Post your brief (roughly one paragraph) comments here about how your topic could be considered both a preventer and an agitator of war.
Group A: Cotton Gin -- Robert, Nikki, Abdoulaye
Group B: Haitian Revolution -- David, Alice, Mikey, Emma
Group C: William Lloyd Garrison/The Liberator -- Sophie, Mitch, Andy, Hannah
Group D: Frederick Douglass/The North Star -- Trent, Ashley, Jack
I believe William Lloyd Garrison could be considered both a preventer and agitator of war. He was very anti-slavery and declared in many of his news letters an immediate stop to slavery. I believe by doing this, he was preventing a possible revolution of the African Americans. I also believe that he knew that by doing this he was sparking a possible fire that would ignite the people of the south if such an emancipation did take place. The south did rely very heavily of slaves to provide a steady outsource of goods. I believe that Garrison understood that the south would not take very lightly to such a change.
ReplyDeleteThe Haitian Revolution can be considered both a preventer and an agitator of war. Because there was an organized form of slave resistence well before the actual rebellion (also organized) took place, it ended up being very successful. This was the only slave revolt which led to the founding of a state; Haiti became the first independent black state in the world. Because of this end result it seemed to have prevented war. However, because of Britain's slave colonies, they fought to put down the rebellion in order to protect them (but it was not successful due to Yellow fever). Obviously some groups of people were agitated by the rebellion, perhaps agitating war, but the organization and success of the rebellion prevented it.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the cotton gin was an agitator of war. This is because it led cotton picking to become the largest industry in the South. This meant that Southern plantation owners demanded more slaves to work on the fields. This enraged the Northerners because they saw the conditions that the slaves lived in, and thus tension formed between the North and South.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the cotton gin may have been a preventer of war in the sense that it helped to build a strong economy for the South, and therefore the North would not want to enter a war against them.
I think that the haitian revolution is a good example of both a preventer and a agitator of war. This revolution is a preventer of war because as the southerns heard the horror stories of the survivors of the revolution, they realized that this could easily happen to them. this pushed them to create new laws and restrictions for the enslaved peoples and to be much harsher on them. the revolution of haiti is also a agitator of war because it gives the slaves the idea that "we can do that too". we can join together and take out our enslavers. this idea of a revolution was never even considered on a huge scale until the haitians did it first then the slaves of the south got that in their minds and it grew into the civil war.
ReplyDeleteThe cotton gin was a major technological advancement in agriculture during this time period and allowed for a greater amount of cotton to be produced. Thus the industry was booming and the necessity of having slaves on the plantations increased immensely. This could definitely be an agitator for war because there was ad difference of opinions on the rise of slavery in the United States. A variety of opinions causes friction amongst society and is a proponent for war. On the other hand, some would think that the cotton gin would be a preventer of war because less manual labor of cleaning the cotton was needed. Like the cotton gin, technology is created to improve the lives of humans and make living easier. I am sure that Eli Whitney believed the cotton gin would have positive effects on society, but little did he know that his invention would be one of the contributions to the US Civil War.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Haitian revolution was both an agitator and a preventer of war. I think the Haitian revolution could be an agitator of war because it the revolution describes how slaves rebelled and won. It proves that if they did it, so can others. However, I think that the revolution was a preventer of war because in 1807 after the revolution was finished, Britain became the first major power to completely abolish slavery. And others came after that. Who knows...if they hadn't done that, they're could have been more wars and revolutions that we would be talking about today.
ReplyDeleteWilliam Lloyd Garrison was a very fanatic representer of the abolitionist movement. He often got in trouble for showing his strong opinions and the demand for the immediately emancipation of slavery in such a provocant way.
ReplyDeleteI think he definetly was an agitator of the war because he was instgating the North and the South against each other by making the South so bad in his newspaper, talks and so one.
If he was a preventor? I don't think that he would have support the war but he also didn't do any prevention.
First and foremost, Frederick Douglas shed light on the horrors of southern slavery in the United States, which did nothing but create unrest in the hearts of abolitionists. The mere fact that Douglas released works attacking the concept of a plantation economy and the system of slavery was an immediate target of the south. Frederick Douglas is a good example of someone who instigates both sides of the conflict, and then immediately disappears when trouble arises. Frederick Douglas was still subject to being returned to the plantation, and quickly fled the country, stirring the pot, then not staying with the Union. He was even known to be so daring and drastic that he openly burend a copy of the Constitution. In this essay, it is hard for me to produce examples of Douglas being a preventer of the war.
ReplyDeleteWhen an area has a poor economy, civil unrest often ensues. Without the cotton gin, the south would not be able to produce cotton in the mass quantities it did, and although slavery would have become unnecessary, the south would be very poor. A rebellion could have easily risen from the ruins of southern economy and war could have broken out. Sadly though, the cotton gin was also an agitator of war because it created the need for thousands of slaves to pick the cotton that was now feasible to profit from. Since slavery was one of the many reasons of the civil war, and the cotton gin furthered slavery, that makes the gin an agitator of war.
ReplyDeleteAccording to William Lloyd Garrison's remarks, he seems to be a young man with extreme pursuit in virtue to me. I believe William could be both an agitator and a preventer of the Civil war. Clearly, such a young man with passionate in fighting against the immorality with strong remarks deepen the gap between the North and the south and let both sides be mad at each other and against each other. On the other hand, if i have to say that William somehow was a preventer od the civil war, it could be that his extreme behavior and overly attention on virtue made him seems immature and may be southerns would just laugh about it and then forget it.
ReplyDeleteIt can be easy to see how a war could be agitated by the situation in the south. The most obvious way would be because a semi-organized slave labor force would revolt against their oppressive white “masters”. Case and point Fredrick Douglass; who also advocated independent not only for slave labor but for women as well. This is the most obvious way a war could start in that situation. The civil war was actually, all things considered was a very unique outcome. One way this could prevent war was the sheer vigor with which the oppressors used to prevent revolt. The constant violence and lack of education would in theory deter any war/revolt. (I apologize for he tardiness, I was having computer trouble)
ReplyDelete