The American Civil War (no spam)

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Oct 20, 2002 7:30 pm

Kind of broad topic, innit? But I really don't know if anybody in the US is going to be interested in discussing the thing, much less any SYMers outside. Suffice to say that I find the whole mess, political, military, social and economic ACW, a fascinating area of study. It changed a major power irrevocably in more ways than one, and we're still living the results today (even if you get beyond the obvious slavery and secession issues).

So if you're interested in discussing, here's your chance.

Lintelyg · Post by **Lintelyg** » Sun Oct 20, 2002 7:44 pm

@fable

Sorry, but i fail to see what you are getting at. What is it exactly that you wish to discuss??? The aftermath of the civil war, or the effect it has had on the history of america??? I'm a little confused.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Oct 20, 2002 8:46 pm

Re: @fable

Originally posted by Lintelyg
Sorry, but i fail to see what you are getting at. What is it exactly that you wish to discuss??? The aftermath of the civil war, or the effect it has had on the history of america??? I'm a little confused.

I'm leaving the floor open to any issues involving the ACW--whether during, or following the war; political, social, etc. I have no idea whether anybody really wants to discuss any aspect of it, so narrowing it down at this point would seem to be counter-productive.

BaronTx · Post by **BaronTx** » Sun Oct 20, 2002 9:00 pm

The first thing that comes to my mind is that the ACW wasn't fought over slavery. From what I've read, this war was started over a tariff tax. With this tariff the north was attempting to force the southern states, who had economic ties with Europe, to trade almost exclusively with the industrialized north.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Sun Oct 20, 2002 9:43 pm

Well, the American Civil War was one of the leading factors in Canada becoming what it was. It forced the British and French North Americans in Canada to finally sit down, and write up the BNA (British North America Act) which defined Canada as a country, and no longer as a colony of Britain. It was mostly due to the fear that the Confederate's would win, and push the Northern armies into Canada, and then eventually coming up to invade Canada.

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Sun Oct 20, 2002 11:23 pm

I'm very much interested about the ACW...

...as a child though back in the early 80's I got to read this Newberry-medalled book called Rifles for Watie.

Of course there is also The Red Badge of Courage.

However, as an Asian, my knowledge of the topic would relatively be superficial compared to most Americans.

I'll be watching this thread with keen interest.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Oct 20, 2002 11:58 pm

Originally posted by Aegis
It was mostly due to the fear that the Confederate's would win, and push the Northern armies into Canada, and then eventually coming up to invade Canada.

Even if the Confederates had won, how would that have pushed the US armies up into Canada? The Confederacy wasn't looking to take over the US--their stated goal throughout was to achieve legitimacy. If they'd won, it would have been through gaining recognition of the Confederacy as a separate nation.

Mind, I'm not saying *you* believe the argument you posted, but I'm trying to understand the POV of whomever came up with that.

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Mon Oct 21, 2002 12:07 am

If the Confederacy won...

...and that the Virginians won the battle at Gettysburg, do you think that they would have "extended" the Mason-Dixon line further north?

Kayless · Post by **Kayless** » Mon Oct 21, 2002 1:04 am

Re: I'm very much interested about the ACW...

Originally posted by Maharlika
...as a child though back in the early 80's I got to read this Newberry-medalled book called Rifles for Watie.

I've read that one too.

If you're interested in the Civil War you should read The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara. I quite enjoyed it. Ken Burns' PBS miniseries on the Civil War is very informative as well.

I’m originally from Pennsylvania myself and many of my uncles are real Civil War buffs (Some of them have even been involved in Gettysburg reenactments). Fascinating stuff really, though unfortunately I’ve no insightful observations to contribute.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Mon Oct 21, 2002 1:56 am

Originally posted by fable
Even if the Confederates had won, how would that have pushed the US armies up into Canada? The Confederacy wasn't looking to take over the US--their stated goal throughout was to achieve legitimacy. If they'd won, it would have been through gaining recognition of the Confederacy as a separate nation.

I will have to agree with Fable here...most of the war from the southern side was fought as a defensive action. Lee's march north was mainly to try and gain support from Europe.

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Mon Oct 21, 2002 2:01 am

Then what would have happened...

Originally posted by Weasel
I will have to agree with Fable here...most of the war from the southern side was fought as a defensive action. Lee's march north was mainly to try and gain support from Europe.

...had Lee won?

Am I correct to assume that the battle at Gettysburg was a deciding one?

