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.
The South failed to take advantage of its military victories and fought a defensive war. Had the Confederate forces taken advantage of their victory at First Manassas, they could have easily captured Washington while the Union forces were in disarray. From there, they could well have taken Baltimore and central and southern Maryland, where pro-secessionists were better organized. At that point, the Confederates would have been an imminent threat to the rich industrial and agricultural areas of southeastern Pennsylvania. President Lincoln might then have been forced to end hostilities. Recognition by Britain and France would have soon followed. Remember that the only two powers to establish official diplomatic ties were the Papal States and the German Duchy of Saxe-Coburg, which was ruled by the brother of Prince Albert, Queen Victoria's husband. Saxe-Coburg was no doubt a "stalking horse" for Britain.
There is a lesson here, which should have been heeded in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. You cannot ensure victory with half measures. You can suffer via overextension, as both Germany and Japan did in World War II. However, the failure of the South to invade the North until well over one year after Fort Sumter was a major error and fortuitous for Lincoln's goal of preserving the Union.
Foote did a 3 vol series that I have been saving for when I have more time to enjoy them, which will hopefully be next winter (and the new house will even have a fireplace!)
Pa made more sense as he got to eat off their land, get their shoes and other useful things all without pissing off a border/sympathetic state like Maryland.
McClellan would have destroyed the Army of Northern Virginia at the Battle of Antietam -- if he had only had good intelligence as to its actual size.
Even if you have no intention of becoming a follower of Civil War history, this is a book that will serve you well historically.
McClellan DID have good information at Antietam.
He had Lee’s “Lost Order” - which detailed out who was in command of how many troops and where they were supposed to be.
He assumed it to be a fake and decided to do nothing - convinced of the fact that Lee dramatically outnumbered him.
A quick reconnaisance by Union cavalry could have proven that the Lost Order was in fact, accurate.
Bookmark for later
Culturally, economically and geographically, the people in WV have a lot more in common with the populations of western PA and southern OH than they do with those in Richmond, Norfolk or Arlington. It was to their advantage to align with the north, and I would guess too much trouble for the south to occupy and defend the area.
Is that the battle where McClellan had the South's battle plan(the plans had been found wrapped around some cigars) but refused to believe them?
I may be on my third tour by then. I try to re-read them every year. There's always something to revisit or understand better.
Never mind. Mpls Steve aswered my question.
Which was his personal tag line if they had had the internet then.
Great thread. Im not in authority enough to answer any of your questions but I do know that Ken Burns Civil War was about the best series that’s ever been put on TV.
My God! “Non sequitur” as yet to chime in. Amazing.
Self-Ping for later answering.
Both sides saw the "theater of war" as being along the Eastern Seaboard, mostly. This is where both seats of government resided. It was also where the majority of rail traffic existed at the time. Keep in mind, this was the first "transportation war".
But, beyond that, the far West was too far away, too inaccessible, to be considered a theater. And the South was too stretched as far as personnel, equipment, foodstuffs, manufacturing and transportation to extend themselves beyond their controlled area of interest.
I'm guessing you are a) retired and b) not a wife :)
You're very astute :)
If I have nothing to read I'm virtually lost. And since I've nothing at this time, I've decided to re-read the book I mentioned above; "Battle Cry of Freedom" by James McPherson. It's the best single volume history of the war I'm aware of.
There would definitely have been a second war.
There were several "sectional crises" that eventually led up to the war, all of which had to do with western expansion and the status of slaves in the new states.
Had the South won, westward expansion would still have been an issue, and now there would have been two nations involved, with pre-existing bad blood between them. The war would definitely have begun anew, in the west -- probably within 5 years of the end of the previous one.
This war would NOT have lasted into the 20th Century, because the preponderance of Northern industrial might (which effectively won the first time) would still be relevant.
The Union badly defeated the Confederacy in the western war almost from the very beginning. I think the primary reason is that the western war spanned a huge territory, and depended much more on logistics. The Union had much better logistical capacity ... and they also had Gen. Thomas to figure out how to use it. Logistics would have defeated the South in a subsequent western war as well.
It couldn't have have brought about a truly military victory in any case -- by that time the Confederacy would not have been able to sustain the sort of offensive necessary to reach DC, for the same reasons you give for them reaching Philadelphia.
Confederate hopes for victory at Gettysburg would have depended on its impact to Union morale, and the war-weariness that would result from the expensive effort that would have been needed to oust them from the Gettysburg area.
