...Why did the Pro-Treaty side win the Civil War? The Irish Civil War caused many divisions within Irish Society. The Civil War resulted from divisions within the nationalist movement as a result of the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Sinn Fein split into pro and anti-Treaty factions. The Civil War ended in May 1923 and while there was no surrender by the anti-Treaty forces, the pro-Treaty side were clearly victorious in the war. In this essay I will look at the reasons why the Pro-Treaty side won the war. In an effort to retain the initiative in the aftermath of the Dail vote in favour of the Treaty, the anti-Treaty IRA occupied the Four Courts and other buildings in Dublin. This was a tactical error by the Irregulars as these buildings were difficult to defend and the Regulars knew exactly where their opponents were. As a result when fighting broke out up to 200 Irregular troops were killed or captured in Dublin. This significantly weakened the anti-Treaty side and contributed to their defeat. The anti-Treaty forces lacked a coherent strategy. They were against the Treaty but different people within the anti-Treaty side were opposing the Treaty for different reasons. DeValera opposed the Treaty because of his opposition to the Oath of Allegiance to the British King. More hard-line republicans opposed the Treaty because of partition. This lack of a coherent strategy contributed to a weakening of the anti-Treaty side and the victory of the Regulars. In contrast the pro-Treaty side had a...
Words: 858 - Pages: 4
...of the civil war, however the issues such as slavery, Lincoln’s election, westward expansion and basic differences between north and south were also instrumental and a key factor in the outbreak of the civil war. Not just state rights but slavery also played a significant role in the outbreak of the civil war. Tension grew between the confederates and the union with slavery rights. The north wanted slavery out and the south wanted to keep them in. With this tension growing a civil war became closer and closer to out breaking. There were about three million slaves in America in 1619. The north grew out of slavery and the south did the exact opposite by depending more and more on slavery. From Yankees and confederates in the American stats in the mid – 19th century it reads, “This fundamental difference was one of the key causes of the American civil war”. Slavey was a fundamental difference because the north did not want slaves in America and the south did. This is because it was the way of life for the confederates. They did not want a anti-slavery country because number one their businesses would suffer but also the way they went about life. The south argued that the north just could not simply take away slavery and that it is typical for the union to tell the south what it should do. The south thought that the northerner’s assumed that they were better then them and they are of a high class of them. This is also contributing fact to the outbreak of the civil war. Lincoln’s...
Words: 896 - Pages: 4
...How far do you agree that Trotsky’s leadership of the Red Army was responsible for the survival of the Bolshevik government? (30 marks) There were many factors that contributed to the survival of the Bolshevik Government, ranging from Trotsky’s leadership of the Red Army to the failings of the Bolsheviks’ rivals for power. This essay shows that the main reason for the Bolsheviks’ continued survival through the period was not Trotsky’s great leadership of the Red Army, but the opposition’s mistakes and failings. This will be demonstrated by analysing the key factors leading to the survival of the Bolshevik Government: Trotsky’s leadership; Lenin’s leadership; The Bolsheviks’ geographical advantage; and finally the Bolsheviks’ enemies’ misunderstandings. The first key factor that contributed to the Bolshevik Governments’ survival was Trotsky’s great leadership of the Red Army. Trotsky created the Red Army from nothing and by 1919 it contained roughly 400,000 troops rising to 5 million troops by 1921. The Red Army outnumbered all opposition and when directed effectively by Trotsky they were easily able to crush any opposition. Furthermore, all enemy attacks came at different times and so could be put down individually and therefore more easily. Another way that Trotsky showed his good leadership qualities was through his forward thinking: for example, many of the troops in the Red Army were inexperienced and so Trotsky “recruited” officers from the Tsar’s army and kept them in...