Edit--- @Kayless: Thanks for the FYI. I'll try to get a copy myself. As for Rifles... I read that one when I was Grade 3. Quite a thick book actually and the librarian kept on asking me why I kept on borrowing it...

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Oct 21, 2002 7:48 am

Re: Then what would have happened...

Originally posted by Maharlika
...had Lee won?

Am I correct to assume that the battle at Gettysburg was a deciding one?

I'm under the impression (please correct me if I'm wrong) that Gettysburg showed that the South couldn't sustain a Northern campaign, pretty much as Weasel pointed out. The South was back on the defensive after it, with generals like Joe Johnston and Robert E Lee who were easily equal to the task.

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Mon Oct 21, 2002 8:18 am

I had the impression...

Originally posted by fable
I'm under the impression (please correct me if I'm wrong) that Gettysburg showed that the South couldn't sustain a Northern campaign, pretty much as Weasel pointed out. The South was back on the defensive after it, with generals like Joe Johnston and Robert E Lee who were easily equal to the task.

...that had Lee won, the capital of the Union is within reach and relatively "undefended" at that time?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the two capitals of both sides "near" each other? Thus, if the Confederacy got their opponent's capital, the Union would be easy prey for the Europeans?

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Oct 21, 2002 8:28 am

Re: I had the impression...

Originally posted by Maharlika
...that had Lee won, the capital of the Union is within reach and relatively "undefended" at that time?

My understanding is that both armies lost so many men and were so exhausted that neither was in much shape for battle after Gettysburg. Washington was also guarded by a large number of men, both from the likelihood of an invasion and to put down any insurrection that might occur. Maryland was not in general friendly territory for the North.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the two capitals of both sides "near" each other? Thus, if the Confederacy got their opponent's capital, the Union would be easy prey for the Europeans? [/QUOTE]

How do you mean, "easy prey for the Europeans?"

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Mon Oct 21, 2002 8:54 am

Originally posted by BaronTx
The first thing that comes to my mind is that the ACW wasn't fought over slavery.

This is a common misconception spread by southern revisionists.

The issue at the heart of the Civil War was slavery. There is no other reason why the Confederacy seceeded from the Union. The term "states rights" is a euphamism for slavery; there are no other rights the southern states wanted other than to keep other human beings in institutional bondage. All of the other reasons which people cite as the reason for the war all boil down to slavery.

For people wanting to learn more about the Civil War, I recommend Don't Know Much About the Civil War by Kenneth Davis and anything by James McPherson, especially Battle Cry of Freedom.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Mon Oct 21, 2002 9:25 am

@HLD:...States rights were the key issue..slavery was a scapegoat used by both sides..I promiss you there was no love for the slaves in the north, and in many respects they were more feared and hated there than in the south..I am ashamed to say this was ever the case in America at all, but is the truth..

The european factor may have been a strategic "deal with the devil" so to speak, but the key issue was much simpler.. it was fundamental..who would be the soveregn body, the state, or the federal government...the south was strong for "state's rights" the north was a proponent for a strong centralized government...it was a battle which began on the floor as the constitution was being written, and came to a head during the civil war. the South really did see it a a battle of northern aggression...

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Mon Oct 21, 2002 9:47 am

Well the Confederacy was truely the stronger army over the Union and would have won had it not been for Rail roads. Rail roads and fast transportation in the north made the Union much stronger and would catapult them to the victory. Do not underestimate the strength of efficient movement of many troops.

This, along with gun warfare gave the world ideas for future war tactics. Transportation and heavy arms would become the main feature of many of the new wars.

Some innovations created by the Civil War:
1) Transportation in warfare
2) Long range arms warfare
3) The destruction of swords/ close arms
4) Paper money

Many European powers simply observed the Civil War to see what tactics are now being used because most of the powers have not been involved in big wars at the time of the Civil War.

Bloodstalker · Post by **Bloodstalker** » Mon Oct 21, 2002 12:56 pm

As best as I understand it, the slavery issue was a very volatile ingredient in the mix of causes that grew into the eventual secession of the southern states. It was one of the central battlegrounds in the states rights vs national supremacy arguement. But it doesn't appear to me as if the abolishion of slavery was the central theme so much as the extention of the existing institution. The south wanted to maintain a balence of power between the slave holding states and the free states in Congess. They feared that if the free states outnumbered the slave holders, then the south would be at the mercy of a government controlled by the north. Mind you, this sounds like paranoia when viewed from today's landscape, but at the time, the north and south were really 2 distinctly different cultures.

