The American civil war in the West: Grant’s River War
Introduction
The American Civil War is among the majorly discussed wars in the history of the United States. Ideally, Civil War is considered a central event in the U.S historical civilisation. While it is evident that the revolution that occurred in 1776-1783 facilitated the establishment of the United States, the American Civil War of 1861-1865 provided a suitable platform for the determination of the future of the United States (Doyle, 2014). Fundamentally, it offered the solutions to two major questions initially created by the revolution, and these included whether the United States was going to be transformed into a dissolvable confederation of the sovereign national government (Ford, 2004). Besides, it was questioned whether the country, developed based on the fact that all men were created with equal rights to liberty would progress as the globe’s major slavery hub. A deeper inspection of the Civil War demonstrates that it comprised of two fonts that integrated the Civil War in the West mostly described as Grant’s River War and the Civil War in the Far West. The purpose of this paper is therefore to offer an analysis of the Grant’s River War, its causes and consequences, the historical significance in the study of the American War. The paper also discusses the relevance of securing control of the south-west for both North and South.
Causes of the Grant’s River War
According to Grant (2016), civil war is considered a central event in the U.S historical civilisation. It began due to the unaccommodated differences that existed between the free and the slaves’ states over the federal government power to prevent slavery within the territories that had not been transformed into states. As Doyle (2014) contends, using the rivers for war was perceived to be a good tactic to defeat the enemy and hence resulting in Grant’s river war. The type of geography that the individuals in the western part occupied was quite different from the geography occupied by people on the eastern side. In the east, the roads that were used were few when compared to the number of troops in addition to being poor (Ford, 2004). Additionally, the countryside was feral or rather underutilised such that the troops were not well acquainted on how to move about it. Furthermore, the square mileage of the western part overshadowed the square mileage of the eastern part whereby the west occupied three hundred and eighty-five square miles while the eastern part occupied ninety-five thousand square miles (Grant, 2016). Therefore, the river usage for the war proved to be very significant in cutting down the limitations. The rivers provided the troops with smooth highways that allowed them to move easily to the war zones.
As Grant (2016) reiterates, the forces could quickly move to any area that adjoined with a waterway that was under close watch, and this caused the battle over the river. The lines of supply were flexible as they were not limited by the network of the poor roads. Furthermore, the swift movement of water allowed surprise attacks to the enemy on land especially from the rear and hence giving the troops an upper hand or advantage in winning the war (Sanso-Navarro et al. 2015). In a general perspective, one might state that the rivers proved to be very advantageous when it came to the movement of the troops and attacking the enemy and hence efficient (Olsen, 2013).
The use of the river further had significant impacts when it came to the economy of the Confederate despite the patrolling gunboats of the enemy splitting the lines of communication and commerce. Furthermore, the Union navy managed to take longer strips of the Mississippi River and hence the issue becoming apparent. The Mississippi passed across the country and was the most common passage for the Confederacy in the west in addition to allowing the inflow of goods, enabling trade and providing a convenient transport system to areas such as Louisiana and Arkansas. It was quite relevant for the western part and hence had to be obtained back from the Union navy.
However, through continuous efforts to break the hold of the Confederate by Union Navy, Grant was able to secure it. He achieved this by moving the members of his troop to the west bank of the Mississippi and later led them to the southern part until they were under Vicksburg. After carefully planning his attack, Grant sent forth charges of supply and several gunboats across the Mississippi in an attempt to conquer the Confederate guns and move further. Unlike the first attempts that Grant failed, he managed to defeat the Union Navy and took control of the Mississippi. Hence, using the river to overcome the enemy proved to be significant.
Consequences of the Grant’s River War
The war at Vicksburg intensively affected the lives of civilians who lived in both the northern and the southern parts. Most of the citizens in the south were trapped as none was allowed to go out of the city. Food and water resources were inefficient while caves proved to be the safest places for the civilians. A lot of lives were lost with some individuals being injured. Also, the medical care and the medical staff became inefficient because of the high level of insecurity. By the time the Union navy surrendered, a lot of resources had been depleted, many people had lost their lives, and the number of injured individuals was high in addition to people living in fear of what was yet to happen. Nonetheless, the troops from the south made amendments due to shared war experiences with the north which allowed them to heal from the psychological impacts brought about by the war. However, some of the citizens, mostly women, became bitter such that they embarked on efforts to ensure that the war was not forgotten and that generations had to hear about it. They put blame on the north and praised the Confederate soldiers. Their support to the Confederate soldiers led to the formation of the Post-war Lost Cause Movement for the purpose of acknowledging the Confederacy.
