How Did Clinton And Horwitz Be Considered A Total War

Question 1: McPherson and Horwitz have differentiating arguments on the Civil War. In McPherson’s interpretation, he explains who the war “redefined the United States” and list the reasons why it would be considered a total war and how it ended with the founding of essentially a new nation. Horwitz has a bit different viewpoint. He questions the necessity of the war, points out the fact the North did not fight to abolish slavery, and becomes upset of the legacy of the Civil War soldiers. More specifically, Horowitz believes the war was not worth the staggering number of lives lost while McPherson does not discredit the cost of the war for the outcome, a new nation. One of the reasons McPherson gives for considering it a total war was the mobilization

Before the First Battle of Bull Run, thousands of men joined the cause to defend their southern way of living. They boasted that the cowards in the north would not receive nearly enough enlistments to rival the south. However, when the northern recruitment offices opened, they had too many men, both white and black, that wanted to enlist that they had to turn away. Because of these phenomenons, the north and south were quickly mobilized to start fighting. Horwitz’s point that the war was started to not end slavery but to keep the country together is a very valid point. Contrary to popular belief, Lincoln was not an abolitionist himself, and he even believed that blacks did not deserve every right that the white man did. During the war, the North realized that freeing the slaves would greatly help their cause since the slave population would easily outnumber their owners. The development and execution of the idea to release the slaves was a huge moment boost for the north as they struggled to gain ground. With slaves constantly escaping to Union forces, lots of conflicts arised for the southerners. As one can see, there are several perspectives to looking back at

Habeas corpus is the right of a person who is arrested to have a trial. By suspending habeas corpus, President Lincoln is preventing everyone who is arrested from being released. While the northern army was traveling around, people kept burning bridges and other nuances to slow their advances. Lincoln had to find a way to prevent this from happening so he suspended habeas corpus and had some of the perpetrators arrested. Lincoln said, “... often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb.” In this quote, Lincoln is stating that he would rather suspend certain civil liberties than risk the country splitting. Lincoln believed his main purpose was to preserve the union for the people. During the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln stresses the fact the government is for, of, and by the people and that everyday people are the ones that will carry on the unfinished work of the Civil War. In his speech, he makes more like the common man and less like a dictator, making the Gettysburg Address a poor example of both his autocracy and democracy. In the process of unifying the country, however, he took away people’s rights. Lincoln defied even the Chief Supreme court judge to prevent people from leaving prison. During World War II, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt allowed all Japanese people living in America to