In 4-6 sentences respond to the prompt. Respond by Monday, December 22, 2014. Reply to one other student by Sunday, January 11, 2015.
Some historians have argued that the Civil War was the rich man’s battle
but the poor man’s fight. How does what you read in this chapter support that argument? What is your position? Explain.
The civil war is indeed a rich man's war, but a poor man's fight. Rich men often payed the government to hire someone to replace them in battle, which was most of the time, a poor man. It is not only in the war when the poor suffer, but when the rich inflate the cost of items. This is proven in the book when Zinn brings up the Conscription Act of 1863 and under The Rich Against the Poor!
I agree with James, the Conscription Act of 1863 itself asserted that the Civil War was a rich man's war fought by the poor. Due to the fact, that such act allowed the rich to excuse themselves from battle by paying three hundred dollars for a substitute.
As much as it pains me to agree with you James, I have the same position as you on the subject. The rich were too worried over their measly lives, so they did what you would typically do if you're rich, pay someone to do the things you don't want to do. That let them sit back and watch the war play out.
The chapter, "The Other Civil War", asserts that the Civil War was certainly a rich man's war, but a poor man's fight. Which was caused by discrimination against the poor and shortage of volunteers that ultimately led to the Conscription Act. Such act allowed the rich to escape the draft by paying $300 for a replacement. For instance, Zinn states,"The conscription law of the Confederacy too provided that the rich could avoid service and soldiers begin to suspect that they were fighting for the privileges of an elite they could never belong to...". Thus, in my case I believe that the poor were truly fighting a war for the upper class.
i agree with raul, because indeed it was a poor man's fight. Rich men had way out of the fight they cause. So unfortunately, if you were poor you had no way out, but if you were rich there was a solution.
I completely agree with Raul's response because it was never a poor man's war. That is the reason there weren't any volunteers. It was never their fight to begin with and the rich men being the cowards they are bought their way out of it while the poor men were forcibly given a death sentence.
I agree with Raul. The rich were scared to fight. The poor fought the rich man's war. They would also still be poor after the war, if they even survived, and what they were paid wouldn't last long either.
I agree with raul's statement because of the war revloved around wealth and poverty. The fine really affected poor because they couldnt pay it so they were forced to go to war. The Conscription Act of 1863 basically forced the poor men to fight in the war that benefited rich men.
The civil war was a rich man's war and a poor man's fight because the rich men were what started it with them departing from the US. When drafting came and the name of a wealthy man was chosen, they often paid $300 to have a poor man fight the war for them. This is why Zinn brings up the Conscription Act of 1863 showing that intact the poor men were the ones fighting this war.
I agree with Reyna, when it was the wealthy who had to step up they bribed their way out of it, in a sense. So, the wealthy stood by the sidelines while the poor, having no other choice, went to war to achieve what the wealthy wanted.
The civil war was a conflict between the rich that the poor had to shed blood for. The ones who felt threatened by the election of Abraham Lincoln were wealthy plantation owners of the south. They urged the states to secede from the union and then the wealthy from the North tried to get them back by all means necessary. However, they were not the ones who did the dirty work. The Conscription Act of 1863, as mentioned by Zinn, allowed the rich to avoid service by paying three hundred dollars. On both sides there was poor men fighting and rich men pulling their strings.
I agree with Sandra. Money was their ticket to freedom from war. The rich gave commands out with no hesitation since they weren't going to be the ones risking their lives at battle. They were indeed pulling the poor's strings, treating them like their own puppets.
Your right. “… poor men fighting and rich men pulling their strings.” The poor had to choice but to do what their country asked of them. They had no way of changing what was going to happen. Their fate was unescapable. There was no other option, they had to fight a war decide buy other people.
There is no better way to describe what Conscription Act of 1863 did than your metaphor. In a few short words, it describes poor men were puppets controlled by the rich men. It was unfortunate that poor men were forced to go to war. They had no say in whether they wanted to go or not, they were basically just seen as pawn's on their government's chess board.
I agree with your position on the topic of whether or not the "Civil War was a rich man's battle but a poor man's fight." The Conscription Act allowed the rich men to avoid the fight, while it did not allow the poor men who could not afford the $300 to get out of the war. Which as you put it left the "dirty work" for the poor.
I do in fact believe that the Civil War was a rich man's war fought by the poor because often times the rich men would just pay themselves out of the war. All the rich men had to do was pay $300 to the government and half would go to the government and the other half would go to the poor man fighting in the war. Also, since that was a lot of money back then the poor couldn't pay their way out so they had to fight. This was called the Compensation Act of 1863 and this is what allowed the rich man's war to be fought by the poor.
I agree with the fact that the Civil War was a rich man's battle but a poor man's fight. Those of the lower class were treated as property, not people; so the rich simply went to battle with the poor as their weapons. They'd just stand back and watch them put up the fight. The battles resulted from problems that the wealthy caused. As the rest have also stated, the Conscription Act of 1863 provides a clear explanation on how the poor faced the disadvantage of not being able to avoid fighting in war simply because they could not afford buying their way out from being drafted, giving the wealthy the consent of sending the lower class to war.
I agree with the fact that you said it gave the wealthy the consent of sending the lower class to war. The wealthy heavily benefitted from the Conscription Act of 1863 which was very unfair to say the least. The poor had to suffer the hardships and fight unwillingly under unfair conditions.
The Civil War was a rich man’s battle but a poor fight. The wealthy plantation owners wanted to secede from the Union. They wanted to allow slavery in order to maintain their own wealth. The North was fighting to keep the Union together. People were having to be drafted into the war. The wealthy could avoid battle by paying a large sum of money. The poor had no way of escaping the fight. The less fortunate had to fight the battle initiated by those with money.
