U.s History American Civil War - 1423 Words

Omer Bhatti U.S History I Professor Ojserkis U.S History I: Final Paper In early April 1861, the attack on Fort Sumter marked the beginning of the American Civil War. However, the belligerence of both sides of the war began long before the first shot. There is a great deal of possible causes of the Civil War, and in much disagreement with popular belief the war was not solely fought about the existence of slavery. Unfortunately, there is no simple reason why the war began because there were many sectional differences between the states of the North and of the South. In many ways the Civil War can be described as a war between two different countries instead of a war between two sections of a country. Slavery was perhaps the most noticeable†¦show more content†¦Even though, the causes of the Civil War were various these articles each introduced a cause that they believed contributed greatly to catalyzing the Civil War. The most obvious difference in lifestyles between these two countries was that the South was a slave proponent and the North was a non-slave proponent. In his article, The Way We Weren’t, David Von Drehle, he states the importance of slavery in context of the Civil War, â€Å"The once obvious truth of the Civil War does not imply that every soldier had slavery on his mind as he marched and fought. Many Southerners fought and died in gray never having owned a slave and never intending to own one. Thousands died in blue with no intention to set one free. But it was slavery that had broken one nation in two and fated its people to fight over whether it would be put back together again.† (Von Dehle, 1). This statement makes clear that slavery was a major factor in instigating the Civil War. The article also mentioned that slavery’s influence on the belligerence of both regions is also distinct with the violence in Kansas, which was later properly labeled â€Å"Bleeding Kansas.† This battle displayed the fight over the acceptance of slavery since, it involved Missouri residents, called Border Ruffians,† to journey to Kansas to forcibly persuade the people of Kansas to become a slave state. This highlighted the dissension over slavery since it was so important to the

Understanding Capitalism And The Need For Government...

Wendy Diep International Political Economy Essay #1 October 20, 2014 Understanding Capitalism and the Need for Government Intervention In today’s capitalistic society, â€Å"liberal† and â€Å"conservative† are common terms we use to classify a political party, candidate, or even ourselves. But what does this mean? Choosing to identify as a liberal or conservative has a lot to do with what one believes is the appropriate level of government intervention in terms of the economy. Liberals believe it is the duty of the government to act to ensure economic equality and to guarantee that all are provided for. A liberal economy is one in which the market system functions best with government regulation, and the government must protect the economy from monopolies and the greed of big corporations. On the other hand, in terms of economics, conservatives believe in individual responsibility, limited government intervention, personal liberty, and free markets. The free market system breeds competitive capitalism and private enterprise, believing it provides the opportunity for the highest standards of living for all. A central question within regards to international political economy today focuses on the role of government in economic activity – to what extent should government play a role in economic activity? Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes are economists in history whose theories are central to the understanding of how the economy works, and how government works within aShow MoreRelatedRobert Heilbroner s Twenty First Century Capitalism1690 Words   |  7 Pagesscience. Capitalism has been the key to the development of business and a countries economy capitalism has changed the economy and society in both positive and negative ways both suitable. Robert Heilbroner book†Twenty-first-century capitalism(1993)† talked about going beyond economic theories too but focuses on the problems of modern economic society. He thought of capitalism as the interrelationship between the economic system and a political order ,that is howâ€Å"two realms of capitalism† were formedRead MoreDisadvantages Of Capitalism1594 Words   |  7 Pagesinto action. The concept of capitalism is a very important concept to the United States and many other countries whose citizens value freedom and independency. Capitalism has many different aspects to it. First, capitalism is a social system. The trade and industry of a capitalist country is based off of private owners and not the government. Capitalism is centered around the rights of the individuals. It allows the individual to make his or her own decisions. Capitalism is usually open to new ideasRead MoreSocialism in America is Good966 Words   |  4 Pagesdefinition of capitalism would be an economic system in which private individuals own the factors of production and decide how to use them within legislated limits. Laissez faire is another name that was given by Scottish philosopher Adam Smith. He said it is better for a governme nt to have no intervention in the economy at all and an individual pursuing his own self-interest tends to also promote the good of his community as a whole through a principle that he called â€Å"the invisible hand.† Capitalism is basedRead MoreAnalysis of Mullers Viewpoint1333 Words   |  5 Pagesï » ¿Introduction Writing in Foreign Affairs, Jerry Z. Muller (2013) argues that recent political debate ¦.has been dominated by two issues: the rise of economic inequality and the scale of government intervention to address it. He further expresses simplistic characterization of political battle lines in an attempt to create a compelling narrative for his points. However, he mostly creates a straw man that serves little purpose other than to act as a springboard for his points. The Points MullersRead MoreLiberalism, Mercantilism, Structuralism And Constructivism1422 Words   |  6 Pagesbetween two sub-theories; Heterodox Intervention Liberals and Orthodox Liberalism. Heterodox Intervention Liberals agree with the theorist John Maynard Keynes in the belief that there should be liberal capitalism with limited government intervention when necessary, but only in the situation where rational individual decisions could lead to an irrational societal outcome. Orthodox Liberalism states that under no circumstances should there be any government intervention and such views can be seen in theRead MoreModernization Theory : An Effective Method For Development Essay1634 Words   |  7 Pagesproject, meant to liberate countries from their traditional ‘backward’ way of life and become more aligned with Western ideals (Cooper 2005). Modernization became a popular theory due to its roots in the sociological theory behind modernity and capitalism, as well as the perpet uation of its necessity by developmental economists. Modernization theory was considered an effective method for development due to the assumption that its success domestically, as shown by the Tennessee Valley Authority inRead MoreComparative Critique Of Comparative Capitalism1214 Words   |  5 PagesCOMPARATIVE CAPITALISM Case Study #4: Comparative Capitalism Florence F. Messi St Thomas University Miami Gardens, Florida Abstract The Merriam-Wester dictionary defines capitalism as an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. (2015). However for an ideal capitalism to fully operateRead MoreThe Correlation Between Two Rivals Traditions Of Economic Thought By Hunt Lautzenheister And The Great Divide1496 Words   |  6 PagesIn every economy, welfare increases as the composition of productive output and conforms to the needs and desires of those who procure and use the output. In analysing the forces that tended to increase economic welfare, Smith developed a model that delineated the most important social and economic components of capitalism and made explicit the principal motivation that propelled the system. Capitalism comprises of two primary sectors. That is agriculture and manufacturing. Additionally, land, labourRead MoreMilton Friedmans Ideas Essay1646 Words   |  7 Pagesfigure in the economics field in the 20th century, (Placeholder2) and was known most for his thoughts on free enterprise, classical liberalism and limited government. (Placeholder3) His views shaped modern capitalism. (Placeholder2) He was against government intervention and favored free markets (Placeholder6). If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years thered be a shortage of sand. – Milton Friedman His contributions were many, to name a few: †¢ Monetary theoryRead MoreEncountering Development1547 Words   |  7 Pagesgeographical terrain: the Third World.† (21). †¢ relationship between capitalism, a rupture of community ties, and poverty: â€Å"Whatever these traditional ways might have been, and without idealizing them, it is true that massive poverty in the modern sense appeared only when the spread of the market economy broke down community ties and deprived millions of people from access to land, water, and other resources. With the consolidation of capitalism, systemic pauperization became inevitable.† (22) †¢ the poor

