2009). The first was a moving and decided blow against the image of the South. Part of the address is as follows: â€Å"†¦Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate we cannot consecrate we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth† (as stated in The Gettysburg Address 1863), The people could not ignore the words of President Lincoln, and the South could not refute them with any sort of fact. Truth be told, what Lincoln uttered in his address was the truth itself, and not even Jefferson Davis could argue that. And secondly was the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed all slaves in states of the Union; although this did not free every slave in the Continental U. S. it was a start and a colossal blow to the morale of the Confederate army as well as its citizens. The Union proved at that time that it was far more organized and unified in its cause because of the great leader it had in Abraham Lincoln (Kelly 2009). The fact that the South lost the Civil War has been a highly debated issue throughout the history of the United States and the reasons for this loss continue to be tossed around and discussed even to this day, however these five pervious factors consistently reemerge as reasons as to the defeat of the Confederate Army and their reentrance into the Union. The words that would best describe this are the words Lincoln used three years prior to the Civil War, â€Å"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. † He was correct, it could not and would not stand divided; in the end the United States was one country and always would be.

roman government :: essays research papers

ETRUSCAN MONARCHS   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The Etruscans were a very sophisticated people who controlled land roughly from Cumae (on the northern end of the Bay of Naples) to the Po River. They had great artistic skills and were skilled traders. Eventually, the Etruscans expanded their influence southward and conquered the Romans.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The first Etruscan king of Rome was L. Tarquinius Priscus (616-579 BCE). Priscus chose and cleared the site for the great temple JUPITER OPTIMUS MAXIMUS (meaning â€Å"Jupiter best and greatest†), which would be located on CAPITOLINE, on one of the Seven Hills of Rome. In its later years, the civilization of Rome focused itself on CAPITOLINE. This was the temple dedicated to Jupiter who was the father of the gods and therefore most powerful. Priscus also allegedly built the CLOACA MAXIMA, or great sewer.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The 2nd Etruscan king, Servius Tullius (579-534 BCE), was said to have carried on the program of urban renewal begun by his predecessor.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The final Etruscan monarch, Tarquin the Proud, was ejected by means of popular rebellion in 509 BCE. It began because his son Sextus rapped a chaste aristocrat named Lucretia who later committed suicide because of it.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  With the final king gone, the way was paved for the formation of the democratic republic. The Etruscan military power fell and those who lived near Rome were absorbed into the new republic. CONSULS OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  After the removal of the final Etruscan monarch, two men from the senate were elected by the members of the COMITIA CENTURIA to take the position as consuls; the chief Magistrates of the Roman state who were elected annually. One colleague could veto (meaning forbid) the decision of the other thereby acting as a safe guard against abuse of power. GACCHUS BROTHERS   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Tiberius Gracchus was elected to tribune of the people in 133 BCE. He believed he could solve the problems of the poor by redistributing the land. He set up a land commission to distribute ten-hectare plots. He misused his authority when he announced that he would seek re-election as tribune. Such an act was unheard of in this time. This action in sighted a riot within the already angry land owning senators in Rome. 3000 people were killed, amongst them was Tiberius himself. Regardless, the land commission continued and some 80 000 people were resettled.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Gaius Gracchus was elected tribune in 123 BCE. He was an enthusiastic reformer who believed he had the answer to the conflicting interests of the population.

