Forgive or Punish?

On April 9th, 1865, America's bloodiest war finally came to its conclusion. The period that came after was known as the Reconstruction Era. One of the most prominent problems was "what to do with the South?". Many people from the Congress were completely agreeable with punishing the Southerners for seceding and for their crime of Slavery. However, President Andrew Johnson had quite a different plan of action in mind. He wanted to continue Lincoln's intention of forgiving the South and reuniting the Union. Johnson was well aware that this may have not been the most popular mindset, but he implemented what was known as "Executive Reconstruction" to force the South to endorse the 13th amendment and rejoin the Union. Throughout history many people have questioned if Johnson made the right decision, or if he should have listened to the Congress. It is time to dive deeper into this conflict of "forgive or punish?".

It is not acceptable to at any time forget that the South had thrived off Slavery; the practice of imprisoning human beings and forcing them to work for no pay. All the income the slave owners received was earned from the back-breaking work and sweat of hundreds of other human beings. Slavery itself should be a crime with a severe punishment, but the South didn't stop there. When faced with the conflicting views of the North, the decided to secede from the Union, another punishable act. These were the thoughts running through the minds of the Congress members that opposed Johnson. They wanted the South to get what they deserved. They wanted to see heads roll. However, upon further reflection, it is easy to realize that had the South been punished or even executed for their crimes, the body count would pile up even higher; the body count left behind by the Civil War. I believe that Johnson and Lincoln were right to forgive, because it benefited America overall, the fruits of which are still seen today. Revenge was not the answer then, and it is still not the answer for anything, because "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". Let us all learn to forgive and forget, and move on with our life.

Civil War: Right or Wrong?

In our class we have just about wrapped up speaking about the bloodiest war in US history, the Civil War. There were more deaths in this war than all the other wars US has participated in combined. These insane figures often prompt many people to think, "was it all necessary? Did this all really have to happen?" Well, it is clear after diving further in history that plenty of people including Abraham Lincoln tried many different approaches before resorting to war, for he was completely against the idea of fighting his own citizens. Ironically, it was his winning the election that proved to be the final straw for many slave states, which led to their secession. So in a way, it can be said that Lincoln lit the sparks of the very war he was so against and horrified by. However, Lincoln still agreed that the Civil War was necessary, because it fulfilled its purpose of keeping the Union together. Had there been no Civil War, and a more peaceful solution had been decided upon, then the outcomes of this nation would have been extremely different. For one thing, the "United" States of America would be anything but "united" as the Union and Confederates would be two separate nations. Also, slavery would still exist in the Confederate States, and the Southerners would continue to prosper off this unjust labor. But it doesn't stop there. With the US divided, its power is split, and the overall power of each separate nation would be greatly reduced. As a result, other nations would not have a hard time taking over or defeating either nation. The situation without a Civil War looks like a disaster, so I believe it is safe to say that although the war was not the prettiest option, it was still necessary and had positive outcomes, so it was indeed the right choice.

The Power Of Perspective

" All men are equal" say our Founding Fathers, written down in the Declaration of Independence. But did the actions of the United States stay consistent with these bold and noble words? One of the biggest counterarguments to this is the practice of slavery. Americans, especially southerners, owned and oppressed slaves despite what it said in the Declaration. The Dred Scott case, however, shed some light onto why people still believed slavery to be acceptable. The judge of the case quite clearly declared that although the Declaration did say that all men were equal, the Founding Fathers meant all men of property and honor, and that the Africans clearly did not fit this description so they were not even considered men. Now, this all comes down to perspective, because it is probably true that when the Founding Fathers wrote down "all men" they considered men to be honorable whites owning property and wealth. However, when other people view this statement, they consider the phrase "all men"to literally mean every sing man and women on earth, because that's the way they understand it. That is their perspective. All this confusion and chaos that eventually led to states seceding and the Civil War can all be traced back to this one misunderstanding, which is due to different perspectives being involved.