I agree with you because the Union went to war because the rich Northerners did not want the South to secede while the poor was not bother by it. The poor were the ones stuck fighting a battle that they should have not because the rich paid their way out of it, therefore being a "rich man’s battle but the poor man’s fight"
In the years of 1861 and 1865 chapter ten talks about how The United States did not only undergo a Civil War between the Union and the Confederates, but also a social class conflict between the rich and the poor. This war was a rich man's battle because they were the ones who wanted to keep the Union together for profits, and a poor man's right because they were the ones who actually fought on the battle field. The Conscription Act of 1863 allowed anyone to get a "get out of war free card" for $300. Back then this was a vast amount of money, therefore only the wealthy were able to pay it and substitute their service. Half of the money went to the government and the other half to men who fought in the war. Tension had always been a problem but the Civil War was the breaking point.I agree with Zinn's argument, however the poor did benefit somewhat by fighting in the war. Due to the wealthy not wanting to fight in battle they paid their way out so the poor fighters got $150.
I agree with you because the rich were the ones trying to keep the union together but the poor men were the ones who fought in the war because they couldn't afford to pay the fee. The rich had the advantage with the Conscription Act of 1863 because they just had to pay the fee to avoid fighting.
I believe that the Civil War was a rich man's war fought by the poor because the rich men would just pay themselves out of the war. The poor had to fight on their side forcefully since they were basically property. If the poor did not want to fight, they had to pay a fee of $300. This made it obvious that it would purely be a poor man's battle since they couldn't afford to pay the fee. This was called the Conscription Act of the Confederacy. The Compensation Act of 1863 was what allowed the rich man's war to be fought by the poor. Money was the issue whether the war would be fought by the rich or poor.
I would agree with Aylene and her point about the poor being considered as property. They had no choice but to fight in the war if they couldn't afford the fee.
I agree, the poor men had no chance and were forced to fight on their side. Many salves were also promised freedom if they fought too. However for many slaves they still had to go back to their owners.
I agree, The Civil War was indeed a poor man's fight. The rich squealing their way out by paying a fee of $300 unlike the poor who had no say. Just like Aylene commented the poor were basically property, comparing this to Dred Scott the slave who sued for his freedom & lost due to the fact he was property and had no say. Who may this remind us of? Oh right the poor from the civil war.
Due to the the Conscription Act of 1863 rich men could buy their way out of battle. However since poor men couldn't afford it they usual replaced them. This created a unfair advantage for poor men. Due to this fact, yes the civil war was a rich mans war but a poor mans battle.
I would agree that the Civil war was a rich mans battle but a poor mans fight. Due to the poor who were considered property count afford to pay their way out of war. As for the wealthy, $300 they paid to get replaced from the war and a poor man takes there place not having a choice. Stated in the Zinn book, this was known as the Compensation Act of 1863.
I agree with the argument that the Civil War was a rich man's battle but the poor man's fight because the poor men were the ones who actually fought physically. The Conscription Act of 1863 allowed the rich men to avoid fighting by paying a fee of $300. The poor men were not able to afford the fee and they were the ones who replaced the rich men. Clearly this was a poor man's fight.
I agree with crystal because the poor were the ones who fought physically. The only ones who actual fought in war were the poor because the wealthy had the money to get a person to replace them.
Zinn has a valid argument that I agree with. The rich men would pay $300 in order to escape being sent to war. The poor men, however, had to suffer, 10 time out of 10, poor men were sent in the place of the rich men who paid to not be taken. The main reason behind the rich men having a way to escape the war was the Conscription Act of 1863. To the rich men, this act was seen as good, but to the poor men, it was seen as evil.
Zinn has a valid argument that I agree with. The rich men would pay $300 in order to escape being sent to war. The poor men, however, had to suffer, 10 time out of 10, poor men were sent in the place of the rich men who paid to not be taken. The main reason behind the rich men having a way to escape the war was the Conscription Act of 1863. To the rich men, this act was seen as good, but to the poor men, it was seen as evil.
I agree that the Civil War was a rich man's battle but a poor man's fight because under the Compensation Act of 1863, those who could afford a $300 fee had the opportunity to not fight in the war, but this act was a disadvantage to those who could not afford the fee, thus benefitting only those who were wealthy. This war was a rich man's battle because only those were for slavery and could afford slaves had a great interest in the war, but those who were forced to physically fight in the war were people who may have had little to no interest in slavery.
My position to this prompt is agreeing with the statement ,"The civil war was a rich mans battle but a poor mans fight." To begin with , while rich men had the decision to pay off their recognition in the war,poor men had no choice in the matter and were obligated into battle.For example, $300 was all it took to pay off by a rich man and his position in battle would be replaced (Conscription Act of 1863). While, for a poor man who was in debt couldn't back out of the war even if his life depended on it. In conclusion ,I believe the statement was accurately worded in its meaning of saying a rich man was allowed to leave at any given moment while a poor man had to fight till the end .
I agree that the civil war was a rich mans battle and poor mans fight. The Conscription Act of 1863 allowed men to pay $300 for their position to be replaced in war. Only the wealthy had that amount of money therefore they were the only ones who were replaced in war. The poor had no other choice but fight the war.
i agree with Lizet the Conscription Act of 1863 did lead many men to pay the $300 fee for their position to be replaced, since the poor people did not have that amount of money they had no other choice than to fight in the war. The rich men we in charge of creating a war but definitely not fighting in it. The Civil War was a rich man's battle but a poor man's fight.
The Civil War was this country's first "rich man's battle and poor man's fight." The was largely due to the wave of industrialization that had began to sweep the nation after the War of 1812. Because of this and the Market Revolution, the North became richer while the South stayed behind. This added to the already present sectionalism in the country. Industrialization also created a social gap, not only between the North and the South, but also between factory and business owners and their workers in the North. Men like John D, Rockefeller, who later became one of the richest men in the country due to his monopoly on oil, were able to pay poor men $300 so that they could take their place in the war, thanks to the 1863 Conscription Act.
