A century before the momentous civil war, occurred what some might say was an even more important war in America. Both were wars for freedom; freedom from a force larger than those that were wishing to escape from it. The war for America (the revolutionary war) was for the purpose of separating the colonies from England, and the war in America (the civil war) was for the freedom of African/ African American and other slaves. Primary source documents form these times expose the similarities and the differences in these two wars that began essentially for the same purpose; to be independent. Two source documents, Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs in Thomas Paine’s literature Common Sense and Statement From an anonymous Former
…show more content…
Yes, this country is still very young; as it did not officially get its independence form Great Britain until 1776. This was almost three hundred years after its discovery. The problem was that Britain’s taxation was the only form of control the country had left over the colonies, and the people began to revolt these taxes, as they were unreasonable. The first continental congress greatly respected king George of Great Britain just a year before the war began. But in 1775 the “shot heard around world”, fired on Lexington Green in April changed everything. A month later the second continental congress formed the Continental Army. This was a volunteer army formed after Britain’s victory in the battle of Bunker Hill. George Washington headed it and was joined by 40,000 new troops (http://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/RevAmerica/6-How/index.html, no author shown). Finally in 1776, America was on its own. Now in 1861 the country became divided over the freedom of a not-so-minority group within the U.S.; slaves. More specifically, African American (as most were by that time) slaves. The Northern states wanted to abolish slavery, but the Southern states were keen on keeping things the same. This cause a four year war within the country that did end in the freedom of all slaves, which president Lincoln finalized through the Emancipation Proclamation. However the best …show more content…
Typically the civil war is spoken of in terms of two parties; the north and the south, anti-slavery vs pro-slavery. However the third party that was largely involved in the war, that was the entire focal point of the war was the slaves or former slaves. In this document the view point is clearly from the third party, “it is retten that a man can not Serve two master But it seems that the Collored population has got two a rebel master and a union master both want our Services,” (Roark, page 287). The former slave goes on to state that the services wanted were for cotton and sugar or to fight battles “under white officers”. There is also an emphasis on finances, “the number of Slaves in the Southern Sates estimated 3,500,000 and were worth $1200,000,000 in gold,” (Roark page 286). Through these documents we can see that both wars had some kind of financial issue. The revolutionary war was triggered by the taxation of the colonies and the southern side of the civil war largely fought for economical reasons because the slaves labor was worth $200,000,000 as the anonymous former slave stated. Typically in wars we assign two sides to the fighting, however in the civil war there were technically three sides involved. In Paines writing he talks about the views of two sides (one of which was his),
Yes, this country is still very young; as it did not officially get its independence form Great Britain until 1776. This was almost three hundred years after its discovery. The problem was that Britain’s taxation was the only form of control the country had left over the colonies, and the people began to revolt these taxes, as they were unreasonable. The first continental congress greatly respected king George of Great Britain just a year before the war began. But in 1775 the “shot heard around world”, fired on Lexington Green in April changed everything. A month later the second continental congress formed the Continental Army. This was a volunteer army formed after Britain’s victory in the battle of Bunker Hill. George Washington headed it and was joined by 40,000 new troops (http://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/RevAmerica/6-How/index.html, no author shown). Finally in 1776, America was on its own. Now in 1861 the country became divided over the freedom of a not-so-minority group within the U.S.; slaves. More specifically, African American (as most were by that time) slaves. The Northern states wanted to abolish slavery, but the Southern states were keen on keeping things the same. This cause a four year war within the country that did end in the freedom of all slaves, which president Lincoln finalized through the Emancipation Proclamation. However the best …show more content…
Typically the civil war is spoken of in terms of two parties; the north and the south, anti-slavery vs pro-slavery. However the third party that was largely involved in the war, that was the entire focal point of the war was the slaves or former slaves. In this document the view point is clearly from the third party, “it is retten that a man can not Serve two master But it seems that the Collored population has got two a rebel master and a union master both want our Services,” (Roark, page 287). The former slave goes on to state that the services wanted were for cotton and sugar or to fight battles “under white officers”. There is also an emphasis on finances, “the number of Slaves in the Southern Sates estimated 3,500,000 and were worth $1200,000,000 in gold,” (Roark page 286). Through these documents we can see that both wars had some kind of financial issue. The revolutionary war was triggered by the taxation of the colonies and the southern side of the civil war largely fought for economical reasons because the slaves labor was worth $200,000,000 as the anonymous former slave stated. Typically in wars we assign two sides to the fighting, however in the civil war there were technically three sides involved. In Paines writing he talks about the views of two sides (one of which was his),