Importance of securing control of the south-west for both the north and the south
In 1863, it became evident that the Union Navy was in charge of Vicksburg after fully dominating it through its frequent patrols (Patterson, 2010). The Confederate lost its authority over Vicksburg which was perceived to be the key to progress for the northern part. The significance of obtaining control of the south-west for both the north and the south entailed economic and psychological prospects. The Mississippi had been used by the mid-western agriculturalists as a vital waterway when it came to moving their products to the states on the eastern side through the Mexican Gulf. The traders, politicians and also the farmers were bemused by the fact that the river had to be closed as a result of the weaponry of the Confederate that was impeding through the banks of the river.
The Confederacy perceived the control of the river as significant when it came to uniting states (Thompson, 2008). The River, through its tributaries, formed a central place where trading activities were highly practised among merchants from various states. When it comes to the military, the western part of the river which was a part of Louisiana in addition to Arkansas and Texas resulted in the Transmississippi (Patterson, 2010). The Transmississippi contained the warfare equipment and manpower needed by the southern army. President Abraham Lincoln perceived Vicksburg as the most important factor when it came to controlling the river. After viewing the map of the river, President Lincoln noticed that boats from either side of Vicksburg were prone to attacks from the Confederate artilleries on both the bluffs and the shorelines. From a general perspective, Patterson (2010) concludes that both sides wanted control of the south-west to show that they were in charge (the psychological aspect) and also to have control when it came to the economic issues.
The historical significance of the Grant’s River War
According to Harold (2010), the history of the Grant’s River War and the emergence of the Western America are substantially connected since the beginning of the American civil wars. While it is evident that the Civil War was majorly fought in the East, the events that led to its rise were created as a result of the expansion of the 1840s and eventually the war. Notably, the outcomes of the war, as argued by both ancient and modern historians, had significant effects in shaping the American West. Patterson (2010) offers an assertion that forced by various factors such as the Union threats, war demands and the challenges of the victory, and the federal government transformed the nation through the creation of the new administration that reached into the west. Such developments were also accompanied by the opening of the farmlands in the west to the million families. The American Indians also experienced considerable assaults in the process of transforming and converting them into citizens (Harold, 2010).
Lepa (2014) mentions that the Grant’s River war, the demands imposed by the actors and the consequences created a suitable platform for infrastructural development in the West. Over the years, both the East and the West were dominated by slavery and slaves, whose primary responsibilities were to work in the plantation for their masters. The Grant’s River war led to the rise in the public opinion, attitudes and thoughts regarding the slavery and the form in which it was going to take (Sanso-Navarro et al. 2015). Ideally, the conflicts behind the civil war were steadily put openly when the Pacific expansion raised a serious issue in question to whether the slavery would still accept into the newly established territories of the new nation. To this, citizens thought that slaves were to be subjected to activities such as diggings of Californian golds.
Accompanied by the desire to enjoy various services, Sanso-Navarro et al. (2015) and Ford (2004) supports the notion that the growing population desperately needed better transport connection to the East. In this sense, therefore, the rising population in California rapidly channelled their demands for the transcontinental railroad, and the key cities that would benefit from this development included New Orleans, Chicago and St. Louis. This would further facilitate the expansion of the slavery. The Southern legislators were also prompted to pass the Nebraska Act, which enhanced the reopening of the explosive matter that was supposedly solved by the Missouri Compromise in 1820. The renowned historical event, the Bleeding Kansas later emerged in 1854-1858 to question whether Kansas would be a slave land or a free state (Sanso-Navarro et al. 2015). All these historical events are important in explaining the historical stance of the American Western States about the slavery.
