Five items and comparative analysis

¶ … Compromise of 1820

There are several events which marked the history of the U.S. And the development of the country. One of it is the Civil war through which the American colonies fought off its rivalries and established the "perfect union" Abraham Lincoln had envisaged.

The Compromise of 1820 represented from this point-of-view one of the starting political reactions to the relations between the North and the South and especially from the point-of-view of the slave issue and the slave institution.

The Compromise of 1820 or the Missouri Compromise was in fact a political reaction to the events that had marked the history of the States up to that point. The North had been on the verge of a new economic boom as businesses began to strive through the increase in industrial affairs. Traditionally, the North had been the industrial center of the country and the technological breakthroughs made in steel manufacturing improved the efficiency and productivity of the industry. On the other hand, most businessmen found new opportunities in the South and tried to benefit from the political and economic vacuum. This orientation however, created new tensions between the Northerners and the Southerners, the latter feeling an increased aversion especially towards the economic initiatives of the former. Even so, the Northern part of the country was considered to be more prosperous and to represent the future of a modern nation. The act enabled however states to maintain the balance between free and slave states and certain equilibrium in the Congress was established.

The Monroe Doctrine

The Monroe doctrine was one of the first acts related to the United States foreign policy. It represented an act of 1823 which enabled the colonies to pursue an independent foreign policy from the European states. More precisely, the Doctrine was established by President Monroe and presented in front of the Congress on December 2nd 1823 (the Monroe Doctrine, 2010).

The international context for this approach determined a widespread concern for the United States colonies because in fact it marked the European struggles between Spain and Portugal. In this sense, President Monroe argued that "the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers" (the Monroe Doctrine, 2010). In fact the Monroe Doctrine represents the first foreign policy act by the United States. It not only sets the boundaries for the prevention of European interference in the colonies' internal affairs but it also provides a limit in terms of the rest of the American continents, which at this moment is also Latin America.

It has been argued that the Monroe Doctrine is the first piece of the Roosevelt Corollary which pointed out, in the 20th century, a similar boundary in terms of foreign policy and defense (Renehan, 2007). This was an important step in the history of the United States because, indirectly, it also marked the start of the U.S. domination in the region. From this point-of-view, Henry Kissinger, State Secretary for President Nixon argued that "no single utterance of an American President, no statement of policy and strategic political philosophy has had more influence on the history of the world and the history of a region than President James Monroe's fundamental and seminal statement of 1823." (Renehan, 2007)

The Gold Rush

The Gold Rush was one of the most important phenomena of the history of the United States. It not only represented a historical discovery for the Californian state but it also remains in history as one of the most impressive population moves. More precisely, in 1848, an american carpenter, James Marshall, found at the bottom of a creek bed, a 23 carats piece of pure gold (Caughey, 1975). The discovery had a major impact for the development of the region and of the United States. In this sense it represented a major social incentive for people to come to California and settle in this part of the country. It is estimated that during the Gold Rush, which in fact is the actual name for the frenzy that was created around this discovery, more than 300,000 people came to California, if not to settle down, at least to try their luck in striking gold (Caughey, 1975).

Another important result of the Gold Rush was the purchasing of California, Along with the states of Nevada, Utah, and Arizona, from the Mexican state. Should the Gold Rush not have taken place, it is rather difficult to assess the way in which history would have evolved. However, the purchasing of these states brought the colonies one step closer to their eventual unification.

The people involved in the Gold Rush created a true social phenomena. It included creation of cities, such as San Francisco today, or communities. The people involved in the Gold Rush were named the "forty-eighters" and the "forty-niners." They were symbols for the early days of American colonial times. It was noted that "sailors granted shore leave ran off to the diggings. Those held on board lowered boats and rowed away. The master of the Flora tried to forestall desertion by ordering his ship out to sea, but his sailors mutinied, overpowered the watch and made their escape" (Caughey, 1975). Eventually, people did realize the gold quantity was not that impressive and the gold rush faded. But in terms of historical events, it marked an important moment in the American annals.

The Compromise of 1850

The Compromise of 1850 practically annulled the 1820 Compromise and diffused for a time the issue of slavery between the North and the South colonies. It came as a result of the annexation of Texas and the petition of California to enter the Union as a free state. The Compromise tried to further balance the spread of slavery leaving the decision of accepting slavery or not in the states to the population. Up to that point, the Missouri Compromise had established a line at the Mississippi which differentiated free from slave states. With the acquiring of new territory, the debate was weather these territories would be slave states or free states. The new territories forced the government to come up with a compromise solution that would establish slave and anti-slave states by nominalization, as it occurred with Washington DC, or by the free consent of the population, in states such as New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah (Africans in America, 2007).

The major provisions of the Compromise established the free will of the states to properly determine their status as slave or anti-slave states. This was an important determination because it allowed freedom in terms of choice inside the Union. Moreover, the Californian state was accepted as a free state in the Union, as requested (Jenkins, 1997).

The Kansas Nebraska Act followed the 1850 Compromise and went further, allowing people from the states of Kansas and Nebraska to choose for their own whether they should be slave states or not.

The Freeport Doctrine

The Freeport doctrine is part of a series of debates between Senator Douglas and Abraham Lincoln in the run up for the Illinois senatorial race in 1858. The major subject for debate during this debate was slavery and the right of the states to choose their own preference in terms of being a slave state or not.

Previous debates had set the tone for the one in Freeport where the major issue had been a Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case supported by Douglas. By comparison, Lincoln supported the idea of popular rule and that states have the right to decide for themselves.