How Stable Was Russia on the Eve of Ww1 free essay sample

The Liberals were the first group to be appeased as the tsar issued the October Manifesto, on Witte’s advice, in which he accepted the creation of the legislative Duma. The Liberals were excited by this as they would finally be granted civil rights, freedom of speech, assembly and worship and trade unions would be legalised. To an extent, the Liberals were satisfied. Stolypin also aimed to be supported by the peasants. He therefore introduced measures in 1906-7 which would help restore the peasants’ sense of security. Stolypin’s main aim was to create a class of rich land owning peasants who would support the Tsar. Therefore, the Peasant Land Bank was set up in which All State and Crown lands were made available for purchase. Funds were introduced such as ‘Wager and the Strong’ which particularly appealed to the Kulaks (the richer peasants). Peasants were also allowed to withdraw from their commune and redemption payments were ended. Moreover, Stolypin stopped the redistribution of land to every member of the family and made all the land hereditary property of the head of the family. The peasants were temporarily content The second argument which supports the idea that Russia was stable on the eve of World War 1 is the one which agrees that the Tsar continued to have the loyalty of the army. The event which came to be known as ‘Bloody Sunday’ supports this. The marchers who were protesting outside the Winter Palace were shot down by the Tsar’s troops. This shows that they were prepared to guard the Tsar and that in effect the Tsar still had complete power and loyalty from his army. Although there were several military strikes, the army’s support of the Tsar was barely hindered, and they still looked up to him. Therefore it is apparent that Russia was fairly stable at this time, seeing as the Tsar definitely depended on the support from his Army to have any complete power. Another very important factor which shows that the Tsar ultimately had complete power and that his autocracy was powerful was due to the fact that the powers of the Duma were actually very limited. Two points show that The Tsar was not going to let the people have much control and that he was planning on keeping his autocratic role. The Fundamental Laws were issued in 1906 and these suggested that in fact the autocracy was still in the ascendency. The Laws stated that no laws could be enforced without the Tsar’s approval, so that in effect, the Tsar was making the decisions. The Duma had little power to initiate or enact legislation. The second thing which was announced was that there would be a Bi-cameral chamber in which there would be a State Council alongside the Duma. The legislations would be proposed by the Commons, would then have to pass the Nobles and finally be decided by the Tsar. It was very unlikely that anything the Commons proposed would get passed the Tsar. The new Duma was a concession on the face of it but actually meaningless. The Tsar continued to have complete Power. This further agrees with the proposal that Russia was stable. This is because the Tsar had control over his people no laws were passed by the people themselves, everything was ultimately controlled by the autocrat himself. However, there is a counter argument which exists for this idea. There was significant antagonism on the part of the Kadets, The Constitutional Democrats. Alongside the Labourists, the Kadets drew up an ‘Appeal’ by refusing to pay taxes and disobeying conscription orders. Due to this, violence scattered. Because of this of the protesting, they were crushed by the Okhrana as the Tsar retaliated and executions were carried out in all of Russia. This fiasco was named the Vyborg Fiasco. Despite the Kadets not succeeding with their upheaval, it was evident that there were pockets of antagonism among the people and not everyone was pleased with the Tsar’s ruling. Another possible argument suggesting that Russia was stable on the eve before World War 1 is that the economy had grown well by 1914. For example, between 1905 and 1913 savings accounts grew from 4,988,000 to 8,992,000. Also, the National Debt which was money owed by the government to foreign banks had dropped from 9,014,000 to 8,835,000 roubles. Moreover, an annual growth rate between 1907 and 1914 was over 6%, which surpassed that of any Western country. Judging by these figures, Russia’s economy wasn’t too dreadful and seemed to be, if anything, improving. As well as this, agricultural production had been growing before 1914. For example, grain production grew by 2. 