I agree that the civil war was a rich mans battle and a poor mans fight. The Conscription Act of 1863 allowed men to pay $300 for their position to be replaced in war. Only the wealthy could afford to not be sent to war making them the only ones to have replacements for the war. The poor, on the other hand, had no other choice but to go fight in the war. All of this was due to the wave of industrialization that swept the nation after the War of 1812. Because of this and the Market Revolution, the North became richer while the South stayed behind, adding to sectionalism in the country.
She brings up great points, I completely agree with you. I believed also that it was a war by the rich but fought by the poor. But remember both sides were suffering an economical incline. So they needed the money.
The civil war is a rich mans battle but a poor mans fight. Men that had money had the chance to buy themselves out of war. This happened under the compensation act of 1863. Men that could pay 300 dollars didn't have to fight in war. Therefore all the rich men were able to get out of war leaving the poor men to fight either on the south side or the north side. I feel that this argument that the war was fought my poor men is true.
I honestly agree to this statement by Zinn. But remember both sides were suffering some type of economical incline. The south more than the north. But the north still needed money to fun the war. So this act 1863 was more of a war strategy than anything. It brought more money to north and helped the. Win the war by further funding their forces. It was kinda of a messed up move but it was smart.
I agree with Adrian that both sides whether poor or rich were both suffering from the war. Also the south had a tough time fighting the war since most of the upper-class men belong to the North.
In this chapter there is a variety of evidence agreeing with the argument that the Civil War was the rich man’s battle but the poor man’s fight. For example as many have mentioned that many of the rich men would pay the poor to take their place in the war. In addition another piece of evidence would be The Compensation Act of 1863 which allowed the rich man's war to be fought by the poor. The Civil War was a rich man's war but a poor man's fight due to, those who could afford a $300 fee which ended up leading the poor men to fight.
Exactly like ari stated that the war was owned by the wealth but fought with the underprivileged. Yet both sides of the war suffered some economic issue. The North was short in funds so the act was put into place thus leading to a rich man's war.
I agree with arianna's statement because many poor people didnt have the money to pay the fine for not going to war. While wealthy can pay their way out of the war. Because of this the civil war was also known as the rich man's battle but the poor man's fight.
I agree with arianna's statement because many poor people didnt have the money to pay the fine for not going to war. While wealthy can pay their way out of the war. Because of this the civil war was also known as the rich man's battle but the poor man's fight.
In considering that the Civil War was a wealthy man's war fought by the underprivileged because the wealthy men would pay to not fight in the war. The underprivileged had to fight on their side influentially since they were basically possessions. If the underprivileged refused to fight, they had to pay a fee of $300. This made it understandable that it would morally be an underprivileged man's battle since they did not have the sufficient funds to pay the $300. This was named the Conscription Act of the Confederacy. The Compensation Act of 1863 was what allowed the wealthy man's war to be fought by the underprivileged. Money was the problem whether the war would be fought by the wealthy or underprivileged.
I agree with Jacob's valid statement. Since the poor (obviously) could not pay the fee of $300, they were basically required to take part in the battle which put their lives in danger. Because the wealthy would pay the fee, the war was essentially the poor man's battle. The Compensation Act of 1863 is what allowed the battle to be fought by the poor in the most part.
The rich men had the greatest stake in the outcome of the war, they stood to lose everything they had if slavery were ended. A poor man though stood to gain very little if they won. But the law made it possible for a man to buy his way out of military service, essentially by hiring a substitute to fight in his place. Naturally you had to be rich to do that and the person you hired was likely to be poor. Thus the rich wanted the war but the poor were doing most of the fighting, and dying.
My position is like everyone else's here, I have to agree that the war was because of the rich, but the poor were the one's to fight in it. For starters, a rich man was able to skip going into combat if he payed a fee or found someone else to take his place. If you were poor, there was no escaping the fact you were going to fight. The rich were the ones who wanted this war, and even so, they only took part in high positions or none at all.
I agree with you because the poor had no way out of it like the rich did. The rich wanted this fight but had other people that could barely feed there families do it for them like they didn't have enough problems already
That’s basically everybody’s stance of this topic. It should be noted that the Conscription Act was not the only way the poor were treated unfairly. The lower class were also oppressively taxed, and the laws for private incorporation all favored one class of society to the expense of the other. Most of these examples can still be claimed over current times.
In my opinion, I strongly agree that the civil war was a rich mans battle but a poor mans fight. This statement is very true because if you didnt want to fight the war you had to pay a fine of $300. Because of the fine many poor people had to fight in the war.The Conscription Act of 1863 basically forced the poor men to fight in the war that benefited rich men.
Yes Oscar I agree with you because Zinn also brings up the Conscription Act of 1863 which began the draft for more men which at the long run ended up all being poor men who couldn't afford to pay the $300 for their replacement. They gave the poor no choice but to fight while the rich could save themselves .
The civil war was a rich man's war and a poor man's fight meaning that all lower-class men had to participate in battle risking their lives. A rich man's battle because it was the rich men that wanted to abolish slavery, but however the lower class were the one's doing the actual fighting. The upper class can simply pay and discontinue from participating in the war and when it reaches to another person, they might not always be able to pay and avoid participating in the war. Many poor men were unable to pay to leave their spot in fighting in the war.
The Civil War was definitely the rich man's war and the poor man's fight. The wealthy would have the opportunity to avoid military service by either paying $300 or acquiring a substitute (most of the time it would be a poor person) to replace them in the war. Either way, the poor would have no escape because they were basically required to engage in battle, putting their lives on the line. Howard Zinn effectively supports this argument when he includes The Conscription Act of 1863 which stated the above.
