Causes Of The Civil War Essay - 923 Words

CAUSE OF THE CIVIL WAR In 1860, the worlds greatest nation was locked in Civil War. The war divided the country between the North and South. There were many factors that caused this war, but the main ones were the different interpretations of the Constitution by the North and South, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the arrival of Lincoln in office. These factors were very crucial in the bringing upon of the destruction of the Union. They caused immediate war. In 1791, the tenth amendment was added to the Constitution. The tenth amendment states that â€Å"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.† (Bailey 16) This amendment was†¦show more content†¦One of the state’s reasons for seceding was because they felt the other states had broken their obligation by not allowing them to secede. With South Carolina out of the Union, the War would begin shortly. Another trigger to the civil war was the Kansas-Nebraska Act. In 1854, another slavery issue was brought up- would Kansas and Nebraska be slave-holding or free states? From the Missouri Compromise, all states above the 36 º30’ line were to be free states and all states below were slave states. But, Stephan A. Douglas, had another idea, he wanted to settle the problem by popular sovereignty. The only problem with his plan was that Kansas lay below the 36 º30’ line and Nebraska above it, which inflicted with the Missouri Compromise. Douglas had to try to repeal the Missouri Compromise in Congress, for his plan to work. Congress debated the issue. â€Å"So heated were political passions that bloodshed was barely averted† (Bailey, 414) Even though, Douglas was able to get the bill passed. The repeal of the Missouri Compromise angered the North, they wanted to stop all future slave territory demands. â€Å"TheShow MoreRelatedCauses of the Civil War951 Words   |  4 PagesCAUSE OF THE CIVIL WAR In 1860, the world s greatest nation was locked in Civil War. The war divided the country between the North and South. There were many factors that caused this war, but the main ones were the different interpretations of the Constitution by the North and South, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the arrival of Lincoln in office. These factors were very crucial in the bringing upon of the destruction of the Union. They caused immediate war. In 1791, the tenth amendment wasRead MoreThe Causes Of The Civil War1016 Words   |  5 Pages In 1861, a Civil War broke out in the United States when the South declared their independence from the Union.  There is a great amount of reasons that people can argue how the Civil War was started. However, what most people don’t understand, is that most of the events leading up to the Civil War were related to slavery.  Slavery was the core of the North and South’s conflict, which led to a very vicious feud.   The immediate cause of the war was slavery. Southern states, including the 11 statesRead MoreThe Causes Of The Civil War1409 Words   |  6 PagesThe causes of the Civil War were complex and have been controversial since the country began. Some causes include; states’ rights, economics, and slavery. The most recognizable and popular cause is slavery. The freeing of the slaves was an important moral issue at the time and one of the greatest causes of the civil war. It was only by carefully avoiding the moral issue involved in slavery that Northerners and Southerners could meet on any common ground. (Goldston, 79). The time came in which ourRead MoreThe Cause of the Civil War800 Words   |  4 Pages The Cause of the Civil War Generally, it is thought to be the South’s fault for causing the Civil War. Contrary to popular belief, the Civil War was mainly provoked by the North; through using the federal government to overtake the South, removing slavery which would destroy Southern economy, and creating the moral issue of slavery. The North was the primary reason for the start of a war that ripped our country apart. The North had full control over the federal government and used that to suppressRead MoreCivil War Causes1382 Words   |  6 Pages Causes of the Civil War John Brown’s Raid vs. Industrial Revolution John Brown’s Raid was a more influential cause to the civil war than the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution caused incompability between the North and the South. The North relied on wage laborers with the new machine age economy while the South relied heavily on slaves. So, the North did not need slaves for their economyRead MoreCauses Of The Civil War1740 Words   |  7 PagesThe Civil War was not an event that erupted overnight or something that no one had seen coming. It was a result of long stemming conflicts. â€Å"The road to civil war was complex and multi-faceted† (Wells, 1). These conflicts kept creating a divide amongst the states in the nation. The divide finally became so great, that the United States split into the Confederacy (South) and the Union (North), and fighting erupted. â€Å" â€Å"The Civil War,† Randall Jimerson observes, â€Å"became a total war involving the entireRead MoreThe Causes Of The Civil War1238 Words   |à ‚  5 PagesGalindo Mr. Scheet AP U.S History 5 November 2017 Unit 4 Essay The initial causes of the Civil War have been previously discussed and analyzed by historians, but have remained one of the most controversial debates, due to its numerous causes that created the most devastating war in American history. The country