Posted on 07/15/2008 1:45:31 PM PDT by GOP_Raider
This past weekend I watched Ken Burns' PBS documentary "The Civil War", and naturally I was left with far more questions than answers. (With the exception of the fact that I was unbelievably impressed with the commentary of the late Shelby Foote) So I compiled a series of them that are probably too wide in scope for one thread, but I will go ahead and ask them anyway.
(Note: I'm going to admit a general ignorance on many of the subjects I present here, so if any of you responding find a "well, no $#@$@# Sherlock" question, I apologize in advance. Thanks.)
1. Did the Southern states "have it in" for Lincoln from the beginning? In the election of 1860, Lincoln was not on the ballot in about 10 states. Was this due primarily to the Republican party being a very new political party or did many Southern states see something about Lincoln that the rest of the country didn't?
2. The eventual hanging of John Brown is seen as the spark that set off the war--at least as conventional wisdom presented by Burns is. Why is this event thought of as the catalyst for the war as opposed to the actual secession of the Confederate states?
3. When the Confederacy was formed, why didn't European nations (England, France, Spain, etc.) recognize the Confederacy diplomatically? What prevented them from doing so as the South had early success militarily?
4. (With apologies to Paleo Conservative) Why were the names of specific battles different between the Union and Confederates? e.g.: The first and second battles of Bull Run/Mannassas, the South referring to names of towns, the North to creeks, rivers and bodies of water.
5. Why wasn't the Confederacy able to march further west, towards the Pacific Coast (with the Battle of Glorieta Pass in New Mexico and Battle of Pichaco Peak in Arizona as two examples). Was the South stretched too thin to make this possible?
6. Throughout the film, the name of Frederick Douglass keeps surfacing, again keeping with the theme of the war being exclusively over slavery in the minds of many. Was Douglass anything more than a mere activist or was his impact much more significant?
7. West Virginia became a state during the war, which as we know were 63 counties of "Old" Virginia that left the Confederacy to join (or more accurately re-join) the Union. As a rank amateur historian, I would think this would have been a very significant point in the war, where one half of a southern state breaks away and forms its own state and that state joins the Union, but it isn't. Why?
8. Around this time was Lee's campaign to march north, which would lead to the eventual battle at Gettysburg. Would it have been much effective for the Rebels to take Maryland, making sure they fall to the Rebels rather than to go that far north?
9. What are we to make of George McClellan (sic)? I've seen on previous threads that Hood and Bragg weren't the most competent on the Rebel side, can that assertion also be made of McClellan?
10. Assume for a moment that Pickett's charge at Gettysburg works and the Rebels win there. Would it be entirely possible to have seen a major battle and possible bloodbath in Philadelphia or Baltimore? (Something that would have possibly dwarfed the casualties and deaths at Shiloh, Antietam, etc.?)
11. Was Lincoln in actual danger of losing the 1864 election? Could the Democrats have nominated a candidate other than McClelland that would have given them a chance to win?
12. For the Rebels, what point did the wheels come off of their campaign? (Assuming that it was a point other than Gettysburg.) Would the South had more success later on had Stonewall Jackson not died at Chancellorsville?
13. What kind of "anti-war" sentiment was going on in the North (beyond the notorious "Copperheads")? Did the South make any mistakes in not taking advantage of this?
14. The prison camp at Andersonville, GA is an intriguing and horrific story as "The Civil War" presents. Did Henry Wirz deserve to be charged, convicted and later hanged for war crimes or did this occur due to the aftermath of Lincoln's assassination?
15. John Wilkes Booth, the murderer of Lincoln, was an actor. Anyone else think this was an interesting precursor to the acting community of today to get that involved in politics?
(Sorry, that one kind of got away from me)
16. Shelby Foote mentions that "The North fought that war with one arm behind its back." He would go on to say that "if there had been more Confederate success that the North's 'other arm' would have come around and that the South had little chance to win." Is Foote accurate here in this regard or were there enough chances for the Rebels to win given the battles that they were able to win?
17. Lee had a small number of blacks fighting in his army later on in the war, but as Burns asserts, it was due to Lee running out of men. Is there anything to suggest that blacks fought on the Rebel side before this point?