At Freeport, Lincoln restated that the voting down of the amendment was a measure taken in preparation for the Supreme Court decision "But I have said that with men who did look forward to such a decision, or who had it in contemplation, that such a decision of the Supreme Court would or might be made, the voting down of that amendment would be perfectly rational and intelligible. It would keep Congress from coming in collision with the decision when it was made. Any body can conceive that if there was an intention or expectation that such a decision was to follow, it would not be a very desirable party attitude to get into for the Supreme Court -- all or nearly all its members belonging to the same party -- to decide one way, when the party in Congress had decided the other way. Hence it would be very rational for men expecting such a decision, to keep the niche in that law clear for it" (Fehrenbacher, 1989). Abraham Lincoln through the Freeport Doctrine tried to give ensure that the wishes of the states are met and that there is no collision between them and the Congress, as the Congress was able to decide on an entire package of laws without the approval of the states. This eventually happened and led to Civil War.

The American civil war

There are several aspects to be taken into account when discussing the issue of the civil war and its role in the American history. The main causes of the war relied in the issue of slavery as well as the right of the states to be part of a federal entity with equal rights and voices. The implications for this war were enormous as it provided a different future for the colonies and for the U.S. As a whole.

The main cause of the war was, as stated, the issue of slavery. In this sense, the Mexican war played an important role. It pointed out the importance of the slavery issue even in an apparently international situation. The Wilmot Proviso is essential in this way. Thus, it represented an additional act to a bill that enabled the U.S. To satisfy the financial needs of Mexico. The act in itself however was not passed because it pointed out the fact that none of the territories acquired during the Mexican war should be opened to slavery; while for the north it would have been a success, for the south it would have been a defeat. In the end the act was not passed but it represented a new reason for quarrel between the two sides. The Free Soil Party was created particularly as a result of these tensions, taking into account the fact that they supported the Wilmot Proviso (Jenkins, 1997).

The Lincoln- Douglas debates, the Freeport Doctrine, the Kansas nebraska act, these were all elements which led to the civil war. They underlined the stand of the South and their desire for control of the issue of slavery in the Congress as well as in the territory. The Civil War also gave birth to a series of issues that came to question the unity of the nation because there was the matter of each state being able to decide for itself in the matter of slavery. Nonetheless, while states in the north questioned the morality and necessity of slave workers, the south considered it to be the cornerstone of their economic prosperity.

The military campaign in the West is considered to be one of the most important theater operations of the Civil War because it represented the point in which the Confederation had to defend from the massive attacks of the Unionists. In this sense, they were forced to use all their natural conditions including the Mississippi River (Jenkins, 1997). In this context the military strategy included Ulysses Grant's attempt to take control of the West. However, General Hallack was also an important element of the strategy. In this sense, "the campaign was an integral part of Halleck's overall strategy for Union success in the West. He rightly believed that establishing Federal control of St. Louis and as much of Missouri as possible was essential before beginning large-scale offensive operations in Tennessee and the Mississippi Valley" (Shea and Hess, 1992, 307)

Thus, in the campaign that started in February 1862 to June the same year, the strategy consisted in the use of the river transportation system to move up the Tennessee. He made use of the limited possibilities of the Confederacy to build defense points in Kentucky, near fort Henry. Thus, it made the movement of the troops easier. On the other side, the armies of the Confederation were split, which made the defeat feasible for the North. However, the misunderstandings and the lack of agreement on the course of action inside the Union's camp made them vulnerable to the incursions of the South. One of the most important battles in this sense was the Battle of Shiloh which proved the need for the North's forces to keep their unity and agreement. Although he did meet impressive challenges from the South, Grant eventually took control of the Mississippi River, despite the fact that he had suffered great human casualties.

The capture of New Orleans in May 1862 represented an important victory for the North because the city was an important strategic point in the war. The next step was the so called Assault of Corinth led by Halleck who failed to advance at a high speed towards Corinth. Nonetheless, the armies of the North joined in the effort and the city was eventually besieged.

General Robert E. Lee is an important figure of the Civil War in America, as part of the eldership of the South armies in Virginia in particular. Despite his later success, in the beginning of the war, he was often faced with unworthy treatment and bickering (Sifakis, 2006). One of the most important actions of Lee's career was the battle for Richmond in which he stopped George B. McClellan from capturing the city. In addition there were several other battles that are considered to be of importance for Lee's career taking into account the fact that at the beginning of his presence in the army he was viewed with doubtful eyes, by the end of his career in the military the general opinion was much improved. Therefore, the battle of Second Manassas, the battle of Antietam, as well as the battle at Fredericksburg in December of 1862 proved his qualities of an important military character.

His confrontations included adversaries such as George B. McClellan, Pope, and Burnside in 1862. However, the following year he encountered General Grant to whom he surrendered.

Also, George B. McClellan is another important general from the Northern armies. He was one of the direct adversaries of Lee at Richmond, where his military capabilities failed him and he succumbed at the hands of Lee. The constant lack of success in the fight against the Southern general made McClellan's supporters to argue against his capabilities as a general and a leader. Therefore, "it was decided in Washington to abandon the campaign (against Richmond) and transfer most of McClellan's men to John Pope's army in northern Virginia. There were charges that McClellan-now called by the press "Mac the Unready" and "The Little Corporal of Unsought Fields "was especially slow in cooperating." (Sifakis, 2006) Despite the fact that he eventually regained his command and prestige, during the fall of 1862, his results were clearly negative.