Did the Southern states "have it in" for Lincoln from the beginning?
You have to remember that there were no Republicans in the Southern states. As a party opposed to the expansion of slavery, the Republican party was against everything the Southern leadership stood for. Election laws were different in 1860. I've heard it said, though I cannot confirm it, that it was up to the individual political parties to distribute ballots with their candidate on it. If that is so, then the lack of any organized party in the Southern states meant that there wouldn't be any Republican party.
This of course isn't true in South Carolina, which didn't hold an election for president until after Reconstruction. The South Carolina legislature decided who would get the state's electoral votes.
It should also be noted that even if the Democrats had not split into three parties Lincoln would still have been elected. Lincoln took a clear majority of the votes cast in all but two of the states he carried. Had he lost those two - California and Oregon - he still would have had 173 electoral votes. Still a majority of the 203 electoral votes cast.
Wikipedia has an extensive article on John Brown. Link is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_%28abolitionist%29
It is long but a pretty good read. The one telling point from the article, for me at least, is this:
"The raid on Harpers Ferry is generally thought to have done much to set the nation on a course toward civil war. Southern slaveowners, hearing initial reports that hundreds of abolitionists were involved, were relieved the effort was so small. Yet they feared other abolitionists would emulate Brown and attempt to lead slave rebellions. Therefore the South reorganized the decrepit militia system. These militias, well-established by 1861, became a ready-made Confederate army, making the South better prepared for war than it otherwise might have been."
Had the South started out as ill-prepared as the North in the spring of 1861 (or, conversely, had the North been as prepared as the South), there is no telling how the first year or so of the Civil War would have played out. However, the lopsided advantages of the North in population, raw materials, manufacturing, finances, warships, etc., made a Northern victory certain; despite hesitant,even bad, Union generalship in the beginning, it really did came down to a matter of time. (This is what Shelby Foote is referring to in his "fighting with one arm tied behind its back" remark.)
General Grant's 1864 summer campaign in Virginia was pure attrition warfare. The Union had the resources by this time to grimly play that game. For General Lee, even when he was winning, he was losing because of how much it was costing him in casualties, the key irreplaceable resource.
*
You can argue all day about what constituted the actual start. Southerners like to point to Brown because it deflects the blame from themselves. Brown was a homicidal maniac, and though he enjoyed support among many abolitionists he was never in a place to start a slave uprising. Those who supported Brown and his actions were similar to those who support people who kill abortionists or blow up abortion clinics. They come from the fringe.
It should also be noted that Brown was convicted and executed for treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia. Brown was not born in Virgina, had never lived in Virginia, and owed no allegiance to Virginia. How he could commit treason is beyond me.
Most interesting. Thanks for starting this thread.
Prior to January 1, 1863, the European powers were not willing to stick their necks out and support the confederacy unless and until the South showed it was capable of winning the war. If they were going to alienate the United States it would only be if they were backing a winner. The closest they came was after Second Manassas when Palmerston's government scheduled discussions on recognition for when the government resumed in October. Before then, Lee lost at Antietam and Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation which made ending slavery a stated goal of the war. After that happened, the Palmerston government was not willing to ally itself so closely with a cause based on defending slavery. No other European power was willing to recognize the confederacy without England. Russia came out in support of the United States. And any chance of European intervention was effectively dead.
I would only add, per No. 3, that there was a vigorous debate in the UK over recognition of the Confederacy, and that the British did supply arms and naval vessels to the rebels.
And as for No. 13, I don't think you can omit a mention of the NYC draft riots, fueled by Democratic politicians and mobs of Irish immigrants. Classic “identity” politics, no so different from today.
I have a degree in History from the University of Nebraska. I studied American History in particular quite extensively.
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?
The Republican Party in 1860 was opposed to >the spread< of slavery into more American Territory. Lincoln himself formed the new Republican party in 1850’s in direct response to Popular Sovereignty.
But even with Popular Sovereignty, the Slave states were starting to lose out. Up to that time, two states would often come in to the Union at a time - one slave, one free. The balance was starting to go in favor of the Free side.
Slave states were terrified that slavery would be banned, despite Lincoln repeatedly saying he simply opposed to the spread of slavery. (The Abolitionists already had a candidate.)
Despite this - Lincoln was left off the ballot in several states mostly because of the slave issue. But Lincoln was always considered one of the front runners.
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?
John Brown attempted to lead a slave rebellion. If I remember correctly, Brown wanted a lot of violence and blood.
