The American Civil War Essay
Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website!
In analysis of the debate of whether wars are always wrong since they are violent or if they are a necessary evil sometimes, it is important to study both sides of the argument, pro and anti war. War is seen as a resolution of conflicts which could not be solved in any other way, a common example given being the American Civil War. This war was fought to abolish slavery and to eliminate racism in the country and succeeded in giving blacks their rights.
War is said to part of the system of nature, where an everlasting struggle to survive persists, in relation to Darwin’s theory.
As only the fittest survive, war is said to be a way in which mankind progresses. It also is said to control the population which is continuing to grow in rapidly. It balances the population and resources available. It is also argued that war gives the economy a boost and helps develop infrastructure. War is also seen to play a unifying role in countries which had been previously divided. An example lies in the English Civil Wars. War has a great number of negative effects as well and is not a necessary evil.
It is stated that the American Civil War was completely unnecessary as there are a number of other countries which successfully abolished slavery without a war taking place. The possibility of nuclear wars is a very great threat to the peaceful existence of mankind. The possible negative effects are tremendous and under speculations must be avoided at all costs. Overall, war devalues human lives. It compares them to material things and degrades human beings. The anti war stance is humane and helpful for humanity and its good as war has devastating effects on its victims.
Are All Wars Since They Are Violent Wrong, Or Are They At Times a Necessary Evil? War is an occurrence that mankind has been faced with every few years, sometimes being apparently inevitable and sometimes being viewed as wholly unnecessary. Always being outright gloomy and terrifying due to the loss of lives and the suffering caused, there are also some effects of war which are seen as being positive and are thus stated to be in favor of war. This has caused for two different opinions, one being that war is always unjustified and should be avoided and the other being that war is essential.
As the eternal debate of the necessity of war has been sparked by thousands of years of bloodshed, some argue that it is a necessary evil, while those who keep in mind the value of every single human life claim that war must be avoided at all costs. As both sides of the argument have humongous implications, it is essential to examine each proposal with the utmost care before forming an opinion. It is argued that some conflicts cannot be resolved in any other way. For example, the American Civil War. Had it not been for this war, the black people of the country would have been forced into continued existence as slaves.
Their families were being torn apart and they were being deprived of their basic rights. Some say that there was no other way to make the white people give the blacks their basic human rights as they would not choose to pay their workers when they clearly benefitted from slavery. Thus in the case of eradication of discrimination, war seems to have been necessary. There are also those who call attention to the fact that war is required as it is the law of nature. It is said that it is an essential component of nature’s design of the world.
As Darwin has proposed that there is an everlasting struggle for survival, this is used as evidence that war is inevitable. It is said that with war mankind progresses as in the struggle for survival only the fittest survive and the weak, who may have been obstacles to progress, are removed. War gives the opportunity for heroism and self-sacrifice and thus human development takes place. (SINGH, n. d. ) War is also said to be needed to control overpopulation. As the population of the world grows rapidly and resources grow scarcer by the minute, war is said to keep the population in check.
(SINGH, n. d. ) Population and resources are thus forced to be balanced in this way. Also an attributed to war is the growth of an economy and also the development of an infrastructure. People are provided with a number of job opportunities and thus the rate of unemployment declines favorably. It forces the citizens of a country to rally its resources and work hard of their country. (How wars are good For an economy, 2005) However, this point is highly debated and claimed to be completely untrue by a number of anti-war activists.
The arms and ammunition industries may flourish but this may benefit only a small section of the population and is thus frowned upon. War is also said to help in the unification of a country as many wars throughout history have proved to do so. An example lies in the English Civil Wars which took place between 1642 and 1652, which is the time when the country of England was divided. The king of England at that time was Charles I who deprived the people of sovereignty although it was a constitutional monarchy and the people felt that their voice was remaining to be unheard in parliament.
The war was forced to begin when Charles I tried to take over Scotland despite having no approval whatsoever of the parliament. In reaction, the parliament constructed and raised its own army in order to stop that of the king. The war lasted nine entire years and after much suffering and severe losses the army of the parliament were found to have victory. Subsequently, the king faced a trial and was found guilty of crimes against the people of England and was thus executed. The war was in the interest of the English people and benefitted them greatly throughout the years as there were many positive long term effects.
In result of these wars, the citizens of England were reunited with their sovereignty. Also, the commonwealth took shape and the entire Great Britain was united under it. (war as an evil necessity, 2006) In light of this example it can be said that war indeed does have effects which results in the ultimate unification of a country. The statement that war is a necessary evil is thus further highlighted as war was necessary for the unification of the country but also cost a great number of lives and caused much pain and suffering as well.