In the North, things were quickly becomeing more modernized, and industry and manufacturing had become the nrm, while in the South, it was more of people still holding to the plantation style of life. Cotton was the major economical factor, and it required a lot of people to work the land and the southern states were not in a position to compete with the North in those terms. To many southerners, the idea of losing the right to own slaves was not so much a question of morality or what was right and wrong so much as it was veiwed as a threat to their entire social and economic structure. To lose slaves would be to lose their entire way of life. Therefore, any action taken that would seek to liberate the slaves in the South was viewed as a direct aggressive threat by the landholders. In my understanding, there was not a direct attempt to extend slavery into the north, now was there a direct, calculated attepmt by the north to abolish slavery in the southern states.

The biggest concern came when new states were admitted to the Union. The desicion of whether these states would be free or slave states was not just a question of ethics, but also a question of political power. Either side, north or south, stood to gain or lose an advantage in Congress accprding to those decisions.

If you look at the arrempted comprimises and proposals for dealing with that issue...none of them tried to keep slavery out of the new territories directly. Either they dictated the territory deciding for itsefl, or the establiched a line along which slave and free territories would be devided. The dispute over Kansas turned into a bloody conflict that left restentfull feeling, and and couple with the suspicion and polar dofferences in the two ways of life in the North and South lead to the eventual formation of the Confederacy.

While I don't think anyone can deniy that slavery was a major player in events, and was indeed the spark that lit the fire so to speak, I still think that underneath it was more a question of laoyalty to the national government as opposed to the state governments. You can see this in the decisions of several major military firgures deciding to leave their commisions in the Union army and offer their services to the south, in spite of the fact that some of them did not own salves, and in fact believed slavery to be morally and ethically wrong. The joined the Confederacy out of a loyalty to their home state. I think this question of loayalty, and the fear on the south's part of their way of life coming to an end, were the major factors in the conflict.

Even when Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation, he was urged by advisors and cabinet members to the contrary. It also was not the wide ranging proclamation many people tend to make it out to be....it only proovided for the freedom of slaves in any state that was still activley opposing the Union. Slaves in states that were not in conflict were not freed. In many ways, while the idea sounds truly enlightened and noble, it looks as if it was simply a way to damage the economy of the south, thus hurting it's capacity to wage war, and also an attempt to gain support from the European community, thus ensureing that the South would not be able to enlist the aid of foriegn powers in their struggle. It just doesn't sound like something that would come from a nation that was fighting a war simply to free slaves. If that was the case, then it seems like it would have abolished slavery in all places.

IMO, slavery was indeed the prime catalyst for the war, but it was more about different political views. The north felt that the union was supreme, and that no state could just pull out simply because it wanted too, while the south was of the notion that any state that had willingly entered into the Union could at anytime willingly leave in the same manner. To me, it was this belief that caused the north to fight to retain the nation as a whole. In the eyes of the north, the south was an entity in rebellion, and in the eyes of the south, the north was veiwed in much the same way that Colonial America veiwed England. Just my opinon mind you, but it's how I see things.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Mon Oct 21, 2002 1:49 pm

Re: Re: I had the impression...

Originally posted by fable
Washington was also guarded by a large number of men, both from the likelihood of an invasion and to put down any insurrection that might occur. Maryland was not in general friendly territory for the North.

McClellan (before he was fired) turned Washington in a defensive bastion. When Meade defeated Lee, there was still enough troops at Washington to stop any attack should Lee had won. Lee's goal (beides European help) was to try to cut off Washington.

Lee was a offensive fighter. But this one battle cost the South close to 20,000 men...something the South couldn't replace. The North could.

In 1863...both Gettysburg and Vicksburg put the nails in the coffin of the Confederate hopes for independence.

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Mon Oct 21, 2002 2:47 pm

Nice topic area fable, civil war buff are we?

I studied the ACW at university and wrote several papers on ACW battles and issues, including the Generalship of McLellan and the battle of Antietam, Grant and the Wilderness and the hypothecated indestructibility of civil war armies (Nashville being the closest).

HLDave, Battle Cry is the classic text. I was tutored by Brian Holden Reid - a british expert on the subject, search for some of his brilliant books. It was an honour.

Its a favourite topic of mine. I ahve visited many of the Eastern battlefields: Gettysburg, Fredericksburg, Manassas etc. If it doesn't sound too cooky, felt a special conenction at Gettysburg looking across seminary ridge, like I'd been there before. I have never been to the Western sites and would love to see Tennessee one of these days.