Most people in the south were terrified of slave uprising. There had been uprisings in the past, and they were always bloody even when they were put down. Also remember that John Brown reveled in “Bleeding Kansas”.
Brown was hoping that others both white and black would follow his example. In the slave states, this became hysteria. Southerners believed that many in the North agreed with Brown. Actually a lot of people in the North were just as shocked as people in the south.
All this aside - I believe Brown’s uprising had less to do with the Civil War than other things (like the Dred Scott Decision.)
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?
England didn’t want war with the US. They had plenty of cotton anyway. There were a lot of diplomatic and trade ties to the northern states. Moreover, England was in the middle of stamping out slavery in it’s own empire. It would have been a mess politically in Britain. France had similiar reasons.
Note that this did not prevent Britain from selling arms and equipment to both sides.
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 just cultural preferences.
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?
For starters most of the population was in the East. So were most of the political structures. There was also the style of warfare at the time.
By the end of the war both sides had the same goal: make the other side tired of fighting. They did this by destroying each other’s armies, capturing each other’s capitals and making each other’s civilian populations suffer.
None of these targets were in the sparsely populated west. Moreover, it would take a lot of time, energy and resources to march west. You also have to remember that Native indian tribes would probably have greeted both sides with hostility.
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?
Douglas was a hero of the abolitionist movement. He traveled the north showing his wounds and telling his story. His efforts won over neutrals to anti slave sentiment. Odds are his efforts probably influenced people like Lincoln, but it’s hard to say.
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?
West Virginia was a mountainous area that was sparsely populated. By the time WV broke away both sides had quite a bit on their minds. Remember most of the battles of the Civil War were in Virginia and Tennessee.
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?
Hard to say. Hindsight is always 20/20. Lee was at his apex when he invaded the north. He had a big, well supplied army at the time. He was probably trying to bring fear to the border states so as they would pressure the Union to end the war.
Maryland was under martial law at the time. I don’t know if he could have freed it even if he tried.
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 a pompous ass. There are stories of Lincoln going to his house to talk to him and when McClellan wasn’t home Lincoln would wait. When the General did get home, he’d go to bed rather than talk to Lincoln.
McClellan fought in a “Napoleanic” style. Basically he defended territory. He also wanted to minimize his losses (which made him very popular with his troops). Lincoln wanted a general who would go get Lee and Lee’s army. He thought if Lee were defeated soundly, the war would be over and Lincoln was right.
After Lincoln fired McClellan, McClellan went on to run against Lincoln in 1864 on the “we give up” ticket that Dems still use today.
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.?)
When Lee went in to Pa, he gave explicit orders to his men not to rough up the civilian population. I believe Lee would have continued with these orders had they won.
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?
Lincoln thought he was going to lose. He was blessed with Sherman’s capture of Atlanta in Sept, which probably turned the tide of the election.
Would the Dems have won if they nominated someone else? Probably not.
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?
First question is hard to say. I myself would argue that Gettysburg was the end. It was popularly thought (by the south) that a victory at Gettysburg would seal the victory for their side. That’s why it was so hard fought.
Jackson was a huge loss. The thing about him was that he didn’t give up. Would he have turned the tide of the war? Probably not. Nathan Bedford Forrest was also a great general but in the end, didn’t help.
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?
Lincoln tended to throw people sympathetic to the south in jail. He suspended habeas corpus to keep people on his side. (I had to giggle when I saw left wing college professors praising Lincoln in some recent interviews.) This kind of intimidation did keep some of the peaceniks down, although one of the biggest riots in American history occured in New York in 1863 over the draft.
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?
...I’m not as familiar with Andersonville. That said, I do know that POW camps in the Civil War were awful places no matter where they were located. Men tended to starve and freeze to death or die of disease. But this happened on both sides.
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?
Acting is about passion. It attracts people who are passionate about things. *shrugs*
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?
Hard to say. The original northern idea was to win the war bloodlessly. When this became apparent it wouldn’t happen, they took the gloves off. That said - early Northern generals tended to hold back, but this was probably due more to their incompetence than any larger design.
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?
Nathan Bedford Forrest was a slave trader before the war. When the war started, Forrest created his own company using his own money. He included several blacks amongst his men (only one ran away.)
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?
Very possible. But just as unlikely, so who knows?
He was no mere activist. He was a leader of the abolitionist movement, well respected by many Northerners, and an eloquent spokesman for his cause. He was more like a Martin Luther King of his day than an Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.
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.