On the other hand, there are those who claim that war is not an unnecessary evil. They state that war is a wholly unmixed evil in its purest form. Countering the example of the American Civil War are the examples of all the other nations which successfully removed slavery from their countries without the occurrence of horrifying large-scale wars. For example, the Parliament in Britain passed the Slavery Abolition Act on August 24, 1833 which became the law on August 1, 1834. Subsequently, an average of about eight hundred thousand black people who were oppressively held in the British colonies became freed.
In order to balance off the loss the previous slave owners faced, the British Parliament set aside the monetary total of one hundred million dollars. Slavery was thus abolished throughout the British lands. ‘Emancipation Day’ is celebrated as a public holiday in a lot of countries which were previously British colonies, marking the date of freedom. Another example is in the instance of France abolishing slavery on 27 April 1848, under the Second Republic. In order to compensate the previous slave owners, the state bought the slaves from the colonists and then they were freed.
Similar examples of a war-less abolishment of slavery are seen in the histories of Argentina, Chile, Mexico, etc. Thus, in this regard war was not necessary. Slavery could have been abolished through other various means such as education and buying and freeing of slaves instead of the costly American Civil War. (Is War a Necessary Evil? , 2009) A point worth mentioning in favor of the anti war side of the debate is the existence of nuclear weapons. If a nuclear war were to take place in this day and age, any possible benefits would have been eliminated as it is. The effects of a nuclear war would be devastating.
For example, the countries of Pakistan and India have been rivals ever since Pakistan’s independence and have had wars of their own. In a model of what might happen if there were to be a nuclear war between the two countries has been created by the scientists at the University of Colorado. According to them, “A limited nuclear weapons exchange between Pakistan and India using their current arsenals could create a near-global ozone hole, triggering human health problems and wreaking environmental havoc for at least a decade, according to a study led by the University of Colorado at Boulder.
The computer-modeling study showed a nuclear war between the two countries involving 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices on each side would cause massive urban fires and loft as much as 5 million metric tons of soot about 50 miles into the stratosphere, said CU-Boulder Research Associate Michael Mills, chief study author. The soot would absorb enough solar radiation to heat surrounding gases, setting in motion a series of chemical reactions that would break down the stratospheric ozone layer protecting Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, said Mills.
” (Nuclear War is Bad for You, 2008). Also, an estimate of about one hundred million people are to die in the blasts or in the aftermath of the radiation poisoning. It is clear from this example that nuclear war would be wholly unacceptable and the countries must decide some other means of settling their disputes. It also shows that nuclear war must never be resorted to by any other countries in the world as well. War is said to be, in most situations, mostly needed in order to gain material things. By this the value of a human life is being compared to material wealth.
It is being considered unimportant and worthless. For when a war takes place and an army of thousands is formed, one single life is nothing in comparison to those thousands. War has taken place for territorial expansion, reducing the value of lost lives to be beneath the value of land. It has also taken place in order to unrightfully gain other nations resources, where fruitful trade could have taken place instead. As war leads to the devaluation of any number of human lives, it is a terrible thing to occur at any point in time in any place and should be avoided at all costs.
As for the argument that war leads to human development, it is said that human development is in fact inhibited by the occurrence of war. War leads to death, which leads to pain, suffering, and frustration. This is as if for example, a family’s breadwinner dies at war, the family will be subject to a great amount of helpless pain and a series of negative emotions. They will also have to struggle for survival. War is thus unhelpful in the area of human development.
The debate of whether war is always wrong due the violence that inevitably results or if it is a necessary evil has continued for quite a while and seems as if it shall persist in the years to come as well. However, when keeping in sight the above discussed information, the arguments against war prove to be more humane and compassionate, which are necessary traits in today’s world to prevent cruelty and injustice.
How wars are good For an economy. (July 14). Retrieved 5 13, 2010, from rediff. com: http://www. rediff. com/money/2005/jul/14perfin. htmIs War a Necessary Evil? (2009). Retrieved May 13, 2010, from CreateDebate: http://www. createdebate. com/debate/show/Is_War_a_Necessary_Evil Nuclear War is Bad for You. (2008). Retrieved May 13, 2010, from Sandwalk: http://sandwalk. blogspot. com/2008/04/nuclear-war-is-bad-for-you. html SINGH, R. (n. d. ). 101 War Books. Retrieved 5 13, 2010, from Rajput Brotherhood: http://www. rajputbrotherhood. com/eng/articles/101-war-books. html war as an evil necessity. (2006). Retrieved May 13, 2010, from oppapers: http://www. oppapers. com/essays/War-Evil-Necesity/93065