Words: 1461 - Pages: 6
...A further reason for the slow progress was the costs of the cold war. Harry Truman involved in a cold war fighting against communism, recognized that racism at home contradicted American claims to lead the “free world”. Reasoning for this being not as important as important as the previous two factors would be that the other contributed to the civil rights movement more than the cold war and the cold war didn’t slow down the civil rights movement as much as the other factors. The cold war didn’t have an impact on everyone whereas De Factor Prejudices did. Harry Truman linked he cold war to America’s race relationships. With America facing a serious threat of communism and their policy of containment the federal bureau but all civil rights movement under close scrutiny. The civil rights movement had to spend money to fight any public association with communism assigned to them. This divided and slowed down the whole civil rights movement, only with the decline of the cold war in late 1960s could the civil rights movement stand up to activism. However this is a less important reason as the cold war relations calmed down after late 1960 opening new doors for the civil rights movement. The Final reason for the slow progress was De Facto Prejudices- over coming resistance Civil rights suffered many factors of resistance one being from the White Citizens Council which was formed on July 11th 1956. Members were mostly southern and the council had over 60,000 members the councils...
Words: 360 - Pages: 2
...Week Eight - CheckPoint Civil War, Table and Response Due Date: Day 5, Assignments Link Points Possible: 20 Points Earned: XX ------------------------------------------------- Part One: Table, Union and Confederate Home Fronts Points Possible: 10 Points Earned: XX Fill in the following table with experiences on the Union home front and experiences on the Confederate home front. Civil War Home Fronts | DifferencesBetween North and South Home Fronts | 1. The Union and the Confederates were very different in the way they conducted business.2. The Union they made industrialization development, infrastructure grew, and urban cities and towns grew.3. The Confederate had large plantations and made their slaves work long and hard on their farms. They grew cotton and tobacco on these plantations.4. The Union was able to pass laws to tax on imported goods so that the Confederates would have to buy from them.5. The confederates wanted stronger state rights and a weaker central government; the Union wanted the government to have more power. | Similarities Between North and South Home Fronts | 1. Both the Union and confederates Struggled, economically, politically, and culturally to agree with one another.2. Union and confederate home fronts faced hardship during the war, from diseases, bad medical care, lack of food, corruption of morality, and rising numbers of deaths.3. Woman of both the union and confederacy found new opportunities to work outside the home.4...
Words: 520 - Pages: 3
...To What Extent Was the Red Victory in the Civil War Due to the Skill and Leadership of Trotsky? The red victory in the civil war in 1919 may have been due to the skill and leadership of Trotsky who was the founder and first leader of the Red Army. As well as this there were other factors which contributed such as geographical factors, the unity and organisation of the reds and the support that they had. The reds were victorious in the civil war due to the skill and leadership of Trotsky who had been made commissar for war in 1918. He restored harsh military discipline and professionalism to the ‘worker’s and peasants red army’ by reintroducing the death penalty for those who did wrong which meant that men were made to fight as more of an effective fighting force. He also reorganised the army and so it had a strict hierarchy and he brought back thousands of former Tsarist officers to train and command the units. To do this he held their families hostage which meant that their loyalty was ensured. In addition to this he attached a political commissar to each army of the unit and ended soldiers committee’s and officer’s elections which meant that the loyalty of the officers was ensured so he would retain power, For those men who were unable to fight, due to age or physical inability, formed labour battalions. This meant that the Front received more help and nobody had an excuse to not fight in the army and so it would prevent people from thinking they could use injuries to get...
Words: 1166 - Pages: 5
...April 27, 2013 South vs. the South One of the most controversial and bloodiest wars to have ever taken place was fought by a nation separated in two to decide the fate of slavery in America. The Union Army of the North would go on to win the war, but they didn’t do it alone. It took a great three-part strategy that relied heavily on southern citizens being loyal to the Union cause, Divisions that emerged before the war that helped shape the Union, and Anti-confederate groups who helped cripple the South, all playing a role in the Union’s victory in the Civil War. The Union Army’s strategy of the Civil War consisted of three parts and was very simple; but if all three were not completed, it would spell disaster for the North. The first part of the strategy was to capture and control all of the Confederate ports. Lincoln and his military planners saw they had naval superiority over the South due to the fact that the, “Northerners controlled almost all the nations largest warships” (Freehling 6). Realizing this, they knew they would be able to capture all of the confederate held ports, thus preventing the possibility of European aid to the south. The second part of the Union’s strategy was to cut off the Confederate Army from their supplies and reinforcements. This required the Union Army to take control of all major waterways like the Mississippi with their Ironclad ships to prevent General Lee from sending supplies and men to the Confederate held middle and lower southern states...