I completely agree with your statement because mentioned topics you discussed in my topic :-))) I was angered by the whole $300 substitute thing because that was basically saying that the life of a poor man was only worth $300. That is so messed up, honestly. The Conscription Act of 1863 definitely supports this whole concept, so I'd have to definitely agree with you on everything. Great post! (I am so lame, haha, sorry)
I agree the Civil War was a man's battle but the poor man's fight. The Civil War was mainly fought by poor citizens and immigrants who had come to America but not yet achieved sucess. At the time all men were at war and as Zinn states "...but on the eve of the Civil War it was money and profit, not the movement against slavey, that was uppermost in the priorities of the men who ran the country." meaning although it was a war all the poor kept fighting while the rich saw how to take opportunity of it. Thr rich could easily escape war duties by paying $300 for their replacement or in the south trade 20 slaves for their servitude unlike the poor who had no choice. It was a man's battle however the poor fought it to change and keep America.
I agree with you 100%. If I was a rich male person during the beginning of the civil war, I would consider this option in my favor. If I was rich I would not want to risk my life and fortune for some war. This probably was not fair but life is not fair. This was a poor mans fight because they could not get out of the war.
I agree with you as well. If you had the option of paying for not having to go to war, why not take it and not risk your life. The option to pay for your absence in war is what mainly forced the war to be a poor mans battle in the first place. Also rich people are always excused in war (in times of draft) due to their importance to the country economy.
I agree with Arely the Civil War was not fought to abolish slavery, but because of money and profit. The war did not affect the rich a much as all the poor people. The rich were able to easily escape war duties and at the end of the day the ones left fighting were the poor people.
It's true that the civil war was the rich man's battle but the poor man's fight. Howard Zinn pointed out the Conscription Act of 1863 which could provide the rich from military service. All they had to do was pay $300 or hire a substitute which obviously only the rich could afford. Laws by laws were passed for the rich as stated in the book that the "English common law was no longer holy when it stood in the way of business growth" which was the law of "eminent domain". Which was used to take farmers land and give it to companies like for railroads or canals as subsidies, taking advantage of the poor like in the war.
The Civil War was in favor of a rich man's battle but poor man's fight. Coscription Act of 1863 provides the perfectt example. In the war, a choice was made with those who were drafted into war, they either had to battle or pay $300 to have a substitute. Those who were fortunate enough, the rich people, were able to take on that oppourtunity. However, those who could not afford those $300 , the poorer were left with no choice but to battle. The Conscription Act favored the rich because they were able to provide that money.
I agree with you Brianda when you say that the Conscription act benefited the rich because they were the ones that could afford it. It was unjust that the lower class had to fight only because they lacked money. You are right about saying that the rich were fortunate since they didn't have to fight.
From what I have read I can say that without a doubt the Civil War was the rich man’s battle but the poor man’s fight. Zinn included George Henry Evan’s “The Working Men’s Declaration of Independence” which stated that the working men were oppressed and unfavored by society. The poor have always been dealt the short end of the stick. For example, the Conscription Act of 1863 allowed for men to pay a fee of three hundred dollars in order to avoid being drafted. As a result, the wealthy paid for a replacement or the fee and the poor were destined for the battlefield.
The Civil War was a rich man's war and a poor man's fight by how discriminated the poor were to the rich. The Conscription Act of 1863 was great impact in how the war impacted the poor. This act gave a chance to the rich to just give the money and not got to war while the poor had no other way then to risk their lives for this war.
I agree in terms of the Civil War being the rich man's battle but the poor man's fight as a result of the Conscription Act of 1863. This in fact proved that the rich could get away with anything, even avoid being drafted to serve the military for the price of $300. Nevertheless, knowing that such a price for invincibility was an impossibility for a typical poor man, they were given no choice but to fight as a soldier. While the rich man had created the war, it was actually the poor man's job to do the dirty work and fight in the bloody battlefield of the Civil War.
I agree with the points that you make. I don't think it's fair that the rich were allowed the luxury of staying home while others fight. With all the time that passed, do you think think times have changed, or is the us still having the poor having to still to fight the wars of the rich.
The statement " the Civil War was the rich man's battle but the poor's man fight" is completely correct. Howard Zinn strictly argues that the United States had been abusing its working class, along with other groups of people. He affirms that during this time of the war, the government oppressed the working class even more. An example would be the Conscription act of 1863 that allowed the rich men to pay money and send a substitute to fight for them in the war, and of course the poor were the ones who were force to fight. The working class ended up fighting a war that only benefited the upper class.
After reading the chapter, the Other Civil War, I would have to agree that the Civil War was definitely the rich man's battle and the poor man's fight. During this time period, in my opinion, the richer were only get richer and the poor were not only get poorer but most of them died or got severely injured. It was the poor, working class people who were fighting the war due to the draft. Along with this, the rich were getting away with going to war by paying $300 for a substitute to fight in the war for them. While, these poor people were risking their lives to fight for the country these rich men prosper from, the rich stayed at home creating inventions and further building their net worths such as men like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller. Many of these rich people had the mind set that you can still be a patriot without having to risk his own life or health especially when there are less valuable lives out there and if that isn't the most messed up thing you have ever heard then danggggg. Anyways, according to Zinn, the poor working class people basically spent their lives in hard labor producing all the comforts of life for other people while they make little money just for the present state of society to still depend on the will of the employers. Thus, proving that the Civil War was truly the poor man's fight. (sorry for the late turn in, i completely forgot about this assignment :/)
Some argue that the civil war rich mans battle but a poor mans fight, which I agree with. From my reading I learned that if the rich didn't want to fight they could pay their way out. The reasons for why the two sides were fighting were essentially to protect the profits of the rich man. The south wanted to protect their use of free labor in slaves. The North wanted to abolish slavery to create a more balanced economy.
The civil war is indeed a rich man's war, but a poor man's fight. Rich men often payed the government to hire someone to replace them in battle, which was most of the time, a poor man. It is not only in the war when the poor suffer, but when the rich inflate the cost of items. This is proven in the book when Zinn brings up the Conscription Act of 1863 and under The Rich Against the Poor!