had been avoiding the disputes that would later become the causes of the civil war for decades. The Mexican War is proof that the issue of slavery was put on hold by President James K. PolkRead MoreCause of the Civil War1296 Words   |  6 PagesHistory 11 12/17/2006 The root causes and precipitating events that led to the Civil War (1861-1865) The Civil War between northern and southern states was a consequence of contradictions of two social systems inside the country. At the basis of these contradictions was a question of slavery, completely determining economic and political interests of South. North strived to enforce Federal government power to protect their own economic stability. As a result the South wanted a separationRead MoreCauses of the Civil War1489 Words   |  6 PagesThe Causes Of The Civil War The Political War The North and South fought over politics, mainly the idea of slavery. Basically the South wanted and needed it and the North did not want it at all. The South was going to do anything they could to keep it. This was the issue that overshadowed all others. At this time the labor force in the South had about 4 million slaves. These slaves were very valuable to the slaveholding planter class. They were a huge investment to Southerners and if taken awayRead MoreThe Causes Of Civil War2004 Words   |  9 PagesGà ¶ksel What are the causes of Civil War? Do ethnic determinants play an important role? Why are certain parts of Africa characterized by ethnic conflict while other parts remain relatively calm? The conventional understanding on the causes of civil war especially within African countries, to a considerable degree, has being predominantly characterized to draw its root on ethnic divergences. However, such premise appear extremely difficult to be true, owing to the fact that civil war is a complex action

Mittal Steel in 2006 Free Essays

Mittal Steal in 2006: Changing the Global Steel Game Industry Analysis Although steel was a highly demanded good, the industry as a whole was largely unprofitable. One reason for this was that the industry remained highly fragmented in contrast to their suppliers and even some of their buyers, who were considerably more consolidated. Aside from the increased competition that fragmentation contributed to, it also degraded the steal industry’s bargaining power to raw material suppliers and in some cases, such as the auto industry, the buyers. We will write a custom essay sample on Mittal Steel in 2006 or any similar topic only for you Order Now The resulting high fixed costs, volatile raw material prices, and intense price competition fueled unstable profitability. Adding to the fragmentation issues was a lack of differentiation in the market. For the longest time there were really only two production possibilities. One, being vertically integrated and producing higher-grade steel at a higher cost of operation, or two, de-verticalize and focus on low cost, low-grade steel production. Depending on the production selected, the resulting accessible customer base was limited. This lack of differentiation further fueled the limited bargaining power of steel manufacturers. As stated above, steel was highly demanded. The problem was that the growth of that demand remained quite stagnate for nearly 20 years. It wasn’t until the explosion of growth in the Chinese construction industry, attributing to 25% of total steel consumption, that the steel industry saw any profitability. In an industry where customers demand a low cost and a consistent product, being able to maintain a reliable supply while being as cost efficient as possible was key to a firms success. Though there was a spike in Chinese demand, only those strategically positioned could access the true value of the Chinese market. This was because the steel industry operated primarily on an intra-regional basis. Many factors attributed to this, but a firm’s dependence on raw material access, and trying to avoid high transportation and tariff costs, as well as delivery lags, were the primary reasons for high regional trade. In order to access the benefits of regional trade, firms had to expand their operations through high FDI in the form of MA’s. This gained them access to highly profitable regions and it allowed firms to spread their risk over a larger area, reducing the impact of demand fluctuations in one particular region. The reason many of these MA opportunities existed was because of a major shit from government owned steel plants to privatization. Through privatization, FDI opportunities became possible in many countries, thus make intra-regional trade more accessible and attractive. Consolidation Integration Recognizing that the dynamics of the market were changing, LNM was quick to take advantage. He was steadfast in his belief that they only way to create sustained success was through consolidation and integration. With increased privatization opportunities available, LNM began a series of MA’s that would gain him access to regions that were highly profitable, had lower labor costs, and would position him to have higher bargaining power with suppliers. LNM made the first moves in the industry toward consolidation, and was this strategic initiative that has since driven the evolution of the industry to where it is today. A major source of value creation was derived from their technological lead in DRI. LNM decided early on to focus their operations around â€Å"integrated minimills†, which was