Northern Southern Soldiers Claim Fighting \"Freedom\" \"Liberty.\"

¶ … northern southern soldiers claim fighting "freedom" "liberty." 2 sources ( newspaper, journal, magazine, book legitimate website ). Works utilize source equally documented text listed properly a works cited page.

Passion during the Civil War

The American Civil War occurred between 1861 and 1865 and is largely considered the most destructive conflict in U.S. history, resulting in approximately one million military casualties and an inestimable number of civil victims. Much controversy still surrounds the nature of this conflict, as its determining causes are complex. Contemporary international perception may have placed a progressive, anti-slavery label on the whole affair, yet the basic fact remains that nineteenth century America was an increasingly inhomogeneous country and prone to blatant discrepancy.

This work is focused on providing an analysis of Southern and Northern perspectives from a justifying point-of-view, in order to form an outline of the opposing sides' motives. Both parties were strongly driven by nationalism and had very different views and values, which they were compelled to protect throughout escalating disquiet and imminent violence.

During nineteenth century, North was comprised of a diversified society, a mosaic of nationalities and religions which blended people together in such a manner as to minimize class distinctions. Its progressive tendency materialized in general industrialism and urbanization, making use of working class as chief engine for economical development. There was a general abhorrence for slavery, and once Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860, these aspects were amplified, along with a powerful urge to expand and consolidate the Federal state.

A matter of great importance was trade. Seeing as a great deal of effort and finance was put in mechanizing productivity and distribution of goods, it was deemed extremely unprofitable to purchase cotton and tobacco expensively from the south and export to Europe at the existent low rate. Consequently, north aspired to protectionism and instating higher taxes.

Another significant issue was the approach to newly attached states. It was debated whether new states should be enslaved or made free as part of the Union. North strongly advocated for equality and was met with arduous southern opposition, which culminated with the violently antagonizing turn of events in Kansas.

When South Carolina seceded from the Union, North interpreted this as unpatriotic, attributing it an aggressive significance bordering on betrayal. Abraham Lincoln could not dismiss this breach of union as it could have endangered and possibly decimated the United States. Furthermore, as war broke out, the goal of abolishing slavery morphed into a broader cause for democracy in all states, the Union becoming the Nation and implicitly part of a vision for unified government. (Tulloch 110)

North passed judgment on its counterpart for maintaining a devolved, despotic way of living, and decried its crippling influence on trade, which pulled the rest of the states back. There was simply no place in the future for these old ways.

Both individuals in the South and in the North were passionate about their cause because they were raised in environments that shaped their characters. Some might be inclined to consider that Southerners were generally wrong and that it would be impossible for a sane person to believe that it would be just to support the institution of slavery. However, one needs to understand that these people grew up in a society where slavery was considered perfectly normal and where they were bombarded with information that influenced them to believe that it is their job to fight in order to preserve slavery. Moreover, Southerners considered that it was their choice to keep the slave system and that secession would make it possible for them to take decision on their own. The fact that Northerners attacked them was practically perceived as proof that the North was generally concerned in imposing its point-of-view regardless of the fact that it was not in control of the South.

Southern states from the nineteenth century were almost exclusively agricultural and very much akin to England in terms of social structure. There was the well established hierarchy starting with plantation owner and ending with slaves which was seldom questioned. Economy was sustained by the cheap labor of slaves on large plantations which produced mainly tobacco and cotton, then exported north and west with low taxes. Taking note of the blatant discrepancy from the liberal, industrial North, South only requested for the right to live as they want to live.

In respect to slavery, South considered it an integral, natural and necessary part of its lifestyle. Adversity in regard to their keeping slaves meant a threat to their values and homes. For this reason, the fact that a slave owner could not travel in any state he wished without the risk of having his property estranged or liberated was perceived as a direct insult and a violation of citizens' rights.

However, the principle reason for secession did not lie in the issue of slavery, but in independence from the North's disrespectful and mechanized grasp. South wanted to govern itself as its voice wasn't taken into account for major decisions, case in point the matter of contending with the newly created states. The brawl between North and South on the subject of these new territories was, coming from the South, a plea for equal constitutional rights, and had nothing to do with expanding slavery.