18. Had the Rebels secured a victory--and in this particular context, with Washington having fallen and Lincoln being forced to recognize the Confederacy as a sovereign nation, would it have been at all possible to have had a second war, going on possibly into the 20th Century?
Thanks again to everyone who responded to my previous thread.
PING!
Ping for a later read.....
Well this could be a 7,000 post, popcorn eating, easily taken off track, big monster thread. Well done, lad.
Well this could be a 7,000 post, popcorn eating, easily taken off track, big monster thread. Well done, lad.
Interesting questions. I do not have time to address them. However on your Question 18, Harry Turtledove wrote a book called Guns of the South. It is a sci-fi story about people coming back from the future to supply the South with AK-47s.The result is the South wins the Civil War. From there he has a whole series of books that take off on the premise of the South having won the war and yes, they eventually have to fight again. You might give it a look.
Another book to take a look at.
http://www.amazon.com/Big-Cotton-Created-Fortunes-Civilizations/dp/0670033677
Big Cotton: How A Humble Fiber Created Fortunes, Wrecked Civilizations, and Put America on the Map
This author suggested that the South miscalculated in assuming Great Britain would come to its aid because British mills needed the raw material. They managed to get cotton elsewhere.
The author also suggests the South figured Northern mill owners would pressure Lincoln because of their raw material needs.
8. Around this time was Lee's campaign to march north, which would lead to the eventual battle at Gettysburg. Would it have been much effective for the Rebels to take Maryland, making sure they fall to the Rebels rather than to go that far north?
How would you propose to 'take' Maryland? Reocognize of course that the Potomac and the Chesapeake Bay are two natural obstacles that would protect Maryland, while also making resupply difficult or impossible. Add to that the presence of Washington DC and taking Maryland would be exceedingly difficult.
Lee's plan was to divert attention away from Virginia to allow for the farmers to harvest their crops and to strike at the 'soft' underbelly of the North and directly at the numerous industries of Pennsylvania that would be available were he to march north.
For number two, I would say that the Dred Scott decision, and its obvious activism, propelled the north to create the Lincoln candidacy — a politician that, at Coopers Union, could answer the question of territorial slavery and how it could be governed by federal poser during the growth of the Union.
Dred Scott ==> Cooper Union ==> South Carolina succession ==> Fort Sumter Deadlock ==> Mass Succession
Buchannan set the thing in motion by pushing the Court thinking that such a decision could take the problem away from requiring a devisive Congressional soultion.
Judicial fiat, solves nothing in self-government.
#12. Vicksburg I think was always considered pivotal. It gave the Union control of the Mississippi, plus it severed the rail line which supplied the Western states. And the psychological effect cannot be discounted.
I toured that battlefield a couple of years ago. You need to start out at the very northern part, where the bluff overlooked the Mississippi River. Then you’ll understand the why of the rest of the siege. They have a jam-up museum in the old Warren County Courthouse, too.
Yes. They seceded even before he was sworn in.
2. The eventual hanging of John Brown is seen as the spark that set off the war--at least as conventional wisdom presented by Burns is. Why is this event thought of as the catalyst for the war as opposed to the actual secession of the Confederate states?
People who beleive that are in a decided minority. What Brown's execution did was highlight public opinion in stark terms.
3. When the Confederacy was formed, why didn't European nations (England, France, Spain, etc.) recognize the Confederacy diplomatically? What prevented them from doing so as the South had early success militarily?
No one in Europe wanted to move until the UK did so. Lord Palmerston did not recognize the Confederacy because he wanted to make sure they would win rather than ruin all relations with the US for no reason. Once the Emancipation Proclamation was made, palmerston's hands were tied, since no ministry could have survived backing the slaveholding power.
4. (With apologies to Paleo Conservative) Why were the names of specific battles different between the Union and Confederates? e.g.: The first and second battles of Bull Run/Mannassas, the South referring to names of towns, the North to creeks, rivers and bodies of water.
Probably because the Union saw the geographic features - and not the local towns - as their strategic objectives.