Paradoxically, the Grant’s River war is believed to have imposed greater historical significance after it ended (Sanso-Navarro et al. 2015). Notably, the Union forces succeeded in being in substantial control of most regions and ultimately pushed the Southern opposition away from the capital city; the Congress passed certain laws, which were later asserted by the then President of United States, Lincoln. Ideally, the laws revolved around three measures that are believed to have imposed tremendous significance in the history of the American West and the entire United States. These measures included the Homestead Act, the Pacific Railways Act, and Morrill Act. From a broader perspective, the Homestead Act provided 160 acres to adults, with specific emphasis to the unclaimed public land. The Pacific Railway Act signed barely six weeks later aimed at providing land and the federal loans for the establishment of the first transcontinental rail line (Sanso-Navarro et al. 2015). On the following day, Lincoln signed the Morrill Act, which offered the opportunity for the allotment of the public land to different states for financing higher educational institutions focused on teaching and research of the agricultural education, with particular emphasis on the dry regions in the west. All these developments have had significant historical outcomes in the agricultural teaching and research in the institutions established during that time.
Finally, the Grant’s River War also led to the political integration of a significant number of states into a nation (Doyle, 2014). Ideally, the Kansas, Nebraska and the Oregon all emerged as the states, while the rest being oriented into territories. Imposition of the national laws and agencies from the different part of the nation marked the political integration of countries in this case. However, the historians put more emphasis that the civil war, particularly the Grant’s River, created suitable platforms for the transformation of states into the United States through political integration (Sanso-Navarro et al. 2015). As part of the reconstruction process, however, the historical analysis of the consequences of the Grant’s River War demonstrates tremendous responsibility for the destruction of the American Indians’ structures, and the consequent establishment of the white development. Through the reservations and the desire to develop the white societies, Washington promised to unite all the western tribes into one nation. These events are therefore exclusively significant in explaining the present diversity in the Western part of the United States.
Relevance of the Grant’s River War to the study of the American West
Clark & Clark (2005) argued that the Grant’s River War acts as a significant point in the history of the American West and the entire United States. Ideally, it marked the end of one American era and the commencement of the other (Doyle, 2014). Some of the eras that were gone included the Slavery and Slave trade, the plantation farming systems. On the other hand, the industrial revolution and capitalism emerged and was ultimately meant to propel the United States into an era of unprecedented development (Clark & Clark, 2005). In this sense, therefore, the modern historians have gained the opportunity to the effects of various war aspects to the present prosperity to the people in the west. Lastly, the Grant’s River War resulted in the political integration of a significant number of states into a nation. In this sense, the Kansas, Nebraska and the Oregon all emerged as the states, while the rest being oriented into territories (Sanso-Navarro et al. 2015). To sum up, the imposition of the national laws and agencies from a different part of the nation marked the political integration of different American States, and thus helps the contemporary historians and learners be aware of the disintegration of the native governance structures into a national community structures observed today in United States.
References
Clark, K. , & Clark, . (2005). Legacy of disunion: The enduring significance of the american civil war. Civil War History, 51(4), 432.
Doyle, D. (2014). Cause of All Nations: An International History of the American Civil War. n.p.:
Ford, C. T. (2004). The American Civil War: An overview. Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow Publishers.
Grant, S. (2016). Review of 'the war that forged a nation: Why the civil war still matters'. Reviews in History, .
Harold, S. (2010). American civil war. Teacher Librarian, 37(4), 88.
Lepa, J. H. (2014). Grant's river campaign: Fort Henry to Shiloh. Jefferson, North Carolina : McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers
Olsen, C. J. (2013). The american civil war: A hands-on history. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Patterson, B. R. (2010). The Mississippi River Campaign, 1861-1863: The struggle for control of the western waters. Jefferson, N.C: McFarland & Co.
Sanso-Navarro, M. , Sanz, F. , & Vera-Cabello, M. (2015). The impact of the American civil war on city growth. , 52(16), 3070-3085.
Shea, W. L., & Winschel, T. J. (2006). Vicksburg is the key: The struggle for the Mississippi River. Lincoln, Neb: University of Nebraska Press.
Thompson, J. D (2008): New Mexico Territory During the Civil War: Wallen and Evans Inspection Reports, 1862-1863. Albuquerque: University Of New Mexico Press,