untraditional at the time. Through this structure he was able to capture the maximum value of his operation, using scrap in the minimills, then reverse integrating into DRI. Once unreliable, DRI technology had advanced so much that it’s output was now comparable to the quality of integrated steel plants. This technology stronghold provided them better quality steel at a cheaper cost of production, providing them with a huge competitive advantage. Additionally, It was this technology, aided by a proven SWAT team and protocol, which supported their ability to transform underperforming government owned plants to profitable ones in a short period. LMN’s initial approach was to resurrect distressed government owed plants then breath new life into them through technology sharing and smart practices. He soon sought larger targets that would provide him not only economies of scale, but also provide competitive advantages through geographic scope. Starting with Karmet, he began to shift his targeting toward plants that were either highly integrated, possessed significant mineral rights, or supplied a strategic geographic advantage. Through designing their activity architecture in this way, Mittal steel became the world’s largest and most integrated steelmaker; providing strong positions in North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa. The result of their strategic positioning, combined with their focus of coordination through KIP and KMP, made Mittal the first firm in the industry to operate as a transnational organization. Each plant provided its own uniqueness, providing different capabilities and skills that could be harnessed for the good of the whole organization. There was also a heavy flow of people, materials and finances between the interdependent plants, but at the center of it all was the Mittal Steel directing tight coordination and a shared strategic decision making process. On a regional level, they operated through regional hubs. This allows Mittal’s positioning of adjacent plants to source from the same suppliers, increasing their bargaining power and reliability of supply, while not jeopardizing cannibalism of sales as each plant’s customer base was unique to their location. Mittal’s vertical integration in mining and low cost position helps support profitability and helps to  reduce capital expenditure needs. They are the most diversified steel  company in the world in terms of asset  location and market presence. They also have a diverse product range, including both flat and long steel. As such, Mittal is not overly dependent on any single  region, product, or end market. These benefits are somewhat mitigated however by the risks associated with Mittal’s rapid expansion through acquisitions. These include such things as institutional risks associated with emerging markets and uncertainties regarding the integration of newly acquired assets, although Mittal’s  integration track record has been successful to date. Arcelor Acquisition In light of the above information, I believe that Mittal should pursue the Arcelor acquisition aggressively. Mittal Steel Arcelor complement each other in terms of geographical coverage and product mix, as there is no significant overlap. Mittal has strong positions in the U. S. market; low-cost operations in Central and  Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa; and vertical raw-material integration. Arcelor is the leader in higher value-added products with strongholds in Western Europe and Brazil, as well as a focus on Russia, India, and China. I believe that the positioning of Arcelor’s plants and resource capabilities would integrate nicely to Mittal’s activity architecture. There would be very minimal duplications of effort, and many of the regions that Arcelor operates are in prime locations to source raw materials. The addition will only strengthen Mittal’s integrated transnational value chain. Through acquisition, Mittal would produce nearly 110 million tonnes of steel per year, making them three times as large than their next competitor. Although this can lead to diseconomies of scale, in Mittal’s case, as the largest player in the steel industry both globally and in the key markets, the combined group would enjoy significant bargaining power. Additionally, through shared expertise, the combined entity would be in a better position to develop the high growth region of China and South East Asia. Arcelor’s alliance with Nippon and Mittal’s acquisition of Karmet and stake in Valin will provide access to critical Asian markets. Regardless of the â€Å"synergies† the acquisition will create, caution still needs to be exercised by Mittal. There are evident signs that the acquisition will not be welcomed by Arcelor, assuming that Mr. Dolle’s canceled meeting and unreturned phone call was an indication to his temperature on the proposal. If the acquisition turned hostile there is a good chance Mittal would have to overpay for Arcelor, which could have adverse affects to it investment ratings. At the current bid price Mittal would already have to leverage â‚ ¬5 billion and would be in debt by â‚ ¬11. 5 billion. Although they have a good track record of ROI and the industry as a whole has seen a spike in ROIC, they do not want to spend more than they have to. Despite the favorable history and perceived synergies, Mittal should pay at a maximum â‚ ¬27. 1 billion for the deal. They should obviously try to pay as close to the current bid as possible, but at â‚ ¬27. billion they are still in a position where they could access the capital needed given their successful history. Also, at the mark of â‚ ¬27. 1 billion their debt would raise to â‚ ¬20 billion, but with an EBITDA of over â‚ ¬5. 5 billion annually, not to mention the added revenues from the acquisition, the debt could be confidently paid off in a reasonable timeframe. If the bidding exceeds the mark of â‚ ¬27. 1 billion, the negotiations should be ceased and Mittal should pursue other opportunities to continue their global footprint expansion. How to cite Mittal Steel in 2006, Essay examples

