American Civil War Essay Example

1861 marked the beginning of what today is known as America’s bloodiest war. A war thought to only last a few months, quickly became several years before America would again find peace with itself. The Civil War first began due to a great rift that had been formed between the northern and southern states of America. This rift was caused by a multitude of things, such as their economies, lifestyles, politicians, political ideologies, and slavery laws. Eventually, the South decided they had had enough and seceded from the North to start their own country called the Confederate States of America. This marked the beginning of the Civil War, and a 5-year-long fight for the South to be either recognized as a country, or be re-consumed by the North. In the end, the South ended up surrendering, and did rejoin the United States of America. However, this posed many questions for the U.S. government concerning the South’s punishment, reconstruction, what to do with their slaves, what to do with the North’s slaves, and many more. The way America responded to all of these questions was very skillfully done, as they were able to morally complete the purpose of the civil war, as well as successfully consume the South back into America again.

One of the first questions that came to mind for the U.S. was who should even be allowed to decide the South’s punishment. Between the president and Congress, it's fortunate the president ended up deciding the South’s fate. Even though morally and logically it should have been Congress who decided their fate, the presidential power to pardon people for their crimes is necessary for this situation, as it is impossible to punish the entirety of the South for their crimes against America. The second question asked was whether or not the South was guilty of treason. By definition, yes the South was completely guilty of treason; they abandoned their country and attempted to overthrow its government. The problem with convicting the South as guilty of committing treason was the fact that the punishment for committing treason was death. Was the government supposed to kill the entire South? This would simply not do, as it would be incredibly inhumane to sentence that many people to their death. So rather than convicting the entire South of committing treason, it would have been best to declare only the high-ranking individuals of the South to be guilty of treason. This would serve as a more humane way of punishing the South, as the foot soldiers and civilians of the South did not play as much of an involved role as the people actually calling the shots of the war. The said “high-ranking individuals” would contain people such as Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stevens, Robert E. Lee, and other high-ranking officers/politicians. All others are to receive a pardon for their crimes (farmers, soldiers, civilians, slave owners). This is close to the plan actually carried out by the U.S. after the civil war. America decided to provide personal pardons to all high-ranking confederates and pardoned the rest. This feels too lenient, as it considerably doesn’t punish the South at all. Convicting the high-ranking Southerners as unpardonably guilty of treason feels more balanced. It sends a message to Southerners as well as provides a reasonable amount of justice for the South’s crimes without killing half of America’s population. However, the plan America decided still feels appropriate, as everyone was most likely tired of the war, and just wanted a sense of normalcy again.

The concept of allowing the South back into congress was also a controversial one. In Congress, the South has to be represented, as they are a part of the U.S. However, the South was reasonably considered to be untrustworthy as they had only just recently surrendered, meaning could America faithfully trust the same group of people who voted for secession 5 years ago back into Congress? Even though this was an understandable fear in America, the South's lack of representation in Congress was one of the main reasons it succeeded in the first place. If the South was unhappy with their limited representation then, what's the chance they're going to be happy now with even less representation? To be reasonable, and take both the South’s trustworthiness and happiness into account, some level of caution could have been put in place before the entirety of the South was fully allowed to be represented in Congress again. This could’ve been some form of oath, or period of time, nothing that would take a great deal of effort or a large amount of time to be completed. On the topic of who should’ve been allowed into congress, the way it's decided should be no different than how it normally was. Even the same people from before could be let in again. With the South’s and Union’s unification, there should be an effort made to fix what the South thought was wrong with America, and in doing so, they should feel no need to secede again. Though not the entire reason for the South seceding was due to their lack of power in Congress, it would have been an auspicious looking step for the South to see themselves be given power, as it would show that the Union does care for them. If the North and South were to unify and the South was still having as equally bad of a time as before, there would be no reason for them to not eventually secede again once they had become stronger. All of the effort put into the war would’ve been thrown into jeopardy with one wrong move from America.

After the war, the laws on slaves were thrown into a sort of taboo. In the South, all of the slaves had been freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. In the North, however, the Southern states who had not seceded were allowed to keep their slaves throughout the entirety of the war. Including this, slaves were still legally recognized as property. To clear up those contradicting sets of laws, all slaves should be freed and made into citizens. Though seemingly radical, this was the North’s goal during the war, therefore it should be upheld once it is finished. Even if the North’s goals didn’t include freeing all the slaves, the Emancipation Proclamation freed half of the country’s slaves, so its only reasonable to do so with the other half. Making the slaves into citizens is inseparable from this action, as they would still be treated like slaves if they weren’t given all of the rights of a U.S. citizen, they just wouldn’t legally be slaves. Slaves being made into citizens obviously wouldn’t stop racism from occurring, but it would solidify their rights as human beings. With their newly-enacted freedom, laws should also be put into place to help them transition into society. Slaves, having been only slaves for their entire life, didn’t know how to be citizens. For a start, since they all no longer had a home or any belongings for that matter, there should have been an effort made to give the ex-slaves some sort of housing and other items to meet their basic needs (food, water, clothes). This almost happened, but unfortunately was vetoed by Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's vice president who took over for Lincoln after he passed. As previously mentioned, one of the North’s goals throughout the war was the emancipation of slaves. This not only meant the North was to be held accountable for freeing slaves, but was now also morally accountable for transitioning them into normal citizenship.

The way America chose to respond to the questions spawned by the Civil War was very appropriate and calculated. Not only were they able to successfully bring the Confederacy back into the U.S., but they were able to do so incredibly mercifully, and let people like Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stevens, and Robert E. Lee get away with no punishment. This could be because America thought the destruction done to the South in the war was enough punishment, or could be because they realized they were half of the reason the war even began in the first place. The effects of the civil war were not soon to be forgotten, but it's important that the North and South were able to work through it no longer as two separate bodies, but as one unified country.