Words: 1535 - Pages: 7
...Asses the significance of Religion in causing Rebellion in England between 1530 to 1660 In the period between 1530 and 1660 Religion played a part in causing rebellion as well as other factors such as political, economic and class conflict issues.Religion begins with being a very significant factor in causing rebellion but becomes less important as time goes. In the pilgrimage of grace of 1536 first and foremost the rebels demanded that “the heresies of … anabaptist to be destroyed.”[1] This is when england was in the process of breaking from rome under Henry VIII and the shock of the country having its religion changed suddenly causes an immense amount of discontent It was popular opinion among the commoners that it was Henry's evil advisors the heretics Wolsey and Crammer that were behind the change and needed to be stopped.The westerner rebellion of 1549 that also had significant religious origin. The areas on Devon and Cornwall where very traditional and therefore strongly against reformation to a protestant england. They rose up in arms against the reintroduction of a new protestant prayer book that was in english as well as soughting to have Henry VII’s six articles that had been abolished by Edward VI since his crowning in 1547. On the other side of the country in the same year Kett’s rebellion had major religious causes behind it as they weren't as traditional as Cornwall and Devon had accepted the new protestant faith. They were only calling for a “more active and...
Words: 2865 - Pages: 12
...of the majority-Christian Phalange Party Pierre Gemayel declared “Neither the present government or any other could shut down a single training camp,” in reference to bases created by several parties to train their armed factions. A year later, Gemayal’s Phalange Party was one of several Lebanese militias embroiled in a war where fighting remained confined within Lebanon but the power struggle transcended borders and involved both regional and international combatants. While April 13, 1975, is often cited as the start date that sparked the 15-year conflict, which has been termed a civil war, a host of factors, including international affairs, economic and social inequality and the sectarian make up of the Lebanese government were responsible for the violent outburst and the war’s duration. The Phalange Party’s April 13 attack on a bus carrying Palestinians, reprisal for a shoot out at a church where Phalange members had been in attendance, was not even mentioned in the relevant chapters on the civil war in Struggle Over Lebanon by Tabitha Petran. Instead, Petran documents the factors that contributed to the setting of the stage for and provoking the civil war. Fear over the increase in sectarian militias had been on the national radar as early as May 1973, when President Suleiman Franjieh convened a special cabinet meeting to discuss possible reforms to curb the militias. Petran begins by listing the increased demands of the Sunni population of Lebanon, which began clamoring...
Words: 1471 - Pages: 6
...Channel Encarnacion HIST 102 10/27/14 Civil War Debate Was the Civil War Inevitable? Was the Civil War Avoidable? In The Irrepressible Conflict by Kenneth M. Stampp he does not argue that the Civil War was inevitable. He does observe, however, that it is hard to see how the country could have avoided some sort of showdown on slavery. Conflict was “irrepressible” in the sense that “the issues dividing the North and South were genuine and substantial and that conflict between them was a natural and logical result.” The civil war was inevitable given the circumstances under which it came. The three main causes: infringement on civil liberties, violation on states' rights, and the collapse of the two-party system made the conflict between North and South almost impossible to resolve. The war was going to happen one way or another. The south originally disagreed with Lincoln’s laws. The North and the South had very diverse views over slavery. The country couldn’t have been integrated if they didn’t come to a compromise. With the north wanting a strong federal government and the south with the contrary wants, the country couldn’t have agreed to go one way or the other. The war had to happen in order for a winner to take control and make the executive decisions. The country would have been splitting with every new state union, leaving the country with a very dissimilar outcome than what is today. The explosion of the American Civil War was caused by a vast number of conflicting...
Words: 667 - Pages: 3
...The deadliest war on American soil is the Civil War. The Civil War started when the Confederate States of America seceded from the Union. The first shots fired in the Civil War was in Fort Sumter, South Carolina on April 12, 1861. On May 9, 1865, the Confederate army surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse. In total, there was about 620,000 soldiers that died from combat, starvation, and disease. The Civil War was caused by the varying economies in the North and South, whether slavery should exist (expand westward), and the failure to establish a compromise. The first main cause of the Civil War was the varying economies between the North and the South. The North’s total population was 23,000,000 million,...