ReplyDeleteI agree with James, the Conscription Act of 1863 itself asserted that the Civil War was a rich man's war fought by the poor. Due to the fact, that such act allowed the rich to excuse themselves from battle by paying three hundred dollars for a substitute.
DeleteAs much as it pains me to agree with you James, I have the same position as you on the subject. The rich were too worried over their measly lives, so they did what you would typically do if you're rich, pay someone to do the things you don't want to do. That let them sit back and watch the war play out.
DeleteThe chapter, "The Other Civil War", asserts that the Civil War was certainly a rich man's war, but a poor man's fight. Which was caused by discrimination against the poor and shortage of volunteers that ultimately led to the Conscription Act. Such act allowed the rich to escape the draft by paying $300 for a replacement. For instance, Zinn states,"The conscription law of the Confederacy too provided that the rich could avoid service and soldiers begin to suspect that they were fighting for the privileges of an elite they could never belong to...". Thus, in my case I believe that the poor were truly fighting a war for the upper class.
ReplyDeletei agree with raul, because indeed it was a poor man's fight. Rich men had way out of the fight they cause. So unfortunately, if you were poor you had no way out, but if you were rich there was a solution.
DeleteI completely agree with Raul's response because it was never a poor man's war. That is the reason there weren't any volunteers. It was never their fight to begin with and the rich men being the cowards they are bought their way out of it while the poor men were forcibly given a death sentence.
DeleteI agree with Raul. The rich were scared to fight. The poor fought the rich man's war. They would also still be poor after the war, if they even survived, and what they were paid wouldn't last long either.
DeleteI agree with raul's statement because of the war revloved around wealth and poverty. The fine really affected poor because they couldnt pay it so they were forced to go to war. The Conscription Act of 1863 basically forced the poor men to fight in the war that benefited rich men.
DeleteThe civil war was a rich man's war and a poor man's fight because the rich men were what started it with them departing from the US. When drafting came and the name of a wealthy man was chosen, they often paid $300 to have a poor man fight the war for them. This is why Zinn brings up the Conscription Act of 1863 showing that intact the poor men were the ones fighting this war.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Reyna, when it was the wealthy who had to step up they bribed their way out of it, in a sense. So, the wealthy stood by the sidelines while the poor, having no other choice, went to war to achieve what the wealthy wanted.
DeleteThe civil war was a conflict between the rich that the poor had to shed blood for. The ones who felt threatened by the election of Abraham Lincoln were wealthy plantation owners of the south. They urged the states to secede from the union and then the wealthy from the North tried to get them back by all means necessary. However, they were not the ones who did the dirty work. The Conscription Act of 1863, as mentioned by Zinn, allowed the rich to avoid service by paying three hundred dollars. On both sides there was poor men fighting and rich men pulling their strings.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sandra. Money was their ticket to freedom from war. The rich gave commands out with no hesitation since they weren't going to be the ones risking their lives at battle. They were indeed pulling the poor's strings, treating them like their own puppets.
Delete
DeleteYour right. “… poor men fighting and rich men pulling their strings.” The poor had to choice but to do what their country asked of them. They had no way of changing what was going to happen. Their fate was unescapable. There was no other option, they had to fight a war decide buy other people.
There is no better way to describe what Conscription Act of 1863 did than your metaphor. In a few short words, it describes poor men were puppets controlled by the rich men. It was unfortunate that poor men were forced to go to war. They had no say in whether they wanted to go or not, they were basically just seen as pawn's on their government's chess board.
DeleteI agree with your position on the topic of whether or not the "Civil War was a rich man's battle but a poor man's fight." The Conscription Act allowed the rich men to avoid the fight, while it did not allow the poor men who could not afford the $300 to get out of the war. Which as you put it left the "dirty work" for the poor.
DeleteI do in fact believe that the Civil War was a rich man's war fought by the poor because often times the rich men would just pay themselves out of the war. All the rich men had to do was pay $300 to the government and half would go to the government and the other half would go to the poor man fighting in the war. Also, since that was a lot of money back then the poor couldn't pay their way out so they had to fight. This was called the Compensation Act of 1863 and this is what allowed the rich man's war to be fought by the poor.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the fact that the Civil War was a rich man's battle but a poor man's fight. Those of the lower class were treated as property, not people; so the rich simply went to battle with the poor as their weapons. They'd just stand back and watch them put up the fight. The battles resulted from problems that the wealthy caused. As the rest have also stated, the Conscription Act of 1863 provides a clear explanation on how the poor faced the disadvantage of not being able to avoid fighting in war simply because they could not afford buying their way out from being drafted, giving the wealthy the consent of sending the lower class to war.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the fact that you said it gave the wealthy the consent of sending the lower class to war. The wealthy heavily benefitted from the Conscription Act of 1863 which was very unfair to say the least. The poor had to suffer the hardships and fight unwillingly under unfair conditions.