5. Why wasn't the Confederacy able to march further west, towards the Pacific Coast (with the Battle of Glorieta Pass in New Mexico and Battle of Pichaco Peak in Arizona as two examples). Was the South stretched too thin to make this possible?
After New Orleans fell, the Confederacy west of the Mississippi (basically Texas) concentrated on its own imminent security issues. There weren't enough men to invade and hold California, especially without an effective Navy.
6. Throughout the film, the name of Frederick Douglass keeps surfacing, again keeping with the theme of the war being exclusively over slavery in the minds of many. Was Douglass anything more than a mere activist or was his impact much more significant?
He was a spokesman as well as an activist. He had the sympathies and even the ear of prominent Union politicians.
7. West Virginia became a state during the war, which as we know were 63 counties of "Old" Virginia that left the Confederacy to join (or more accurately re-join) the Union. As a rank amateur historian, I would think this would have been a very significant point in the war, where one half of a southern state breaks away and forms its own state and that state joins the Union, but it isn't. Why?
Because the ground was contested heavily. West Virginia didn't really have a functioning government until 1864 and the Confederates were in military control of the region for a good part of the war.
8. Around this time was Lee's campaign to march north, which would lead to the eventual battle at Gettysburg. Would it have been much effective for the Rebels to take Maryland, making sure they fall to the Rebels rather than to go that far north?
There's obviously a ton of debate on this issue, but Lee's goal was not to capture and hold Union ground - he did not have enough men to do so. His goal was to show the Union how far into their interior his forces could effectively strike and to provision his army.
9. What are we to make of George McClellan (sic)? I've seen on previous threads that Hood and Bragg weren't the most competent on the Rebel side, can that assertion also be made of McClellan?
McClellan was an egomaniac who was playing the war not to lose, instead of playing to win. He therefore made himself very predictable and general Lee could tell what McClellan would do before McClellan did. Literally.
10. Assume for a moment that Pickett's charge at Gettysburg works and the Rebels win there. Would it be entirely possible to have seen a major battle and possible bloodbath in Philadelphia or Baltimore? (Something that would have possibly dwarfed the casualties and deaths at Shiloh, Antietam, etc.?)
Lee's army after the charge was in no condition to do anything but reprovision, sabotage and retreat. Lee's army was in no condition to besiege any city.
11. Was Lincoln in actual danger of losing the 1864 election? Could the Democrats have nominated a candidate other than McClelland that would have given them a chance to win?
After Gettysburg he was in no danger.
12. For the Rebels, what point did the wheels come off of their campaign? (Assuming that it was a point other than Gettysburg.) Would the South had more success later on had Stonewall Jackson not died at Chancellorsville?
The wheels came off at Antietam and with the subsequent issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation. There would be no foreign aid after that, no end of the blockade. Just more casualties, more shortages and more misery.
13. What kind of "anti-war" sentiment was going on in the North (beyond the notorious "Copperheads")? Did the South make any mistakes in not taking advantage of this?
About the same amount of anti-war sentiment going on among Democrats in this war. Lee tried his ahrdest to take as good an advantage of this as he could, but grumblers and complainers are not necessarily willing to take up arms and fight. They grumble and complain mostly ebcause they are scared to do so.
14. The prison camp at Andersonville, GA is an intriguing and horrific story as "The Civil War" presents. Did Henry Wirz deserve to be charged, convicted and later hanged for war crimes or did this occur due to the aftermath of Lincoln's assassination?
Wirz deserved it, but not only him. Contrary to popular belief, there were sufficient resources to feed and clothe these prisoners.
15. John Wilkes Booth, the murderer of Lincoln, was an actor. Anyone else think this was an interesting precursor to the acting community of today to get that involved in politics?
Booth had exactly the kind of inflated self-worth and stupidity that characterizes the Hollywood community, yes.
16. Shelby Foote mentions that "The North fought that war with one arm behind its back." He would go on to say that "if there had been more Confederate success that the North's 'other arm' would have come around and that the South had little chance to win." Is Foote accurate here in this regard or were there enough chances for the Rebels to win given the battles that they were able to win?
The outcome of the war was destined from the start. It lasted as long as it did because the South outgeneraled the North again and again until 1864.