Words: 1022 - Pages: 5
...What in your view was the short-term significance of Martin Luther King to the Civil Rights Movement? Martin Luther King’s (MLK) short-term significance to the Civil Rights Movement (CRM) can be attributed to his non-violence and his unique relationships with the media and the President. These relationships played a key role in MLK’s and the CRM’s success. We should also not ignore the role played by global politics of the time. The circumstances were such that the CRM may have succeeded even without the assistance of MLK. In order to assess the short-term significance of King to the CRM, we must determine, was it MLK or rather the international situation that led to the successes of the Civil Rights Movement? Word Count – 502 MLK’s significance to the CRM stemmed from his use of non-violence as a tactic to achieve social change. Non-violence served as King’s ideology and methodology, and contributed to King’s significance. Non-violence being met with naked aggression and racism was showcased by the media and condemned by the government. Although several other civil rights leaders, such as Ralph Abernathy, possessed Christian credentials, MLK coupled these credentials with his non-violence and positive relationship with the media. In January 1960 a bomb was thrown on King’s porch and an armed mob gathered that was dispersed only by King’s insistence on calm. A white police officer on the scene remarked, “If it hadn’t been for that nigger preacher, we’d all be dead”. This quote...
Words: 2262 - Pages: 10
...the Civil War? As you look deeper into the westward expansion, you will realize that it was not the best groundbreaking discovery for American settlers. At first, the westward expansion seemed like a good idea and a fruitful business plan but the westward expansion played a much deeper role in American history. Unfortunately, people did not realize the long term effects of moving elsewhere. The westward expansion was unnecessary because it created an unhealthy environment for new settlers and helped encourage the Civil War. Many people suffer from loneliness and that is exactly was the westward expansion promises. Moving west, there was nothing out there except for the fertile land...
Words: 647 - Pages: 3
...the 1990-1993 Civil War as a Precursor to the 1994 Rwandan Genocide Nora Aly Student #10025622 Poli470 Words: 3,451 Introduction: Background of Rwanda Ethnic distinctions and fragmentations, whether actual or perceived have proved to be the causes of several genocides throughout history; in the case of the Rwandan genocide, this was no exception. The Twa, the Hutu and the Tutsi were and continue to be the groups of people constituting Rwanda (Pearn J, 203). Tensions and conflicts with groups in Rwandan society, primarily with the Hutus and the Tutsis eventually led to the immensely destructive 1994 genocide of the Tutsi people as well as Hutu people perceived to be Tutsi sympathizers and supporters. The 1994 Rwandan Genocide, executed mainly by Hutu powers, resulted in approximately 10,000 deaths for 100 days which is the highest rate of killing seen throughout any known act in history (Cohen, J). Within the time period of the communal existence of the Hutus and the Tutsis, political struggle, rivalry, colonization, and civil war were all factors that assisted in leading to the tension that finally erupted into a brutal act of genocidal violence against all Tutsi people. Close examination and analysis of the civil war which occurred during 1990-1993 between the Hutus and the Tutsis, will be elaborated extensively to assist in accounting for the eruption of the genocide. Through a close, detailed analysis of the political, ethnic and socio-economic factors that led to Rwandan...
Words: 3707 - Pages: 15
...Civil War When comparing the American Civil War to many of the United States’ other wars, some key differences can be observed. One standout quality to the Civil War was the sluggish buildup towards war, which contrasts to the overnight decision that American officials made to join World War II after the Pearl Harbor attack. This brings up the question, “what caused the slow start to the Civil War and who is the most to blame?” The answer to the first question is easiest – slavery. There is no doubt that the differing opinions on slavery between the north and the south were the major sources of conflict. The latter question, however, is much more controversial and problematic to solve. For more than a century, historians have been bickering over who can be blamed most for the Civil War. Though many would say Abraham Lincoln is this person, his role in the start to the Civil War just appears to be the final straw in the buildup of tensions that happened over many years. The person who can be blamed most was reportedly referenced by Abraham Lincoln himself as, “the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war.” This woman is Harriet Beecher Stowe. Through the use of her powerful novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Harriet Beecher Stowe became the greatest catalyst to the start of the American Civil War. One myth about the north that most people assume to be true is that the north was predominately against slavery. Even though the north was known for its industry in manufacturing...
Words: 782 - Pages: 4