DeleteThe Civil War was a rich man’s battle but a poor fight. The wealthy plantation owners wanted to secede from the Union. They wanted to allow slavery in order to maintain their own wealth. The North was fighting to keep the Union together. People were having to be drafted into the war. The wealthy could avoid battle by paying a large sum of money. The poor had no way of escaping the fight. The less fortunate had to fight the battle initiated by those with money.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you because the Union went to war because the rich Northerners did not want the South to secede while the poor was not bother by it. The poor were the ones stuck fighting a battle that they should have not because the rich paid their way out of it, therefore being a "rich man’s battle but the poor man’s fight"
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the years of 1861 and 1865 chapter ten talks about how The United States did not only undergo a Civil War between the Union and the Confederates, but also a social class conflict between the rich and the poor. This war was a rich man's battle because they were the ones who wanted to keep the Union together for profits, and a poor man's right because they were the ones who actually fought on the battle field. The Conscription Act of 1863 allowed anyone to get a "get out of war free card" for $300. Back then this was a vast amount of money, therefore only the wealthy were able to pay it and substitute their service. Half of the money went to the government and the other half to men who fought in the war. Tension had always been a problem but the Civil War was the breaking point.I agree with Zinn's argument, however the poor did benefit somewhat by fighting in the war. Due to the wealthy not wanting to fight in battle they paid their way out so the poor fighters got $150.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you because the rich were the ones trying to keep the union together but the poor men were the ones who fought in the war because they couldn't afford to pay the fee. The rich had the advantage with the Conscription Act of 1863 because they just had to pay the fee to avoid fighting.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Civil War was a rich man's war fought by the poor because the rich men would just pay themselves out of the war. The poor had to fight on their side forcefully since they were basically property. If the poor did not want to fight, they had to pay a fee of $300. This made it obvious that it would purely be a poor man's battle since they couldn't afford to pay the fee. This was called the Conscription Act of the Confederacy. The Compensation Act of 1863 was what allowed the rich man's war to be fought by the poor. Money was the issue whether the war would be fought by the rich or poor.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with Aylene and her point about the poor being considered as property. They had no choice but to fight in the war if they couldn't afford the fee.
DeleteI agree, the poor men had no chance and were forced to fight on their side. Many salves were also promised freedom if they fought too. However for many slaves they still had to go back to their owners.
DeleteI agree, The Civil War was indeed a poor man's fight. The rich squealing their way out by paying a fee of $300 unlike the poor who had no say. Just like Aylene commented the poor were basically property, comparing this to Dred Scott the slave who sued for his freedom & lost due to the fact he was property and had no say. Who may this remind us of? Oh right the poor from the civil war.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDue to the the Conscription Act of 1863 rich men could buy their way out of battle. However since poor men couldn't afford it they usual replaced them. This created a unfair advantage for poor men. Due to this fact, yes the civil war was a rich mans war but a poor mans battle.
ReplyDeleteI would agree that the Civil war was a rich mans battle but a poor mans fight. Due to the poor who were considered property count afford to pay their way out of war. As for the wealthy, $300 they paid to get replaced from the war and a poor man takes there place not having a choice. Stated in the Zinn book, this was known as the Compensation Act of 1863.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Alexi in your position of this prompt. Its similar to my point of view in addressing the prompt.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the argument that the Civil War was a rich man's battle but the poor man's fight because the poor men were the ones who actually fought physically. The Conscription Act of 1863 allowed the rich men to avoid fighting by paying a fee of $300. The poor men were not able to afford the fee and they were the ones who replaced the rich men. Clearly this was a poor man's fight.
ReplyDeleteI agree with crystal because the poor were the ones who fought physically. The only ones who actual fought in war were the poor because the wealthy had the money to get a person to replace them.
DeleteZinn has a valid argument that I agree with. The rich men would pay $300 in order to escape being sent to war. The poor men, however, had to suffer, 10 time out of 10, poor men were sent in the place of the rich men who paid to not be taken. The main reason behind the rich men having a way to escape the war was the Conscription Act of 1863. To the rich men, this act was seen as good, but to the poor men, it was seen as evil.
ReplyDeleteZinn has a valid argument that I agree with. The rich men would pay $300 in order to escape being sent to war. The poor men, however, had to suffer, 10 time out of 10, poor men were sent in the place of the rich men who paid to not be taken. The main reason behind the rich men having a way to escape the war was the Conscription Act of 1863. To the rich men, this act was seen as good, but to the poor men, it was seen as evil.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Civil War was a rich man's battle but a poor man's fight because under the Compensation Act of 1863, those who could afford a $300 fee had the opportunity to not fight in the war, but this act was a disadvantage to those who could not afford the fee, thus benefitting only those who were wealthy. This war was a rich man's battle because only those were for slavery and could afford slaves had a great interest in the war, but those who were forced to physically fight in the war were people who may have had little to no interest in slavery.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy position to this prompt is agreeing with the statement ,"The civil war was a rich mans battle but a poor mans fight." To begin with , while rich men had the decision to pay off their recognition in the war,poor men had no choice in the matter and were obligated into battle.For example, $300 was all it took to pay off by a rich man and his position in battle would be replaced (Conscription Act of 1863). While, for a poor man who was in debt couldn't back out of the war even if his life depended on it. In conclusion ,I believe the statement was accurately worded in its meaning of saying a rich man was allowed to leave at any given moment while a poor man had to fight till the end .
ReplyDeleteI agree that the civil war was a rich mans battle and poor mans fight. The Conscription Act of 1863 allowed men to pay $300 for their position to be replaced in war. Only the wealthy had that amount of money therefore they were the only ones who were replaced in war. The poor had no other choice but fight the war.
ReplyDeletei agree with Lizet the Conscription Act of 1863 did lead many men to pay the $300 fee for their position to be replaced, since the poor people did not have that amount of money they had no other choice than to fight in the war. The rich men we in charge of creating a war but definitely not fighting in it. The Civil War was a rich man's battle but a poor man's fight.
DeleteThe Civil War was this country's first "rich man's battle and poor man's fight." The was largely due to the wave of industrialization that had began to sweep the nation after the War of 1812. Because of this and the Market Revolution, the North became richer while the South stayed behind. This added to the already present sectionalism in the country. Industrialization also created a social gap, not only between the North and the South, but also between factory and business owners and their workers in the North. Men like John D, Rockefeller, who later became one of the richest men in the country due to his monopoly on oil, were able to pay poor men $300 so that they could take their place in the war, thanks to the 1863 Conscription Act.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the civil war was a rich mans battle and a poor mans fight. The Conscription Act of 1863 allowed men to pay $300 for their position to be replaced in war. Only the wealthy could afford to not be sent to war making them the only ones to have replacements for the war. The poor, on the other hand, had no other choice but to go fight in the war. All of this was due to the wave of industrialization that swept the nation after the War of 1812. Because of this and the Market Revolution, the North became richer while the South stayed behind, adding to sectionalism in the country.