17. Lee had a small number of blacks fighting in his army later on in the war, but as Burns asserts, it was due to Lee running out of men. Is there anything to suggest that blacks fought on the Rebel side before this point?
Lee had no black fighters. he had black conscripts to do labor that white troops would normally have done when he had enough men. There is nothing whatever to suggest that black soldiers fought as part of regular army units in the South. There were probably some black irregulars involved in the looting that passed for Confederate warfare on the frontier.
18. Had the Rebels secured a victory--and in this particular context, with Washington having fallen and Lincoln being forced to recognize the Confederacy as a sovereign nation, would it have been at all possible to have had a second war, going on possibly into the 20th Century?
Lincoln would never have recognized the Confederacy and there was no way he could have been forced to. Had Washington fallen, the government would have moved back to Philadelphia or New York and continued until victory.
ping
I thought he also intended to attack Washington DC.
On the Pickett's Charge Question, this is off topic, but I read an interesting book that posited that J.E.B. Sturat's Calvary was to sweep around the Union Lines and attack the center of the Union lines from the Rear in coordination with Pickett's Charge. In fact, Stuart fired a cannon before Pickett's charge to signal that he was in position. If it had worked the Union line might have buckled. The author cited to some after mission reports where Stuart's failure to complete the mission was discussed. Unfortunately for Stuart, Custer's calvary was in his way and stopped his charge. The author states that Lee never mentioned Stuart's failure because Stuart was dead and he did not want to disparage him. Just an interesting theory.
10. Assume for a moment that Pickett's charge at Gettysburg works and the Rebels win there. Would it be entirely possible to have seen a major battle and possible bloodbath in Philadelphia or Baltimore? (Something that would have possibly dwarfed the casualties and deaths at Shiloh, Antietam, etc.?)
Gettysburg was lost before Pickett ever made that charge. Desperate times call for desperate measures, which Pickett's charge was. But leaving that aside and taking the second part of the question, Lee would have had a choice: Proceed North East to Philadelphia, as you suggest, or two round back South easterly towards Washington DC (as you suggest in #8). To proceed towards Philadelphia would leave his line of support to be too long, too weak and subject to attack.
He would have attempted to block off DC, and possibly lay siege to it. A siege though would be time consuming and the North would be in a better position to defend DC (they controlled the waterways).
I believe he would have used the momentum of a victory at Gettysburg to directly attack DC and force a surrender. He simultaneously would have sent raiding parties off in multiple directions to bring the war home to the north, cgathering supplies and forage while doing so.
Even winning at Gettysburg though is no guarantee of a southern victory in the war.
As for West Virginia, parts of it were settled by Virginians and parts by Pennsylvanians or other Northerners. The people of Northern extraction had little connection with slavery (there were few slaves in the western counties) and they spearheaded the drive to establish a separate state...and drew the boundary between the new state and the old. In the southern parts of WV, many of the men fought for Virginia during the war, and I believe many counties did not participate in the US election of 1864 (since the people considered themselves part of Virginia and therefore of the Confederacy).
Short answers:
Most of your questions are answered in Shelby Foote’s “Civil War” Volumes 1 to 3, each about 800 pages long.
Lee’s next moves after a Gettysburg win are explored in Newt Gingrich’s “Grant Comes East”, a sequel to his alternate history “Gettysburg” where Lee wins.
I’ll take a stab at #16.
I’m inclined to believe that if Lee had won decisive victories at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg, that it could have seriously soured northern opinion regarding the war - especially in the non-abolitionist Union states.
Now some of you may be saying “But Lee did win a decisive victory at Chancellorsville!” The loss of Jackson aside, it was a huge victory - but Lee wanted his forces to continue on and hit Hooker over and over again before he retreated across the Rapidan (?) River. He was horribly dismayed when his subordinates didn’t accomplish this.
Lee understood that the defeat of the Union army - or at least the severe beating of it - would set the tone for a possible peace settlement.
Google *Lincoln central bank* I believe this was the cause of his eventual demise.
His primary goal was to relieve pressure from Richmond and Virginia. Remember a battle, at Gettysburg, was not part of his plan, but he was forced into battle because of the North's response. Obviously when the enemy responds, plans change.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.