TOP Slavery in the Western Territories To many nineteenth century Americans, the expansion of slavery into Western territories caused a great deal of controversy. Since the drafting of the Constitution inthe North and the South had grown further apart in terms of economy, ideology, and society.
Even so, the direct cost of the war as calculated by Goldin and Lewis was 1. What stands out in addition to the enormity of the bill is the disparity in the burden these costs represented to the people in the North and the South.
Staggering though these numbers are, they represent only a fraction of the full costs of the war, which lingered long after the fighting had stopped. All the figures for the costs in Table 3 have been adjusted to reflect their discounted value in Ingenious though this methodology is, it suffers from the serious drawback that consumption lost for any reason — not just the war — is included in the figure.
Particularly for the South, not all the decline in output after could be directly attributed to the war; the growth in the demand for cotton that fueled the antebellum economy did not continue, and there was a dramatic change in the supply of labor due to emancipation.
English played a key role in the unrest in Kansas during the antebellum period, yet supported the Union during the Civil War (but was still antagonistic towards Lincoln’s presidency). A deal broker, English often chose the middle of the road. Explain why and how the role of the federal government changed as a result of the Civil War with respect to TWO of the following during the period Since the time of British colonization in the New World, sectionalism had played a major role in American politics. The rebuilding of the South after the Civil War is called the Reconstruction. The Reconstruction lasted from to Federal troops occupied much of the South during the Reconstruction to insure that laws were followed and that another uprising did not occur. the federal government set up Freedman's Bureaus to help black people.
The magnitudes of the indirect effects are detailed in Table 3. What Table 3 does not show is the extent to which these expenses were spread out over a long period of time. In the North, consumption had regained its prewar level byhowever in the South consumption remained below its level to the end of the century.
We shall return to this issue below. Financing the War No war in American history strained the economic resources of the economy as the Civil War did. Governments on both sides were forced to resort to borrowing on an unprecedented scale to meet the financial obligations for the war.
With more developed markets and an industrial base that could ultimately produce the goods needed for the war, the Union was clearly in a better position to meet this challenge.
The South, on the other hand, had always relied on either Northern or foreign capital markets for their financial needs, and they had virtually no manufacturing establishments to produce military supplies. From the outset, the Confederates relied heavily on funds borrowed outside the South to purchase supplies abroad.
Figure 3 shows the sources of revenue collected by the Union government during the war. In and the government covered less than 15 percent of its total expenditures through taxes.
But what of the other 75 percent? In Congress authorized the U. Treasury to issue currency notes that were not backed by gold.
This still left a huge shortfall in revenue that was not covered by either taxes or the printing of money. The remaining revenues were obtained by borrowing funds from the public.
The financial markets of the North were strained by these demands, but they proved equal to the task. Consequently, the Northern economy was able to finance the war without a significant reduction in private consumption. While the increase in the national debt seemed enormous at the time, events were to prove that the economy was more than able to deal with it.
Indeed, several economic historians have claimed that the creation and subsequent retirement of the Civil War debt ultimately proved to be a significant impetus to post-war growth Williamson ; James Wartime finance also prompted a significant change in the banking system of the United States.
In Congress finally passed legislation creating the National Banking System.
Their motive was not only to institute the program of banking reform pressed for many years by the Whigs and the Republicans; the newly-chartered federal banks were also required to purchase large blocs of federal bonds to hold as security against the issuance of their national bank notes.
The efforts of the Confederate government to pay for their war effort were far more chaotic than in the North, and reliable expenditure and revenue data are not available.
Figure 4 presents the best revenue estimates we have for the Richmond government from though November Burdekin and Langdana Several features of Confederate finance immediately stand out in comparison to the Union effort.
First is the failure of the Richmond government to finance their war expenditures through taxation. Over the course of the war, tax revenues accounted for only 11 percent of all revenues. Another contrast was the much higher fraction of revenues accounted for by the issuance of currency on the part of the Richmond government.
The remainder came in the form of bonds, many of which were sold abroad in either London or Amsterdam. The reliance on borrowed funds proved to be a growing problem for the Confederate treasury.
By mid the costs of paying interest on outstanding government bonds absorbed more than half all government expenditures. The difficulties of collecting taxes and floating new bond issues had become so severe that in the final year of the war the total revenues collected by the Confederate Government actually declined.Explain Why And How The Role Of Federal Government Changed As A Result Of The Civil War With Respect To Two Of The Following During .
1. race relations: After the Emancipation Proclamation in , the federal government had to take on the role of protecting, and providing for, the newly freed slaves.
The federal government, hoping to prevent a civil war, temporarily resolved the issue with compromises. As the compromises appeared to become more one-sided, however, sectional divides between the North and South became more pronounced.
The Civil War Era as a Crucible for Nationalizing the Lower Federal Courts. Fall , Vol. 7, No. 3. By Kermit L. Hall © by Kermit L. Hall. Assessing the impact of the Civil War on the ideological and institutional underpinnings of nineteenth-century America presents a formidable historical challenge.
The Confederate Constitution outlined a judicial branch of the government, but the ongoing war and resistance from states-rights advocates, particularly on the question of whether it would have appellate jurisdiction over the state courts, prevented the creation or seating of the "Supreme Court of the Confederate States;" the state courts.
The "exhausted condition of the Treasury" at the start of the war exacerbated the problems that arose as the Lincoln administration scrambled to find funds to field an army.
Historians and economic historians should examine the Union's Civil War financial policies through this context.