No doubt that the real meaning of the Civil War is completely different from the one we are used to. Civil War is called the “Second American Revolution” was first used by Charles and Mary Beard about seventy years ago when describing the American Civil War. Only after everything was settled about the reunion and reconciliation, after the construction of monuments were completed, after all the veterans were satisfied, when most of the emotions were dull the Civil War could have been viewed from another prospective, the logical prospective that could easily point out “that armed conflict had been only one phase of the cataclysm, a transitory phase; that at bottom the so-called Civil War, or the War between the States….
was a social war, ending in the unquestioned establishment of a new power in the government, making vast changes in the arrangement of classes, in the accumulation and distribution of wealth, in the course of industrial development, and in the Constitution inherited from the Fathers.Over the years the term “Second American Revolution” has been viewed differently by different parties. The historians of the Civil War Era always had difficulties with accepting this term. In any case, Civil War greatly changed the sense of balance of political power between North and South and significantly speeded up the appearance of industrial capitalism in the post-war period. Most historians see the abolishing of slavery in the south as the revolutionary result of the war.
Another point of view is from people that lived through the war, they saw their struggle as revolutionary. People that lived in the South called their revolt a revolution against the tyranny regime of the North. Northerners, on the contrary, viewed their conflict as a struggle to keep the union, which was formed as the result of revolution against England, together. However, both sides viewed that war as the continuation of the fight for freedom that started in 1776.The prominent historians Beards were very precise as to what they called a “revolution.” In 1940 Louis Hacker-Beard Thesis: “The American Civil War turned out to be a revolution indeed.
But its striking achievement was the triumph of industrial capitalism. The industrial capitalist, through their political spokesmen, the Republicans, has succeeded in capturing the state and using it as an instrument to strengthen their economic position. It was no accident, therefore, that while the war was waged on the field and through Negro emancipation, in Congress’ halls the victory was made secure by the passage of tariff, banking, public-land, railroad, and contract labor legislation.”Some famous historians and James McPherson occasionally talk of Abraham Lincoln’s “Second American Revolution” (the title of one of McPherson’s books). They are absolutely correct to describe Lincoln as a revolutionary, however, the explanations they present to support this point of view are not fully complete. It is true that Lincoln led a revolution against: free-market capitalism (Lincoln was a committed mercantilist) the principles of the Declaration of independence; the constitution; the system of states’ rights and federalism that was created by the founders; and the prohibitions against waging war on civilians embodied in the international law of the time as well as the canons of Western Christian civilization. Lincoln through all of his life never believed in equality of all races.
He always viewed whites as the superior race. Maybe he wanted all races to be equal but not in the U.S. Lincoln is thought to save the union, however, it was only geographically, he destroyed it philosophically, and the union was not voluntary anymore. Lincoln eviscerated constitutional liberties in the North, which permanently weakened the constitutional protections of liberty for all Americans.Despite all of the arguing of prominent historians, the fact continues to be revealed as the history moves up but at the same time it sort of steps back away in history, I think, it is an individual right for everyone to view the Civil War as the Second American Revolution or not.
Each generation will reason and view this event differently, according to background and political views. Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Jeff StatsHow and why is the Civil War a Second Revolution?One of the causes of the civil war is that the people of the south called their revolt a revolution against the tyranny regime of the north.
This was about slavery, when they have to fight for their freedom. The ideas, that “all men are created equal” must be the driving force to revolt and fight for equality.But these people who were demanding equality or equal rights were not Americans, but instead “outsiders,” and they were so helpless and maltreated with no one to help and protect them. And why we have to fight for them. Was this a kind of Revolution to change the way we think and start doing things in a right manner so that “slavery” was inhuman and must be change with the cost of a Civil War, a War between States. Was it also a revolution of ideas, between right and wrong? But when the Northerners, were only using there slaves or outsiders to “survive” for the sake of Agricultural Production.
That was they only considered their gains and to earn more money out of the blood of those slaves.2. Consider the bigger issue as to why the North and South went to war and how it is similar or dissimilar to the Revolutionary War.
The main cause of the Civil War was slavery. And the similarity with the second revolution was to fight against slavery. I will consider the dissimilarity as to the issue of using the slaves to produce crops or agricultural products which must be very important for a new country. A kind of a situations when one state wants to govern their governmental affairs all by themselves, they wanted freedom and don’t want other state to intervene in their affairs including using slaves for their development.
The Civil War was also a revolution of change and certainly slavery must be abolished not only it was inhuman but because there must be a better way of doing it and the Civil War also revolutionizes technology, which was a modern approach to the development of a country.But the Civil War really abolished slavery, I think it did not, it just evolve and took a new form, though the slaves or outsiders got their freedom but they were unable to escape poverty and just they same they must still work hard in order to survive and join the3. In what ways did the reconstruction reflect the success or failure of the second revolution?After the abolition of slavery, the United States of America become famous as the “land of the free” and with equal opportunities.
But revolution took a new form this speeded up the so-called industrial capitalism. A new breed of people, the industrial capitalist, because they have the economic position and in a way can influence the government.”In Congress’ halls the victory was made secure by the passage of tariff, banking, public-land, railroad, and contract labor legislation.” ( Quoted from the reference)After the Civil War, massive reconstruction took place, indicating the success of the second revolution. And made the United States of America the land of milk and honey.
And become a haven for immigrants.But the Civil War was not fought for the sake of industrial capitalism. It is for the abolition of slavery. And slavery was not really abolished it was just fitted in a new situations. Such as, you cannot eat or buy what you want without working for it.
And the only difference, you are being paid for a piece of work and if you want a much better life then be a “slave” of work. That means nobody is really free in the modernize America because “time” is not yours. You have to work ( like a slave) all your life if you want a better life.What ever is you are fighting for, this revolution now becomes personal because all of us wants to be successful either in wealth or not.