ReplyDeleteShe brings up great points, I completely agree with you. I believed also that it was a war by the rich but fought by the poor. But remember both sides were suffering an economical incline. So they needed the money.
DeleteThe civil war is a rich mans battle but a poor mans fight. Men that had money had the chance to buy themselves out of war. This happened under the compensation act of 1863. Men that could pay 300 dollars didn't have to fight in war. Therefore all the rich men were able to get out of war leaving the poor men to fight either on the south side or the north side. I feel that this argument that the war was fought my poor men is true.
ReplyDeleteI honestly agree to this statement by Zinn. But remember both sides were suffering some type of economical incline. The south more than the north. But the north still needed money to fun the war. So this act 1863 was more of a war strategy than anything. It brought more money to north and helped the. Win the war by further funding their forces. It was kinda of a messed up move but it was smart.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Adrian that both sides whether poor or rich were both suffering from the war. Also the south had a tough time fighting the war since most of the upper-class men belong to the North.
DeleteIn this chapter there is a variety of evidence agreeing with the argument that the Civil War was the rich man’s battle but the poor man’s fight. For example as many have mentioned that many of the rich men would pay the poor to take their place in the war. In addition another piece of evidence would be The Compensation Act of 1863 which allowed the rich man's war to be fought by the poor. The Civil War was a rich man's war but a poor man's fight due to, those who could afford a $300 fee which ended up leading the poor men to fight.
ReplyDeleteExactly like ari stated that the war was owned by the wealth but fought with the underprivileged. Yet both sides of the war suffered some economic issue. The North was short in funds so the act was put into place thus leading to a rich man's war.
DeleteI agree with arianna's statement because many poor people didnt have the money to pay the fine for not going to war. While wealthy can pay their way out of the war. Because of this the civil war was also known as the rich man's battle but the poor man's fight.
DeleteI agree with arianna's statement because many poor people didnt have the money to pay the fine for not going to war. While wealthy can pay their way out of the war. Because of this the civil war was also known as the rich man's battle but the poor man's fight.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn considering that the Civil War was a wealthy man's war fought by the underprivileged because the wealthy men would pay to not fight in the war. The underprivileged had to fight on their side influentially since they were basically possessions. If the underprivileged refused to fight, they had to pay a fee of $300. This made it understandable that it would morally be an underprivileged man's battle since they did not have the sufficient funds to pay the $300. This was named the Conscription Act of the Confederacy. The Compensation Act of 1863 was what allowed the wealthy man's war to be fought by the underprivileged. Money was the problem whether the war would be fought by the wealthy or underprivileged.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jacob's valid statement. Since the poor (obviously) could not pay the fee of $300, they were basically required to take part in the battle which put their lives in danger. Because the wealthy would pay the fee, the war was essentially the poor man's battle. The Compensation Act of 1863 is what allowed the battle to be fought by the poor in the most part.
DeleteThe rich men had the greatest stake in the outcome of the war, they stood to lose everything they had if slavery were ended. A poor man though stood to gain very little if they won. But the law made it possible for a man to buy his way out of military service, essentially by hiring a substitute to fight in his place. Naturally you had to be rich to do that and the person you hired was likely to be poor. Thus the rich wanted the war but the poor were doing most of the fighting, and dying.
ReplyDeleteMy position is like everyone else's here, I have to agree that the war was because of the rich, but the poor were the one's to fight in it. For starters, a rich man was able to skip going into combat if he payed a fee or found someone else to take his place. If you were poor, there was no escaping the fact you were going to fight. The rich were the ones who wanted this war, and even so, they only took part in high positions or none at all.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you because the poor had no way out of it like the rich did. The rich wanted this fight but had other people that could barely feed there families do it for them like they didn't have enough problems already
DeleteThat’s basically everybody’s stance of this topic. It should be noted that the Conscription Act was not the only way the poor were treated unfairly. The lower class were also oppressively taxed, and the laws for private incorporation all favored one class of society to the expense of the other. Most of these examples can still be claimed over current times.
DeleteIn my opinion, I strongly agree that the civil war was a rich mans battle but a poor mans fight. This statement is very true because if you didnt want to fight the war you had to pay a fine of $300. Because of the fine many poor people had to fight in the war.The Conscription Act of 1863 basically forced the poor men to fight in the war that benefited rich men.
ReplyDeleteYes Oscar I agree with you because Zinn also brings up the Conscription Act of 1863 which began the draft for more men which at the long run ended up all being poor men who couldn't afford to pay the $300 for their replacement. They gave the poor no choice but to fight while the rich could save themselves .
DeleteThe civil war was a rich man's war and a poor man's fight meaning that all lower-class men had to participate in battle risking their lives. A rich man's battle because it was the rich men that wanted to abolish slavery, but however the lower class were the one's doing the actual fighting. The upper class can simply pay and discontinue from participating in the war and when it reaches to another person, they might not always be able to pay and avoid participating in the war. Many poor men were unable to pay to leave their spot in fighting in the war.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you because the poor were really the ones that fought in the war. The rich were mainly the ones that wanted battle because of slavery.