1 per cent annually between 1883 and 1914, or by 1. 1 million tons per year. This kept it ahead of the big 1. percent annual increase in population. Industry had also reformed during this period. Russia was ranked the 5th largest industrial power in the world, with a growth rate of 8% per annum. Heavy industry expanded and a consumer market developed. Imports and exports had increased from the year 1900. Imports had risen from 626. 3 roubles in 1900 to 1,084. 4 roubles in 1913 and exports had risen from 716. 2 roubles in 1900 to 1,520. 0 roubles in 1913. It is very clear from these statistics and examples that Russia had a fairly stable economy, and it wasn’t going downhill. This may suggest that Russia was also a generally a stable country before World War 1, as the economy played a big part in its successfulness. Despite this positive economy, there is also a counter argument that must be addressed. There are various economic issues which indicate instability of the economy. Primarily, there were continued problems in industry. Poor working conditions still persisted and the workforces of St. Petersburg grew by 1/3. Also, Russia still produced 14 times less than Britain in industrial terms, meaning that it was extremely backward compared to Western countries. It’s important to remember that there was a recession going on and inflation was 40% which had a negative impact on the cost of living as it increased, and the value of money in turn decreased. These points suggest that the economy was in fact not as stable as it may have been argued to be. The last argument which suggests that Russia was a stable country on the eve of World War 1 is that there was actually a lack of effective opposition and severe dealing with dissidents. One example is the Lena Goldfields Massacre in 1912. The military revived due to this incident. Workers who were striking and protesting about degrading working conditions, low wages and a 14-hour working day, clashed with troops. Over 200 people were killed and many were injured. This shows that the military was ruthless and the Tsar still had the support of the Army. Another example that shows how severely dissidents were dealt with is the example of â€Å"Stolypin’s necktie†. Stolypin instituted a court system that made it easier for the arrest and conviction of political revolutionaries. In the years of 1906-1909 over 3,000 suspects were convicted and executed. The hangman’s noose became known as â€Å"Stolypin’s necktie†. It is obvious from these severe dealings that the Tsar was still in complete control and revolutionaries were punished very harshly for their actions. The Vyborg incident concerning the uprising of the Kadets and Labourists also suggests that the Tsar was the almighty autocrat. In the years of 1906 and 1911 2,500 executions took place in Russia. The Tsar and his army were not letting anyone get away with their antagonism against his rulings and there were no serious threats to the autocracy as every threat was crushed. On the other hand, the counter argument suggests that there was opposition to the Tsar. Firstly, Stolypin was assassinated in 1911 which shows that there was opposition towards him and that many groups must have been against the autocracy. Also, there were many strikes in 1914 which was in fact the opposition voicing itself. For example, at the time of the 1905 revolution there were 2,863,000 strikes which occurred which shows that there was a large number of people who weren’t satisfied with the Tsar’s rulings. In 1911 there were 105,000 people who were striking and in 1914 a sum of 1,337,000 people were striking. The continuity of this striking shows that there was always opposition to the Tsar and it is evident that the workers were never bought off but were merely temporarily crushed. Another idea that supports the counter argument is one which concerns the Martial Law. The sheer fact that the law had to be introduced in the first place suggests exactly how unstable everything was. It indicates that there was rising opposition and a law had to be passed to stop this rising opposition. This is a typical feature of an unstable government. To conclude, it is evident that Russia was reasonably stable on the eve of World War 1. There are many pieces of evidence, and incidents which point to the fact that Russia had a good economy, the Tsar had ultimate power, the army obeyed the Tsar, and that there was little threat of opposition. However, there were various resentments which were building up and there were many groups which opposed the rulings of the Tsar. Strikes were extremely popular amongst the public and the economy had many flaws.