Spanish Civil War Essay Research Paper The free essay sample

Spanish Civil War Essay, Research Paper The two sides were: The Nationalists ( a loose alliance of right flying groups, including Army high bid, the Church, the landholders, royalists, a the Falange [ fascist party ] ) and the Republicans ( looser alliance of left wing groups, including socialists, trade union members, Communists, nihilists, and moderate progressives ) The Patriots sought to continue Spain # 8217 ; s unity, while Republicans wished to continue the Second Republic. The Causes of the War Profound cause: long period of diminution since the great yearss of the Spanish Empire. Spain had made small advancement, lost her imperium, and fallen behind in the industrialisation procedure Deep divisions in Spanish society: Landowners vs. Peasants. Church vs. Anti-Clerical motions: the Church had tremendous power in Spain and was opposed to societal reform, this led to groups that sought to cut down the Church # 8217 ; s influence. Conservatives V. Liberals. There was a deficiency of a political center, and extremists elements were progressively popular. We will write a custom essay sample on Spanish Civil War Essay Research Paper The or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Massive divisions btw countryside and towns. The Spanish ground forces had a tradition of interfering in political relations. Long standing tradition of force in Spanish political relations, and democracy had neer truly been established ( therefore parties tried to change by reversal election consequences through force ) # 8216 ; Democracy # 8217 ; in Spain had brought approximately corrupts Gov. and undermined the construct of democracy. ( there was electoral fraud and go oning landlord control under Spanish # 8216 ; democracy # 8217 ; ) There was a desire for liberty in several parts of Spain. Conservatives saw this as a menace to Spain. Anarchism was a powerful force in Spain. The failings of the Gov. of the Second Rep. ( 1930-36 ) , its failure to transport out reforms, and to move against those that were plotting against the Republic. It besides failed to keep jurisprudence and order. Army concern at the possibility of a communist coup detat. The blackwash of the right wing leader Calvo Sotelo in July 1936. The Main Developments The Main Characteristics of the War The struggle was highly barbarous There was widespread foreign intercession ( b/c the struggle was seen as a battle btw right and left ) , Nationalists received support from Germany and Italy, while Republicans obtained assistance from USSR and on occasion f rom France, as well as foreign volunteers and the International Brigades. It has been characterized as an ideological war. The at first loose coalitions developed to be strongly idealistic as excesses polarized opinion. However the war was never clear-cut. And only the ideological divide btw foreign supporters was clear. (USSR vs. Germany and Italy) It was seen as a ‘curtain raiser’ for WWII First major use of air power. Bombing of civilian targets Formations of armored vehicles (to predict Hitler’s Blitzkrieg) The bulk of the troops (despite foreign technology) were not well equipped. It is claimed that it was a war btw professional soldiers and armed workers (although gradually order and discipline was instituted amongst the Republicans.) This war saw the use of propaganda to overcome resistance and terrify populations It brought profound social changes in it wake. (especially in Republican held areas) The Effects of the War Tremendous loss of life (executions continued after the victory of the nationalists) Material losses were great (this was important since Spain had been backward before the war already) — i.e.: the Republicans sent all the gold reserves to the USSR for safekeeping. Franco’s regime marked the end of democracy for the next 40 years. Agriculture remained backward and the landowners in control The Church became more powerful (in return for support for Franco’s regime) Regionalism was suppressed, and the state highly centralized. Censorship was introduced No attempts at reconciliation, reconstruction. Cultural life suffered (b/c of authoritarianism of Franco) High degree of state control led to corruption. Franco’s foreign supporters wanted compensation. He had to provide Germany w/ resources. Spain became diplomatically isolated. The reasons for the Nationalist Victory Most of the army was on the nationalist side. The parts of the army that sided w/ the Republicans was regarded w/ suspicion an d not used well. Franco assumed control of the Nationalist side and unified it. The Republicans were not unified (politically militarily) Foreign aid was more substantial direct to the Nationalists, and supplies from the USSR dried up when Stalin sought to reach an understanding w/ Hitler. Britain adopted a non-interventionist policy.