MSG: The Chemical and Biological Reactions

Monosodium glutamate (MSG) is a flavorless chemical added to a variety of foods. While there is no 100 percent conclusive study that shows MSG as harmful, it is widely linked to seizures, chest pain, and other adverse side effects in adults and children. In this paper, I will show how the chemistry of MSG causes a negative biological reaction. N. Peica, C. Lehene, N. Leopold, S. Schlucker, and W. Kiefer (2007) wrote, â€Å"MSG or E621, the sodium salt of glutamic acid, is probably the most common food additive used in many packaged and prepared foods† (p. 604). Because of this, it is easy for MSG to hide. This is especially problematic for people who have a sensitivity to MSG. Reporter Sandra Blakeslee (1990) wrote, â€Å"Several months ago Jack Samuels, a Chicago businessman, carefully read the label on a box of breakfast cereal and decided it was safe to eat. An hour later, however, Mr. Samuels collapsed in his physician’s office after a treadmill test. ‘As I started to lose consciousness, I knew it was an MSG attack,’ he said† (p. C3). The article went on to report that the FDA allows several different names for MSG; sometimes the pseudonyms make it difficult for consumers to realize they are ingesting MSG. In its monohydrate form, the â€Å"two carboxy groups of MSG twist to an equal but opposite extent with respect to the carbon chain (Peica et al. 2006, p. 606). In its anhydrous form, â€Å"Anhydrous MSG is arched and two hydrogen bond interactions are possible† (Peica et al. 2006, p. 607). Either way, the result is the formation of white crystals. The crystals don’t have any flavor; however, its chemical make-up allows it to enhance the flavor of other foods. MSG concentrations can be as low as 10-5, or much higher. Michelle Meadows (2003) expressed that the 1995 FASEB report confirmed that MSG is safe if consumed moderately. She added that there is a group of people who is sensitive to MSG if more than 3 grams are consumed at a meal (a typical serving is 0.5 grams). She wrote that some severe and poorly controlled asthmatics also have trouble with MSG consumption. For them, the lack of labeling is problematic because labels only have to reflect foods that have MSG added to them, not foods that contain it naturally, like tomatoes, cheeses, soy sauce, and some meats. Chris Kilham (2006) pointed out that a vast number of foods contain MSG, although there are plenty of studies that prove its harmful effects. He wrote, â€Å"Studies have shown that mice fed large amounts of MSG suffer destruction of brain cells †¦ Several years ago, baby food manufacturers stopped using MSG under intense public pressure. However, MSG remains in popular use† (p. 25). He added that the risk of using MSG is unnecessary, since it has absolutely no nutritional value. Angelica Soares, Joao Paulo Ferreira Schoffen, Elsa Maria De Gouveia, and Maria Raquel Marcal Natali (2006) also looked at the disturbing effect MSG had on rats. They studied infant rats and found that the bay rats that ingested MSG showed high levels of NADH-diaphorase. The NADH caused nerve damage, as well as caused the baby rats to retain more adipose tissue that the ones not given MSG. The conclusion of the study was that not only did MSG contribute to obesity; it also caused a deterioration in the intestinal lining. M. Hermanussen, A.P. Garcia, M. Sunder, M. Voigt, V. Salazar, and J.A.F. Tresguerres (2006) agreed with Soares et al (2006), but added some interesting findings of their own. They looked at glutamic acid (GLU), since it is a major component in glutamine. The study started with administering MSG to pregnant rats, then to the offspring of the rats. Obviously, there was a control group not receiving MSG, except what was normally found in the regular feed. The conclusion was that male rats showed a lot more damage from the MSG than female rats did. Obesity was the obvious result, but, in part, because the MSG-fed rats ate more. This indicated that GLU significantly increased appetite. The group noted, too, that the MSG-fed rats retained much more adipose tissue that the rats that weren’t fed MSG. As well, it was noted that the same nerve damage found in the study by Soares et al. (2006) was consistent with the findings by Hermanussen et al. (2006). Hermanussen et al. clearly discovered impaired glucose tolerance and insulin resistance in their rats, as a result of â€Å"GH burst frequency† (p. 30). Despite statements that there is no definite evidence that MSG causes negative reactions, very recent studies prove the contrary. Since MSG does not add any nutritional value to food, it might be wise to avoid it, especially in large quantities. The studies show that MSG is linked to nerve damage, obesity, voracity, and diabetes. We also know that chemical make-up of the product is more likely to affect men and asthmatics – meaning that a significant number of Americans may suffer adverse reaction s from MSG, and some of them don’t even know why. References Blakeslee, S. (1990, March 6). With MSG sensitivity still at issue in studies, label rules tighten. New York Times, p. C3. Retrieved Thursday, March 29, 2007 from the ProQuest database. Hermanussen, M., Garcia, A.P., Sunder, M., Voigt, M., Salazar, V., & Tresguerres, J.A.F. (2006). Obesity, voracity, and short stature: The impact of glutamate on the regulation of appetite. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 60, 25-31. Retrieved Thursday, March 29, 2007, from the Academic Search Premier database. Kilham, C. (2006, March/April). The dangers of chemical food additives. Share Guide, p. 25. Meadows, M. (2003, January/February). A common flavor enhancer. FDA Consumer, p. 35. Pieca, N., Lehene, C., Leopold, N., Schlucker, S., & Kiefer, W. (2006). Monosodium glutamate in its anhydrous and monohydrate form: Differentiation by Raman spectroscopies and density functional calculations. Spectrochimica Acta Part A, 604-615. Retrieved Thursday, March 29, 2007, from the ScienceDirect database. Soares, A., Schoffen, J.P.F., De Gouveia, E.M., & Natali, M.R.M. (2006). Effects of the neonatal treatment with monosodium glutamate on myenteric neurons and the intestinal wall in the ileum of rats. Journal of Gastroenterology, 41, 674-680. Retrieved Thursday, March 29, 2007, from the Academic Search Premier database.                  

Analysis of Henry Louis Gates Jrs Whats in a Name

Whats in a Name? Henry Louis Gates, Jr. What really is in a name? Apparently, there is a lot. In Henry Louis Gates, Jr.s story, Whats in a Name, there is a telling story about a young boy learning the powerful pain and humiliation in the racist practices of American society. Gates illustrates how racism can perpetuate prejudice that aims to take away individual identity and put entire groups of people down. Yet, the fact that Skip was willing to never look Mr. Wilson in the yes again shows that Gates himself was not going to just take the racism any longer, but was willing to fight it in his own unique way. The plot of the story is both simple and complex. The racism Gates experiences is telling and powerful because it is so blatant and yet nonchalant. Gates character is simply walking down the street with his father. Upon saying hello to one of the white Irish men in the town, Gates is perplexed with the response. The man, Mr. Wilson, responded to Skips father with Hello, George, (Gates 131). Gates shows how Skip was confused, because obviously he knew his fathers name was not George. However, his father responds with He calls all colored people George (Gates 132). This was a shocking revelation to the young character of Skip. He before had believed that Mr. Wilson was not that bad of a guy. Yet, after this small, but symbolically significant incident, Skip never again looked Mr. Wilson in the eye (Gates 132). Thus, Gates is showing his realization of