Please respond to the posted “content” answers already provided below, demonstrate ample evidence, with MINIMUM of 250 words, exhibit thorough research that CONTRIBUTES meaningful information PLEASE POST YOUR CRITIQUE AND RESPONSE WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WITH A MINIMUM OF 250 WORDS CHPT 15 ONLY Transforming Fire: The Civil War, 1861-1865 USING THE TEXTBOOK BY Norton, Mary Beth et. al. A People and A Nation, Vol. I, to 1877. Advantage (9th) edition. Boston: Wadsworth (Cengage Learning), 2012. Print copy ISBN: 978-0-495-91525-6 (9th edition) (it has a black lady on the cover!). AND another scholarly source. 2 total sources ***(do NOT re-answer the questions they’re already answered) Unacceptable: Wikipedia, About.com, etc. are NOT SCHOLARLY SOURCES. ALSO Unacceptable: Use of dictionaries and encyclopedias or content from OTHER general U.S. History textbooks or online “lectures” DO NOT demonstrate THOROUGH RESEARCH. Original/Insightful: Largely “original” content; includes insightful analysis of the supplied answer below, interpretation(s), conclusion(s) based on evidence–NOT OPINION. Scholarly Writing: College-level syntax, diction, & conventions (grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc.) for standard American English. Facts & Citation: Grounded in the text AND other scholarly sources, all evidence cited as per MLA style (using BOTH in-text–parenthetic–citations and a Works Cited list) and textbook facts MUST include pg # references for the “in-text” citations. Please respond to the peer completed answers below: (NO opinion just fact!) Include works cited page and in-text citation (MLA style) to support your EVIDENCE & FACTS using 2 sources 1 the textbook and another SCHOLARLY article. Example of what your paper should be:*** Thank you for your thoughtful post. I didn’t read the assignment the same way that you did -a point which I am now regretting! I understood “Discuss public opinion and the American electoral process” to mean that we should discuss public opinion in conjunction with the electoral process. Strong effort in exampling how to respond appropriately to the posted question. Regarding your content about the Zogby and Gallup polls, you defined the polls as often controlled by major news organizations in order to allow candidates the opportunity to monitor short-term campaign developments. I challenge that interpretation and assert that the Gallup Poll, in particular, is not controlled by news organizations. It functions as an independent organization. At the Gallup website, posted statements by company representatives indicate an established policy that it avoids undertaking polls paid for or sponsored by any special interest groups (Gallup). Also, I fail to note the connection between the Gallup public opinion polls and the tracking polls, which as defined by our text, serve a narrow purpose (Terrant 57). Beyond the Terrant text information, my additional research unearthed an interesting article on the Zogby poll posted to a commercial political website, (Zogby). My analysis of the article content is limited to facts which support our text as the website is “commercial” and lacks a specific author for the piece (thus, no authority can be established for some of the interesting revelations and assertions) (Zogby). Still,it is worth reading if only to register questions and issues surrounding Zogby polls. Works Cited: _____. “Zogby Polls Skew the Truth.” Democratic Underground. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Jan. 2014. Gallup Poll. Gallup Corporation, n.d. Web. 4 Jan. 2014. Terrant, Rita. American Politics: Core Issues. Boston: Westerly Press, 2011. ***THIS IS WHAT THE WRITER WILL READ AND RESPOND TO:
Chapter 15 ONLY KING COTTON
Discuss “King Cotton Diplomacy.”
How did southerners perceive diplomacy as a war measure?
What might the South have done differently to gain foreign recognition or support?
Would a different policy by Britain or France have made any difference in the course of the war? Why or why not?
***NOTE DO NOT RE-ANSWER THE QUESTIONS, THE QUESTION ARE ONLY SHOWN FOR YOUR PURPOSE IN FOLLOWING ALONG WITH WHAT THE PREVIOUS WRITER RESPONDED WITH.**
The confederate states set up their own federal government immediately after secession. Ironically the south became centrally governed following their secession as a result of wanting to keep state’s rights. According to “the Confederate States of America,” The south had expectations of support from across the seas. Cotton played an influential role in economy, domestic and foreign. Over half of exports to Britain consisted of cotton and almost a quarter of the working British made their living from some aspect of cotton manufacturing. The south wanted to use cotton to influence Britain and France in recognizing the legitimacy of the confederate states. The south intentionally withheld cotton exports hoping overseas need of cotton would increase and force diplomacy with the confederate states (Crawford). Leaders in the south were confident that cotton “king cotton” would win the support of the British. According to U.S. History in Context, The south tried to strong arm Britain’s support with the use of cotton. The North had anticipated the value cotton presented to Europe and proceeded with a blockade of southern ports. The North did not want any foreign recognition of the confederacy (Netzely, Osborne).
Crawford also notes that this strategy the confederates used in an attempt to lure foreign diplomacy backfired because of a large British overstock of cotton. They didn’t feel the impact that the south had set out to achieve. The confederacy sent diplomats to Europe to negotiate and gain support, however they were unsuccessful because Europe wasn’t willing to form an alliance until they saw significant progress from the south in the war against the north (343). Norton et al. discusses how Britain had a variety of views concerning the Civil War. Aristocrats and mill owners were for slavery because of the financial gain it provided. Artisans, working class, clergymen and radicals were against slavery, wanting freedom of rights to all. British press and public meetings propagated the issues of secession, slavery, and state’s rights. Britain was experiencing some of the same internal conflicts that the U.S. was facing. If they had not remained neutral to the north and south, they would have likely seen uprising on their own soil. Recognition or allying with the north would have stirred up the aristocrats and proslavery citizens, while agreement and support to the south would have incited response from the anti-slavery groups (400).
From my perspective, if the south had concentrated efforts to secure their ports and maintain economic strength and progress, Britain would have seen their strength and been willing to recognize and ally to their cause in the Civil War. By walling themselves off from the north and overseas by banning cotton sales, the south began to self-destruct. A lack of food and supplies, increased taxation, slave impressments, government raids as well as government mandating farmers to grow certain crops created a rebellious, disheartened spirit among the people in the south.
Place this order with us and get 18% discount now! to earn your discount enter this code: special18 If you need assistance chat with us now by clicking the live chat button.