DeleteThe Civil War was definitely the rich man's war and the poor man's fight. The wealthy would have the opportunity to avoid military service by either paying $300 or acquiring a substitute (most of the time it would be a poor person) to replace them in the war. Either way, the poor would have no escape because they were basically required to engage in battle, putting their lives on the line. Howard Zinn effectively supports this argument when he includes The Conscription Act of 1863 which stated the above.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your statement because mentioned topics you discussed in my topic :-))) I was angered by the whole $300 substitute thing because that was basically saying that the life of a poor man was only worth $300. That is so messed up, honestly. The Conscription Act of 1863 definitely supports this whole concept, so I'd have to definitely agree with you on everything. Great post! (I am so lame, haha, sorry)
DeleteI agree the Civil War was a man's battle but the poor man's fight. The Civil War was mainly fought by poor citizens and immigrants who had come to America but not yet achieved sucess. At the time all men were at war and as Zinn states "...but on the eve of the Civil War it was money and profit, not the movement against slavey, that was uppermost in the priorities of the men who ran the country." meaning although it was a war all the poor kept fighting while the rich saw how to take opportunity of it. Thr rich could easily escape war duties by paying $300 for their replacement or in the south trade 20 slaves for their servitude unlike the poor who had no choice. It was a man's battle however the poor fought it to change and keep America.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you 100%. If I was a rich male person during the beginning of the civil war, I would consider this option in my favor. If I was rich I would not want to risk my life and fortune for some war. This probably was not fair but life is not fair. This was a poor mans fight because they could not get out of the war.
DeleteI agree with you as well. If you had the option of paying for not having to go to war, why not take it and not risk your life. The option to pay for your absence in war is what mainly forced the war to be a poor mans battle in the first place. Also rich people are always excused in war (in times of draft) due to their importance to the country economy.
DeleteI agree with Arely the Civil War was not fought to abolish slavery, but because of money and profit. The war did not affect the rich a much as all the poor people. The rich were able to easily escape war duties and at the end of the day the ones left fighting were the poor people.
DeleteIt's true that the civil war was the rich man's battle but the poor man's fight. Howard Zinn pointed out the Conscription Act of 1863 which could provide the rich from military service. All they had to do was pay $300 or hire a substitute which obviously only the rich could afford. Laws by laws were passed for the rich as stated in the book that the "English common law was no longer holy when it stood in the way of business growth" which was the law of "eminent domain". Which was used to take farmers land and give it to companies like for railroads or canals as subsidies, taking advantage of the poor like in the war.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Civil War was in favor of a rich man's battle but poor man's fight. Coscription Act of 1863 provides the perfectt example. In the war, a choice was made with those who were drafted into war, they either had to battle or pay $300 to have a substitute. Those who were fortunate enough, the rich people, were able to take on that oppourtunity. However, those who could not afford those $300 , the poorer were left with no choice but to battle. The Conscription Act favored the rich because they were able to provide that money.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Brianda when you say that the Conscription act benefited the rich because they were the ones that could afford it. It was unjust that the lower class had to fight only because they lacked money. You are right about saying that the rich were fortunate since they didn't have to fight.
DeleteFrom what I have read I can say that without a doubt the Civil War was the rich man’s battle but the poor man’s fight. Zinn included George Henry Evan’s “The Working Men’s Declaration of Independence” which stated that the working men were oppressed and unfavored by society. The poor have always been dealt the short end of the stick. For example, the Conscription Act of 1863 allowed for men to pay a fee of three hundred dollars in order to avoid being drafted. As a result, the wealthy paid for a replacement or the fee and the poor were destined for the battlefield.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe Civil War was a rich man's war and a poor man's fight by how discriminated the poor were to the rich. The Conscription Act of 1863 was great impact in how the war impacted the poor. This act gave a chance to the rich to just give the money and not got to war while the poor had no other way then to risk their lives for this war.
I agree in terms of the Civil War being the rich man's battle but the poor man's fight as a result of the Conscription Act of 1863. This in fact proved that the rich could get away with anything, even avoid being drafted to serve the military for the price of $300. Nevertheless, knowing that such a price for invincibility was an impossibility for a typical poor man, they were given no choice but to fight as a soldier. While the rich man had created the war, it was actually the poor man's job to do the dirty work and fight in the bloody battlefield of the Civil War.
DeleteI agree with the points that you make. I don't think it's fair that the rich were allowed the luxury of staying home while others fight. With all the time that passed, do you think think times have changed, or is the us still having the poor having to still to fight the wars of the rich.
DeleteThe statement " the Civil War was the rich man's battle but the poor's man fight" is completely correct. Howard Zinn strictly argues that the United States had been abusing its working class, along with other groups of people. He affirms that during this time of the war, the government oppressed the working class even more. An example would be the Conscription act of 1863 that allowed the rich men to pay money and send a substitute to fight for them in the war, and of course the poor were the ones who were force to fight. The working class ended up fighting a war that only benefited the upper class.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the chapter, the Other Civil War, I would have to agree that the Civil War was definitely the rich man's battle and the poor man's fight. During this time period, in my opinion, the richer were only get richer and the poor were not only get poorer but most of them died or got severely injured. It was the poor, working class people who were fighting the war due to the draft. Along with this, the rich were getting away with going to war by paying $300 for a substitute to fight in the war for them. While, these poor people were risking their lives to fight for the country these rich men prosper from, the rich stayed at home creating inventions and further building their net worths such as men like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller. Many of these rich people had the mind set that you can still be a patriot without having to risk his own life or health especially when there are less valuable lives out there and if that isn't the most messed up thing you have ever heard then danggggg. Anyways, according to Zinn, the poor working class people basically spent their lives in hard labor producing all the comforts of life for other people while they make little money just for the present state of society to still depend on the will of the employers. Thus, proving that the Civil War was truly the poor man's fight. (sorry for the late turn in, i completely forgot about this assignment :/)
ReplyDeleteSome argue that the civil war rich mans battle but a poor mans fight, which I agree with. From my reading I learned that if the rich didn't want to fight they could pay their way out. The reasons for why the two sides were fighting were essentially to protect the profits of the rich man. The south wanted to protect their use of free labor in slaves. The North wanted to abolish slavery to create a more balanced economy.
ReplyDeleteWas a*
Delete